Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/12/2004 10:25:00 PM (Archive Link)
"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."

Here's a nice anecdote about Davy Crockett from an 1884 biography, courtesy of this column on OpinionJournal. It summarizes very nicely why government taxing and funding can a dangerous, corrupt thing when Congress exceeds its Constitutional mandates. Here 'tis:

One day in the House, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Rep. David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett said: "Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless. . . . The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done. A bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We rushed it through.

"The next summer, when riding one day in a part of my district. I saw a man in a field plowing. I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but rather coldly.

" 'You are Colonel Crockett. I shall not vote for you again.' "

"I begged him tell me what was the matter."

"'Well Colonel, you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. You voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown.

" 'Certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury,' I replied."

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, it is the principle. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. . . . You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'You have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. . . . You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people."

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/12/2004 10:16:00 PM (Archive Link)
Andy’s Losing It

I just read Andy Rooney’s column for today, which is entitled “Our Soldiers in Iraq Aren’t Heroes.” In it, he posits the following five questions which he’d like reporters to ask a group of U.S. troops in Iraq:

1. Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq?

My response: Just because they’re in the military, it doesn’t mean their brains or political ideologies have been removed. As such, I’m sure you could find a mix of people saying both yes and no. Considering, however, that most liberals are generally disinclined to enter the military, you’ll probably find more yeses.

2. Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed?

My response: It’s been just one year since Iraq fell. Nobody claimed things were going to be great at this point. You can’t take a country that survived 25 years of tyranny and suddenly turn it into a liberal democracy. It takes a little time and there will be bumps in the road, which is what we’re seeing now. Furthermore, while this may seem harsh, it’s not up to the average soldier to make policy decisions.

3. Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation?

My response: Two points here. The first is that you will probably find just a handful of soldiers throughout the history of warfare who would agree that their headquarters knew both what was going on in the field and also how to approach it. This is because there is a certain natural disconnect, but also because of my second point: headquarters is looking at the big picture and is weighing many different considerations. What may be best tactically in a given situation may be bad strategically or may be detrimental to the overall effort. For example, the best military solution for the Fallujah problem is to bomb it into the ground. Obviously, though, that won’t sit well with many people and Iraq will only become worse as we’ll lose the trust of the overall Iraqi citizenry. Also, headquarters is subject to civil political processes, decisions, and policies that oversee and determine what the military will do. Rooney himself is trying to affect the military side by first affecting the political side, so this point is self-evident. At any rate, because headquarters will naturally, and possibly necessarily, be in procedural conflict with the soldier, Rooney’s asking this question is akin to asking if grass is green.

This isn’t to say that the big picture itself is always best. Vietnam is a good case where the intended strategy of containment restrained military options and prevented us from actually being victorious.

4. If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?

My response: Trips home are what one would preferably choose. Medals, though, are given for doing what must be done and for extraordinary actions in already extraordinary circumstances.

5. Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you?

My response: Frankly, I think this is a catch-22 question since the rest of the column makes clear that Rooney thinks anybody who answers yes is a deluded idiot. He obviously wants them to say no. As a non-military person myself, I can’t claim to know what their answer will be and therefore won’t venture to answer it for them. One thing I can say… though they could be encouraged by talk of their bravery and of their support back home, I think they’d absolutely be discouraged by talk from people saying they aren’t brave, aren’t heroes, and that they don’t support them. So… keep up the good work, Andy! I’m sure you can succeed in dispiriting more troops.

Other points: Rooney points out how 40% of the soldiers in Iraq “enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight.” He even wants to pin this on the laggard economy of the last few years. Look… if you signed up for the Guard or Reserves to get money or to qualify for the GI Bill and now you’re getting bent out of shape because you have to fight, I have no sympathy for you. When you signed up, you knew what the potential consequences were. You knew the government may call upon you to go to war and that was the deal you made with the government when it paid you and gave you other benefits. Signing up for the military is not something to be done lightly and if you are unable or unwilling to accept or fulfill the obligations that are inherent in doing so, then don’t sign up. While I can sympathize with those who are away from their families and that they don’t like it, the responsible soldiers understand that this is a necessary consequence of the duty they’ve sworn to uphold, and they will do it.

This is probably the most irritating section:

“Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home

“Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people - sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them”

There’s no civilian trick to it… most of us actually do think they’re brave. And while yes, they are just ordinary people, extraordinary things are expected of them. We expect them to be pushed to their physical and mental limits for the purpose of defending their country. We expect them to kill their opponents, destroy their opponents’ infrastructure, and defend innocents and allies. That is all a bit more than what we expect from an office building cubicle dweller. As such, we honor the soldier because he does what we do not and, because of him, don’t have to. He is an ordinary person who has risen the occasion and become something greater. He deserves our adulation and anybody who refuses to give it is appallingly unappreciative.