Good leaders have a strong professional critic

 “Lieutenant, get in my f—-ing office, now!”  I can hear that voice as if it happened this morning, the day that Captain Chris Dessaso laid into me in one of the most memorable ass chewings of my lifetime.  It was my first unit assignments and I had really made a mistake.  Charlie 1-10 Infantry was a basic training company at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, that was arguably the best in the Battalion and certainly in the top tier of the Brigade.  And a big part of that was Chris’ drive for excellence and willingness to lay down the law as the commander to achieve it.  As a young, wet behind the ears, and eager second lieutenant, I was all about doing my best and driving hard in what equated to a 5 to 9 job, 7 days a week.  My mistake, however, was to open my mouth to his spouse about some inner murmurings that not everything was going as well as the commander thought they were, and that he needed to think about that some.  It was a classic case of “going around the boss” that proved to be a colossal failure.  But I learned more than that the next morning as I was in the front leaning rest before his desk as he raged for what seemed to be an interminable length of time.  It wasn’t just a lesson on why not going direct to your boss with concerns was a bad idea or don’t mistake cordiality of relationships with your boss’ spouse as a way to relay messages.  No, I learned a key lesson that I think every leader absolutely needs to learn:  you need to have a harsh, respected, professional, critic that can stab you in the eye when you need it.

One of my weaknesses as a leader is that I get what I call “sagely”.  It’s a mixture of both being a “know it all” and having way too much pride/confidence for my own good.  I am a type “A” personality.  Or as my wife puts it, I’m an over achiever.  Lots of folks around give me feedback that can absolutely stroke my ego and go to my head.  And sometimes it does just that.  But that is precisely when I need to be crushed back down to planet earth.  Jackie, in my personal life, is very adept at putting me in my place, and I deeply love her for that (even as sometimes I’d not like to admit it or appreciate it in the moment).  But in my professional life it’s been critical as well to have someone be my sounding board and to set me in my place periodically, less I travel down a road that hurts the mission and objectives of the work I’m trying to do, never mind myself and my career.  In my mind, as a result, I am beyond convinced, every good leader needs to have a mentor, peer, or other designated person in your professional life who’s job it is to knock you off your proverbial high horse, regularly.  And those who rise to high heights that don’t have this, not only fail as leaders, fail personally, but fail to actually be leaders in reality.

There are several historical examples of this reality, both in colossal failures and phenomenal success.  Napoleon is a classic example of where he did not have this critic, and it led him to exceptionally destructive behaviors, including the devastating March to Moscow.  But we can and should look at examples where the opposite occurred.  A pair of great examples were arguably our two best Presidents ever, Washington and Lincoln.   Both of these two leaders had such critics that served them well.  In Washington’s case he relied on Hamilton for this to a degree as well as ensuring he had a cast of rivals around him as advisors including Jefferson as well as Madison.  In Lincoln’s case, he had Seward and a similar team of rivals (to use a title of a famous biography of him) that he used to check himself.  Both of these leaders could not have risen to the heights they did without the required professional critic that they depended on to seek out and find the flaws in their leadership styles and approaches to issues.  While they were brilliant into themselves and had hearty egos to go with it, they knew that they had to dispatch with sycophants, surround themselves with capable persons who challenged them, and keep hubris in abeyance.

In my life, I have been a part of organizations where I’ve seen where the appointed or selected leader, both failed to have this kind of critic that was taken seriously and respected, and ones where they had one or two and thus the entire enterprise benefitted.  It was among the reasons for the clear differences between my two combat tours in Iraq.  Tour #1 went through two O-5 Battalion Commanders who didn’t remain grounded, despite the Battalion’s motto being “Down to Earth”.  The second had a full bird Colonel who had a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) who was unabashed in laying out his often forceful criticisms.  While not always going with the advice he got from his CSM, DeLuca listened and ensured he ameliorated the risks because of the criticisms he received.  Similarly, at two academic institutions, I have now witnessed the consequences of when the President has a person in his cabinet that holds significant sway and his respect that was a part of the loyal opposition, and one that has not.  The former thrived and the other is at a proverbial crossroads.

To me then, the sign of a great leader, is whom he or she or they surround themselves with. Do they have a distinct person or cadre thereof, professionally, that challenge them and tell them the harsh truth about themselves, such that the leader changes and grows and avoids their worst impulses?  Or are they unwilling to own that the failure in most organizations starts with them?  Leaders have to hold both those around them accountable as well as themselves.  The only way to do that is have someone that can confront them, who they respect and listen to, which will help them be the change they need to be in order for themselves and those they lead to be as successful as they can be.

“Erik you really have changed,” said Derrick Edmond, a peer during my second deployment to Iraq.  Going into what is probably one of my most successful military assignments, I was a very headstrong and direct leader within our small Facilities Engineer Detachment of 15 people.  Derrick, along with another officer whom I respected, along with the OIC, early on, pulled me aside and pointed out my flaw in my character.  I was not respecting some members of the team because I was so “high speed” and had expressed unrealistic expectations of the others to think, act, and function as I did.  Hearing this, I changed my approach and made choices to engage with the team.  It took conscious effort, I had to check some of my instincts, but in the end it made me and the whole team much more successful.  And this hasn’t been the only time.  Having someone that I check in with regularly that can give me honest feedback about my flaws and where I need to improve is among my most important colleagues and friends I can have.  If you too are a leader, make sure you have this professional guide in your midst; for your sake and that of those around you.

A companion post to “How to Honor Veterans and Military Personnel at Church – Appropriately, Compassionately”

 The Rev. Dr. Leah D. Schade posted via her Patheos blog “EcoPreacher” a very helpful guide entitled “How to Honor Veterans and Military Personnel at Church – Appropriately, Compassionately” (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/ecopreacher/2023/10/how-to-honor-veterans-and-military-personnel-at-church-appropriately-compassionately/).  The following is, what I hope to be, a companion to that effort, as I feel it missed a very critical voice in its discussion.  Before I do, however, I wish to note that Rev. Dr. Schade is among my favorite contemporary theologians, one whom I believe will go down as among the greatest in the early 21st century pantheon of theologians we know, especially within specifically Lutheran theological circles.  To that, I gave and continue to give her huge credit for weighing in on this in such a careful and thoughtful way.  I also acknowledge that in penning her post, she consulted with a number of other clergy, two of which were veterans.  This was good, for sure, and I certainly take that under advisement as I weigh in on this effort.

Let me begin this companion with the most obvious missing piece that I found in Rev. Dr. Schade’s discussion: the place of the soldier/warrior/veteran in the Kingdom of God.  To me, this is a critical and necessary precursor to any such discussion about how “we honor our veterans and current military personnel at church in a way that acknowledges their service without glorifying war or inserting patriotic displays in worship.”  Given that we are speaking in a specific Christian context, a first place to find such an answer is assuredly scripture.  To which, scripture is absolutely full of discussions of martial affairs.  Whether this be the centrality of Pharaoh’s military might in the Exodus story, or the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, or the story of David from his slingshot of Goliath to his stealing of General Uriah’s wife (by the deliberate assassination of Uriah in battle), or dozens of other stories in the Old Testament alone, there is a lot one can and should consider about those who a part of any military effort as a warrior or however else they are named.  And we’d be very wise not to forget the prominence of military figures in the gospel itself, from the faith of the centurion to the soldiers casting lots at the foot of the cross, to the sentry who acknowledges that Jesus was truly the lord of all, to Pontius Pilate who condemned Christ to the cross as the means of his death (among other instances).  For that reason, I cannot commend strongly enough to your reading, comprehension, and understanding the treatise by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther entitled originally “Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved.” A copy of this can be found at this link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/la64z9n2hyax76bzpn825/15260000-WhetherSoldiersTooCanBeSaved.  This treatise, written to address this very issue when asked by a soldier themselves, is built on a solid scriptural foundation, remains exceptionally relevant today, and is foremost in my mind as I pen this companion.  I also think it can and should be used as a reference point in how we in the church, address veterans and military related holidays and those that have served.

While Rev. Dr. Schade spends the majority of her post addressing the fact that there are many veterans that struggle with their service, prefer not to discuss it, were traumatized by it, or have misgivings, and so forth, I will assert that the vast majority of us (noting here I am a veteran myself) have no such issues and are comfortable, proud, and readily identify with our service.  Yes, there is a serious problem with a segment of veterans that have bought into acceptance, if not outright full throated embrace, of white conservative Christian nationalism (noting the importance of the prefixes of “white” and “conservative” to Rev. Dr. Schade’s use of the term).  This can and absolutely needs correction.  I am not talking about those veterans, albeit I will address that as well later.  I am talking about the vast majority that have integrated back into civilian society and have taken on various roles from being teachers in our schools, to business owners, to members of various community groups, and most likely are a recognizable part of your congregation.  One of the biggest mistakes that can be made when it comes to addressing veterans, especially around specific related holidays, is to assume we are all broken pots that you have to handle with proverbial “kid gloves” or that we have had experiences that are so devoid of anyone else’s in society that we cannot be empathized with, if not understood.  While a declining demographic, per the 2020 census, we as veterans, represent approximately 7% of the population in the US.[1] If you look deeper however, the vast majority of veterans are aged 65 or older.[2] And given that many churches are “greying” in the US, as a percentage of the overall population, there are a much higher percentage of us in those age brackets.

Point being that, do not assume we have a struggle that is not there, assume that it’s not appreciated that you acknowledge our service to our fellow citizens, nor assume it’s unimportant that we may have a disproportionate impact on our communities, inclusive of our faith communities.  This is especially true around specific holidays.

So, to borrow from Rev. Dr. Schade’s approach, what can you do to address these issues? Beyond her very good suggestions, let me offer a few key points of advice:

• Learn what the holidays actually are and are not.  Each of the national holidays have specific purposes that I find I have to habitually remind people about.  Memorial Day is a day for remembering and honoring those that have died in service of the county.  Yes, predominantly they are those that served in the military, but it also includes diplomats, astronauts, scientists, politicians, and many more.  So thinking that day is a day to especially thank a living veteran or service member for their service is a complete misnomer.  This is a day that often weighs heavily on those of us who have served in uniform as it is when we remember our brothers and sisters whom we witnessed die in combat or in other circumstances.  It can be greatly irritating to us to have you not understand the meaning of that day because, for me at least, it takes away from the importance on those whom should be recognized.  Similarly Armed Forces Day is a day for those currently serving in uniform, not for those who have served in the past (aka military veterans).  Veterans Day is for those who have served, whether that is a full career or a day, in uniform, so this is when you’re best to recognize all those living persons who are serving presently as well as in the past.  I’d also offer that September 11th (9/11) is an important date to note and consider, not for veterans alone, but for all those who were directly or indirectly effected by the events of that day in 2001.  Make it not just about military, but about he victims, the first responders, the traumatized, the families.  To that, on all of these celebrations pull in spouses and other family members associated with the day in question as there is strong acknowledgment that they too served, in an often unrecognized capacity.
• Ensure you do something on those days (yes in worship too).  While Rev. Dr. Schade does a lot to squash the bug of displacing God’s kingdom with Caesar’s through inappropriate patriotic displays and supplanting hymns with patriotic songs as a part of worship itself, be careful you don’t expunge the nature of the holiday occasion from what ought to be a fantastic moment to teach about our dual citizenship, the role of the church in the public square, and the nature of military and other kinds of service as a lived out vocation in the Kingdom of God.  In many Christian polities we already have provided elements such as inclusion of these themes in our weekly prayers of the church or as a deliberate liturgical options in our worship sources (again as she indicated in her post).  Carefully consider their use and work locally to implement those that fit best, without harming or otherwise going “overboard”.  If the lectionary that particular week has a lesson that contains one of the numerous instances that war or conflict or peacemaking are spoken to, preach on that lesson and use it as a vehicle to engage the congregation in a helpful dialogue about those themes today, especially in light of the holiday in question.  And while I’d too avoid John Philip Souza in the hymns for the day, there are some very good choices of hymns that speak to each of these holidays that are not “patriotic” at first blush, but might do well to sing (e.g.  “Eternal Father Strong to Save” or “Lord make me an instrument of peace”).  Further, don’t forget that preludes and postludes are good places for more varied songs to play, and might be precisely the place for a rendition of America the Beautiful, for instance.  Finally, I’ll depart a bit from her suggestion that you not put honoring veterans as a part of the liturgy by doing so before or after.  If you honor mothers on Mother's Day or all those faithfully departed on All Saints Day, as a part of your liturgical practice, do likewise for those others on their day.  It is important to put all of these honoring events in their proper place: as remembrances that we are all worthy of honor as children of God.  When you pull out any subgroup it ought to be to especially recognize them for their unique contributions or to bring attention to what is too often neglected about those unique gifts for the benefit of all.  This can be tricky and she’s right to emphasize that such events honoring x or y subgroup in worship is not ideal.  Again, there are wonderful resources available for making these integrations work without stumbling into problematic territory.
• Consider “temple talks” by veterans on these days.  These may require some coaching, and you’d want to make sure you have the first few occurrences set the tone, but this is a fantastic way for willing veterans (or any minority group for that matter), to share out their lived experience with their church family.  Rev. Dr. Schade rightly pointed out we ought to give consideration to celebrating labor on Labor Day or parenthood on the prescribed days, or other poignant reminders on various days.  That need not be done by the Pastor, especially if they do not identify or fit into the demographic in question.  For this particular discussion, if there is a willingness, set aside 5-10 min for a talk by a veteran about the holiday in question.  For Memorial Day, having them share about what it was like to lose a compatriot in combat might well set the tone for a powerful remembrance that can be preached to later in the service about both resurrection hope and about our call to be God’s witnesses in this world.
• Offer a Bible study series on war and peace from Memorial Day to Veterans Day.  As I said above, scripture is replete with these themes and it is a critical part of what many struggle with to place into their personal lives never mind the church.  Given that the liturgical calendar aligns nicely to often have this be the period of the Season after Pentecost (including Armed Forces Day and Independence Day, as well as Labor Day and Columbus/Indigenous Persons Day), this would be an excellent way to run a targeted but framed exploration of war, peace, and those that are in the midst of martial conflict.  I’d commend accompanying resources like the aforementioned treatise by Luther, but there are some others that could serve this effort well (I have not used this nor reviewed it myself, but this looks very intriguing and helpful:  War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation https://a.co/d/afbyDOw).  Consider having parishioners who have been involved in armed conflict as well as veterans be co-leaders of this effort.  Make this a chance for small group ministry and growth in understanding of the challenges and opportunities within the community to support veterans, their families, and those affected by war in other ways.  It is also a great way to hone in on the place of national pride and patriotism within the context of the church and God’s kingdom in general.
• If not done already, make a habit of sharing specific resources for veterans that speak to their faith life.  To this one of the most important tasks of the church is to equip people on their faith journey with the necessary tools and equipment.  One of the most helpful things for me has been a specific resource given to me by my parish many years ago, that provided me with a place to go to find answers, seek ways to express my unique experiences, and have a readymade mechanism to carry along my way.  The Prayer Book for the Armed Services by Augsburg Fortress remains a part of my collection that I refer to, to this day (https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/product/18570/Prayer-Book-for-the-Armed-Services).  While this certainly fits best in a Lutheran polity, it was designed to be ecumenical in nature and would be a great companion along the way.  There are other similar resources from other polities and groups, I am sure, but think about sharing something with these members of this kind.  Giving it on one of the particular holidays could be a rhythm that works, but it need not be on those days.  The simple act of giving something like this is honoring these members in a really important way, by valuing the journey they are on for its own sake, and putting something in their proverbial ruck sack that will make that journey better.

Finally, I think it critical that we address the very real problem of hyper-nationalism, especially the rise of white conservative Christian nationalism, that has become very apparent in the US today.  You are likely, if you wish to accept it or not, have members in your congregations that either accept or even promote this perversion of Christianity.  We cannot nor should not ignore this, but we need not make it a point of exclusion and repulsion from the church.  And we cannot ignore the disproportionate representation of veterans in the group that executed a failed insurrection of the government of the United States on January 6th, 2021.  This creates a problem for sure, in honoring veterans, especially as there resides strong feelings, by some, that the problem lies within military culture itself, even if that (false) perception cannot be borne out by facts.  Retired General Mark Milley, in his retirement speech, reminded all of us who have served or currently serve in uniform, that “We don’t take an oath to a king or a queen or to a tyrant or a dictator.  And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.  We don’t take an oath to an individual.  We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”[3]  Yet clearly some have gone against that very premise, and some continue to perpetuate a violation of their oath and this underlying core philosophy of the nature of military service.  As the church, we cannot get into the specific vagaries of civil military relations, but we do need to address how Christians who serve can and should comport themselves as God calls us all to do.

 

To that, some suggestions:

• Don’t fall into the trap of blaming the warrior for the war, or all veterans for the wrongful acts of those few who are clearly outside their commitment to serve the constitution.  It is too  easy and too fraught with error to descend into the tropes of the past which have been proven by history to not only unhelpful but exceptionally damaging.  It’s also too easy to give into rage and simply blame the whole for the errors of a part of any group (hence where stereotypes come from).  Among America’s greatest tragedies was blaming drafted members of the US armed forces for their all too often undesired participation in the Vietnam conflict, as if they were the ones that drove the policies that made that conflict the travesty that it was.  Likewise, calling into question the honorable and courageous service of those hundreds of thousands who have served since on account of the clearly egregious violations of the law and the oath that was sworn to upon enlistment or commissioning by those few who took part in one of our darkest days, is a mistake.  Rather, like John the Baptist and Christ himself did, respect and honor military service[4].  Those of us who have rendered that service, in the United States at least, do so with respect to the Constitution that begins with “We the People”.  Yes, we can and should be reminded of our oaths to support and defend the constitution, as General Milley makes clear.  We need to, however, remember how we address sin in our midst, and that is to love our God and our neighbor, including those that serve in uniform.
• Do ask the why question.  Many of those that are finding themselves on the other side of the chasm with regards to their duty to the Constitution, and Christian love, are really struggling.  Rev Dr.  Schade articulates well that many engage in hyper-nationalism as a coping or response mechanism because of their service.  What is often lacking is an appreciation and self-introspection of why they are in a position of standing against the very things that they swore to defend or have received in their redemption in baptism.  Arguing against their strongly held beliefs, often subject to bound conscious, more often not only hardens the heart.  Akin to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the Exodus story, it leads to self-destructive behavior or worse.  What is better, is to ask the “why” questions.  Why do they believe as they do?  Why are they so focused on hyper-nationalism?  Why are they fearful?  Why are they engaged in these activities?  Why are they in pain or anger or rage?  Similarly, for those that would demonize or dehumanize veterans and military members, ask the same kinds of questions.  Science and politics focus often on the how, what, where, and who questions.  But the church is the one place that can best address “why” questions.  Christ makes it clear that why we are is because he loves us, unconditionally, without wavering, and without preconditions.  Engaging with the why questions for those veterans that are a part of your congregations enables us to reconnect and reenergize with the power of the Spirit of all understanding.  That is critical in these contexts and discussions.  Ask the “why” questions.
• Seek out their pain and work to salve it.  Following from above, one of the things that is commonly known at this point is that war wounds may or may not be visible.  While not all veterans and military members suffer from post-traumatic stress or other behavioral maladies, we all have our pains and issues that we have had to contend with.  Mine happens to have been very strong anger coming out of my first tour in Iraq, which was really only salved by and through another tour later in my life along with continual reflection on my place as a child of God.  I could have, however, turned my anger towards my family, my neighbors, or society at large.  To a great degree, that is precisely what those that are engaging in hyper-nationalist or white conservative Christian nationalism are doing.  Medical and behavioral specialists ought to be a ready resource for veterans in general, but the Church has a huge role in bringing healing to the soul.  Among the many things I believe we ought to do for veterans is provide them with a chance to engage in individual confession and forgiveness.  Further, providing prayers and small group discussion circles can be exceptionally helpful.  Point being, use these holidays and commemorations as times to consider finding ways to address those that are standing aside from their duties and responsibilities to offer places and times to bring healing for them and those around them.

To conclude, I again want to thank Rev. Dr. Schade for her earnest-while post on this topic.  I also appreciate her willingness to allow for me to provide a companion post from my perspective.  I hope I have done justice to this topic, and provided some more helpful ways to address the commemoration of veteran, military, and related holidays in our congregations.

 

---

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/250366/percentage-of-us-population-who-are-veterans/

[2] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/acs-43.pdf

[3] https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e

[4] https://www.1517.org/articles/concerning-centurions-and-the-salvation-of-a-soldiers-soul

The McCarthy Era and Liberum Veto

Back prior to the 2022 US midterms, many warned that if the Republicans won the House of Representatives, given our current state of politics, they needed to win big.  Otherwise, Speaker-to-be Kevin McCarthy was going to have an ungovernable caucus to contend with, should a minimal victory come to pass (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-11-09/gop-inches-toward-control-of-house-but-narrow-majority-would-complicate-mccarthys-speakership).  And it seems such prognosticators were proven 100% correct on the evening of 3 October 2023, when the Speakership, for the first time in our nation’s history, was vacated (on a vote of 216 to 210, 8 Repubs joining 208 Dems).  This was brought on, from a procedural point of view, by a change in the House rules, made as a concession in order for McCarthy to ascend the Speakership back in January this year.  As you’ll recall, it took over a dozen votes for McCarthy to gain the gavel in the lower chamber of our legislature, a chaotic affair not seen since the time prior to the US Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2023_Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election).  Essentially, McCarthy codified the mechanism of liberum veto that lead to his downfall.  Yes, Representative Matt Gaetz is without question a gleeful political nihilistic arson-terrorist, but McCarthy, in agreeing to and implementing this rule change, put everything in front of him for the inferno to be started, including literally handing Gaetz the match.

The last 8 years have seen a lot of firsts in our country, most of them not good.  Electing, as President, our first ever person who had never held public office or an appointment as a federal officer before, was disastrous, for example.  But history, if we look at it, could have well predicted the eventuality of Tuesday evening (as well as much of our recent past debacles).  In 17th century Poland, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s parliament had a procedure called the “liberum veto” that allowed any one member of the body to object to any legislation, as the body required unanimous consent to agree to any measure.  It eventually even got to the point where the exercise of this right of veto was sufficient to end the parliament altogether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto).  To make a long story shorter, this ostensibly very liberal, uber minority protection clause, was the cause of the massive political anarchy that brought down one of the most powerful powers in European history to the point that, Poland, after the third partition between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, ceased to exist.  

Looking at events on October 3rd, 2023, using the lens of this knowledge of the past, makes it clear that this is history striking a very horrible rhyme with itself.  What’s worse is that if you look back at this history, you’ll see that once Liberum veto became established, it became impossible to undo, even when it was well acknowledged that it was destroying the very country and system that had established it in the first place.  So too, most likely, here.  Once a right or privilege is given, even when it’s clear it’s poorly defined, leads to really bad downsides (making any upside seem small in comparison), or is literally killing people, pulling it back is nearly impossible.  Will the House change its rules to make it harder for members to vacate the speakership?  I doubt it, seriously doubt it.  This immediate result, McCarthy loosing his speakership, was entirely predictable(https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/maga-wave-midterm-elections/).  But what’s becoming clearer, is that the longer term trend, of the unraveling, weakening, and potential demise of the US democratic republican experiment, is also becoming true as well.

The founders, looking back at history, especially the Roman republic, were very concerned that republics had repeatedly failed because of the inability to control the various powers and interests at play in politics.  Some worried about government overreach which would result in an autocratic state.  Others worried about naked self interests destroying the fabric of society resulting in anarchy.  Others recognized the cultural and ethnic diversity of the nation could either be harnessed for good or for evil purposes.  And some even saw that the cognitive dissonance needed to have slavery exist within a free society as a massive cancer that would potentially rip the country in pieces.  The point being, they knew they had to work hard to create a republic that could address these challenges and the challenges that the future would bring.  They looked back and tried to use the examples of history to avoid the failures and hold onto the successes of democratic republicanism as the country emerged.  They knew the first attempt, the Articles of Confederation, had failed, and so created a Constitution that would supplant it and help us form “a more perfect union”.  They were wise enough to know it needed to change, and thus put in clauses to amend it and, if needed, revise it substantially (convention clause).  It isn’t perfect, it was intended to be more perfect, but we need to recognize what is happening with a long view, much like they did.

What is true now is that it’s clear the forces of nihilism, self interest, and, I’ll say it, evil have made it clear that they are more than willing to see the republic fail to get their way.  The Gracchi are alive and well, and they are more than ever willing to smash the clay jars in the forum to get their way; votes, or system, or anything else that might get in their way (http://backusec.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-gracchi-reborn.html).  GEN Mark Milley, in his retirement speech, offered that US Military personnel “… don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.  We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.  Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian and Coast Guardsman, each of us commits our very life to protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price.  And we are not easily intimidated.”  (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/milley-farewell-speech-trump-dictator-00119130).  So as much as these forces of evil are arrayed against the republic, there are those that are willing and able to proverbially right the ship.  We need more of them, and most of them need to be those out of uniform.  In my mind, yes, Matt Gaetz actually lit the match he was given, he is our Gavrilo Princip assassinating the Austrian Archduke (http://backusec.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-trump-phenom-abridged.html).  McCarthy, Trump, and all of the blatant power seekers of the past and present are to blame for creating the powder keg that we, who elect them, have created for ourselves.

What’s the answer?  Well there’s several ways this can go, if we look at history.  Certainly there are the violent options of uprising, revolution or violent crackdown, all of which are bad options both in the short term and long term as learned in 18th and 19th century France, Russia, Austria, and so forth.  There’s the ever slow unraveling of the republic and Balkanization that can occur, sometimes violent, sometimes peaceful, but never clean.  There’s the option that the Romans took and simply resolve to first resist change to the point that it the sclerosis sets in and eventually plutocrats control things to the point that they work to create accommodations, and resulting factional strife, with an eventual autocrat emerging as “the winner” in a system of patronage and spoils.  Or we can choose other paths, like having an enlightened political force/leadership come to make the needed reforms to revitalize the system (e.g. Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.).  Or to have a groundswell of support giving majoritarian power to those we hold to actually fix the system instead of tearing it down: meaning we vote not for ourselves but for the future.  Or to use the mechanisms of the constitution, even reverting in some cases to earlier mechanisms (e.g. repeal the 17th amendment), to facilitate the tweaks needed to address the problems and forces that are making those problems worse.

The point being, we should be mindful of the lessons of history as we go forward.  Choose, as the founders did, from the things that will help us and avoid those that will destroy us.  Short term politics has the bad habit of not doing that and, worse, rhyming with the points in history that resulted in the utter demise of all that the idea of America stands for.  I, like GEN Milley, will fight to stop that from happening.  Will you?