Let’s admit something up front. Politicians on the campaign trail tell us what we want to hear. That’s reality. Let’s also acknowledge something never mentioned. Presidents often have huge gaps between what they promise to do and what the circumstances after election actually allow them to do. Dreams don’t always equate with policy. That’s a good thing, not a bad one.
So then, if we start at that point and try to make a rational voting decision for President (I hope that isn’t hopelessly oxymoronic), then we might minimize the breathless anticipation of impending bread, circuses and sugar-plums dancing and focus on something more concrete. How about the background, the history, the retrospective view of the candidates’ lives? Where have they been, what have they done, whom did they ally themselves with, what battles have they fought, what have they accomplished? These are all knowable facts and not hopes for a misty future. That’s what is going on right now and which is often viewed as either mud-slinging or irrelevant to the “issues” which should be debated. These are the things which matter.
I’ve written a couple of books. I couldn’t have done it twenty years ago. I simply didn’t have the skills to string that many words together and create a compelling story. It took several years of free-lancing, mostly doing computer software and hardware reviews for e-zines and local publications. Participation in a lot of online discussions on early bulletin boards then Usenet groups and eventually interactive web sites broadened the topics I wrote about and honed the skills. Then I could write a book and it would be bought by a publisher and people would read it.
Now I’m working with Robin Olds’ daughter Christina to compile his writings into the incredible story of his life. The experience drives home what they are noting at American Thinker in this piece:
Write a Book...Try It
Robin Olds was every bit a renaissance man. He not only was a great leader and combat aviator, he was also a very talented writer. His style is distinctive from mine. Christina is gathering, sorting and organizing the chronological record of his journals, and then stitching it together into the narrative. Her style is distinctive from Robin’s and I don’t have to look hard to note where shifts in origin occur in the manuscript. I edit, massage, overlay the technical details and insure final product readability. My style conflicts with both Robin’s and Christina’s. There are easily identifiable differences.
That’s the point that American Thinker is making. When you’ve got two books out, there should be fairly consistent styles between them. These are measurable with various analytical tools which AT applies. The differences aren’t naturally occurring. The lack of additional literary record from the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review seems conspicuous. This might develop.
Then there is the question of whom we associate with in our professional lives. Again, the past can’t be denied. When linkages occur they might be ships passing in the night or they might be significant. Those are the questions we see being raised here:
Escape Your Past...Try It
There seems to be too many suspicious links for too long to really be coincidental.
Of course, if you are in politics, then there is going to be an issue of where you align yourself ideologically. Since the early 20th Century rise of extremist movements embodied by the likes of Lenin and Hitler, we’ve had fringe parties in the US. Usually they are unsuccessful; refuges for disaffected paranoid intellectuals and impressionable college kids. Occasionally, they can be more problematic. That’s why this linkage seems worth exploring:
Deny The Record...Try It
This is quickly becoming way too much and there is still three weeks to go. Watch the denials and whining accelerate rapidly from this point.
3 comments:
You make some good points, Ed.
Unfortunatley, I feel alineated by both candidates--for different reasons but there it is. Both may have different backgrounds, but they represent the same global corporation. Once again, I can't help wondering about the lessons Braughton taught us in Going Downtown. There is a new "sheriff" in town, and he ain't nobody's sweetheart. George Orwell and Anthony Burgess also come to mind. You take my point?
My retirement accounts are down by 1/3, and I have them invested in some pretty conservative funds!
I just might vote for Nader.
Meanwhile, dog-gone-it, I'd vote for you . . . say on the "Jeffersonian Party" ticket. ;-)
(and I'm looking forward to Robin's book).
Regretably the lesson that Broughton taught us in "Going Downtown" is that integrity trumps misguided loyalty to troops who violate the rules. He knew what the ROE was, and it was specifically rebriefed for the Turkestan visit to Cam Pha, so he knew that the guys broke the rules. He then lied to higher headquarters and intentionally destroyed the evidence. He got caught, and the investigating officer that brought it together against him was Robin Olds.
Nader is not quite as far left as Obama. You will have McCain or Obama as the next president. One is antithetical to all that the Founders stood for, the other is not.
Thanks for responding to the Brougton question. Another lesson I get from his story is the change in American military culture from WWII to SEA, where in twenty-five years we came to resemble the Germans we defeated more than the American Army who had defeated them, IMHO. The Germans lost in Europe, and after taking up their corporate management model, we lost in SEA.
And didn't some Navy pilots around the same time as Turkestan disregard the ROE, too? When the politicians complained the Navy said, "We're fighting a war." And that was that. It went away. Should Gen. Ryan have exhibited such loyalty to his troops, moreover (and if I am not stepping too far out of line here) fidelity to reality? Ahem. But this is all from Brougton's account, and of course I don't know what really happened....
Post a Comment