Outliving this Day and Coming Safe Home

An “ukase” (Russian: ukaz ) in Tsarist Russia was a proclamation of the tsar (sometimes transliterated as “czar”), that had the force of law. Its connotation among English speakers is that of an arbitrary, authoritarian decree. In recent United States history, some Presidential executive orders seem the equivalent of that connotation. His ability to issue such decrees is what President Obama meant with his “I have a pen and I have a phone” indicating he would implement policies he favored without Congressional action.

The federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have taken a dim view of a number of ukases emanating from this administration, including those affecting immigration and some environmental regulations. The most recent slapdown came this past week from U. S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas.

In March 2014, the President directed the Secretary of Labor to “modernize and streamline the existing overtime regulations for executive, administrative, and professional employees.” This has been known as the “EAP” or “white-collar” exemption, whereby employees are exempt from having to pay salaried employees with such duties overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. As a result, in May 2016 the Department of Labor issued a “Final Rule” increasing the minimum salary level for exempt employees from $455 a week to $921 per week or $47,892 annually — doubling the threshold. There were estimates that over four million employees would be affected.

Needless to say, many businesses, and business organizations, were distressed by this new rule. For one thing, flexibility in assignment of many employees with managerial duties would be lost. Some businesses have varying or seasonal degrees of busyness, and are really paying their employees for accomplishing a task, rather than merely putting in time. Many employees were not happy about it either. Being a salaried, rather than hourly, employee gives a certain higher status to many workers. Status is important to the motivation and morale, as well as to an employee’s self-image. Many in academia might pooh-pooh, but, of course they have it. Like money, status becomes less important when one has it. Furthermore, flexibility in taking occasional time off during the workday for personal and other non-business-related activities without having to worry about being docked is a benefit of being a salaried employee.

Nevertheless, one may argue as to whether a legally mandated number of hours in a workweek is good policy — I happen to believe it is not — that a government should impose on private businesses. What appears to be abundantly clear is that an executive department decree, without authority from a legislative body, in this case United States Congress, should be permissible at all. It amounts to an ukase, which is a hallmark of a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, not that of a democratic republic.

Believing that the President and the Department of Labor lacked the Constitutional and statutory authority to issue this regulation, twenty-one states, a number of businesses, and business organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas challenging the Final Rule. These plaintiffs also sought an emergency preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Rule pending full adjudication on the merits of the suit.

In State of Nevada, et al vs. United States Department of Labor, et al (docket number 4:16-CV-00731, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas, memorandum opinion and order, 11/22/2016, available at many sites online) Judge Mazzant, in a 20 page opinion, carefully analyzed the text of the federal labor standards act, and the Department of Labor’s new regulation together with the contentions of the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The court concluded that the Department of Labor probably lacked statutory authority to define the exemptions in terms of salary level. The law, as passed by Congress, only gave authority to define the exemption in terms of job function. The court also found that the other requirements for issuing a temporary injunction were met, and thus restrained the Department of Labor and the executive branch from enforcing the new rule pending a full trial on the merits.

Because of the political situation, and the advent of a new administration and Congress, this Final Rule is probably a dead letter. Under the Administrative Review Act, Congress is set to disapprove the regulation, and the new President is unlikely to veto that disapproval. Anyway, there will be a new Secretary of Labor, who will doubtless have less enthusiasm for social engineering under the guise of regulating business.

One of the opposition points to the Final Rule was that, rather than paying overtime rates to employees that would otherwise be exempt under the work duties test, employers would limit their hours rather than paying them for overtime. The Department of Labor’s response was that, then they will have more time off to spend on other pursuits. As far as that goes, the current czar, oops, I mean Secretary, as well as the President, in less than two months will have an abundant amount of time to spend on other pursuits. I wish them well.

//

                                                                        — From the Wizard of Oz

A super moon coming this month!

The Dallas cowboys are 7-1!!

The Chicago Cubs won the World Series!!!

Donald Trump elected President!!!!

Yikes!!!!!

Or?????????????

It is rarely productive for one to get their exercise by jumping to conclusions or flying off the handle. Given the paroxysms of those highly offended by the election of Donald Trump, such exercise appears rather popular among the leftists. Those who have their knickers twisted (panties in a wad, drawers drawn up, choose your metaphor) are simply losers — sore losers. Unfortunately there are some people who will be hurt and have their property destroyed or damaged by disappointed moochers (who come in all hues, by the way).

I have waited until the dust settled somewhat before commenting on the election. I did not campaign or publicly support any of the candidates nor comment on the events of the campaign season wherein the parties nominated and the nation elected a new President. Now, here are some observations.

Obviously, Donald Trump tapped into a widespread discontent amongst the electorate. Many pundits are focusing on the “white male working-class” in the upper Midwest. It’s really more than that. But  collectivist explanations (sigh) will never die.

The defining issue for many was who would get to nominate and appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Trump released a list of possible appointees, all of whom appear to be right leaning constitutionalists who believe in the values of federalism and will not be willing to acquiesce in an almighty federal government. There’s no question that Clinton would seek to appoint leftists. The Supreme Court for many decades has been more or less in the center of the political spectrum, every now and then leaning one way or the other depending upon the issue. That is a good thing.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, the Citizens United case, which has been the whipping boy for progressives from the current President on down, hardly mattered in this election. The money spent by the Democrat party and Clinton campaign was exponentially greater than what Trump spent, and did not work, either in the Presidential race or down ballot. They might as well have thrown the cash in a dumpster and burned it. Speaking of down ballot races, Republicans now control nearly two-thirds of the governorships and state legislatures.

Despite what so many have said and feared, Donald Trump is not a racist, misogynist, or xenophobe. As far as the racist label goes, it has become an all-purpose epithet, like “jerk,” “creep,” or perhaps more vulgar terms. It has been useful as a discussion ender for those who have run out of rational argument, or to paint an opponent with a terrible flaw that is impossible to refute, as it requires proving a negative. “Racist” is fast becoming, if it is not already there, overbroad and meaningless. It is nearly always an overstatement, even when there is a kernel of accuracy. In any event, I challenge anyone to give an example of anything Trump has said that shows he’s a racist, properly defined. As far as his being a misogynist, Trump hired women as project managers for his building projects back when doing so wasn’t cool. His campaign manager is the first woman to run a successful Presidential campaign. That fraternity house banter may be rude and offensive, But it is just talk which we all know is cheap. Xenophobe? Trump never said that he wants to ban or deport all immigrants, only here illegally, or for whom there is a reasonable suspicion they intend to harm people in this country.

So far as his lack of experience is a problem, he certainly has more executive experience than the current occupant of the White House had, though that might be damning with faint praise. Trump has been successful in business, doubtless because he hired the right functionaries. No chief executive does the line work.

As far as the media reports about members of minority groups (defined by leftists) fearful of harm in the wake of Trump election, the leftists and the Democrat party have done their propaganda job well. Perhaps illegal aliens have something to fear in that they might be deported. But what rational citizen has a problem with that? On the other hand, there have been no reports of Trump supporters harming Clinton supporters, or burning and looting. Except for a few counter-demonstrators, they have pretty much stayed off the street. At least one particularly horrific scene of a Trump supporter being beaten by thugs has splashed across the television and computer screens.

One of the favorite metaphors of the left appears to have been “tone deaf.” That has been applied in numerous Republican politicians, and others on the right. Well, turnabout is fair play. Enough said.

I said at the outset that the system is rigged. I mean that as descriptive, not pejorative. Sailing boats and ships are rigged, and that has a positive meaning. There are some indications that Donald Trump may not receive a majority of the nationwide popular vote, but will nevertheless win because he will get a majority in the Electoral College, the makeup of which is decided by each state. Other Presidents have received less than a majority of the nationwide popular vote, yet were elected. They include George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The founders who wrote the Constitution understood that an unfettered democracy can be just as oppressive to the minority as an absolute monarch. The states in our union are just that — they are not provinces. They are sovereign in their spheres, which is really everything other than the powers granted to the national government. Read the 10^th Amendment, even though most politicians and many judges don’t. The Constitution recognizes that, except for the limited powers delegated to Congress, the President, and the judiciary, those residing in one state are not required to have the same public policies as those in another. The people of Texas generally don’t have to conduct their public business the same way as those in Massachusetts. The Electoral College system of choosing the President is one of the ways federalism is maintained. And if nothing else, it forces Presidential candidates to pay attention to states they otherwise wouldn’t. See Tara Ross, Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College (2004) for an in-depth analysis of the points in this paragraph.

Everything said in the foregoing paragraph is academic. The Electoral College system will never be changed absent a cataclysm. This is so because the winners in any given election cycle would be the ones that who would have to start the process of amending the Constitution. A beneficiary is not likely to change what works for him. Furthermore, there is no way that three-fourths of the states would ratify such an amendment. It would hardly be in most of the states’ interest to change it.

In conclusion, I have to say, of the candidates who vied for the nomination during the primary season, Donald Trump was my last choice, or less. After he astonished everyone by winning the Republican nomination, I resigned myself to having to, if not actively support him, at least acquiesce. I really only had two reasons to do so, and those were the fate of the Supreme Court, and he was not Hillary Clinton. I wrote this essay in part to allay any substantial fears of the forthcoming Trump Presidency. If he turns out to be a terrible President, we will survive. Our country has survived worse. Anyway, even if it turns out to be a train wreck, well, train wrecks are certainly exciting.

//

Hallowe’en may be second only to Christmas as a popular and commercially lucrative holiday here in America. We are all familiar with the children (of ALL ages) going trick-or-treating throughout their neighborhood, and quite often many other neighborhoods. Since the “treats” are almost always candy and other sweets, the holiday could be a favorite of dentists since it provides them with more and more patients. There are whole sections of stores, and even specialty Hallowe’en stores, selling costumes, masks, plastic pumpkins, and other paraphernalia.

The theme of Hallowe’en, of course is death, and perhaps what comes after. The name is an abbreviation of “All Hallows Eve” the night before All Saints Day, “hallows” or “hallowed” being an archaic word for holy or saints. All Saints Day is traditionally celebrated on November 1, with All Souls Day coming the day after on the 2^nd. The three days together are known in Western Christianity, as “Allhallowstide.” Their observance has been important in English and Celtic tradition. Here in North America, these days are associated with the Mexican festival known as Dia de Muertos (sometimes incorrectly rendered as “El Dia de los Muertos“) — The Day of the Dead. Dia de Muertos had its origin in pre-Columbian pagan times, originally at the summer solstice. It fell neatly in with the Christian tradition, especially the Roman Catholic version. Like so many folk traditions, the festival was incorporated into the Christian Church’s ritual. At some point it was moved to coincide with Allhallowstide.

The religious purpose of these days is to remember, honor, and perhaps commune with the deceased. It includes prayer for those languishing in purgatory—who fast in fires until the foul deeds done in their days of nature are burnt and purged away—to be released. Many Protestant Christians eliminate the prayer because, not believing in purgatory and that final judgment is rendered at the time of death, there is no purpose in praying for those departed.

The evening of the first day, Hallowe’en, is when the evil spirits are ascendant, appear among the living and might be placated by giving them gifts. Witches, supposedly human agents of Satan, are out in force seeking to assist in claiming souls for the devil. Their brief nightly reign ends with the dawn and resurrection of the saints.

The Russian composer Modest Mussorgsky drew on a similar, Slavic legend of the evil master Chernobog, who arises on St. John’s Eve, the day before the summer solstice. This creature wreaks his mischief throughout the night on Bald Mountain, where his minions are released from hell to prey on the villagers and spirits arise from their graves. Chernobog’s reign ends at dawn with the tolling of church bells. Mussorgsky’s tone poem “Night on Bald Mountain” was popularized in Walt Disney’s feature-length Fantasia. Like the Mexican tradition, Chernobog’s antics were moved to the time of Allhallowstide, and are now associated with Hallowe’en. Credit Disney with that effect.

On this day twenty-five years ago, an unemployed loser, whose name I decline to write or speak, crashed his pickup truck through a window in Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. This cretin then proceeded to shoot 23 patrons to death and wound as many others before killing himself. His last act may have been only honorable one of his life, at least saving the citizens of Bell County and the State the time, trouble, and expense of dealing with his sorry life.

Among those murdered were Al and Ursula Gratia, who were having lunch with their daughter, Suzanna. Al tried to stop the assailant, but being unarmed, had no chance. At several points, Suzanna had a clear shot at the murderer, but, even though she was proficient and experienced with firearms, her handgun was stored uselessly in a car in Luby’s parking lot. She managed to escape through a broken window, believing her mother was following, but Ursula had also been killed.

Suzanna left her gun in the car because Texas law forbade persons other than peace officers from carrying handguns, except in very limited circumstances, such as traveling and hunting. Because she would have been committing a crime just by having a handgun inside the cafeteria, she could have been fined, jailed, and lost her license as a chiropractor. (Even having the gun in her car was problematic. It would have been her burden to prove the traveling exception, which was not statutorily defined.)

Of course, the law in effect at the time did not prevent the killer from having and using two handguns to perpetrate his murderous rage. No actual or proposed law would have prevented it either.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp did not take the loss of her parents lying down. She became an activist for a Texas law that would permit law-abiding citizens to obtain a license to carry concealed handguns with a minimum of hassle and red tape. Her activism propelled her into the Texas Legislature where she co-sponsored such a bill that Governor George W. Bush signed into law in 1997. She served in the Legislature for five terms. She has testified before Congressional hearings on various gun control measures on several occasions, firmly and cogently presenting the case for individuals to have and carry weapons for self defense.

Since the mid 1990s, nearly every state has enacted or modified its laws making it possible for honest citizens to possess and carry handguns and other firearms. See here. In the mid 2000s, the United States Supreme Court finally recognized that the Second Amendment of the Constitution means what it says. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).  Individuals have a right to keep and bear arms just as they have a right to speak and assemble, to worship freely, and be free from the government’s unreasonable searches and seizures.

The past quarter century has seen a sea change in individual rights insofar as the right to bear arms for self protection. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was not the only person in the forefront of this movement, but she has one of the most compelling stories and, rather than wringing her hands and wallowing in grief, took early action and pursued her cause to effect. She truly belongs in the pantheon of Texas heroes.

For more see Suzanna Hupp and The Blaze and many other sources.

Note: The states with the most handgun carry licensees are: 1. Florida — 1.4 million; 2. Pennsylvania — 1.1 million; and Texas — 857,000.

//

Two days this week commemorate anniversaries of events without which our world today would be significantly different: the 950^th of the Battle of Hastings, which began the Norman Conquest of England, and the landing of Christopher Columbus on an island in the Western Hemisphere.

Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, the 1987 work by University of Virginia professor emeritus E. D. Hirsch, Jr., espouses the theory that in order to be “culturally literate” one must be familiar with certain names, phrases, dates, and concepts that are part of the Western Civilization canon. Hirsch also was the main editor of A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (1989, 2^nd ed. 1994), a tome that contains descriptions of those topics.

Many an elementary or secondary student has been alternately bored or frustrated by having to memorize dates when studying for a history test. As an adjunct professor of American history at the community college level, I would tell students that, insofar as dates were concerned, I was interested only that they got the century of occurrence and chronology right. It was necessary to understand that World War II occurred after World War I. Hirsch is sparing with dates—he only includes seven, one of which is the title of a book (1984), and three are the beginning and ending dates of the above mentioned wars and the American Civil War. Those dates, along with 1066 and 1492 are among the ones a culturally literate American must know.

October 12, 1492 was the day on which Christopher Columbus landed on an island he called San Salvador (perhaps because he believed God had saved him from a mutiny by his crew who were beginning to think they were sailing into oblivion). It is now celebrated as a federal holiday on the second Monday in October (this year it’s October 10^th). Recently there has been a considerable amount of ink spilled (or if you will, of pixel dust scattered) about Columbus and his discovery of the Americas. Unfortunately, much of is it drivel about a “conquest of paradise” and dispossessing and annihilation of those whose ancestors had immigrated earlier. See, e.g. here Most of the destruction of the then indigenous population was caused by disease for which they had not developed biological immunity—a scientific concept no one would know about for three more centuries. Mass migration and conquest have occurred throughout history and have rarely been pretty. Some denigrate Columbus because he was not the first European to discover the lands of the Western Hemisphere, but the earlier Vikings (and perhaps others whose journeys were not recorded) did not establish a permanent presence. The Columbian voyages and those that followed in the 16^th and 17^th Century did. Humans have been immeasurably better off since. So Columbus Day should be celebrated, if not for the man, for the significant historical marker it is.

But what about October 14, 1066?

The Battle of Hastings on that date, resulted of the death of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, and the defeat of his army. The immediate result was William, Duke of Normandy becoming King of England and the beginning of a royal dynasty that lasts to this day. Though nearly an entire millennium ago, that event began a chain reaction that resulted in Columbus’ 1492 voyage and, later, Hirsch’s third significant singular date, 1776. A complete story of the connections that led to the establishment of the United States of America might be a subject for a later essay. Suffice it to say for now, those connections are there, and really began with the Norman Conquest.

As we know, from the mid 18^th to the mid 20^th Century, Great Britain, in which England is the lead entity, formed and maintained the most populous, widespread, and significant empire the world has known. There are a number of reasons why a small island came to dominate the world for two centuries, and, culturally, still does. (Beatles recordings today sell well (or are pirated) in China, and nearly everywhere else, except North Korea, where possession would probably get you shot or hanged.)

Prior to the Norman Conquest, England was politically, culturally, and economically oriented toward Scandinavia. After William the Conqueror established himself and his Norman barons as England’s rulers, its orientation was France and continental Europe. Perhaps more significantly, because William remained the Duke of Normandy (which was a sovereign position) and controlled most of what is now northern France, his progeny ruled over a vast cosmopolitan area for centuries.

A second reason is the English language that grew first from a confluence of Anglo-Saxon Old English and Norman French, and then with added influence of other Germanic, Latinate, and many other tongues. English has had a remarkable proclivity to grow and assimilate words and grammar. It thus became a superior means of communication and facilitated the English, and later British, influence on the globe. It is now the lingua franca of the world. Those concerned about another language taking over from English should not worry.

The stability of governance was another result. Economics ultimately determines politics. Because wealth in 11^th Century Europe and for many centuries afterwards meant land, William ensured his control by confiscating all of the land of England, and then doled it out as fiefs to his barons who in turn created sub-fiefs down many layers to those who actually worked the land. All of this sub- and sub-sub-tenancy was based on land for services or agricultural produce from the land. Furthermore, the development of the English common law, the rules of decision of which emanated from the mores and customs of the people, rather than being proclaimed by the sovereign, early on subjected the king to certain standards, rather than rule by whim. William’s great-great grandson King John (1199–1216) learned that lesson the hard way. To be sure, there were several succession crises throughout, but all were resolved in a manner that ensured stability for a long time, and an unbroken line of monarchs. The present Queen Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William. Interestingly, her grandson, the namesake of the Conqueror may well be king at the Millennial in 2066.

See Enormously different

Note: The Battle of Hastings was actually fought at Senlac Hill, about seven miles northwest of the town of Hastings near a village named, appropriately, Battle. King William established an abbey at the top of the hill which today houses a museum and is the entrance to the battlefield. Most historians believe the terrain there is much the same as it was 950 years ago. The Bayeux Tapestry, an embroidered cloth nearly 230 feet long and 20 inches tall, which depicts graphically the events leading up to the Norman Conquest of England, including the battle, is preserved in the town of Bayeux, Normandy, not far from Omaha Beach.

For further reading, see R. Allen Brown, The Norman Conquest of England, (1984); Peter Rex, 1066 A New History of the Norman Conquest (2009); Hugh Thomas, The Norman Conquest: England After William the Conqueror, (2009)(focuses on the long-term impact of the Conquest); R. J. Yeatman and W. C. Sellar, 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, (1930)(an interesting and somewhat humorous rendition of English history).

Section of Bayeux Tapestry

Three days that anyone in the United States old enough to know what was going at the time exactly where they were and what they were doing: December 7, 1941, November 22, 1963, and September 11, 2001. For those alive on each of those days, everything changed.

Now, marking the fifteenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack, there’s not much to say that hasn’t already been said. Five years ago, I wrote an essay asking if 2001 was America’s last summer.  See http://www.bobreagan13.com/2011/09/proud-towers-fall-americas-last-summer.html Still don’t have the answer, but every time we fly commercially, we cannot help but be reminded, especially those of us who flew during the halcyon days before air hijacking and terror became endemic. Fifty years ago this recent August, I and a friend as young college students made our first trip to Europe. In those days, family and friends could even come aboard the aircraft to see us off. I recall having a Swiss Army knife in my carry-on bag that concerned no one. Those days won’t be coming back, and that’s too bad.

A few years ago, I recall hearing the classical music radio station play Mozart’s Requiem during the time the twin towers were attacked. This past evening, I watched a film that played the Funeral March from Wagner’s Die Gotterdammerung. Both are profound, but each has a somewhat different message about death and destruction. Not sure which is the right one for this day.

/

In 44 B.C., a cabal of Roman citizens sought to overthrow the perceived tyranny of Julius Caesar by assassinating him. Rather than restoring the Roman Republic, which had lasted for four centuries, they ended up with a civil war and, ultimately, the rule and military dictatorship of Augustus and his successors that lasted for the next five.

In 1649, the English Civil War culminated with the autocratic Charles I losing his head. But England traded its king for the harsher dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell.

In 1789, the French Revolution overthrew the Bourbon monarchy, murdered the king, created a reign of terror, and ended up with Napoleon, another dictator, who styled himself emperor. A reprise in 1848, though less violent, installed Napoleon III, a leader of similar vein.

The catastrophe of World War I destroyed four autocratic empires. Two, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, were dismembered. In Germany, the Kaiser was exiled; in Russia, the Tsar was murdered. But both nations soon fell into dictatorship. Germany got Hitler. Russia got Lenin, Stalin, and their successors, whose tyranny was overthrown in 1990. But now, Russia has Putin.

Similarly, the Chinese overthrew the Manchu dynasty in 1911, and after a period of roving gangs headed by warlords, got Chiang Kai-shek, and then Mao.

There are doubtless many other examples in history where revolutions overthrew oppressors, but traded them for equal, or worse tyrannies.

One, famously, did not. The American Revolution. But why?

In my view, several reasons.

One was that it was not really a revolution in the sense that its goal was the re-ordering of the political-social culture. The colonists sought to change their government, not their governance. Their goal was independence from Great Britain.

From the establishment of Jamestown to the French and Indian War a century and a half later, the British Colonies in North America were mostly left to themselves without interference from Britain. The reasons for this were the remoteness of the colonies from the mother country — a journey from Britain took six weeks to two months, and even longer in bad weather— and political. England under the Stuarts and early Hanoverians was preoccupied with internal strife, such as the civil war mentioned earlier, and European rivalries. During this time the colonies established their own legislatures and executives, and other rudimentary governing institutions. These colonial governments were basic, imposed few taxes, and generally left most individuals alone. They were adequate for a self-sufficient society of farmers, tradesmen and merchants. They had sufficient means handle the occasional skirmish with the Indians by themselves.

That changed with the French and Indian War, a theater of the European Seven Years War. This was a war for empire that Great Britain won. Wars cost money—a lot. Parliament believed that since the colonies benefitted from the British armed forces defeat of the French and their Indian allies, they should help defray the costs. Attempts to enforce the various revenue raising measures enacted were often heavy handed and intrusive to the autonomy that the colonists treasured. Consequently, they did not wish to overthrow an established means of governance. They just wanted to be left alone.

The second reason is that colonial America was by and large a classless society. There were certainly some who were a lot better off economically than other, but no legal aristocracy or rigid class system. No proletariat, or underclass, existed in the colonies. There was no cohesive aggrieved group significant enough for a potential emperor, duce, or führer to appeal to. No English Puritans, French sans-culottes, German workers, or Russian peasants. (Black slaves were an exception, but, being relatively few and isolated, they were not a part of the body politic.)

The third factor was, perhaps, the overarching one: George Washington. He was one of the most effective leaders in history. Washington led the Continental Army, ill-equipped and supplied, at first untrained, for six years of war against the most powerful army on earth at that time. And emerged victorious, at the head of a battle hardened army whose soldiers held him in exceptionally high regard. He could have made himself the absolute ruler of the colonies. There was talk of his becoming king of new nation. What did he do? He appeared before the Congress, resigned his commission, and went back to his home at Mount Vernon to resume farming. King George III, upon hearing of Washington’s resignation was reported to have said “If he does that, he is the greatest man in the world.”

There was more. Within a few years, Washington was called out of his retirement to chair the Constitutional Convention, and then was elected the first President of the United States. He could have easily been elected for a third term, but he again stepped down and retired to his home. The two-term precedent Washington set was so strongly ensconced that it was observed until Franklin Roosevelt’s disregard of it resulted in it becoming a permanent Constitutional provision.

The Declaration of Independence, approved 240 years ago today, set forth the reasons that impelled the colonists to the separation. It was the British government’s, symbolized by King George III, violation of the established rights of the colonials, not a desperate desire to turn over the existing governance. Those rights were summarized in the broad categories of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The colonials were not looking for a strong leader to lead them out of the wilderness, or to right wrongs, or bring about prosperity for all. Quite the contrary, they wanted to be left alone.

And, the only leader who could have become dictator in the wake of revolution said “count me out.”

/

May 29 was the birthday of President John F. Kennedy. Had he not been assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, and survived other maladies, he would have been 99 years old. This Memorial Day weekend, the Turner Classic Movies channel on cable TV is showing a number of war movies in honor of the day. One is the 1962 film is PT 109, a dramatization of Kennedy’s World War II naval service.

President Kennedy survived World War II, but became a casualty of the Cold War.

Every U.S. President since World War II up until Bill Clinton took office in 1992 served in the military. George W. Bush was in the Air National Guard briefly, but Clinton and Obama were not in the service, and, barring an extreme event of some kind, the next President will not be a veteran.

Dos it matter? To my mind, and I am a veteran, military service contributes to a person’s growth and breadth of knowledge. One learns both the extent and limitations of his abilities. Those qualities should contribute to a President’s competence in office. But they do not all the time, perhaps. Some of the most effective Presidents were veterans. Some veteran Presidents were not. At least two of the more highly rated Presidents—Franklin Roosevelt and Wilson—never were in the military. Nevertheless, if all other qualities were equal, which they never are, I would consider military service a plus in deciding how I would cast my vote for President.

Memorial Day is not a day to honor all veterans. We have that day in November. Today is the day to honor those who died in America’s wars. Those who, in Lincoln’s words “gave the last full measure of devotion.” That devotion was not, as is so tritely said, that others may live. It was that they believed in the idea of liberty imbued in the American character so they would not want to live if it were to be lost. They gave real meaning to Patrick Henry’s sentiment “give me liberty or give me death.” For this we should be grateful and honor them.

//