Mosques, Churches and the Proper Role of Government

The question of the construction of a mosque within a few blocks of the site of Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, those destroyed by terrorists on September 11th 2001, has raised a good deal of noise and generated a good deal of debate. The issue has been presented as one of Freedom of Religion and tolerance on the one hand versus sensitivity to perceptions and feelings of the majority on the other. President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg have both weighed in on the side of those who wish to build the mosque, suggesting that it is un-American to inveigh against them or any group because of their religion.

No one is arguing that Muslim’s don’t have the right to build a mosque. And in fact there are already quite a few mosques in New York City and on Manhattan itself. The argument is simply one of propriety. And who gets to define propriety when it comes to city zoning? The answer, of course is - depending on the city involved - the zoning board or the city council or some such group.

Herein lies the only issue that really needs to be addressed. Members of zoning boards are not supposed to be visionaries, instituting dramatic and sweeping changes in their city or town. Rather, they are supposed to represent the stated interests of the people, balancing the concerns of the citizens as a whole with those of the individual property owner and the developer. Thus, without any issue of free speech or any other freedom, a city is perfectly within its authority to say no to a church or a business going into one block of the city but allowing it to go into the next block over. Can this be contested in court? Of course. (In fact, in this day and age everything and anything seemingly can be contested in court, but that is the subject of another discussion.) Nevertheless, zoning of a town or a city is something that is a function of the sense of what is proper and where it is proper, based on the opinions of the people of the town or city.

All well and good. But, in as much as elections are not held every year, but more likely every two years (or more), how does the zoning board reflect the concerns of the citizens? Well, if they are being responsible, they should note the when there is public displays of concerns and when an issue energizes a large number of people they should either delay the decision until there can be some sort of referendum, or they should, assuming money is available, conduct some polling and hold hearings.

The point is that we live in a country that is based on participatory government. The people of New York are, according to a wide range of polling, quite upset about a decision of the planning commission (and whoever else is involved – I don’t know the official name of the committee and don’t really care). Others may be upset, for whatever reason, but it is New Yorkers who are the only ones who get to actually play in this particular game. The city counsel and the planning commission and whoever else is involved should be listening to their bosses – their real bosses – the citizens of New York City at least long enough to have some public debate. What we don’t need is this or that commission acting with no regard to public opinion in the face of some very real and pent up emotions. If the members of the councils and commissions feel that their argument is sound, then stand up in open debate and present it. But to ignore, or worse, attack as un-American, the concerns of 70% of the population and then to dismiss it out of hand, is nothing more than a local brand of tyranny. We are a democracy not an oligarchy.

Our National Crisis

Our nation faces a crisis. In the simplest terms, we are becoming like everyone else. The United States has always been different from the rest of the nations of the world because we were a nation founded on, and centered on, a series of ideals. What set us apart were a set of ideas and beliefs about the individual and society that made us quite unique and made us treasure our shedding of the past and the adoption of a new mantle, a new title, that of American. We reveled in not what we were, but what we were to become, not in what made us the same as our ancestors, but what made us different from the rest of the world, and similar to our new neighbors. We believed in government of the people, by the people, for the people. We believed in unalienable rights, we believed in One out of Many.

But today, increasingly, we find that this sense of the exceptional, the unique nature of America is being marginalized. It is to be expected that others would do so – when one is jealous of another they tend to belittle that which they cannot have. But today we find many of our “leading” citizens finding nothing exceptional about our nation. Instead of celebrating that which makes us unique and one, they celebrate our differences. Instead of looking forward to a future as Americans, they ask us to celebrate our pasts and to revel in our diversity, and look forward to a future in ‘a global community.’

Is it their fault? In a sense. But it is also everyone’s fault. Over the past 40 years our education system has spent less and less time teaching about the greatness and the uniqueness of our nation and more about the nation as simply another nation, stressing our errors not our successes. We risk losing a grasp of what makes us unique and with that loss we risk the very essence of this nation. America stands on the brink of becoming simply another old and tired nation, one in which the people - our citizens  - are simply those who were born here. This is truly a national crisis.

Is there a means at hand to reunite the nation, to give a rebirth to the notions that powered us through the last 234 years? I believe there it. It is encapsulated in the simple notion of service, of putting nation before self, of understanding that for this nation to succeed, with its demanding vision of participatory government and participatory society, that each of us is required to give. Sacrifice is necessary from each, but sacrifice for a greater good. This is the difference between simple self interest, which produces greed and short-term success, and enlightened self-interest, which in the long run produces both greater freedom and greater abundance. The nation faces a true emergency. And emergencies call for drastic action.

The Draft

Taken in isolation, a draft (or conscription), compulsory service in the military, is not a good idea. The concept that the government can – on a whim, that is, without cause – force you to serve in the military is contrary to the premise of individual liberty that is central to the very nature of this country.

That position having been established, is there a circumstance, a cause, under which it would be acceptable for the government to establish a draft? Governments by their nature have as the prime goal the survival of the state. This has been recognized and accepted since the earliest writings on political philosophy, the understanding being that within the concept of the social contract the notion of providing security, the prime driver for the creation of that contract, the survival of the state created by that contract is essentially equal to the notion of providing security to the individuals who create the social contract. Ergo, survival of the state (the nation) does constitute an emergency that warrants consideration of actions that we might otherwise consider beyond the pale.

Certainly, this was the very point made by President Lincoln. From his perspective virtually any action was justified if it kept the Union together. Everything else had to be subordinated to that one position. Emergencies demanded strong action, and national survival justified exceptional action.

The Crisis We Face

Today the United States faces a wide range of issues: on the economic front a large and growing debt; unfunded annuities that dwarf the nominal debt; financial crises and job migration; and rising energy costs. On the social front we face an immigration crisis and an increasingly compartmented and stratified culture; and from abroad (and in some cases from within our own society) we face Islamic terrorism; the proliferation of nuclear weapons; and the rise of a host of potential adversaries.

Further, there is the crisis of identity that we identified at the top of this article. Arguably, it is our greatest threat. And it comes on top of all the other threats that we face.

Separately, each of these problems might be met and successfully addressed. Each would require a sustained effort. But collectively, they will require not simply concerted effort, they require a multi-generational commitment to an effort centered on the very idea of our nation as a whole, to a concept of this nation that expands well beyond the specifics of this or that issue. No one will try to reduce and then eliminate national debt simply because it is debt, nor will they seek a solution to the problem facing Social Security in the latter half of the 21st century simply because the numbers say it is necessary.

There must be a unifying force, a concept and vision which ties one idea to the other, and more importantly, ties one person to another.

An Exceptional Nation

This nation was born from a number of ideals, and in that sense – and it is a vitally important sense – it is truly exceptional. Most countries in history were (and are) the result of geography and conquest. Allegiance to the nation was based on the fact that you were born there and nothing more. The United States chose a different path, one encapsulated in several key documents, such as the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness…” and the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The notion of equality and unity is even more explicitly captured in the nation’s motto: “E Pluribus Unum” – One Out of Many. This speaks directly to an idea, a vision that has not simply been pooh-poohed of late, but actually pushed aside, the idea of the United States as the Melting Pot, a place where all could come, irrespective of their nation of birth, or their ancestry, and they would no longer be Irish or English, German or Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Indian, Persian, Arab, Berber, Kenyan, Congolese, Rwandan, Samoan or Philippine; they would be Americans. And they would all be equal, equal under the law and equal with respect to their opportunity to live free and to seek their success and to provide for their families. They would, in the words of a great American, be “judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

But we are now on the verge of losing that sense of unity, of losing the United in the United States. We are told to celebrate not what makes us alike, but what makes us different, and we now seem to have forgotten that it is not what makes us different, but what makes us alike that brings us together, that provides our unity, that provides the strength we need to face the challenges ahead.

This crisis, this national emergency will require a girding of our loins for at least one and probably several generations. To fail to address that emergency is to risk the nation itself. If we are to meet this emergency it will require all of us working together, as one team. But we are told we are not one team. Nor is there any mechanism in our current social order that promises to act as the driving force to build that team. We as a nation need some mechanism that will give to each of us a common foundation, a common touchstone that we can draw from to rebuild that unity, to rebuild that sense that we are part of a great undertaking, that our participation, our sense of ‘ownership,’ as part of a great team, is essential to our sustained growth. Without that common sense of belonging to something greater, without that sense that we are on the same team, working not for the greater good – not waiting for a handout – our national crisis will only deepen.

The Professional Lament

It is with this national emergency looming in front of us that the notion of restarting the draft is recommended. There are both philosophic and practical reasons for opposing a draft. Among them, the one mentioned at the top of this paper: that this is granting the government authority over the entire populace. Further, many in the military will laud the value of an all-volunteer force, citing in particular the greater professionalism and higher retention. But, both of these traits are purchased at great real cost in pay and particularly in greater dependent, retirement and medical benefits. Such arguments also eschew any discussion of the political reality that a volunteer-professional military force increases the separation between the citizenry and their military and encourages the political elite to use that force without substantial regard as to the concerns and desires of we the people.

Of course, no one could support a return to a draft if it would directly and immediately threaten the security of our nation. But such is not the case. The idea that the draft will give you less qualified personnel is, obviously, false. If the services were able to draw from high-school graduates and college students across the nation, particularly in a case where there are more than 1.5 million male high-school graduates and 600,000 male college graduates every year, there are certainly ample numbers to meet the yearly requirements for several hundred thousand needed each year. (This number would grow somewhat because the manning models for the services would change, but the numbers are well within the available manpower.)

Service lore (almost a military urban myth) suggests that it is nearly impossible to achieve and then maintain the level of training necessary to support today’s high-tech military, that the level of training needed to develop both today’s combat personnel and today’s combat support personnel far exceeds what can be obtained when faced with draft personnel who will only be in the service for two years, hence would spend nearly their entire enlistment in training.

In fact, a return to the draft would require a change in training models. But concerns about this or that personnel manning and training model are insignificant if the draft were able to provide a unifying force to our citizenry as a whole.

If there were a draft the services would be free to use a different set of standards: personnel in their first two years of service would be paid substantially less, the services could bar anyone from joining the services with dependents in tow, personnel in the first two years of service would not need money to live off base, there would be more personnel available for basic services such as cleaning up around bases. In short, the transition could be made to a different and less expensive model. Additionally, as we have a smaller military then when we last had a draft, the services could be much more selective and still meet yearly quotas. That it would offer its own leadership challenges is accepted. But again, that has been dealt with before, quite successfully.

The Essential Point

But the reason for a draft now outweighs any objections to the cost of transitioning from one personnel and training system to another. Our nation is faced with a true national emergency. In many respects our public schools have failed to educate our citizens as to what makes us unique among the nations of the world, and therefore what unites us, makes us one and apart from the rest. We hear politicians speak too glibly of ‘the world’ and less easily about the exceptional nature of America. Such was not always the case. And since the days of the Civil War we have lived in a society where every family had a member who had sacrificed for the nation, and in doing so had learned something about what made us a nation, and came away understanding at the visceral level that we were ‘one out of many.’

Most will accept that only in the event of national emergency is a draft justifiable. But, we are now in a national emergency, politically, economically and spiritually. And while the draft is not and cannot be considered a panacea to address this emergency, it is a vital and necessary element of the solution.

The draft would be this: the simple requirement that all males, between the ages of 18 and 26, be subject to a draft, and that perhaps 500,000 to one million per year (depending on the personnel manning model) be inducted into the military for a two year tour of active duty, followed by 4 years on inactive reserve status.

The implications to our society would be massive. Not only would the American people directly reconnect with their military, within a few years it would mean more members of Congress and members of Congressional staff with military experience, and hence improved judgment in all questions concerning our national security, from budgets and personnel to procurement and support to overseas operations.

What it would provide, apart from the specific military capabilities, is this: a leavening of our society. Every year one million men would – in common – take an oath to defend the Constitution and the nation; one million men would experience – in common – working for a cause greater than themselves; they would understand the real nature of heroism – sacrifice to that higher cause; every year one million men would be released from the service having lived together, served together, sacrificed together – under our flag, in support of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; each year another million men would, despite whether they were rich or poor, of Armenian, Dutch, English, German, Indian, Irish, Japanese, Somali, Vietnamese, or Zimbabwean descent, would look at each other and know that they had these things in common, that despite external appearances that made them look different that they had supported the same things, believed in the same things, sacrificed for the same things, slept in the same barracks, used the same latrines, ate (and hated) the same foods; and defended the same nation, defended the same people, defended the same beliefs.

Marriage and Tyrants

One individual has recently ruled that 58% of Californians don’t have the authority to change their state Constitution. Three issues are at stake here.

The first, and arguably the greatest, is the question of what is a right? Rights are fundamental principles that reside with the people. They exist outside of and above government. That is, no government ‘gives’ me a right, or even, in the strictest sense, guarantees a right, the right exists no matter what the government wishes. The people can, however, direct the government expand time and effort in protecting and defending rights.

As a general rule, the history of all governments is one of the organs of government, the bureaucracies and those in power, trying to continually limit the rights of the citizenry. Constitutions exist in order to limit government and hence control those efforts. But the important point here is that rights are not ‘provided’ by government, they exist apart from the government itself.

The second issue is whether the people of a state – Californians in this case – have the right to amend their Constitution so as to define an issue that is not otherwise defined. Note that Californians were not trying to usurp a specifically federally defined or protected right (though other states have). Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any effort to define marriage.

There is, however, an amendment that would seem to apply to such a case – the 10th, which states quite simply that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since declaring a couple as married is a power of the state (we’ve all heard the words from a priest, minister, rabbi or justice of the peace that includes, somewhere, words to the effect ‘in accordance with the powers granted by the state of XXX’), defining a marriage is a power residing at the state level. At least according to the several billion marriages that have taken place in the US since 1776.

This is not, of course, what the judge said. Rather, he referenced the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. It is worth looking at the original wording of that clause: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But for that to apply he would have to be referring to a right. But marriage is not a right. Marriage is a contract. With all contracts there come limitations, limitations that have as their basis understandings from common law, which is from society. And so, an adult cannot make a contract with a minor, except through a legal guardian. No contract is valid if it entails breaking the law, and so forth. I don’t know if anyone still pays attention, but the purpose of blood tests before marriage was to test for certain diseases. States would fail to grant a marriage license if one of the two people applying were carrying certain diseases. Marriage therefore is not a right in the strict sense. Rather, it was something that had been defined by society through the course of time.

As to equal protection under the law, the 14th Amendment refers to any person. In as much as marriage is about two persons in a contractual relationship this also doesn’t seem to apply. The judge may claim great legal experience, but the Constitution was drafted to be read and understood by We the People. The words are clear. From where exactly the judge derives his understanding isn’t clear.

This leads to a third and final point: marriage is not a right; marriage is a relationship established and defined by societies from the beginning of time. There is no issue of rights that can exist within such a situation; it – marriage – is simply what the society has defined it to be. If enough people wanted it, marriage could be defined to include owning a dog; no dog, no marriage. Of course, marriage has traditionally been defined by society as the foundation upon which is built the basic unit of that society: the family. But it is a definition that was provided by the society over an extended period of time.

Now, we have one man who has decided that society does not have the right to provide its own definitions. Instead, he has chosen to read into this something that simply isn’t there in order to justify his usurping the people’s power. Whatever your belief about gay marriage, the greater issue here is that one man has gone out of his way to thumb his nose at the notion of democracy and the Constitution, to declare a de facto tyranny of the court. Maybe it’s time we have a few referendums on the judges themselves.

Washington, Tel Aviv, Tehran and Machiavelli

Machiavelli is famous, or perhaps infamous in some circles, for presenting us with the hard and unvarnished truth of the nature of power. While the complete breadth of his writings shows him to be much less cynical than many who have read and commented on him, nevertheless, he was perhaps the first realist in the field of political philosophy, stressing that the actions of the state and the use of its assets, particularly its military, should ultimately be predicated on prudence, not idealism, lest the actions of the government bring ruin on the nation.

Today politicians around the world have become adept at making a show of their concerns about the poor and underprivileged, of the need to take actions to address this or that humanitarian disaster political-economic catastrophe. But when push comes to shove, it seems that politicians quickly shed the mask of philanthropist and return to the world of reality, to Machiavelli and RealPolitik as it has been labeled.

And so we find Washington continuing to sit on its hands as the Iranians continue to work to produce a nuclear weapon. There are many reasons why Washington may have refused to act: ignorance and incompetence are both possible. But there is also the distinct possibility that there are those in Washington who see this as an opportunity to accomplish several things at once. The scenario plays out this way:

We continue to negotiate while never pushing so hard that anyone feels threatened that we will take unilateral action, such as instituting a third party embargo, to wit: the US will absolutely not trade – anything – with anyone who trades with Iran. In as much as the US has the largest economy in the world and is the world’s largest importer and among the top three in exports, this would have monumental impact. While there are those who would ‘run the blockade,’ the fact is that such a move, if enforced, would cripple Iran. There seems little likelihood of this happening.

As should be obvious by now, US discussions with the UN Security Council ‘Perm 5’ will yield no binding resolution and no definitive action on the part of the international community. The UNSC is, in the light of Iranian nuclear weapon development, North Korean nuclear weapon development, and the host of other situations around the world about which it has pontificated and then done little of note, demonstrating it is not substantially more effective than the League of Nations, although it is a good deal more expensive.

In any case, eventually, perhaps within two years, the Iranians will complete their first nuclear weapon. There will be an announcement, and probably a test, which will be followed by a great deal of Iranian propaganda. Then one of three things will happen:

1) The international community will accept Iran as a nuclear power and Iran will act responsibly and everything will return to something resembling normal

2) The international community will accept Iran as a nuclear power and, emboldened by the worlds’ inaction, the Iranians will let a nuclear weapon out, either via a terror organization or deliberately in a military attack, and Israel will suffer a nuclear detonation or

3) Some nation, recognizing that an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is an insane and unacceptable risk, will act preemptively and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapon program. There is an even chance that this action might take place before the completion of the first test weapon.

Option 1, while possible, seems unlikely to many and, to anyone thinking about it, represents an unacceptable position for the entire world: a rash and unforgiving government sitting astride the world’s largest oil supplies, armed with nuclear weapons. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to explain why. Nevertheless, with the exception of a great deal of hot air being generated in a few capitals around the world, this is the de facto policy choice that most nations have bought into. Further, the possibility of a supposedly beneficent nuclear Iran suddenly ‘changing its mind’ makes this option untenable, because it leaves everyone who is sane waiting for Option 2 to develop.

Which leaves us with Options 3. The obvious question is: what countries are likely to act against Iran in a preemptive fashion? Four countries come to mind, in increasing order of likelihood:

Turkey: with a short common border with Iran, and as the nominal leader of the secular Middle East, it is conceivable that Turkey would either wish to keep Iran contained, or would support anyone who was willing to so act.

India: India already faces a nuclear-armed Islamic state – Pakistan. But with Pakistan there exists a certain balance of power, a certain ‘détente,’ which India can live with, at least for the time being. A nuclear and resurgent Iran would threaten the stability and balance that currently exists between Pakistan and India and might prompt India to act preemptively.

USA: The USA is obviously capable of acting against Iran and has at least made the most noise about the possibility of doing so. Whether anyone in Washington really has the disposition to do so remains to be seen.

Israel: Israel is the one country on the list, and the one country in the world, that is legitimately threatened by Iran. While it cannot be proven that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they were to obtain them, rhetoric from Tehran supports that conclusion, and from Israel’s perspective the consequences of such an attack are so dire that Israel has to consider preemption in order to insure survival.

Unfortunately, the fact that Israel is on the list, and everyone knows it, means that others will in all likelihood not act in anticipation of Israel acting. And the longer everyone waits and lets this drag out, the closer Iran moves to having a real nuclear weapon, the closer the world comes to Israel conducting a large scale strike, or series of strikes, against Iran. These strikes will even include, assuming the Israelis are not sloppy planners, a nuclear option, that is a final step in the event the others have failed, the use of Israel’s own nuclear weapons to destroy the Iran. And the Israeli planners are not sloppy. Which gets us to Machiavelli. Or, at least acting in accordance with the common perception of Machiavelli.

The “calculus” above is more or less common knowledge to anyone who has spent the least little time thinking about it. But, if that is the case, if it is that we are moving inexorably toward a large scale Israeli strike on Iran, possibly even a nuclear strike on Iran, why aren’t people more agitated? Certainly, no one wants that. Or do they?

In the end, getting Israel to act solves the most obvious of problems. For all of Israel’s (and Iran’s) neighbors, it eliminates one of the truly worrisome problems of the region: the rise of Iran. The countries of the Mid-East may rant against Israel, but most (Syria being the exception) are not worried about Israel attacking their country or trying to apply leverage over them. That is not true when they view Iran. An attack on Iran that not only eliminates Iran’s nuclear weapons program but also politically and militarily weakens Iran and weakens the regime would be seen as a good thing by nearly everyone in the Mid-East. That these countries engage in diatribes against Israel is irrelevant. They all understand the real power politics of the situation and would welcome Iran being taken down a notch. That they would use the event for some political theater for their own benefit is simply to be expected. But most would secretly welcome such an outcome.

For the far left in Europe such an attack would simply be viewed as an unalloyed horror. But, in as much as most of the European Left seems incapable of recognizing a real threat, just as they are incapable of mobilizing politically and economically to apply pressure against Iran, they are also incapable of recognizing that such an act would be to their long-term benefit. They will view every act by Israel to be unjustified and will recoil even further from Israel if and when she is forced to act.

For the US the situation is quite different. Despite all the hand-ringing about the collapse of the US empire (there isn’t one, but that doesn’t prevent pundits from talking about it), the US retains the capability to act against Iran politically, economically and militarily. Yet, it hasn’t. It would seem, rather, that those in Washington who might make a real effort to pressure Iran are refusing to do so, preferring to engage in Doris Day diplomacy (‘Whatever will be will be’). Which raises the question: Why?

Certainly, they are smart enough to understand that the longer this drags out, the closer Iran moves to having a nuclear weapon. Certainly, they understand that Israel has the capability to act and will be politically forced to act if no one else acts to insure Israel’s survival. But still there is no real move to apply the level of pressure needed to bring real change. There can only be two options: either they are incompetent and are not capable of understanding the gravity of the situation, or they wish this situation to develop along the lines discussed above. Such a wish is consistent with the most cynical political calculus: let the situation continue until Israel believes that no one is going to act to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon; give no definitive assurances that the US will, in the end act to prevent an attack on Israel; do not use the political and economic tools at your disposal to apply the pressure needed on the rest of the world to force Iran to change course; and in the end let Israel conduct the attack by herself.

Such an attack would be the best possible solution for the far left in the US, providing nearly limitless opportunity to lambaste Israel, while offering equal opportunity to cuddle up with the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezballah and Syria, and while continuing to lament Israeli unilateralism, labeling Israel (and US conservatives) as the real threat to peace and stability in the Mid-east, all with the comfort of knowing that the real threat to peace – a nuclear Iran – has been eliminated for the foreseeable future.

There is, of course, only one problem with all this: what happens if the Israelis fail to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons capability?