Along comes another one of those emails which sets off my red flag alert system, this time in the form of a poem. I’ll reproduce it here, interspersed with my commentary, which will trace the emotional journey the author wants the reader to traverse, while slipping in subversive currents which will take the reader down the author’s preferred creek.
Dear All
This came from a friend of ours’ who was a veteran. On this 4th of July, it seems appropriate to read a poem such as that in the midst of all the political rhetoric that is so common on a day such as this. May you all have a good Independence Day as we all remember that for which our country stands and those who have put their lives on the line.
Peace!
Do we have names to check and verify? No. Note the claim of the author being a veteran, i.e., an American who has served in the military and automatically should receive a certain amount of respect, and then the contrast with the political class.
He was getting old and paunchy
And his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion,
Telling stories of the past.Of a war that he once fought in
And the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
They were heroes, every one.And ‘tho sometimes to his neighbors
His tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened quietly
For they knew where of he spoke.
Here our veteran earns more authority through some supposed war-time experience. This is accomplished not only by the respect accorded to the protagonist of the poem by his peers, but also because he’s not taken seriously by those who didn’t serve. This is a delicate tapping of a minor wedge between those who were able to tolerate the service’s peculiar needs, and those who did not wish to – or couldn’t.
But there’s a second purpose going on here. It’s meant to make us more emotionally receptive to any message this author might want to insert in this missive – overt or covert.
But we’ll hear his tales no longer,
For ol’ Joe has passed away,
And the world’s a little poorer
For a Veteran died today.He won’t be mourned by many,
Just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
Very quiet sort of life.He held a job and raised a family,
Going quietly on his way;
And the world won’t note his passing,
‘Tho a Veteran died today.
And one could write the same stanzas about steelworkers, policemen, and many other professions. Also note how the sense of humbleness, always an admirable quality, is increased by limiting the mourners to wife and children. What of his extended family, his friends, his colleagues, his neighbors? When my father passed away, long retired from the Air Force, he had mourners from all those categories.
This is a signal of emotional manipulation. True, any poem can be expected to indulge, but this appears to be excessive, particularly as we assess the slant of this production.
When politicians leave this earth,
Their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing,
And proclaim that they were great.
For the skeptical reader, this is when the alarm bells should be ringing. Why? Because, for the common elected official, this is false. Do you think your common council person, mayor, state legislator, even member of Congress gets this treatment?
No, of course not. For example, unless my Representative, Betty McCollum (D-MN), does something truly extraordinary, there’ll be no state funeral, laying in state, and all that. She may get a nice writeup in the local newspaper for her long period of service (since 2001 and counting), but after that will be an obituary, and then a funeral – attended by family, friends, and colleagues. Imagine that.
Think about when it does happen. Name some names: Reagan, Bush, McCain, Ford. These were not ordinary politicians. Not only did they achieve one of the highest offices of their profession, they also used those offices to greatly influence the course this nation followed. High achievers often gain these posthumous honors, regardless of their profession. For example, top academics will often have faculty positions named after them, or a scholarship in their name funded by their university. High achievers are often recognized as an encouragement to up and comers, and to indicate the model of just what those up and comers should be aiming for.
And, back to the arena of politicians – BITE YOUR TONGUE – often these high achieving politicians are also veterans. Let that sink in for a moment.
The point of this stanza is to magnify an imagined (i.e., false) self-importance imputed to the political class, an attribute that is always considered a negative. That there are self-important people in politics is a given, since they exist in all human professions, from priests to farmers to even food-service. But the fallaciousness of the stanza keys the careful reader into skeptically reading the balance of the missive.
Papers tell of their life stories
From the time that they were young,
But the passing of a Veteran
Goes unnoticed, and unsung.
Does it? Is this not the point of the obituary, the announcement of death that most people receive?
But let’s name some more names. Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Murphy, Nimitz, the Sullivan Brothers, and so many other vets have been memorialized by state funerals, the naming of various machines of war for them, and even Hollywood fame (Murphy), and their deaths brought about public mourning and praising for their exploits and accomplishments.
But the author of this missive would rather you not remember them. Maybe the protagonist of this missive is little more than a PFC in the Army – a position held by thousands. Should we memorialize all of them with more than the usual 21 gun salute? This gets mighty expensive mighty fast.
Is the greatest contribution
To the welfare of our land,
Some jerk who breaks his promise
And cons his fellow man?
And here our author makes an egregious blunder, because he reveals, far too directly, how he wants us to feel about the political class of the United States: Jerks who break their promises. This is the tapping of the wedge that is far too loud, the wedge that is meant to separate the common citizen from the American government under which s/he lives and benefits.
Yes, benefits.
Do promises get broken? Sure, sometimes. When it comes to a government based on compromise, the citizenry had better understand that can happen and doesn’t mean the poor sap who over-promised is a moral-free individual. Sometimes you don’t get what you want immediately. And sometimes, what you want is not what you should get.
But by denigrating the political class as a class, the author strives to inject loathing and contempt into the citizen for those who try to lead this country. This accomplishes the twin ends of dividing the country against itself, and to insulate the political class from the entry of more citizens into the political realm, which is their right. From the entry of persons who may, with experience, offer performance superior to those currently in office or instrumental in political party operations[1].
In other words, leave us with second- and third-raters in charge. If you’ve ever wondered at the incompetency that appears to be present in either party, this is a contributing factor. As this mail was received from a conservative source, it seems reasonable to speculate this contributes to the incompetency apparent, at least to myself, in Republican circles since the days of Speaker Gingrich.
Or the ordinary fellow
Who in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his country
And offers up his life?
While the Romans were often led into war by their political leaders, at least in their early years[2], there’s was a different way of life that today’s folks wouldn’t much like[3]. Truth be told, the physical requirements of serving in the military is incompatible with the physical realities of political leaders who’ve reached the point in their career at which they’re making life and death decisions concerning the deployment of the military.
The politician’s stipend
And the style in which he lives,
Are often disproportionate,
To the service that he gives.
Is it, now? Most politicians live on dreams, performing dreary jobs that most probably don’t enjoy, but work in because they know, or at least hope, that the citizen benefits from that work, from the Crime Lab doing painstaking scientific work, to the AG trying to decide which case to pursue and which to discard.
And while it’s true that a few politicians parley their experience into vast sums of money, the same may be said of certain veterans, usually of general officer rank (but remember Murphy!). The two professions are more alike than the author might care to admit.
It’s also worth removing the gloss from the point that not everyone desires the same things. The author implies that we all want to live in 30,000 square foot estates, and this is almost violently untrue, isn’t it? Many desire little more than to raise a family and perform competently at whatever job they do, to have a good roof over their heads. Not everyone wants to be a Bill Gates, or a General Patton, or a President Bush. This point really takes of the wind out of the sails of this stanza.
While the ordinary Veteran,
Who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal
And perhaps a pension, small.
I cannot resist noting this is the missive author stabbing himself in the back. Through contributing to the common defense, the veteran benefits by having a safe family, not to mention learning skills such as discipline, and perhaps even a trade, as a veteran friend of mine did in the Navy. Any veteran knows this, so this stanza is a very weak contribution.
It is not the politicians
With their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom
That our country now enjoys.Should you find yourself in danger,
With your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out,
With his ever-waffling stand?Or would you want a Veteran
His home, his country, his kin,
Just a common Veteran,
Who would fight until the end.
At this juncture, it’s important to consider the oft-overlooked point that the military, whether the Continental Army or the U.S. Army, doesn’t win freedom – it wins wars. When the Continental Army finally banished the lobsterbacks[4] from most of North America, our current political system, based on freedoms and representative & participative government, didn’t just *poof* into existence as Cornwallis left Yorktown.
It was brought into existence by a collection of politicians. Yeah, that’s right, with names like Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Rutledge, Madison, and many others, who debated the form into existence, and then persuaded the States and populace (then tired of the Confederation of 1781-1788) to embrace it.
That’s part, an extraordinary part, of a politicians job, which is, in the final analysis, making wise choices in governance. That is not part of the military’s job. They go out and kick ass. That doesn’t ensure freedom, but it does let the politicians get on with their job.
Confusing the two just leads to military dictatorships. The author of this missive might assent to Viva Pinochet![5], but I shall not.
He was just a common Veteran,
And his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us
We may need his likes again.For when countries are in conflict,
We find the Veteran’s part,
Is to clean up all the troubles
That the politicians start.
It’s worth noting that quite often the political country class of one class country or another is responsible for war. In fact, it happens all the time. Especially in those countries where the political class has been absorbed by the military class.
But, circling back to my earlier point, avoiding “political messes” requires the members of the political class be constituted of superior persons – a requirement which will not be fulfilled if mail of this ilk succeeds in attaining the goal we ascertained earlier.
This tactic is a way for the author to cover his missive in glory, rather than the tar & feathers it surely deserves. The political class is denigrated with an insult it does often deserve – while quietly denying the political class the caliber of people it requires. In this way, we see the author of this missive is no friend of the United States.
If we cannot do him honor
While he’s here to hear the praise,
Then at least let’s give him homage
At the ending of his days.
It is actually quite common to hear folks thanking current and former members of the military for their service. This stanza is designed to make the iconic veteran some unappreciated victim of civil society failure, which is palpably untrue.
Perhaps just a simple headline
In the paper that might say:
“OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A VETERAN DIED TODAY.”
At this juncture, I think I need an insulin shot.
PLEASE,
If you are proud of our Vets, then pass this on
And the ending, which calls for this unworthy missive to be passed on as if it’s a sacred duty. Viruses persuade animal cells to replicate the virus, thus causing illness, but it’s not sacred in the same way as this missive is not sacred.
There should be no need to summarize, but I shall anyways: This composition falls into that class of messages which quietly attempt to alienate the people from their government. We’re expected to forget that our government is, well, OUR GOVERNMENT. You don’t like how it’s functioning? Then join the political class.
Just remember, that’s much against the aims of this author.
1 Especially when many appear to be knuckledraggers.
2 This can be verified from many sources. I’ll cite War And Peace And War, Professor Peter Turchin, Plume edition, p 158, the paragraph beginning:
Perhaps the ultimate expression of this sacrificial spirit was the Roman ritual of “devotion” …
And goes on to describe how the leaders of Roman armies, finding themselves in desperate straits, would sacrifice themselves and their armies using a religious ritual. Keep in mind the armies were often led by the Roman Consul, the highest political position during the years of the Republic.
3 Again, I’ll cite Turchin, p. 155-156, in which he asserts that individualism was frowned upon. I doubt many Americans would abide by this Roman Republic societal requirement.
4 A term I use purely for the delectation of the older reader, who will recall that it refers to the British Army personnel of 1776, who wore bright-red uniforms.
5 General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, military dictator (1973-1990), perpetrator of many crimes according to the opposition.
