Giving Meaning to Memorial Day

The roots of Memorial Day reach back to the Civil War.  Official credit goes to General John A. Logan, leader of the Union veterans’ group, the Grand Army of the Republic.  Apparently inspired by several uncoordinated commemorative events during and immediately after war, in 1868 Logan called for a nationwide day of remembrance on May 30 each year.

“Decoration Day” was the original name Logan applied to the celebration, so designated since the intent was to strew flowers, or otherwise to “decorate” the graves of those who died in defense of their country during the “late rebellion.”  By 1890 virtually every state had a day of remembrance, although Southern states celebrated on a variety of different days.  “Memorial Day” did not become the more common name until after World War I, and it was not until 1967 that federal law officially recognized that appellation. 

Both NC and SC recognize the national holiday on the last Monday in May as well as Confederate Memorial Day on May 10, the day General Stonewall Jackson died. 

In 1968 the US Congress passed legislation that to some extent has undermined the purpose of several holidays, including Memorial Day. Under the Uniform Holidays Act, effective in 1971, only four holidays maintained their connection to a specific date:  New Year’s, Independence Day, Veterans’ Day and Christmas.  Most holidays now are celebrated on Mondays, facilitating three-day weekends that encourage tourism but sometimes blur the intent of the holiday. 

Memorial Day deserves to have retained its special status since it commemorates the ultimate sacrifice an individual can make for his or her country and fellow citizens. Perhaps a bit more solemn approach might encourage thoughtful consideration of how we view war and how our persistent conflicts around the world impact those who serve in our military.

Most of the dead we honor on Memorial Day died during a time when the military draft was in effect, but conscription ended in 1973 which means the majority of Americans living today never have had an obligation to serve in the armed forces.  The result is we sometimes appear to be rather cavalier about war since so few of us are affected directly.

Those who serve in our volunteer military today continue to discharge their duties and responsibilities with honor and patriotic commitment.  The value of their sacrifices is no less than that of earlier armed forces personnel, so they deserve our appreciation as well as our concern for how they are deployed.  Just because they are volunteers does not mean they should be utilized recklessly.  

If we wish to show proper respect for the men and women who have given their lives for this country and for those you continue to risk their lives in the service of the United States, we might start by insisting our politicians tone down the partisan divisiveness that frustrates the resolution of many significant issues related to our country’s international relations.  Political rhetoric that demonizes religious faiths or ethnic groups does not enhance the security of US armed forces attempting to stabilize already deeply divided countries or regions.  

Nor is it helpful to pursue policies and practices that demean and deny basic human rights to those with whom the United States may have quarrels.  Guantanamo should have been closed long ago.  If there are those who should be imprisoned, try them in US courts and sentence them in accordance with the law to serve in US prisons.

It would also be helpful if the commercialization of Memorial Day could be diminished.  Thanksgiving and Christmas have been hijacked.  Can we not preserve some space safe from greed?

Memorial Day is a time to reflect, not on the price of some trinket, but on the value of patriotism.

Patriotism is vital for a nation’s survival, but it is not merely a symbol.  Patriotism is a commitment to the ideals on which the country is based:  equal justice and equal opportunity.

Exploiting patriotism for commercial or political benefit should earn disapprobation.  Respect for the country is one thing.  Using your country for personal gain is something very different and potentially harmful.

Neither should patriotism be assumed.  It is an attitude and a virtue to be cultivated.

In the late 1960s when this country was torn asunder by the Vietnam War, I was a young political science instructor with highly opinionated students on both sides of the issue.  I did not attempt to dictate to either group, but instead set up debates where the two sides could share their views.  They did not always find common ground, but they did learn to respect their differences and avoided disruptions.  

If we could get back to that status in our current national debate, it would make for a better America and be a fitting memorial for those who have suffered to protect our freedoms.

Appraising the Whims of Billionaires

America has become the land of billionaire philanthropy.  But Jeff Bezos, the founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Amazon, the world’s largest online shopping retailer apparently intends to pursue a different approach in allocating his wealth. 

Some people viewed Bezos’ decision to buy the Washington Post, in 2013 as an act of philanthropy, but a newspaper is not a nonprofit, at least not deliberately.  If not a flood of new dollars, his ownership of the Post has earned Bezos substantial attention from Mr. Trump.

Perhaps of greater interest, and potential investment, is Bezos’ fascination with “space travel.” 

In 2000 he created Blue Origin, a company that builds reusable rockets and is developing a new orbital launch vehicle with the intention of sending tourists into space and eventually heavy industry along with millions of workers.  In 2016, he began a plan to invest $1 billion a year in this endeavor.

Surely there are whims with more likely value to the American public than space travel towards which Bezos could direct his largesse.  With a fortune estimated at $132 billion, the Princeton graduate and tech entrepreneur could almost fund South Carolina’s state budget with his annual interest alone.  That might be appropriate since Bezos has acquired his billions in large part by refusing to collect state and local sales taxes thereby slashing state and local government revenue while undercutting traditional brick and mortar businesses.

A more realistic and immediate alternative could be to start paying all Amazon workers a living wage---a minimum of $15 an hour.  According to the latest annual report of the internet behemoth, the median pay for Amazon employees is $28,446, which means that half of all workers make less than $14 an hour.  For comparison, Target Corp. has announced plans to pay at least $15 an hour to all employees by the end of 2020.

Bezos could also improve the general climate for economic development in the United States by dampening down the frenzy engendered by Amazon’s competitive search for a second headquarters.   Not every city was as wild as Newark which offered Amazon $5 billion to come to New Jersey ($100,000 for each employee), but all have been too willing to mortgage their community’s future for the prize. 

Amazon's HQ2 competition is part of a deeply disturbing trend in today’s America.  State against state, city against city, a wasteful and economically unproductive bidding civil war is undermining the nation’s infrastructure.  Revenue is being spent, or foregone, to provide tax and other incentives to footloose enterprises instead of going to investments in schools, housing, transportation and healthcare access.  This is happening in a country that is supposedly a single economic unit; at least that was the intent of the US Constitution when adopted.

As one of the world's most valuable companies, Amazon could set an example by declining tax and other costly incentives.  Instead, it could judge sites on the basis of their infrastructure plans for the future.  Other major corporations might follow Amazon’s lead.

  

Billionaire philanthropy has been a mixed bag generally.  Sometimes it works out alright---the HIV campaign of the Gates Foundation in Africa; Gates meddling in education has not been so great when it has joined in the scapegoating of teachers in America. 

Then there is Stephen Schwarzman who famously compared the Obama administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on carried interest to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.  He later apologized.  In 2015 Schwarzman gave his alma mater Yale $150 million for a “cultural center.”  Yale has an endowment of over $27 billion.

And of course we have the Koch brothers.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, a 501©(4) “social welfare” organization, are two of their pet projects.  ALEC, touted as a “public-private partnership,” has promoted to state governments a multiplicity of model bills with conservative agendas including “stand your ground” and voter ID laws.  A tax exempt advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity is free to spend unlimited money “educating” the public about issues---as long as these efforts are not coordinated with any candidate’s campaign.  There are a plethora of such groups bankrolled by big money donors seeking to influence legislation and regulations to enhance business interests to the detriment of consumer and worker protections.

Admittedly, the political leadership of this country in recent years has not been much better at investing in productive ideas, but part of the problem there is the lobbying avalanche funded by alleged “philanthropists”

Recent tax legislation did nothing to remedy this situation.  Bumping the top marginal tax rate to 80 percent might give governments at all levels something to work with---and it might even inspire the wealthy to go ahead and share their largesse with their employees and their community more generously.  Not a bad idea since both have a lot to do with generating that wealth.

Choosing a New CIA Director

“Advice and consent” is the most visible tool the US Congress has for influencing choices for major posts in the executive branch of our national government.  Senior administrative officers have a great deal of say in how the laws are implemented, so you would expect senators to jealously guard their independence in exercising this power.  But the US Senate’s current consideration of Gina Haspel to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reflects the ambivalent manner with which the senators seem to approach this responsibility.

Consider first the origins of the agency Haspel wants to lead.

  

As World War II was winding down, leaders in both the US and among our Allies determined that German and Japanese political and military officials should be punished severely for their treatment of foreign populations and captives.  For several years following the end of the conflict trials for “war crimes” were conducted.  In those trials “following orders” was not considered justification for ignoring human dignity and basic justice.  War would no longer be viewed as an excuse for gross mistreatment of an enemy.

Also based on our wartime experience, America’s political and military leadership recognized our national security structure needed a significant overhaul.  The War Department was inadequate to manage the expanded military establishment, so the Defense Department was created to oversee the individual services and the National Security Council was established to better coordinate advice for the President.  In addition, the failure to foresee Pearl Harbor was considered a major blunder, so in order to better utilize intelligence assets the CIA came into being.  The Secretary of the Defense Department and the Director of the CIA were both considered civilian positions.

When these organizational changes were implemented, the Cold War was in its early stages.  However, they proved useful as the US was forced to deal with persistent international security threats.  Over time the roles and responsibilities of the new agencies have expanded and have changed.  Policing and humanitarian relief have become more significant duties for the military services, while covert interventions have been frequently pursued by the CIA as the risks of war have become more costly.

The American public always has had a mixed reaction to the CIA.  Its role as coordinator of US intelligence assets seems legitimate, but the use of deception and Machiavellian dark arts appear inconsistent with the values of fair play and honest dealings we generally advocate.  Reluctantly, the average citizen has tolerated the covert activities of the CIA as a necessary alternative to full scale combat with unfriendly regimes.

9/11 and the “War on Terrorism” raised the ante as the CIA became involved in using “enhanced interrogation” in an attempt to collection information from captives denied access to US or international courts.  The benefits of these tactics are questionable considering that we are still embroiled in conflicts throughout the Middle East and seem flummoxed about how to deal with China and Russia.

This brings us to the qualifications of Haspel to be Director of the CIA.

Her advocates point to her long years of service in the organization and defend her direct involvement in “enhanced interrogation” with the argument that those activities were considered “legal” at the time.  In her appearance before the US Senate Intelligence Committee Haspel refused to pass judgment on whether or not such activities were immoral.  She did promise “enhanced interrogation” would not be resumed under her watch, but refused to say what she would do if President Trump insisted the CIA do so.

Three questions should be considered by the US Senate in determining whether or not to advise and consent to Haspel’s nomination:

1) Are long years of service the best criterion for selecting a CIA director when we are clearly entering an age when conflict among nations is taking on new forms such as economic sanctions and cyberterrorism?

2) How committed is Haspel to resisting a demand from President Trump to reinstate “enhanced interrogation” given the fact that he has indicated support for such action?

3) While it would be nice to appoint woman as head of the CIA, is there not another potential director with far less baggage and the requisite qualifications?

For me the answer is clear.

The CIA must continue to play an important role in the implementation of US foreign policy, so its leadership should be cognizant of and committed to the fundamental values of our nation and respected by our allies.  Under the circumstances of Haspel’s background, America’s opposition to “war crimes” is likely to be called into question by her appointment. While Haspel’s years of service are for the most part admirable, they are also an indication she may not be able to escape the silo of her experience. Furthermore, her nomination, like several others on the part of President Trump does not appear to have been well vetted.  

The US Senate would be doing the nation and the President a favor to reject Haspel’s nomination.