I Get So Confused???

By David Fritsche, General Editor

Let me explain! I have been told that my head does not contain brains but cabinets and files to organize thoughts, rather than to just think like real people. I suppose this is the basis of my confusion. You see, I tend to categorize what our government does in terms of how it relates to principles. That is, principles, in my mind, are truths that exist without reference to situations. That is, they are true regardless of the situation and they are thus guides for us in all actions and policies. It is sort of like gravity. You can ignore it, but to your own peril. If you jump out of a ten story window, you cannot change the result by changing your policy on the way down.

So, I view the constitution differently than some of our political leaders. I see it not as an issue or a policy but as a statement of fact. It is a statement of the principles that we hold to be true. If a policy, doctrine or issue conflicts with it, then the policy or issue is wrong and needs to be adjusted to fit on the foundation of the principles. But then, what do I know, not being a high raking political leader?

It is a statement of the principles that we hold to be true.

I suppose that when you reach a certain level of leadership you are exempt from having to consider such base things like truth and principles. In fact, (pun intended) you, at a certain level, transcend foundations and become a principle in and of yourself. Nothing is true unless you say so – or is that just my cynicism in my old age? Maybe it is my paranoia at having seen tyranny before.

Well, I remember reading the constitution – I try to do so at least once a year. It is not very confusing. It is a simple statement of the principles of government and the limits thereof. I have always thought it was a sound foundation for our way of life and it does seem to have worked quite well for a few years or more.

My confusion comes more when I hear of government policy and our fascination with talking through the issues. Sometimes I do not see how government policy and programs relate to the principles. You see my overly organized mind likes to see a hierarchy of values in those discussions. You know, like how does an issue relate to a policy and how does the policy relate to a doctrine and how does a doctrine relate to the principle. Maybe that is too scattered for most people, particularly our leaders today.

I was told of the Monroe Doctrine in school and it seemed to have a foundational principle. Each president since Monroe have adjusted and restated their own take on foreign policy and defined what we would and would not do and what our interests are and why. But our current administration’s foreign policy is,

“President Obama tried to put an end to all this talk of an “Obama Doctrine” on March 29, 2011, telling Brian Williams that the countries in North Africa and the Middle East are “different” and can’t be subject to the same American policy. “I think it’s important not to take this particular situation and then try to project some sort of Obama Doctrine that we’re going to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board,” Obama said.”  April 16, 2009, E.J. Dionne

 Huh? So, let me get this straight. If issues relate to policy and policy to doctrine and doctrine to principle, to avoid having  a doctrine because situations are different, means, what? Does this mean we will have a different principle or truth for each situation? Does this mean each conflict will be met with some ad hock response and no one can predict what that will be? Or does this really mean, we have no idea what the principles are so we have no idea how to apply them?  I suspect my confusion has a basis in fact!

So, when the Afghanistan Army shoots our troupes that are training them in the back, our policy will be to retrain our troupes in cultural sensitivity, but to not offend our friends, who just shot us in the back, by retraining them in cultural sensitivity?  And, when our embassy is overrun and our Ambassador killed and drug through the streets, we will arrest a fellow in America who made a tasteless but legal movie? And when the Israeli Prime Minister comes to the country to talks about his neighbors who want to obliterate his nation, we will go golfing instead?

You see, I am confused. I do not understand ‘not defining’ who are friends are, who the enemy is and how to deal with our future. I suppose it is just my age. That’s it! I am too old to understand those who take the position of a leader but who have no direction in which they are going. Or am I missing something? Should I really be defining the direction by the individual, policy free actions that do show a direction that is as scary as hell?