Hunger, Games, and Politics

I don’t know Suzanne Collins’ politics, but I am intrigued by her Hunger Games trilogy.  Her stories of a dystopian future are entirely relevant to today’s America.  

"Hunger Games" is set in Panem, a North American nation in the future.  The power, money, and media are controlled by elites in the Capitol, a marvelous and advanced place, far removed from the hardships of life out in the Districts that make up the nation.  The people of the Capitol are ridiculously faddish, enjoying a wonderful life of colorful clothing, excellent food, and cosmetic styles that look more like Lady Gaga’s than our world’s day-to-day.  Meanwhile, the twelve districts exist as resource providers to the Capitol.  Their people are virtual serfs, struggling to get enough to eat, and staying alive through hard work and grudging compliance with the Capitol’s directives.  

The Hunger Games were dictated as punishment for a rebellion by the Districts against the Capitol.  In the wake of this upheaval the government imposes harsh rule and enforces its agenda by media coercion and by outright terror – those who get crossways with the State have their tongues cut out “or worse.”  The ultimate punishment is that each year, a boy and a girl, between the ages of 12 and 18, from each district are chosen by a lottery called the “Reaping” to participate in the Hunger Games as “Tributes.”   The event provides a continuing reminder of the power of the Capitol and is an ongoing punishment for the rebellion.  At one point, the president tells a confidant that hope is the only thing stronger than fear, so rather than just execute 24 kids at random each year, it is better to make it a contest, so that the Districts are cooperative in the ongoing horror.  The media actively promote the Games, as an entertainment for the elite, and the entire nation is commanded to follow.  It is televised continuously, the contestants are briefly celebrities, and sponsors are obtained.  Then the young people are placed into a high-tech arena that is changed annually – think Survivor and its different locales – where they fight like gladiators, dying in a variety of inventive and terrible ways, manipulated by a game controller who reports to the nation’s president at the Capitol.

The story’s heroine, Katniss, is a girl from District 12, a place that looks a lot like Appalachia.  Her father was killed in a coal mine accident and now she poaches small game to make ends meet for her mother and sister.  She’s a skillful hunter and trapper, at home in the woods.  Apparently nobody in this post-rebellion world has a gun, but she is deadly with bow and arrow.  When her 12-year old sister is “reaped,” Katniss volunteers to go in her place. 

Aside from the cynical take on our reality shows – the doomed contestants form alliances, use their varying fighting and outdoors skills, and quickly bump off the weak and guileless – why is this relevant? 

Because this is the Left’s dream: a statist government and its chosen ones in entertainment cooperating to keep the population in line.  It is a horrifying vision of the Left’s ultimate goal, powerful and ruthless government supported by an all-seeing media controlling the masses.  Panem, like Washington DC, is a leftist utopia with its ruling class the masters in every way.  They and their elite cronies live in beautiful surroundings, with every convenience, enjoying a rich pleasure filled existence, with plenty of leisure time, and having almost no dealings with the poor desperate folks out in the hinterlands.  

The elite media in the Capitol mock and patronize the doomed kids, teasing and joking with them in an interview show and providing a pre-game betting line before they’re plunged into the arena.   For a few days the Tributes are free of their dreary existence in the Districts, given a comfortable life, and then they are sent to die on television for the entertainment of their betters.   

How far are we from this now? Many Americans feel that our leaders and our media elites have no idea how they live, nor do they share the concerns of ordinary people.  The difference between those who work hard to provide the things that our nation needs and those who live in luxury and enjoy privilege is great and growing.  In our world, between the two, there is a class of government dependent poor, with a living standard that is tolerable but completely reliant on the tax burden levied on the productive class.  They will support the governent elites even though they only get the crumbs from the table.  You may say, “But Zippy, it’s always been like that.” Maybe so, but it wasn’t in our face before there was such powerful media.  And more importantly, such wide gaps have usually been harbingers of revolutionary change.

I have not yet read the other books in the series, but I look forward to seeing how the world of the Hunger Games develops.

Generals, Politics, and Stupidity

A century after cavalry became obsolete, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have found a use for at least one end of the horse. US military chief General Martin Dempsey denounced veterans for speaking against President Barack Obama. He said soldiers had a duty to stay above the political fray. The military has a unique role that requires political neutrality, said Dempsey, to reporters after visiting Afghanistan and Iraq.

A group of former Navy SEALs and other former military members have expressed genuine concerns about national security leaks. They have charged the Obama administration with endangering the United States and our soldiers’ safety by possibly politicizing secrets about special operations, such as the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Tons of information was publicly released soon after the Abbottabad raid, probably compromising its utility in rolling up other terrorist leaders

General Dempsey, do you not understand that once you retire or separate from military service, you are simply a citizen with all the same rights as anyone else? One of the great issues we’ve had recently is that there is a dearth of military experience among decision makers in Washington. The veterans on both sides of the aisle bring a corrective to that. Using Marty logic, doctors need to get out of the discussion about how to treat cancer.

Any person on active duty who steps into a political debate is wrong to do so. They are in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Perhaps a bi-partisan congressional committee including John McCain, Daniel Inouye, Charlie Rangel, and Steve Stivers should call Marty Dempsey to explain himself. This group of decorated veterans probably has an opinion on the rights of “ex-soldiers” to speak on political matters. Perhaps Senator McCain and Tammy Duckworth, a combat-disabled vet running for Congress, should speak to the future Mr. Dempsey on their role as former military members now involved in politics. Short of that, perhaps Marty should just open a history book. Names like Eisenhower, Grant, and Taylor might be familiar to him as generals who were elected president. Or maybe he should just look closely at a dollar bill: George Washington was elected the first president largely on the strength of his noble service leading the Continental Army in the Revolution and he is the senior ranking officer in the United States Army’s history, having been elevated to the rank of “General of the Armies of the United States” in 1976. Then General Dempsey can tell us again if veterans have a right to be active in politics.

MRAP, Saving Lives, and Victory

In Foreign Affairs magazine recently, there was a highly critical piece about MRAP, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles that are used to protect our troops from IEDs.  Basically
it says the DoD numbers on 40,000 lives saved are a major overstretch of bureaucratic
estimating.  The authors seem to believe that the Defense Department basically wrote up every passenger in any MRAP that was attacked as a life saved. Well, that's an interesting argument, and may bear review.  The authors, a couple of economics professors - one at the Naval Postgraduate School - say that the US spent $45 Billion on MRAP, and that is just too much money - by golly, it is almost as much as the entire Homeland Defense Department budget.  Aside from the crassness of putting dollar signs on the human lives saved by the program, it is another example of the no-win position we love to put our nation's decision makers into. Have the professors forgotten that Americans were being blasted by IEDs and RPGs in their HUMMVs? Have they forgotten the outcry to "do something?"

The fact is, MRAP was a reaction to a terrible situation. Could it have been done cheaper? Maybe. It is rare to see a weapons system procured, fielded, and thrown into combat simultaneously. Usually a newly developed weapon or vehicle is tested and prototyped and tested some more.  By the time it is fielded, it is drawing criticism for being over tested as a way to put cash in contractors pockets.  The AAMRAM missile was being tested in the late 1970's when I was a cadet; it was fielded just in time for Desert Storm in 1991.  So you can't win with the critics.

But there is a more fundamental question in the fielding of the MRAP.  If we had lost even a few thousand more lives in Iraq or Afghanistan, the nation would have been forced to ask a different set of foreign and military policy questions about the utility of the war, and the value of the cause.  It seems highly doubtful that we would have become more ferocious, more willing to hunt down and kill the enemy with the annihilative will to win the war decisively, thereby ending the IED threat through a bloody pound-the-enemy-into-submission response.  Thus, one could argue that MRAP
prolongs a war that we don't seem determined to win any more, thereby costing lives a few at a time by its existence.

What our leaders have done is put our troops into a safer cocoon while they continue the temporizing "nation-building" policies that have taken the place of winning wars, punishing our enemies, and protecting America first and foremost. We won't pull out and we won't destroy the enemy so all that is left is protecting the people we send to do this thankless job. Meanwhile, the politicians all pat themselves on the back for protecting the troops, never once asking the "why" question, why are we there and what do we expect to gain from our efforts: What are our troops' lives worth, not in dollars, but in terms of the causes we send them forward in, when we see them forward for us.

Fair and Balanced

I got to witness something unique yesterday: the meeting between the editorial board of a major big-city newspaper, and two political candidates. It was about what you might expect. The incumbent was already well known and friendly with the newspaper writers. Their banter was lean forward friendly, first name basis, just nice people gathering to chat. The challenger was completely overlooked in the lobby, bypassed by the staff, and probably came across as a naive, under informed neophyte. To be sure, the newspaper staff were polite, even amiable to the newcomer. But their preference and familiarity was clear.

It led me to wonder, how does an outsider ever get coverage or mention, when they don't have these advantages. It left me more certain than before that well-organized party political work is vital at every level.
Political parties that don't make this effort and do this work are wasting their time. It is vital that every race be contested, so far as possible. This is the soul of democracy, to offer a choice.

But I am left pondering something I heard on the radio yesterday, en route to this meeting. That is, that there are plenty of Republicans who are just fine with being a second-tier party, with accommodation with the Democrats, so long as they get a share of the spoils. Hence, the Republicans (usually unnamed) who disparage strongly committed rightists like Paul Ryan or Rand Paul.

I'm not saying we adopt a take-no-prisoners attitude. But we need to stand on principle, to proclaim our opinions, and be able to articulate them. But we also need to find those on the other side we can work with, to find the common ground in America. To be sure, there are plenty of opponents who wish the other side ill, and that is a shame. We need to call them out on specifics. Accusing someone of killing people or of desiring dirty air or polluted water is shameful.

I sometimes fear that we have devolved to a point where a "thinking" candidacy is doomed. We turn all too quickly away from the better angels of our nature, toward a mean-spirited negative approach that does not convince me such candidates have a better America in mind. I don't want my political choices to be determined by the lesser of two evils, but rather by visionary, thoughtful, honorable leaders who see America's best days ahead.

A final note: the incumbent was a very nice person, and really has some good ideas and a firm grasp of issues. Actually, we could be friendly, in the right circumstances, and I'm sure we could work together.  I was glad to have been there, but I wish I had been prepared better for the meeting.

Candidates and Ordinary People

For a guy who talks so much about "the middle class" and ordinary folks, the president seems to have no idea about ordinary folks - about us.  He reminds me of a guy I was in the Air Force with, a man who was a a high-ranking officer's son and raised mostly overseas. This guy had no understanding of how "ordinary" people live, he didn't even know the rules of baseball. And I'll bet President Obama can't explain the infield fly rule. 

Obama's father was not an American; lots of us have recent immigrant ancestors - but ours mostly fell in love with this heaven-blessed land. Obama Sr. headed back to Kenya as soon as possible. Obama's mother was a Ph.D - that alone makes him more fortunate than most people you and I know.  How many moms in your neighborhood were Ph.Ds? His father's ancestors were not freed from bondage by the Union Army; that alone is very unlike most black Americans - including his own wife. He was raised in Hawaii, the state least like the other 49 in many ways - geography, economics, demographics, and culture. He attended Honolulu's top private prep school; not a public school, or even a parochial school, like most of us. He went to Ivy League colleges - like the wealthy elite he claims to be going after.
None of these are showstoppers for a political candidate, and none of them is necessarily a bad thing in any case.  Good fortune and an unusual life are hallmarks of the successful in every generation. I can cite another politician whose life is at least as different from most Americans: Mitt Romney's background is almost a planet apart from yours and mine.  His father was a top level corporate CEO; Mitt's lived in wealth beyond my imagining all his life. His father was governor of Michigan - was your dad governor? For that matter, did your mom run for the US Senate? Romney's dad was also foreign-born - in Mexico. Mitt practices a religion that my church fervently disagrees with. It bugs me that he is not a veteran: our country was at war in Vietnam when he came of age; I want to know why he didn't serve. (I don't ask that our leaders be heroes, but I think they need to have stood a post.)
We all bring a certain history and personal narrative to those around us. This is magnified when one runs for office. This magnification is exponential in the contest for the Presidency. The difference in these two men is in the way they voice their vision of America.  One speaks of blame and envy, while the other seems truly grateful for the many blessings in his life. One's worldview is shaped by our nation's failings, the other's seems rooted in America's opportunities and greatness. One sees America as a cause of many of the world's problems and just another flag at the UN; the other subscribes to a more traditional view rooted in American exceptionalism.  One man thinks we help people by forcing the successful to share their wealth, while the other believes we help people by creating opportunity for those with the wherewithal to capitalize on it.

I look at the Democrats and wonder how, in 2008, did they not nominate Hillary Clinton, Bob Kerrey, or Joe Lieberman. And could the Republicans this year find no more conservative contender? Bobby Jindal? Rob Portman? Condi Rice?  We can keep stumbling toward the abyss of crushing debt, perpetual underemployment, and a public sector that burdens innovation, or we can step away from these things. Mitt Romney is too progressive for my taste, too much a big-government guy. We are fond of pointing out that Democrats are pointing our country toward a cliff. I think progressive Republicans often will do little more than drive parallel to that cliff.  We need to turn around and drive away from the cliff. 

We are confronted with two distinct visions of our future, of the future for our kids and for their kids. The choice we make will affect our nation's future, as surely as did those made in 1980, 1964, and 1932.

Tourism

I recently shared a list of the military history sites I would like to visit. A friend replied, "That's quite a bucket list." I hadn't thought of myself being ready for a "bucket list" but well, maybe. I'm sure not keen on the bucket though.

The list represents a few of the top places I'd like to visit. I've been to many of the Civil War battlefields but there are a lot of great places to see, covering all aspects of our military heritage. Some are pretty obvious - the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, West Point, the USS Constitution. Others are less apparent - the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry (U-505, a Stuka), Houston (USS Texas and the San Jacinto battlefield).

I have no idea if all of these are worth seeing. I was always intrigued by the Indian Wars, but I think these battlefields are just fields with little interpretation. Still, I'd like to see where the Wagon Box Fight took place. I can tell you, the Alamo is a little disappointing. And Bunker Hill is just a neighborhood in a busy city.  But I wonder about the Pacific War Museum in Fredericksburg, Texas, and the Mexican War battlefields near Brownsville, Texas - Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. I can tell you from personal observation that some places are disappointing. The battle of Franklin is poorly preserved - unless Confederate General Pat Cleburne really was killed leading a charge in the parking lot of a Domino's Pizza. Missionary Ridge and Orchard Knob are a little scary - rough neighborhoods there in Chattanooga.

I'll publish the list sometime. It is just my preferences, but it's a big world and time is limited. There's a lot I didn't include: USS Niagara in Erie, Pa; Ft McHenry in Boston; the Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, and a lot more. It just reflects what I would drive to see. Vicksburg makes the list largely because of the USS Cairo. There's no place else to see a Civil War river ironclad.

My OCONUS choices reflect the same limitations and interests. Most of what I list is in Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany. A truly in-depth military history tourist would see Stalingrad, Thermopylae, Rorke's Drift, Gallipoli, and Hue. Well, maybe someday I'll play - and win - the lottery.