It's About Principles, Stupid!

Every so often in the course of human events there appears a generation hell-bent on radically altering the architectural composition of society.

In the wake of the Baby Boom generation attaining and preserving their power and status in America today, we have the historic opportunity to witness this remarkable transition from prudent and careful stewardship of laissez-faire government to a hands-on government of activism. This activist government seeks to increase the size, scope, and extent of governmental activity under the guise of establishing a compassionate, utopian society by a group of naive, do-gooders. These idealists, known nostalgically as Sixties radicals, who would turn the United States into a socialist utopia are a new class of Americans -- with their encounter group therapy and communes with nature -- who are certain they hold the answers to all the evil inequities of life, if only they had the chance to implement their wonderful and happy policies guaranteed to extend peace on Earth and good will toward men.

(And yes, during this era of political cleansing that has swept up this nation's citizens into a frenzy of rabid lunatics, the policy of The University Oracle's Editorial Board will be to continue to use such horribly derisive and insensitive terms like "men" or "man" when referring to the human population as a whole.)

At the top of the Clinton Administration's hit list in this revolutionary transformation of society, is the reformation of the United States military forces. In making the final analysis of Mr. Clinton's decision to accept the policy proposal widely known as 'We Don't Ask, You Don't Tell', the President ultimately needs to address a vital question: Is the price paid for political expediency worth being remembered in history books as having presided over an Administration's decision-making process that can only be described as possessing a zigzag quality without any discernible evidence that an intelligible thought process was ever utilized?

The Oracle wants to first make the point that we were prepared to stand firmly behind the eventual result of Mr. Clinton's executive order, until he illustrated that his position could vacillate and his principles changed according to the whims of the latest public opinion polls.

In developing this policy, The Oracle ultimately decided that regardless of any personal opinion of Bill Clinton -- the man, the candidate, or the politician -- he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and he has the last word in matters that concern the military.

However, Mr. Clinton's eagerness to surrender civilian control of the United States Government over to the military because of his defiant refusal to assert his Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief is a regrettable decision that has forced us to reconsider our editorial policy.

In assessing the possible benefits against the damage that could be done by lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military, The Oracle determined that Mr. Clinton's election-time promise to lift the military ban was based on flawed thinking and an error in judgment.

Furthermore, we agree with the Department of Defense policy that declares that homosexuality is incompatible with military service, and believe it to be eminently correct. Take note, the policy does not say that homosexuals are incapable of serving, but that the practice of homosexuality is not congruent with an atmosphere of close living quarters shared with young enlisted personnel that must develop close ties of camaraderie to maintain unit cohesion and maximum fighting effectiveness.

If a soldier discovered that another soldier of the same sex found him or her physically desirable, then there would be special concern because lifting the ban on openly gay soldiers would enable gay soldiers to be more aggressive in pursuing soldiers they found attractive. As a result, the young, straight soldier would be unwilling to form the close bonds of camaraderie necessary to entrust each other's lives to the other.

Magnify this situation on a platoon by platoon basis and hence the problem: The unit cohesion and maximum fighting efficacy is destroyed along with this country's world class armed forces, and the United States is reduced to an army with the proficiency of the Netherlands' armed forces -- and, well, we all know how useful they have been in fighting tyrannical leaders and restoring order from civil chaos throughout the world.

While we never supported Mr. Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military, our definition of leadership, if accepted by the President, would have obligated him to at least show us that he truly had the good intentions to follow through on every promise he made to the American people during his tumultuous campaign. Unfortunately, the English language is the ultimate loser through the continuing devaluation of its powerful rhetorical capabilities because of Mr. Clinton's refusal to acknowledge that words mean things by constantly barraging us with a litany of meaningless phrases -- meaningless because he intended to forget the implications of the words he uttered immediately after he spoke them. Accordingly, our definition of leadership is remaining faithful to one's principles and goals in the face of an overwhelming opposition that impugns one's beliefs and values and questions one's judgment.

Ergo, we believe it is Mr. Clinton's duty to remain true to his vision of America, and his goals for its progress, by submitting his legislative agenda to Congress and to fight the good fight in getting his package of legislation through Congress. Whether Congress passes his set of proposals, passes compromise proposals, or remains in a quagmire of gridlock, Mr. Clinton can go to the American people in 1996 and seek a referendum on his leadership of the last four years by getting an acquiescence to continue his policies or receive a total repudiation of his Administration and his vision of America.

It is unfortunate for Mr. Clinton that he will doubtfully learn the lesson that Mr. Bush finally did learn, although it was too late to save his presidency, and that is when current events recede into the realm of historical analysis all that will be recorded is that, "It Was About Principles, Stupid!"

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page