Trump and the Scouts

People should acknowledge that Trump, after six months as president, still  does not know how to behave, at least a lot of the time.  His bringing politics and criticism of his predecessor  into what should have been an avuncular and apolitical speech to the Boy Scouts is one more example of that fact. It was tasteless and inappropriate. (At that it still was immensely  less bad  than the execrable actions of some   leftists who likened the scouts to the Hitler Youth. )  Trump and his administration have done many  more good than bad things in their first six months, and the country is much better off  than it would have been with Hillary Clinton. However Trump’s arrogance and boorishness can leave people  hoping he does a good job in the White House while being very glad he’s not  their boss or next door neighbor.

Of course this is nothing new among recent presidents. Obama is an arrogant and supercilious narcissist who seemed to despise  the country and millions  of the people in it.  Clinton is a mendacious  and shifty operator who topped off a shady career by seduced a young girl in his employ and then lying about it and pretending scarcely to know her. The only seemingly nice guy to occupy  Oval Office in the last twenty five years is George W. Bush, and he was a lousy president.

I wish Trump  would show more class and grace and less pettiness, but  it is important to remember the actions he and his people take are what really matters for the welfare of the country.  If the substance is preponderantly good,  we can  tolerate, if not excuse or  ignore,  the style.  So far it has been.  It would be good if he straightened up his act, but that’s not something one should expect to happen. 

Citizens and Cops

“If you don’t like the police, the next time you need help, call a hippie”

                       -bumper sticker circa 1970

The remaining  real hippies and ex-hippies  are  past sixty now, and the millennial wannabes  are weak epigones,  but in the case of one unfortunate   woman from Minneapolis,  it might have been a good idea to take that rude, old slogan literally.  According to reports Justine Ruszczyk  called the police to report a fight or assault in her neighborhood.  Two cops arrived with their the body cameras turned off in violation of their rules, and one of them shot and killed her.  Months before a policeman in the same city shot and killed Philandro  Castile, a law abiding citizen,  during a traffic stop when Castile mentioned he had a legally allowed gun in his possession.  The cop was acquitted of manslaughter on the grounds  the news his victim was armed frightened him. ( Since millions of Americans legally carry firearms in their cars, one can  hope this does not establish a precedent.)    There have been other well publicized cases in various places  of policemen killing people without good reason and getting away with it. 

In a free society the citizens have to keep officials and policemen under strict control and require  that they stay within the constraints of the law. It is not only permissible to second guess the police, it is mandatory to do so.  Policemen at all levels of government have lots of power, and that power must be kept in check. There is a reason the term “police state” is  used as a synonym for a  tyranny or dictatorship.

One may accept that police work  is stressful and sometimes dangerous without believing that gives cops a license to shoot people who don’t need shooting.  (We certainly demand better of everyone else.  Being a policemen is nowhere nearly as stressful or dangerous as being a combat infantryman, for example, but the services require enlisted men, including very young and only recently trained ones, always  to follow rules and orders about when and at whom to fire.)   One may understand  that many people have difficulty making good, quick decisions when scared or under pressure without believing that  absolves officers  of liability for  fatally bad decisions. One may agree that these killings occur rarely without believing assertions that  that makes them insignificant.  One may understand that police are often victims of false and politically motivated charges from political hacks on the make without believing that every charge against a cop is bogus.

The need to keep the police under control and within the law should not be controversial, but often it is – usually because of politics.  Too many conservatives ignore it or make excuses when the officers or state or local, and the victims are lower class blacks or Hispanics who have had earlier trouble with the authorities. Too many leftists ignore it or make excuses when the cops are federal, and the victims are  white hicks who are not  too fond of the federal government.   Both should know better. 

Statues of Confederates

“I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”

- Memoirs of Ulysses. S. Grant, describing his feelings at Appomattox

In the last few years governments in several cities have removed or hidden statues honoring confederate soldiers.   In some places schools and streets which were named for rebels have been renamed.  Some people applaud this as appropriate while others see it as an example of dogmatic  political correctness, a denial of historical fact, or even a desecration of their heritage. 

Before deciding whether it was proper to honor people such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or Jeb Stuart,  one has to know what  they were being honored for. Lee was an admirable man  and a skilled, formidable,  valiant, and determined commander.   So were some other confederate officers.  Many ordinary confederate soldiers fought bravely and gallantly,  often in very  trying or even desperate conditions.   It is entirely appropriate to respect and admire them for these qualities and deeds.  However these men committed treason against the United States, and the cause they fought for was not merely wrong but despicable.  

To  me the most relevant question on the statues and monuments is  whether they  were intended and serve only or mainly to commemorate historical events and/or honor confederate soldiers  for what they did in the war or more as acts of  defiance and to promote their indefensible lost cause.   The monuments I’ve seen at places such as  Shiloh and Gettysburg  are usually the former and should be left alone, while many of those in city  parks and squares probably were done as the latter.  While I see no necessity for removing them, neither do I see anything wrong with doing so.  I’d certainly rather have statues of Grant or Sherman or Sheridan or others who were on the right side.