Sunday, September 14, 2014

Diversity quotas (affirmative action) and the U.S. military

This reporting could be conservative clickbait/culture-wars shark chum from the establishment right such as The Washington Times, but this kind of thinking is a problem.

The Cathedral's narrative seems to say 50/50 racial quotas will make better fighting forces (well, because, OK?) and I guess the military's main mission is to make minorities feel good.

The confusion here partly comes from conservative values and martial virtues working well together, so since the Sixties, conservative American Christians have thought of our troops as Christian knights, but also that, because of course it's part of the U.S. government, the U.S. military is not conservative. Rewatch "Dragnet: 1967," etc., some time too. That's not really conservative either. It's about enforcing the law, whatever that law happens to be, left or right.

Someone else's commentary:
So way back when … like in George Washington’s day … an officer was a gentleman. “Gentleman” being the generic title of an aristocrat while “mister” was the entry-level rank of the aristocracy. (Now you know why naval officers are called “mister”.) Officers led “the men” who were commoners in need of leadership. This is the essence of republicanism.

Naturally, the aristocracy was an institution of blood lines. The upper class was the upper class because they weren’t the lesser classes and some one or more of their ancestors distinguished themselves as superior leaders, somehow somewhere. Over the generations, subtle and difficult lessons-learned could be passed down father to son. As was the case with all skilled trades, leadership required generations of patient practice to perfect.

But with the Democratic and Populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “to the manor born” became unacceptable. So “meritocracy” was invented so that promising men might immediately advance to a sort of
aristos nouveau. Technical talent was enough – the patience and wisdom and subtlety of the ancient regime was dispensed with in the interest of efficiency. The commoners would lead themselves. Very democratic!


You see, once clever is considered a fit substitute for wise, there is nothing to stop clever’s replacement by something less – say pandering and tokenism for the sake of appearance. This is simply daft and represents a vicious cycle not a virtuous one.

My prediction: the Potemkin Village Army is not long for this world. It will be replaced by an army raised by a bona fide first generation aristocrat who earns his noble chops indisputably. The cycle will begin again and it will be a long time before anyone we know sees politically correct insanity again.
Naval officer Jim Lovell, as depicted by Tom Hanks, was a gentleman, unflappable in a very Anglo-American way: "Houston, we have a problem."

The answer here is I don't care what color you are; can you fight and lead men?

P.S. Commercial website designers: want to make sure I never buy your sponsor's product? Use popups and have videos with sound that automatically play when I visit your page.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave comment