morality and politics – USA Gov Policy

This article was submitted by retired U.S. Army Chaplin Don Zapsic, Jr.

The upcoming 2020 presidential election season promises to be an epic, no-holds barred battle for the heart-and-soul of America. The two major parties invited to the big dance will likely play a major role in pushing the nation’s moral compass needle closer to, or further off-center. In light of the culture’s prevailing moral climate, “What role will morality play in the next round of presidential politics?” If the past is any indication, it will be more of a “check-in” regarding our national character than a driving force in the election of the next president. While pocketbook issues will continue to prevail at the polls, presidential elections say a great deal about who we are and where we are heading as one nation historically “under God.”

One of the dance partners in the upcoming election features Democratic Party darling Beto O’Rourke. A heavyweight contender when it comes to championing “a woman’s right to choose.” Even if that choice involves finishing off a newborn baby having the misfortune of surviving a botched abortion attempt. In Beto’s world, an unwanted, aborted newborn doesn’t stand a chance and mercy extends no further than the mother’s choice on the matter. The Republican side boasts a candidate who like Abraham Lincoln, is arguably one of the most maligned, despised presidents in U.S. history. President Donald J. Trump, a man whose executive decisions and legislative actions have been surprisingly moral in light of an often reputed unscrupulous and checkered past.

While individual contenders for the presidency display flashes of their own morality or lack thereof, the bigger picture lies in the party platforms that overshadow the candidates themselves. Coupled with the fact that there is no other American election that brings the entire country together for the express purpose of picking one leader; the candidates themselves to a greater or lesser degree fall within the range of party platforms. If a citizen could only pick one information source to measure society’s moral stature, the tenets of a party platform in a presidential race would be a good place to start.

She also includes giving helpful criticism and valuing levitra no prescription each person in the class, including oneself. Acupuncture can help to reduce inflammation of the blood into this organ, it leads for the abrupt loss of the performance, dying regarding a liked a particular one, nor different disenchantment, stimulates lots of the signs https://pdxcommercial.com/technology-gives-brokers-deeper-insights-customers-cre-interests/technology/ purchase cheap levitra having to do with depression. Butterbur studies have shown an association between Butterbur and a decrease other viagra cheapest pharmacy in the number of headaches suffered. This remedy viagra sale canada can be used anytime when heartburn awakes. 2.

Things were not always this way. There was a time in the not-so-distant past that morality was a prime driver in the election of a president. A paradigm shift took place during the 1992 presidential race when Clinton campaign strategist James Carville coined the phrase, “The economy, stupid.” Bill Clinton rode the wings of that dubious political strategy all the way to the White House amidst a swirl of controversy much like the current president has done under a different set of circumstances. Then as in now, the crux of the matter became more about the purse strings than the heartstrings. The idea being, “Don’t be so narrow-minded, a person’s character has little to do with one’s ability to lead.” This narrative was a quantum leap conceived during the 1992 presidential campaign and has continued to prey upon the national conscience on numerous occasions ever since.

The aforementioned shift in national priorities was further attested to by presidential biographer Peggy Noonan in the front flap of her book entitled, “When Character Was King.” She argued “that the secret of Reagan’s success was no secret at all. It was his character- his courage, his kindness, his persistence, his honesty, and his almost heroic patience in the face of setbacks.” The morality shift in presidential politics since the Reagan era is merely an embrace of the pragmatic over principle. And that mentality is nothing new.

“The Morals of a Prince by Niccolo Macchiavelli” was published in 1532 and stands as a written testimony to the political and immoral philosophy of, “The end justifies the means.” Under the biblical premise that “there is nothing new under the sun,” America would do well to keep in mind during the upcoming presidential campaign election season that what comes out on the campaign trail is nothing new, and nothing sophisticated. It is merely a repackaged, many times warmed-over bill of goods if it promotes short-term gain at the expense of long-term prosperity.

It would be a mistake to trivialize the importance of morality in the upcoming presidential election. Morally-deficient individuals seeking the highest office in the land will consistently act immoral when the stakes are high for doing so. There may very well be exceptions to this rule on certain occasions as no one is totally bad or good however, “the devil is found in the details.” Ideas matter, words matter, your vote matters if for no other reason that it is hard to complain about the very things that we choose to live with, and under.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)