This Noble Land (24 page)

T
hrough the ebb and flow of contemporary history, I have observed, sometimes at close hand, the overthrow of one or another democratic society by a military dictatorship. Such a takeover has often been termed ‘a revolt of the generals,’ but this label is often erroneous. Many times the rebellions are led not by venerable commanding generals but by young colonels who have convinced themselves that their civilian-led society is corrupt and that their generals are afraid to take corrective action. The younger men, fearing that time is being lost, take radical action, close down the duly elected governing agencies, such as the parliaments, and sometimes even oust the indecisive generals.

This phenomenon has become so frequent in recent years that one can anticipate the probable steps the young colonels will take. But first it will be helpful to look back in history and see how often in crucial periods the young men of a nation have grabbed the reins of government. I think one must characterize Napoleon’s takeover of the French government in 1799 in that light, and his subsequent rise to the dictatorship of France was the logical consequence of his coup d’état. Of course he was not technically a colonel when this happened—he had already been named general in 1793 at the age of twenty-four—but he was for many years known as ‘the little corporal.’

Adolf Hitler also exhibited as a corporal most of the qualities of an aggressive young colonel in that he successfully led a revolution against the civilian agencies of government and then skillfully replaced the military leaders of the nation by manipulating affairs so that they were neutralized. In a series of brilliant moves, he captured the leadership of the army and acquired enough personal power to lead his nation on its mad rampage of opposition to Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, liberals and ultimately all of Europe and Russia. He remains the archetype of what a young colonel is capable of when allowed to run rampant in a society. The final Allied bombing of Berlin and Dresden and the fall of a once great nation should forever be a warning to all countries that power surrendered to a dictatorship can only lead to evil and ultimately to the destruction of the state.

In recent times the rebellion in the black republic of Liberia was led by young officers, and in Algeria it was again the young military men who led the prolonged but ultimately futile struggle for the establishment of a rigid Muslim state. In Haiti, under “Baby Doc” Duvalier, it was the young officers who maintained the dictatorship, and in numerous South and Central American countries it has been the young colonels who have led the way.

Since the takeover of so many governments followed more or less the same pattern, it is possible to codify the common principles governing the behavior of the young rebels:

They have all been motivated by a fierce patriotism and a determination to protect their nation, but it is noteworthy that Napoleon was not a native-born Frenchman nor Hitler a German.

The idealistic young colonels all want to guide their nations back to some dream period when a moral type of life prevailed. They are infected with nostalgia and deluded as to what the ‘purer’ former life had been. But they persist in their dedication
to the past and are determined to turn back the clock till the days of supposed glory are recovered.

They are instinctively afraid of intellectually superior people and take savage steps to control or even eliminate them.

They cannot trust artists and take harsh steps to discipline them or forbid them to practice their skills.

They loudly proclaim that they support and defend family values—whatever the young men consider them to be—but their actions are almost always destructive of the family.

For reasons I do not understand but whose bad results I have often witnessed, they seem to be afraid of women, especially young women at the height of their sexual allure, and they pass drastic edicts aimed at bringing them under control. Women do not prosper in the revolutions; the Nazi prescription for a woman’s life was ‘
Kirche, Kinder, Küche
’ (church, children, kitchen).

In lands governed by Muslim law the young colonels enact the most repressive rules, severely enforcing old and outmoded religious laws against women that previous and more liberal governments had relaxed. In many countries the women must return to the veil that covers their faces in public; others have been chastised for driving their own automobiles; and in the worst instances, some women have been executed for not adhering to the new rules.

Regarding religion, the young colonels are apt to be ambivalent. They say they subscribe to the most conservative forms of worship but they do not treat organized religion kindly. They demand that it serve as an agency of the new state, not as a protector of human values.

Sad to say, the revolutions usually deteriorate in purpose so that thousands and even millions of lives are lost. The awful example of this in recent times was the murder of thousands of intellectuals and liberals by the young colonels of the Argentine
takeover. The killings in Algeria have also been persistent and gruesome.

Because of their association with civil leaders, most of whom happen to be wealthy, the colonels seem almost to worship persons with large fortunes, and the new laws they initiate invariably favor the wealthy and penalize the poor. Even in the few cases in which the colonels seriously intend to better the conditions of the poor, they wind up favoring the rich.

Human nature being what it is, I would expect such revolts by young colonels to occur in many nations through the foreseeable future, and I suppose that most of them will follow the traditions of the past. Young conservatives will always want to lead their nations back to the past days of a simpler life, a more rigidly patriotic citizenry and a sense of discipline as defined by themselves. I view the 1994 congressional election as a sweeping victory of the young colonels, American style.

A major and vitally important difference between the Republican young colonels and their European and South American counterparts is, of course, that the victorious Republicans have been legally elected to their present positions of power. Nevertheless, they have been leading a revolution. They are an American phenomenon, brash young neophytes eager to throw their weight around despite their lack of political experience. They have sent an overwhelming message that they are dissatisfied with American political life as it is being conducted. These young white males are fearful that the dictates of affirmative action are giving minorities and women an advantage over them, and they want to reverse all aspects of special legislation protecting the employment of these groups. And among the public there is a general dissatisfaction with liberals, regardless of what the liberals propose. The message of antigovernment fury was so strong and so decisive in the 1994 elections that no one could miss its significance.

The young Republicans leaped into the fray with breathtaking speed, completing in their first six months in power what a more conservative and thoughtful legislative body would have required a year and a half to enact. The victorious young colonels quickly presented and passed in the House of Representatives what they termed a Contract with America, and the nation had to acknowledge that from now on things were going to be different. The social revolution that Franklin Delano Roosevelt engineered in 1932 and that Lyndon Johnson extended in the 1960s was largely to be scuttled with the major result that citizens at the lower end of the economic hierarchy would be deprived of many of their aid programs while those at the upper end would watch their fortunes grow.

Even though some of the provisions of the Contract with America passed by the House of Representatives have already been stalled in the Senate or vetoed by the president with little chance of acquiring a two-thirds override of the presidential veto, it is worthwhile to discuss the provisions here. The Contract represents a philosophy—a sometimes dangerous, self-serving philosophy—held by a large number of our citizens and congressmen. Even those provisions that have already been rejected could possibly be resurrected if the Republican Party increases the size of its majorities in Congress or if the Republicans gain possession of the Oval Office.

The contract, drafted under the supervision of Congressman Newt Gingrich, is divided into two parts. The first contains recommendations that can be imposed upon Congress without the passage of an act or the signature of the president. Some of these are housekeeping measures that everyone applauds, such as requiring Congress as a body and congressmen individually to obey all the laws that apply to the rest of the nation. Who could object to that? Other proposals curtail the cumbersome committee
system. I and probably many other Americans were pleased to see these rules put in effect during the early days of the Republican revolution. But two other rules these young colonels tried to impose without formal passage of a bill gave me trouble. They advocated a three-fifths majority vote before any tax could be increased, and they wanted to discipline our budgetary process by zero baseline budgeting requiring justification each year, without factoring in inflation. Neither of these proposals has become law yet; both are flagrant attempts to curtail taxation and balance the budget, not so much for their intrinsic value but rather to protect the wealthy against taxation and ensure they can retain ever larger percentages of their growing fortunes.

The real body of the contract, the second half, outlines specific proposals, called Acts, that require approval by both houses of Congress and signature by the president. Again there are elements in the contract that a majority of the voters could probably endorse. The ones I have supported or could support if they were well drawn are the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which included giving the president line-item veto power; the Family Reinforcement Act, designed to strengthen family ties; and the National Security Restoration Act, giving the United States control of U.S. troops when serving under United Nations commanders. Unfortunately this last proposal includes a recommendation that we restore the ‘essential’ parts of our national security funding ‘to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.’ This is a euphemism for ‘unlimited spending on the military to be paid for by termination of social services to the public.’ Extreme caution should be exercised to avoid that unwise choice.

On a more positive note, the president has now been given the power to veto ridiculous or improper line items in a larger budget bill. Most modern presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, have appealed to Congress for this line-item veto power, because
such a power enables them to kill egregious pork-barrel inserts in otherwise solid bills and save huge sums of tax dollars.

To strengthen family ties the Family Reinforcement Act includes three proposals: in a divorce, enforce court orders handed down for the support of the children involved; offer tax incentives to any family that will adopt an abandoned child; and strengthen laws against child pornography. I would work to help pass each of those suggestions if they are brought before Congress again, but at this draft the tax credit for adoption and the legislation to collect child support payments have been vetoed as part of the balanced budget and welfare vetoes.

Our congressional young colonels very sensibly—considering the pusillanimous behavior of international bodies—want no United States troops to be placed under the control of United Nations commanders. I approve, but must point out that during the war in the Pacific I watched as British, Australian and New Zealand troops fought side by side with us, often with heroic results, so I know it can be done. But I would not want our troops to be assigned as subsidiaries to a United Nations force unless we volunteer to place them under some acknowledged outstanding foreign commander of the caliber of Montgomery in the African desert, Zhukov in the rout of the Germans in Russia or the brilliant British air commanders who fought off Göring’s Luftwaffe.

The young Republicans also propose a brief and attractive Common Sense Legal Reform Act, which involves ‘reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.’ I was assured that the final act would also end the infamous ‘deep-pockets rule.’ It works like this: A product, clearly defective, has caused a damaging accident, and the question becomes ‘Who was guilty of this malfeasance?’ The trail of responsibility is easily determined from past
records. ‘A’ manufactured the item, but he has no money to pay damages. ‘B’ was a retailer who sold the item, and he has deep pockets—he is rich. ‘C’ was the installer and did a poor job, but he is broke. ‘D’ inherited the item in a deal many years after ‘A’ made it, and so the entire burden of the case is thrown on ‘B’ and he must pay, primarily because he can afford to.

I had a friend who was held culpable twenty-five years after he sold a piece of equipment to later dealers. He had the deep pockets; they did not, so he had to pay. That crazy practice ought to be abolished.