Edmund Burke is considered the father of Modern Conservatism. He opposed change just for change, but supported change when needed (Thus he supported the American Revolution for he saw that Revolution as just an effort to maintain the status quo between Britain and what later became the United States for Britain was the side making changes between 1760 and 1776 NOT the Americans. Later on he opposed the French Revolution for it was NOT just making needed changes but changes just for change sake i.e. the ten day calendar, making the Church a branch of the Government etc). Edmund Burke is the classic "Conservative" in that if change was needed he was for it, but the need for change has to be clear and NOT change for Change sake.
Please note, most American "Conservatives" today are NOT Conservatives in the Edmund Burke mode but what people of his time period called "Reactionaries" i.e. what to return to a past that never was. Burke opposes these as much as the Radical Liberals of the French Revolution. As I have said before Conservatives in the Burke mode I can live with and work with, the problem is most of the GOP is reactionaries NOT Conservatives.
As to desegregation, the Conservatives wanted a go slow approach but did not oppose desegregation (And for this reason were the Voice of the GOP in the 1970s and later) but the Nixon had the GOP embrace the South's Reactionaries to make up today's GOP and since Reagan these Reactionaries have become the power and then the voice behind the GOP (Conservatives remained the front men for the GOP during the 1980s but when the GOP took over Congress in 1994 it was the Reactionaries in Charge AND they also became the GOP's front men).
More on Burke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_BurkeAs to desegregation. The act that finally desegregated the Schools in the South was NOT Brown vs Board of Education, but the 1974 passage of the first Federal support to Public Education. Such aid had been proposes since WWII, but did not pass till 1974 do to Black Congressmen demanded that such aid would NOT go to segregated schools. In 1974 do to Watergate the Democrats won big and had a huge majority so they could pass several bills that had languished for years. One was a reform of Public Housing so that such housing would go to people on Welfare and other "Low-Low-Low Income" people AND federal aid to Public Schools with the provision no such aid to any school that was segregated. It still took the rest of the 1970s to that reform implemented but just pointing out the real act that ended segregation in the US took place in 1974 NOT 1945 or 1954.
That gets us to Don't ask, Don't tell (DADT). Segregation was NOT the rule under the Common Law, it was a product of Southern Statutes written do to the fact the Common Law did NOT discriminate because of one's race (The Common law did discriminate do to one's economic status, best shown by the old joke on the "Majesty of the Law, it prohibits both beggars and the rich to sleep under bridges". I.e. the rich, for they had money were given certain benefits of that wealth that the poor did not share, but other then that the Common Law did NOT segregated based on race. For that reason the South had to pass special laws to do so (Such laws were common even in Colonial times, look at George Washington's first Order to his troops outside Boston which included a ban on African-Americans from bearing arms, which was the case in the South even then).
Unlike Segregation based on race, it was illegal to do an homosexual act under the Common Law. This was more to arrest someone who molested someone else for it required a victim (Who was the person pressing the charges in consensual homosexual relationships that did not happen and as such NOT acted on by the Courts). Remember until the 1820s if you were a victim of ANY crime, you had to hire an attorney and bring the charge yourself to the court. What we call "District Attorneys" were only invented in the 1820s and 1830s to supplement such private prosecutions (and only after 1900 did such private prosecution even of Murder became the exception to the general rule). I bring this up for, while Homosexual acts were illegal under the Common Law, prosecution was rare and seems to fall into political trials (i.e someone was accused of it for Political Gain, it was unimportant if the person was a Homosexual or not the political gain it what was wanted) OR some sort of molestation (and thus the defense that it was a "Consensual act" could NOT be made for the Homosexual act was illegal in itself).
Now, the military has always had a problem with Homosexuality. The main problem being how can it be made sure that the act was truly voluntary? i.e. NOT the act of a superior using his higher rank to have sex with a lower rank? Under the Article of War this was avoided by making any such act illegal. If you were caught you were court martial. The defense that it was a voluntary act was NOT permitted for the act itself, voluntary or non-voluntary was illegal. Remember when Oliver Cromwell wrote the Articles of War you still had elements of medieval rules on evidence i.e. a Knight word was worth the word of four peasants. Thus if you had five Peasants all claiming the Knight molested them that was enough evidence to convict the knight, but if you only had four peasants the Knight word was better and thus he walked.
By the time of the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell's writing of the Article of War (only slightly modified in 1774 by the British, adopted by Washington and remained the law in the US Army till 1954 when the present "Uniform Code of Military Justice" was passed by Congress) reflected the abandonment of the above number test. The test by the time of Queen Elizabeth was to weigh all the testimony NOT go by a mathematical formula. While on paper this sounded fairer, it made it harder for lower rank people to determine when they word was superior or at least equal to a superior's word. Thus how can one report a crime done by one's superior when one MUST by law obey that superior's orders? I.e. when is a act truly voluntary GIVEN that if you do NOT do what your superior says you are PRESUMED by Military law of the crime of disobeying an order? This has come up in issue of War Crimes, can an enlisted NOT open fire when his superiors tell him to if the enlistee thinks the order is a War Crime? The burden is NOT on the Officer who gave the order to show the Order was NOT a War Crime, but on the enlistee to show that it was. Furthermore the word of the Officer is given greater weight then the word of an Enlistee. This is still the rule of law in military law and where DADT tends to fall.
How can an enlistee SHOW that a superior is using his Superior rank to obtain unwanted sex? How can an enlistee show his superior put him on hazardous duty because the enlistee refused to have sex? Yes, we have that problem with women in the Military and just look at the reports of rapes in Iraq and HOW almost none of them are being addressed. Given the above getting rid of DADT requires some changes over and above the issue of Homosexuality and the Military and Congress have NOT even tried to address that issue when it comes to women, let alone homosexuals.
In the Civilian world we have one of the best solutions, you can quit your job and hopefully find another (Most people in the Civilian job market facing this type of problem do just that, quit for another job no matter how long it takes them to find that other job). The problem with this solution as to the Military is that one can NOT just quit. One is assigned to a unit and must stay in the unit until transferred OR your enlistment ends. Thus the option of quiting does not exist.
Another solution would require any complaints between soldiers to be handled quickly with instructions to supervisors to keep the people involved away from each other. The problem with this is it defeats unit cohesion which every unit tries to achieve and we a dealing with the forces that in the field share tents and thus difficult to keep apart (When I was in women slept in their own tents away from the men, but then I was in a Combat unit and thus did NOT see how units with women in them did so in the field).
Another solution would be how much of Europe handled this in the Cold War. The old Joke about the German Army (and this covered most of Continental Europe's armies) was that every male was in the Military but on furlough 11 months of the year. Units were raised locally and thus anyone pressured to do an illegal act not only had the right to complain up his chain of command could also complain to his village priest and local politicians. Such people being local, just like the unit, they could informally look into the accusation and then contact the command structure (All three tended to be inter-related but independent of each other). Thus the issue would have to be addressed sooner or later by the Military unit (Probably informally, but in some ways that is the best way to handle such disputes). The US Military is NOT raised locally, we are raised nationally. If a unit commander is causing problems, the men under him have to complaint to 435 different congressmen, unlike the German Units who enlistees generally only had to complain to one Politician for the unit was in his district. I have said before it would be better to raise units locally so that such units, if they have a huge loss, can grieve collectively (This has been found to be better for the Survivors then grieving separately as do most survivors of American losses). No such proposal is being made for it would restrict the movement of such units to places the unit is raised from opposes (i.e. could not be sent to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. In Vietnam the National Guard sent one or two units, More such National Guard Units into Iraq and Afghanistan but strictly AFTER The main fighting was over do to fear that the congressmen who represented the area the National Guard Unit was from would complain to much). Yes, having some informal way to file a complaint and that complaint being heard would be a good solution, but again no one is even discussing it.
My main point is no one is discussing the above problems (Not even the people who oppose changing DADT) yet it is the heart of the problem with changing DADT. The Common Law Rule, unlike segregation, was simple, Homosexual acts were illegal and punished. That is was a consensual act was NOT a defense. If you permit Homosexuals in the Military how do you address complaints that someone is using his superior position to get unwanted sex? Remember we are dealing with the Military and its need to maintain command and unit cohesion. Now, I have concerns in regard to the Military independent of DADT and any debate on DADT would address those problems in addition to DADT but unless we are willing to discuss HOW we raise out troops, HOW we permit them to object to treatment, AND how we can protect them from the wrongful acts of their Superiors (And forced homosexual acts are just a small part of what I considered the problem of how to maintain discipline, unit cohesion AND protection of personal rights, including the right NOT be be killed on purpose or by incompetency) we are doing our troops no favor by changing DADT.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
