IBJOpinion

HETRICK: Super Committee fails Constitutional test

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Bruce Hetrick

A few weeks ago, my friend John welcomed his son home from war in Afghanistan. His tour over, the young soldier flew back to the U.S.A. in a seat, not a box or gurney—a true cause for thanksgiving.

But John and his wife get as much credit as Uncle Sam.

At lunch a while back, John told me the parents’ proverbial tale of life on edge with a soldier at war.

He told me about the anxiety of 3 a.m. phone calls, when you don’t know whether the ringing signals your son checking in or some Pentagon official saying your son has checked out.

He told me about endless weeks when his son was deep in a combat zone and unable to send word of any kind.

He told me about an insect-riddled son who’d slept outside without netting so his buddies might catch some Z’s.

And he told me of buying his son better ammunition, upgraded body armor and additional boots—all because the military issue fell short or wore out.

I was thinking of John’s son, and his parent-provided equipment upgrades, when the so-called congressional Super Committee failed last week. If all goes as legislated, that failure will trigger deep cuts in defense spending—maybe in ammunition, or body armor or boots for our troops. And all because some politicians in Congress are more concerned with drawing lines in the sand than building bridges of compromise.

We hear from various factions about upholding our Constitution, returning to our roots, and limiting government to what our Founding Fathers intended.

In high school civics class, I learned what they intended by memorizing the preamble to that Constitution.

“We the people of the United States,” it says, “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Yet today, in the face of ever-increasing congressional gridlock, we’re failing in these constitutional responsibilities.

Are we providing for the common defense when parents have to supplement their sons’ and daughters’ military equipment?

Are we promoting the general welfare through party-line refusal to compromise on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security—or even consider job-creating measures?

When we see cops using pepper spray on peaceful protesters—and presidential candidates bashing the right of those same protestors to freely assemble—are we establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility?

When we fail to reduce the federal deficit through every means possible—revenue- and budget-cuts alike—are we securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

And does anyone on Capitol Hill truly believe the me-first, my-way-or-the-highway approach is the best way to establish a more perfect union?

To all who pine for some nostalgic return-to-the-Constitution panacea, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. Indeed, the dogmatic factionalism and unbending partisanship in Congress are not upholding, but failing, the Constitution.

They’re also destroying the economy, dumbing down our education system, dimming any incentive for entrepreneurship, weakening our international reputation, and shattering the reality (or illusion) of American exceptionalism.

Can the legislative leaders of a great nation truly believe the party line matters more than the unemployment line, the bread line, the graduation line or our lines of defense?

Apparently so, for in the once-exceptional American Congress, the all-for-one-and-one-for-all compromiser is now the rare and shunned exception.

But let’s not blame Congress entirely. For it’s “we the people” who elected them, who fund their campaigns and who lobby them. But increasingly, there is no “we” in the people.

I flip channels on TV and radio. I read tweets and blogs, newspapers and magazines. And I see silos. I see disconnect. I see the Rashomon effect—the same incident viewed by different witnesses in different or even opposite ways. More and more, I also see people dig in and deny that any other perspective is possible.

We do not listen to one another. We choose not to see through one another’s eyes. Even if we see and hear, we do not understand. Even if we understand, we seldom seem to care for anyone but the person in the mirror.

In 1919, poet William Butler Yeats put it this way in “The Second Coming”:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand.•

__________

Hetrick is an Indianapolis-based writer, speaker and public relations consultant. His column appears twice a month. He can be reached at bhetrick@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Thank You
    Bruce, thank you for the great article. John and I were fortunate enough to be able to send necessities, and things that made our son's life a little easier while on the front lines in Afghanistan. There are thousands of military families that cannot afford to do that. We owe our Marines and other military so much more than what our government does for them. The way the world is today, the last thing we should cut is military spending. Thanks again for bringing light to this problem.
  • Amen
    Amen again
  • Preach it, brother!
    Bruce, you have articulated splendidly the beliefs I have held for a long time. For whatever reason, we are living in an increasingly polarized society, and the Congress is only the most evident example. Thanks for your visionary words.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT