Flying Under the Radar (Part One)

(Note: This is the first segment in a three part series.  There are seemingly two distinctly different approaches to enlightened affairs on the path to human progress.  This segment identifies and discusses the first of these approaches.)

Is there any appreciable benefit to flying under the radar?  What is the enduring message to be taken from the life of Civil War General Robert E. Lee?  For whom did General Lee reserve his greatest reverence?  And why?

I’ve heard it time and again.  Friends routinely lament my very existence (or so it seems) in a rant that goes something like this: “What is it with you?  You live right in amongst us.  You’re accessible most of the time.  You show up at enough social events to conclude that you’re still alive and in the loop.  Yet no one truly knows what you’re doing.”  In fact, even while in the course of writing this, a colleague called and left the following voice message, which I will paraphrase for convenience: “You have a new nickname: ‘The Phantom,’ who is mysterious, who comes and goes.”

“That’s because I fly under the radar,” I respond glibly.  But what does it mean?  Why is it important to fly under the radar?

In a commercial setting, radar is a device typically used to locate and map the direction of airplanes, travelling in different directions or flight paths and at different speeds and altitudes.  This facilitates safe, efficient civilian air travel.

But, consider the concept of radar in its more ominous, military application.  The radar operator uses the device to locate and lock on a target, typically an enemy plane, to deliver information to a weapons system designed to bring the plane down.  These days, the weapons system is guided by radar actually affixed to the weapon.  During the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, military briefers reveled in public briefings to display the devastatingly accurate effect of radar guided bombs on their intended military targets.

So, if one flies under the radar, as the expression goes, one may go about the business of daily, ordinary life with fewer distractions and minimal detection.  This enables sharper focus with corresponding productivity gains and a higher quality of life.

Another way to minimize the glare of the spotlight in one’s life is to keep it simple, or, if it is overly complicated, to learn to simplify.  US History is replete with examples of exceptional men who had begun their lives as merely ordinary men, flying under the radar and keeping it simple.  But, due to a sudden change of circumstances beyond their control, these men would become forever immortalized by historians, academics, as well as ordinary citizens, thereafter.

A primary example is Robert E. Lee, if not the greatest military general in US History, then certainly one of the most admired and revered heroes of Southern fame, to this day.  Robert E. Lee was a Virginia native, a top student at West Point, a born leader by all accounts -  tall, handsome, spirited, yet reserved in many ways, and honorable to a fault.  In a letter to his son in 1860, a copy of which Mattie Truman also gave to her son, Harry, on his 10^th birthday in 1894, Lee counseled:

You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage.  Say just what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted you mean to do right.  …  Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one; the man who requires you to do so, is dearly purchased at a sacrifice.  Deal kindly, but firmly with all your classmates; you will find it the policy that wears best.  Above all do not appear to others what you are not.

Few will recall that the lasting message of Gen. Lee was not his legendary generalship against great numbers in numerous acts of courage on the battlefield.  Rather, the enduring message of Robert E. Lee was the way in which he handled defeat.  Perhaps you could say that Gen. Lee’s message has flown under the radar.  The issues which had brought on military hostilities could not be solved politically.  Consequently, they were submitted to the battlefield, and then resolved on the side of the Union.

Gen. Lee was aware of the script that had to follow.  On that fateful day in April 1865, Lee agreed to a meeting with Gen. U.S. Grant at Appomattox to negotiate the terms of surrender, like the gentlemen that he was.  He accepted his fate and the fate of his fiercely loyal troops, put down his sword and returned to peaceful civilian life.

But what would Lee do, now as a former general?  After declining several more lucrative financial opportunities, he finally settled on what he felt was an appropriate position which would permit him to fly under the radar in a new civilian role.  He agreed to accept the presidency of Washington College, a small, Southern school located in rural Virginia (better known today as Washington and Lee University).  Lee understood the implications of his enormous influence as a role model to his devoted people that they, likewise, must bury the ax and carry on peacefully.

But perhaps it is best for the ordinary citizen to appreciate that his greatest reverence was reserved for the common foot soldier, infantryman (or GI, standing for government infantry, as these soldiers are called today).  According to Lee, these soldiers did what they were ordered to do without complaint, without question, and without regard for what might be in it for them.  Lee’s men would perform any act; endure virtually any hardship, of which there were many, if Lee would only say the word.  Fight hard and spirited, endure incredible deprivation, and usually prevail in battle against the overwhelming material and numerical superiority of the North.  This would be proven time and again.  His common foot soldiers were totally selfless, according to Lee, who took care of his men.  Not flashy, perhaps, nor even newsworthy, they flew under the radar.  But, Lee loved his men, and they loved him.  So, they performed for him.

(Next week’s second segment in this three part series on the approach to enlightened affairs on the path to human progress continues through the story of Lee's military counterpart, U.S. Grant.  Grant and Lee were very different men in appearance.  Yet despite their differences they shared common traits which underscored both their popularity and success...)

-Michael D'Angelo 

The Establishment Paradise (Part Three)

(Note:  This is the third and concluding segment in a three part series.  The first segment traced the evolution of elective office from a noble public service calling to more of an establishment paradise for the ruling class, with ease and plenty far removed from the day to day lives of ordinary citizens.  The second segment identified themes common from Boris Yeltsin's Soviet Union just prior to the collapse of its communist system to Ben Franklin in the early days of the United States.  Franklin, in particular, warned of turning elective office from posts of Honour to places of Profit, with potentially disastrous consequences...)

Is the ownership of Property subject to any substantive limitation under the US Constitution?  Is particular expertise required to hold elective office?  Or can an ordinary citizen learn on the job?  How real is the possibility that the American system of capitalism may experience a similar fate to the now extinct communist economic system under the former Soviet Union?

Mr. Franklin then considered the concept of Property rights.  He reminded the Citizens that these are Our creation, that for a seat at the table of the American Dream, what We have conferred as a Right, We also have the Power to take away:

All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention.  Hence, the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.  All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.  He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages.  He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

The iconic and fiery Andrew Jackson, face on the $20 bill and populist president of the common man, ushered in America’s first age of reform.  Instinctively, so it seems, Jackson understood the perils of the establishment paradise, unchecked.  Jacksonian Democracy reminded ordinary citizens that experience was overrated and that even ordinary, common citizens could learn.  Further, lifetime or long-tenured office-holding often led to inefficiency and even corruption.  The fresh, new blood of the ordinary citizen was required to bring strength, grounded, common sense qualities and the ability to renew the contest.

In May 1829, shortly after Mr. Jackson was inaugurated as the 7^th President of the United States, he elaborated thus:

There has been a great noise … (h)ow every man who has been in office a few years, believes he has a life estate in it, a vested right, & if it has been held 20 years or upwards, not only a vested right, but that it ought to descend to his children, and if no children then the next of kin --- This is not the principles of our government.

President Jackson elaborated:

Office is considered as a species of property, and government rather as a means of promoting individual interests than as an instrument created solely for the service of the people.  Corruption in some and in others a perversion of correct feelings and principles divert government from its legislative ends and make it an engine for the support of the few at the expense of the many.  The duties of all public officers are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance; and I cannot but believe that more is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience. ...

In a country where offices are created solely for the benefit of the people no one man has any more intrinsic right to official station than another.  Offices were not established to give support to particular men at the public expense.  No individual wrong is, therefore, done by removal, since neither appointment to nor continuance in office is matter of right….  It is the people, and they alone, who have a right to complain when a bad officer is substituted for a good one.  He who is removed has the same means of obtaining a living that are enjoyed by the millions who never held office.  The proposed limitation would destroy the idea of property now so generally connected with official station, and although individual distress may be sometimes produced, it would, by promoting that rotation which constitutes a leading principle in the republican creed, give healthful action to the system.

Yet almost 200 years later, amazingly, here we are, with Congressmen locked in to financially lucrative places of Profit.  They hold their offices seemingly ad infinitum, as if owned and fit to be passed down to their children.  The day is long gone where public service is its own reward – it has become institutionalized as the prize.

How will it end?  Will the Princes be dethroned?  Or the People enslaved?  In the end, it comes to little else.

In closing, we return to Boris Yeltsin.  A cynical question came from the floor during his unlikely yet successful 1989 election campaign, as the Soviet Union and its communist economic system convulsed toward extinction:

Tell us what it felt like to live in the “establishment paradise.”  Is it true that the ease and plenty promised in the historical stage of communism has long been the rule “up there?”

Although the US is a vastly different experiment in democracy, is it inconceivable that a similar fate may await the American economic system of capitalism?

-Michael D’Angelo