Our Duty To Serve Our Country
An interesting exchange took place on the thread that Claire Berlinski started fifteen hours ago. I had written the following in an earlier post:
Is it not odd that, in a time when the country is increasingly open to the suggestion that the administrative entitlements state is on its last legs and that the moment has come for rolling back its encroachment on the prerogatives of the states and the rights of individuals, there is not one seasoned Republican officeholder capable of articulating the argument for limited government who is willing to step forward, shoulder the burden, seize the opportunity, and take the bull by the horns. What has this country become?
And, in response, Claire wrote: "But here we have the contrary problem: a cohort of men who are dangerously disinclined to seek power. Is there any historic precedent for that?"
In the comments, Copperfield responded, "Perhaps it's the waning of duty as a compelling factor." And Katievs replied, "None of these men has a duty to run for President. They do have definite duties toward their families."
This gave me pause. "Does one's duty to one's country," I asked myself, "trump one's duty to one's family?" I think it does, and I think it does for reasons that Katievs will be forced to acknowledge. So, here, I will elaborate on the comment I posted in response to her comment, and I will do so in a way intended also to challenge the more radical of the libertarians in our number.
In my opinion, we all have a duty to serve our country. And when it is in deep trouble, those best situated to get it out of the mess it is in have a duty to come forward. That is why I think Governor Mitch Daniels and Congressman Paul Ryan were wrong to put family concerns first in deciding whether to mount a campaign for the Presidency. I do not mean that I do not sympathize with their decision. I do. I have a family myself. I would not enjoy running for public office, and I do not think that the process would be good for my family. But, in the end, I think that both men are guilty of a dereliction of duty.
Why do I take such a stand. I begin by thinking about those who have served in our armed forces. Every soldier who served during World War II understood what we are now all too apt to forget: to wit, that one's duty to one's country takes precedence over one's duty to one's family.
The reason is simple and straightforward and you can find it articulated in the opening chapters of Aristotle's Politics: The family is not self-sufficient.
To begin with, it cannot adequately defend itself if attacked. If the country goes down in a great war, it takes the family with it. Those who fought in World War II knew that if the Japanese and the Germans won their families would be at the mercy of men not apt to show any mercy to them.
But that is not all. The family is also not self-sufficient economically. It cannot sustain itself in the absence of a division of labor and commercial exchange. If the country within which a given family exists grossly mismanages the larger economy, as every American now knows or ought to know by now, that family is apt to be toast.
And there is more. The family is also not self-sufficient morally. What I have in mind is this. When children are young, their world is the household. When they get older -- especially when they become adolescents -- their world to an ever-increasing degree consists of their contemporaries. When they are young, we, their parents, can provide guidance. When they are older, they gradually emancipate themselves from our supervision. As I wrote in response to Katievs on the thread mentioned above, "You and I and every sane parent in this country worry that the larger decay in American life will draw in our children." And let's face it: we do.
Let me elaborate. We worry that our children will become druggies. We worry that they will be swept up in the sexual revolution. We worry that they will be the victims of a criminal enterprise.
All of these concerns lead us into the political arena. Because our families are not self-sufficient, because the well-being of our loved ones depends to an astonishing degree upon the survival and health of the political community, we have a duty to serve.
In my judgment, our political community is not in good health. In my judgment, constitutional conservatives in high office have a duty to step forward, and the failure of the most distingiushed of these to do so is rooted in the opinion -- widely held among social conservatives and libertarians alike -- that Katievs articulated.
They are, I believe, dead wrong -- and as long as this opinion holds sway, this country is apt to drift towards its destruction. "The best lack all conviction; the worst are full of passionate intensity."
- Comment (87)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments :
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
If you doubt the force of my argument, read this.
Dec '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
While I agree that one's duty to self and family must sometimes take a backseat to responsibilities to the country, there are many ways to serve one's country.
I am not nearly so confident in my own analytical skills that I would condemn a Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels for choosing the wrong means of service when they have done so much good for their respective parts of America.
Paul A. Rahe:
In my opinion, we all have a duty to serve our country. And when it is in deep trouble, those best situated to get it out of the mess it is in have a duty to come forward.
This assumes that one must have the belief that he is best situated to get the country out of its mess. You obviously believe that one of these men is.
It does not follow that Ryan or Daniels would necessarily agree with your take on their ability to perform that task.
Jul '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Then We must have a clear definition of "Our Duty To Serve Our Country."
Libs think they are serving Our Country by telling Us how to live... by force of law.
Jan '11
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Well, a distinction ...
The military defense of one's country required vast numbers of men, but all of those men had all the prerequisites they needed to fulfill that duty. They could all carry a gun.
Running for president is a specific set of skills, which you and I may feel that Paul Ryan has enough of, but if he doesn't, then he may very well judge that he can't fulfill that duty. And what if Paul Ryan isn't sure about himself, but he does believe that other candidates do have all the skills? Should he be expected to damage his family for the next ten years (perhaps beyond repair) to run for a job that he's not sure he can do well, but others can? Or that he's not ready for ... yet? How does that become his individual duty?
I obviously agree with the sentiment ... but here, I think, you've gone farther than I'm willing to go.
Very curious about how the rest of Ricochet responds ... great post, Dr.!
May '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Dr. Rahe,
I really appreciate this argument and find it very convincing. As a student in the Ashbrook Program at Ashland University (this is in your backyard, so I assume you have heard of it), I've participated in many a class lecture that sounded eerily similar to your post here. Humor me and let me play devil's advocate here for a second with a couple questions?
First, you seem to argue that the future health and happiness of our families depends on our national health. Are you perhaps skirting over our local forms of government? Even other intermediary institutions like our local churches and schools? Could not local areas of our nation still be successful due to local vigilance? And if so, must there necessarily be a choice between duty to your community and duty to your family?
In my judgement, there only seems to be a conflict of interest when we substitute the word 'community' above with 'nation state.'
Additionally, what lasting solution do you expect to come out of the nation state to the sexual crisis, the moral crisis, the education crisis, even the crime crisis? Are the solutions really in the high places?
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 5:11pmJul '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
So the hierarchy of duty owed is based upon the self-sufficiency of the recipient? Presumably then we owe more to NATO or the U.N. than we do to the our own countries. Presumably, also, my duty to my adult neighbor comes before my duty to my kids.
If that's the thrust, it sounds like crackpot one-worldism. Count me out.
If you mean that to discharge familial duty one needs to look beyond the family, point taken.
However, don't you think that the family member in question is in the best position to make that determination?
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 5:11pmRe: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Jerry Broaddus: While I agree that one's duty to self and family must sometimes take a backseat to responsibilities to the country, there are many ways to serve one's country.
I am not nearly so confident in my own analytical skills that I would condemn a Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels for choosing the wrong means of service when they have done so much good for their respective parts of America.
Paul A. Rahe:
In my opinion, we all have a duty to serve our country. And when it is in deep trouble, those best situated to get it out of the mess it is in have a duty to come forward.
This assumes that one must have the belief that he is best situated to get the country out of its mess. You obviously believe that one of these men is.
It does not follow that Ryan or Daniels would necessarily agree with your take on their ability to perform that task. · Oct 9 at 4:53pm
No, it does not. But Daniels was explicit that he made his decision for family reasons, and Ryan repeatedly implied the same.
May '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
One other point. As a Christian, I am reminded of Jesus' words that a person must be willing to hate his father, his mother, his whole family if need be, in order to follow Him.
Somehow, it seems that only Jesus could make this claim; hence the stark nature of it. I wonder at our national government being able to say the same thing and make the same claim.
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Brandon Zaffini: Dr. Rahe,
First, you seem to argue that the future health and happiness of our families depends on our national health. Are you perhaps skirting over our local forms of government? Even other intermediary institutions like our local churches and schools? Could not local areas of our nation still be successful due to local vigilance? And if so, must there necessarily be a choice between duty to your community and duty to your family?Oct 9 at 5:10pm
Edited on Oct 09 at 05:11 pm
This is grist to my mill. In the administrative entitlements state, state and local governments, churches, and private associations are to an ever-increasing degree forced to dance to the tune played in Washington. To defend their autonomy, we have to take control of the federal government and roll back the administrative entitlements state.
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Brandon Zaffini: Dr. Rahe,
Additionally, what lasting solution do you expect to come out of the nation state to the sexual crisis, the moral crisis, the education crisis, even the crime crisis? Are the solutions really in the high places? · Oct 9 at 5:10pm
Edited on Oct 09 at 05:11 pm
This is hard to answer. No one in Washington can wave a magic wand and conduct us back to 1962 when the bastardy rate among white Americans was 2%. But federal policy -- the restrictions places on the exercise of moral police by the states and localities -- had a lot to do with the emergence of the sexual crisis, the moral crisis, the education, and the crime crisis. If the solutions do not lie in high places, then, the high places must be made to emancipate the less high places where they can be and once were dealt with.
Mar '11
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Paul A. Rahe:
In my opinion, we all have a duty to serve our country. And when it is in deep trouble, those best situated to get it out of the mess it is in have a duty to come forward.
Dr. Rahe: You say we all have a duty to serve our country. Duty comes in many forms, and doesn't that include the duty a family has to accept the call of the candidate to run? The veto placed in the hands of a reluctant spouse is just as much an abdication of duty as the willingness to put family before country, wouldn't you agree?
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 5:22pmSep '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
You are in rare form this evening! Ryan and Daniels have a duty to run in the primaries but you don't. I think you'd make a heck of a candidate! I look forward to your announcement tomorrow.
May '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Paul A. Rahe
Brandon Zaffini: Dr. Rahe,
Could not local areas of our nation still be successful due to local vigilance? And if so, must there necessarily be a choice between duty to your community and duty to your family?Oct 9 at 5:10pm
Edited on Oct 09 at 05:11 pm
This is grist to my mill. In the administrative entitlements state, state and local governments, churches, and private associations are to an ever-increasing degree forced to dance to the tune played in Washington. To defend their autonomy, we have to take control of the federal government and roll back the administrative entitlements state. · Oct 9 at 5:16pm
And does local autonomy start on the national level? Did Reagan do it? Could Paul Ryan do it?
I suspect that local autonomy will start at the local level. I could be wrong, admittedly. Yet it just makes more sense in theory, and even practically. How did the Amish maintain their autonomy? By having the proper representation in Congress?
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Palaeologus: So the hierarchy of duty owed is based upon the self-sufficiency of the recipient? Presumably then we owe more to NATO or the U.N. than we do to the our own countries. Presumably, also, my duty to my adult neighbor comes before my duty to my kids.
If that's the thrust, it sounds like crackpot one-worldism. Count me out.· Oct 9 at 5:10pm
Edited on Oct 09 at 05:11 pm
NATO is nothing more than an inconvenience; the UN may not even be that. The political community is a necessity. Without its armed forces, without laws, without the means to enforce them, we would be cooked.
Aug '11
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin decline to run because of the burden it might place upon their families.
Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo.
What about the hundreds of thousands of military members who ship out for years, leaving behind families who worry each day whether their loved one will come home in one piece, or come home at all?
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 6:11pmSep '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Do you think all who took college deferments during Vietnam where also guilty of dereliction of duty? They after all were putting self first.
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
I would be godawful. I have no executive experience, no legislative experience, very little familiarity with the federal budget, and no admirers apart from you. These men have everything I lack. The only service that I am fit to perform at the ripe old age of 62 is to write, and I do my best (which is not much).
Dec '10
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Running is not the same as serving. Both Rep. Ryan and Gov. Daniels are serving. Each may have made the determination that he has little prospect of winning the nomination, much less the general election, and that the time away from their current positions of service would be a disservice to their constituents that outweighs the slim chance of their advancing to the White House.
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
It depends in part on what you think of that war. It also depends on the basis for the college deferments. I can only say this: I admire those who chose to serve. It was a grim business, and many of them paid a high price.
Let me add that I admire those who signed up for service after 9/11.
Apr '11
Re: Our Duty To Serve Our Country
Dr, Rahe, you make it sound as if we are lost because these three men decided not to run. Not true. If they don't have a strong desire for the office they are not the right man for the job. Family concerns may be their way of saying they aren't up for the job.
Think of how hard Reagan fought Ford for the nomination, right down to the wire at the convention. Then came at it again and won. I want someone to want the job that bad.