Many times, we hear from candidates for public office, “This is the most important election ever!”  For most politicians seeking election or reelection, it’s a recurring appeal.  After all, their jobs are on the line, and for them, it’s important.

But the vote before us now far exceeds the triviality of a politician seeking longevity.  If Virginia legislative Democrats are successful in this grossly unjust effort to literally wipe Republican districts off the face of the map, it will demonstrate the absolute corruptibility that comes with absolute power.  We must vote “NO” in the 21 April referendum.

Our system of government is a Constitutional Republic, brilliantly conceptualized to (among other things) allow the minority a voice. The Virginia far-left progressives seek to eliminate the minority opinions of most of the rural population of the state.  They want the extremely liberal and densely populated counties of NOVA to overshadow the more conservative voters of the Shenandoah Valley and the southwestern parts of the state.  Instead of 6 out of the 11 congressional districts leaning Democratic, the Governor and Democratic legislators want 10 of the 11 districts to lean Democratic. They are seeking to silence conservative voters, all to counteract more Republican districts in other states.  This is punishing Virginians to compensate national Democrats.  It’s an appalling, hypocritical abuse of power.  As this picture above depicts, it’s simply unfair.

I am aware that not everyone who reads my weekly updates agrees with my conservative worldview.  That’s fine by me.  People must do their own thinking in life, and wise people accept diverse thoughts in a free society.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the effort to share with others where they may be wrong.  And to be sure, if you’re voting for the Democrats’ scheme, you are very wrong. 

Some have a strong dislike for President Trump.  But you would be very wrong if you vote for a corrupt plan that is motivated by hate. You should understand that supporting partisan Gerrymandering undermines the very non-partisan redistricting approach that many of us—including Democrats—supported in 2020.  Don’t let hate decide. Maintain fairmindedness.

And my point?  If it was wrong to have partisan redistricting before 2020, it is still wrong today.  It is for that reason that I ask you to be sure to vote.  Find at least 10 others and recruit their “NO” vote with yours.  Share this email with them and make the point that when Virginia passed its non-partisan redistricting requirement in 2020, in short order, our state was rated as having one of the most fairly drawn congressional maps in the nation.  Now, partisan Democrats want to destroy that evenhanded approach.

It may seem trite to suggest this is “the most important election ever,” but it absolutely is.  We must oppose blatant corruption that results from a brazen power grab.  You can do that.  But only if you vote.

There is much to say on this matter.  But on my mind is how readily those participating in our public discourse rely on lies and falsehoods to advance this or that argument.  In the many debates we are subjected to on television, lies substitute for facts.  One person’s murder is another’s misfortune.  The blatant Islamic-inspired terror attacks of 9-11 were pushed aside by a politician sympathetic to the perpetrators as “some people did something.”  That omits necessary nouns and verbs to describe the raw truth correctly.  It amounts to a lie.

Like many others, I find watching Congressional hearings on controversial issues very trying.  In an effort to grab an “I gotcha” cable news headline, legislative inquisitors seek to entrap witnesses in ways that advance the questioner’s arguments.  That is not lying.  But certainly, the object is not to obtain the truth.  Indeed, our Founders saw in the First Amendment a device to distill the truth of a matter by allowing robust, fact-laden debate.  But when discourse devolves to choppy efforts to limit the full explanations of facts, it masks the truth.  No, that’s not a lie, per se.  But it is a step in that direction when responses are taken out of context to create a narrative that is every bit a lie.

To be clear, what passes for “debates” today does not resemble at all the characteristics of genuine debate.  Classic debate involves structured and organized speeches, followed by questions, rebuttals, and closing summaries that lead the listeners to conclude winners and losers.  That has been replaced with much shouting, ad hominem attacks, and accusations that have nothing to do with getting at the truth.  Indeed, rebuttals in today’s debates frequently rely on one side or the other declaring that something that is indeed true is not at all.  “That’s not true,” said one recent 2007 Presidential debater of an indisputably truthful fact.  Is that not a lie to call something untrue that is verifiably true?

In this era of sharp political and social division, opposing sides have at their disposal an arsenal of twisted and distorted facts—themselves untrue—to hurl at one another.  They also amount to lies.  Sadly, political discourse has become coarse indeed.  Deceit is its defining characteristic.

Closer to home, that deceit seems to have no limit, even in a referendum put to the people for consideration.  Take the ballot question before Virginians on 21 April.  Voters are being asked to decide on a constitutional amendment that would allow the current Democrat majority in the General Assembly to gerrymander congressional legislative districts, something Virginians roundly rejected in 2020 when they approved a constitutional provision requiring citizen participation in non-partisan redistricting.  If passed, the amendment would permit the implementation of a new Congressional District map that would create a 10-to-1 advantage for Democrats, essentially eliminating 4 of the 5 Republican seat holders.

It is blatantly unfair, especially when done in the middle of the decade and not concurrently with a new census.  Yet consider the deceitful ballot question voters are given at the polls that reads, “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections?”  To say this is a lie would be a gross understatement.  It is a deliberate effort to tell a lie to obtain an injustice.  Of course, Virginians should vote “NO” not only in opposing a corrupt provision, but also as a rejection of a bald-faced lie embedded in the ballot question.  Both are perverse distortions of justice and truth.

It’s time for Americans to reject the culture of lies that has flooded our discourse in ways that would make the worst fabricator blush.  A nation like ours cannot long survive if we hold in contempt the need for truth.  We must be worthy of self-governance, and surely we will not be if we condone deceit in any form, even if those who practice it are of our own political persuasion.

When we wink at a political lie of convenience, we participate in its telling as if it were solely our own creation.  That’s objective deceit.   

We were all wondering what Armstrong would say when he stepped onto the surface.  I recall some jokes about where to get a hamburger.  But what he eventually said was eloquent.  It wasn’t nationalistic, but rather appealed to a much broader context.  “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”  Nonetheless, all of us welled up with pride as we applauded and cheered this remarkable event.

It’s fascinating to me to think about what will occur in the future that is hard for those of us here today to comprehend.  Last night, America, for the second time in 57 years, sent astronauts into space to travel to the moon, to orbit it, and eventually return home, a test of modern technology that will lead to landing men on the moon again, possibly within the next two years.

Imagine for a moment if an advisor to King George III had predicted that the Colonies he would lose to a revolution would result in a nation that would send men to the moon and return them safely to our planet.  “Preposterous” would have been the likely response.  But that is what happened.

America would prosper throughout history and, ironically, do so while Britain continued to rule the seas.  Then, Pax Britannica would benefit the mutual interests of the old empire and the United States as they expanded their mutual economic interests.  There would be tension—and a second war—between the two, but in the long run, the United States and Britain have had a symbiotic relationship, even amid some disagreements.

After WWI, America would continue to prosper and reach dominance after WWII, when the rest of the world was in shambles.  America’s emergence as a preeminent world power would continue as the Boomer Generation arrived.  Much would define us as young people growing up in the most powerful country in the world.  Rock and Roll, fast food, souped-up cars, and sports heroes were prominent.  There were also bad things.  Drugs, sexual hedonism, and the Vietnam War.  All of that created doubt about the future of our nation, one that was in open rebellion against authority and deeply divided over war and traditional values.

Amid all of that, Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin galvanized us in a moment of unity.  They exhibited extraordinary courage, and we watched them.  We were riveted by what they did for the US and the world.  The unthinkable was no longer impossible.  America had put men on the moon.  We were first.  Yet all around the world, people watched in utter amazement as two American visitors to the moon placed the American flag where it remains to this day.

These are the memories that occurred to me last night as we watched America launch Artemis 2, atop NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever built.  Liftoff took place at 6:35 PM, sending four astronauts into Earth orbit aboard the Orion spacecraft, where they are now preparing for the next phase of their journey.  I wonder what young people watching this second epoch of lunar exploration were thinking when the SLS thundered into space yesterday.  Did they, like we decades ago, take a break from the self-indulgence and conflict of our age?  Were they able to look past the great divisions that confront us today, politically, socially, religiously, and racially?  Did they see some hope in excelling as no other nation has in history? Were they proud to be Americans?  I have my doubts, and that saddens me.

Maybe it will take a repetition of the 1969 arrival on the surface of the moon for them to share the same sense of awe and national pride—a good thing—that I sensed with my friends as we watched Armstrong make world history before our very eyes.  A VMI classmate reminded me that then we sent men to the moon using paper, pencils, and slide rules.  Now, supercomputers, some quite small, do that work as fearless, brave astronauts hurtle towards our closest neighbor in the universe.  They share the same drive as their forbearers.  They carry within them the courage of their grandfathers. 

I’m hopeful that the youth of this nation will once again take pride in their nation.  We could use some transcendent unity now in the form of courage, vision, and exaltation.

I don’t feel old.  Yes, I move more slowly.  Bedtime at 9:00 PM suits me well, but I normally awake at around 5:30 AM each day.  Our yellow Labrador, Woody, provides a rousing incentive.  He doesn’t bark, but does put his two front paws at the edge of the bed.  If he could speak English, I’m sure he would say, “OK, time to get up and let me out.”  Yes, I am grateful. He’s actually a very polite and patient dog.

Gone are the days of Army service, when I was almost always happy with soldiering.  There were times when it was difficult. Particularly when I worked for highly disagreeable people, but that was infrequent over 28 years.  I learned how to survive them, mostly by not falling prey to giving my boss a piece of my mind.  It was tempting.  Most of the folks I worked for in both the artillery and in my duties as a Foreign Area Officer were professional and willing to overlook my faults.  I have many.  But my fondest memory is recalling the artillerymen I served with.  They were truly first-rate.

Artillerymen are a very fine breed of people.  They are obsessively mission-focused and precise in what they do.  I just finished writing a book about the artillery and its future in the wars ahead. I had the input of many former colleagues, some I served beside, some I served with contemporaneously, and others who served before or after me.  In all, they were superb professionals.  Writing about what they did and still do makes me feel a lot younger.  We worked hard to do what we did to a high standard.  That habit sticks with you, and it did when I went into politics months after I retired.

When I was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2001, I did my best to apply the skills I learned as a soldier to my legislative duties.  It was not a perfect fit.  I soon learned how little I knew about governance.  I also learned that while I could compel soldiers to do the right thing, that was not so easily accomplished with 99 other legislators, who had an equally clear vision of what they thought was the right way to proceed.  In time, I learned it’s a lot easier to listen, learn, and persuade rather than demand compliance.

I would grow to deeply appreciate the associations I had in the General Assembly, particularly those who would be genuine friends and not just colleagues.  Yes, I confess, the soldier in me prevails to this day.  Looking back on the political phase of my life, I learned a lot about what is good and bad policy.  We have a lot of the latter lately, politicians who think presiding over government shutdowns is leadership.  It isn’t leadership.  It’s idiocy.  Others here in Virginia think it’s fair to gerrymander legislative districts in an obscenely partisan manner. That isn’t leadership. It’s a grotesque abuse of power.  They make schoolyard bullies look like cherubs.  Indeed, there’s nothing angelic about what they’re doing, quite the opposite (Vote “No” on 21 April).

At 75, I think about both of my careers, one as a soldier and the other as a small “s” statesman. Both were enjoyable in their own unique ways.  Yet I found another pastime as a scribe of sorts.  Having published two books and finished a third, I have found my calling.  Writing.  Indeed, this will be my 301^st weekly missive.  All of them have been cathartic for me.  They give me a time each week to “get stuff off my chest.”  Generally, they are well received.  A loyal few will say so back in an email.  Others will consume them quietly, and later—in person—will profess their approval. When people don’t agree, they will say so.  Sometimes with a bit of caustic flair.  I write on.

So, what of the next 25 years?  What shall I do?  To be sure, I will do my best to enjoy my family.  (I am besotted with joy over our grandchildren.)  And of course, I am blessed with the most wonderful wife, children, good friends, and a God who, despite my failings, never fails me.

I doubt I’ll make it to 100.  But I was wrong about 75, thankfully.

Let’s start with how we got to where we are. In the Cold War era following World War II, the world was dominated by a powerful US and the Soviet Union. Both were the prominent survivors of that war and almost immediately began competing for domination in what they felt were their spheres of influence. The American monopoly on atomic weapons would soon be challenged by Russia’s acquisition of an equally deadly nuclear arsenal. The “hot” war would now be a “cold” one. It was a time when global conflict was largely bipolar, that is, characterized by the US-Soviet competition for regional dominance internationally. 

That struggle would get very “hot” in Korea and Vietnam as the US and other Western powers opposed the spread of Russian and Chinese-supported communist movements. But in the Middle East, the violence that followed WWII brought much trouble to the world.  When the modern state of Israel was founded, the Arab-Israeli conflict threatened peace worldwide as the US and Russia took sides. Almost everyone knows that history well. But what of Iran?

During the 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1978 wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Iran was led by its Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who distanced himself from those conflicts, preferring to align himself with US goals to keep the Persian Gulf open to world commerce. He was the perfect ally for the US while Washington was focused on Vietnam or standing by Israel. When the Shah fell in 1979, all of that changed. Iran was no longer an ally, but a bitter enemy, then ruled by radical mullahs who hated Israel and sought to propagate the Iranian revolution throughout the region. 

Iran would wrongly hold the US embassy hostage for 444 days while inspiring terror attacks against US Marines in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 brave Americans. The die was cast. Iran was at war with the US.

When the Soviet Union fell in December 1991 after a US-led coalition defeated Saddam Hussein and his army, the world was no longer bipolar. The emergence of a multipolar competition would be a new threat. Smaller countries seeking long-desired regional influence characterized a new political-military competition.  Among them was Iran, whose hatred of the US and Israel fueled their desire to push the former out of the Middle East and destroy the latter.

Again, most people are well aware of the violence and terror that Iran has sponsored in the years since the First Gulf War, the one I fought in and wrote about. All of that history has led us to where we are now. And where we are is facing an Iran that is in the process of collapsing as a nation-state.

Since Operation Epic Fury began on 28 February 2026, US and Israeli forces have struck over 7,000 targets and destroyed the Iranian navy, all toward dismantling the regime’s security apparatus. Meanwhile, the Iranian leadership has been decapitated, and more of that will follow. How will this end?

I’m not sure. But I do know this. Iran will be in shambles. Its economy will collapse, its military will be defanged, its ballistic missiles and nuclear ambitions crushed.  And then the US will withdraw, wisely not willing to re-engage in the national-building miscalculations of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Iran has paid a deserved price for the years of terror and violence it visited on the region and on its own people. This is not a war of choice, but a war of necessity. Iran’s demonic regime needed to be defenestrated. Now it will fall on the Iranian people to find the will to set their nation on a path to peace that its former tyrannical leaders eschewed. 

The theocratic tyranny of the Islamic Revolution was untenable, maybe suited for a 7th-century world, but not for the present. The primary US strategy is to decisively terminate Iran’s ability to project violence and terror. Hopefully, a more moderate regime will emerge and reject radical hegemony for rational coexistence. But the Iranian people have been so abused by their repressive terror mullahs for the past 47 years that a new regime will not be formed overnight. After all, the former regime murdered protesters in the streets. For that reason, the wrong sort of leadership should be eliminated.

The best outcome may be the obvious one at this point—a demilitarized and defeated Iran, but one eager for positive change.

Over the years, I saw my own party zealously address issues that didn’t reflect what people had elected us to do.  The outcome was predictable.  We lost seats in the following election.  When legislators act as if there is no limit to what they can do, they frequently bump up against an electorate that does not agree.  We are seeing this play out in Virginia this very day.  On 21 April 2026, next month, a Constitutional Referendum will be put to the people, who will be asked to approve one of the most despicably corrupt legislative initiatives ever passed by a party with unassailable control over the entire legislative process.  The people must vote “no.”

The issue at hand is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia, which would permit the Democratic majority to redraw Virginia’s 11 Congressional Districts to favor them 10-to 1.  This grossly partisan act, referred to as Gerrymandering, would allow the Democrats to wrongly wipe away 4 Congressional seats currently held by Republicans.  Indeed, 65 percent of Virginians in 2020 firmly expressed their opposition to partisan Gerrymandering when they voted for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing partisan redistricting. 

In place of the old, corrupt system, Virginians created an independent redistricting commission designed to prevent politicians from drawing their own maps.  Under the new law, redistricting would take place every ten years following the national census.  But now Democrats are asking voters to suspend that fair-minded system and permit them to conduct a mid-decade redistricting that would artificially expand the six districts the Democrats hold to ten.

I recall the many debates we had in the General Assembly over the 2020 reform.  For years, Democrats bewailed the old system whereby the majority in the General Assembly would draw the lines.  They demanded a non-partisan system.  Not all Republicans favored that reform, but when it went to a vote in 2020, the Republican majority advocated that voters support a system that was fair.  And the Democrats?  Sensing that they might have the majority in the years to come, they did a complete about-face to oppose the 2020 non-partisan redistricting Constitutional Amendment. Simply put, they wanted the power, not an objectively fair system that would have been in the hands of the people through a non-partisan commission.

You should not be surprised to hear that even now, Democrats in Virginia are actively supporting an unjust Constitutional Amendment that would, in effect, override what Virginia has already agreed is best for the Commonwealth.  The hypocrisy is astonishing.  Congressman Bobby Scott supports this contemptible maneuver.  However, when the State of North Carolina pursued mid-decade redistricting, Scott labeled it “stealing three seats.”  My own Congressman Eugene Vindman says that ending Virginia’s non-partisan redistricting is fair-minded since other states have done so.  Declaring, “We didn’t start this fight here,” Vindman revels in revenge, not in what is the right thing to do. 

And more stunning than anyone is Governor Abigail Spanberger’s posture on the issue.  She actually supported the 2020 Amendment, but now says Virginia must fight “fire with fire.”  Even more alarming is her acknowledgment that upending redistricting is just a “temporary” measure, further saying that after the next census, Virginia will return to what two-thirds of Virginians passed in 2020.  In other words, Spanberger wants to soothe us, saying, “Hey, it’s OK. After we’re done cheating you, just this once, we will play by the rules again.”

It should be clear to all of us that what motivates corrupt Democratic legislators is lust for power, not reform.  But don’t be fooled.  The Virginia Constitution requires that districts not “unduly favor or disfavor any political party.”  That is precisely what Democrats are doing.  They are asking you to participate in their political larceny.  In essence, they are banking that voters will be as ill-motivated as they are.  We must prove them wrong!  If independent redistricting was right in 2020, it is right now.

A final thought.  In 1887, English Catholic historian, liberal politician, and writer Lord Acton was a strong advocate for individual liberty.  Warning of the dangers of concentrated authority, Acton observed, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Democrats are revealing to all of us the inherent risk in increasing authority, which erodes moral judgment.  Their unchecked power is leading to inevitable corruption.  It falls to us to check their abuse of power.  And we will do so when all of us vote “NO” on 21 April.

The first type is on display with Democrats in Congress.  Their florid rhetoric over this conflict is politically inspired.  They have no vision of why it is very much in our national interest to crush Iranian nuclear proliferation, ballistic missile ambitions, and terrorism.  They would have you believe that the US should have negotiated a nuclear agreement with Iran.  Indeed, that is what they did under President Obama and attempted to renew under President Biden.  An agreement—any agreement—with the former Terror Mullah of Iran was no different than a wolf discussing with a lamb what’s on the dinner menu.  This type of leadership is the sort that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in Biden. “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” So too the Democrats in Congress fail to comprehend the resulting danger if we had done nothing.  Their pining should be ignored, including their insistence on a war powers resolution.  If they want one, then draft it and go on the record with where they are on this conflict.

The second type of leadership is similar to the one above.  Except those sorts of leaders wait to see which way the wind is blowing on an issue and then race to the head of the parade to “lead” those they waited on to reveal the direction of march. These types should be avoided.  They are doing most of the handwringing over Iran.  Their questions are typical of people virtue signaling “deep concern.”  They ask, “What are the objectives?”  “What is the plan?”  “What if (fill in the blank)?” If you spelled out the answers in two-foot billboard lettering, they would still be waiting for a political poll to know how they should lead.  Their questions are not sincere, just manipulative. Besides, if you told them the “plan,” they would likely spill the beans to the press, thereby endangering our military service members executing the operation.

And then there’s the third type.  Describing this sort 2400 years ago, Greek historian Thucydides wrote, “The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.”  This is the kind of leadership that sees clearly what must be done in Iran.  We need bold leadership to accomplish what must be done, even if it appears at first to be unpopular.  Thucydidean leadership necessitates revealing to the people that which cannot be avoided.  It demands that leaders risk popularity in the pursuit of worthiness.  These leaders don’t look for a parade to lead or search for a political issue to carp about to win favor.  They meet the problem head-on and lead the people in righteous pursuit of it.

It is my firm conviction that America’s national command authorities are doing this.  But they will be tested in the weeks to come.  Some of the complaints will be quieted by action that is sure to succeed, steps that will defenestrate the Iranian threat we have endured for almost half a century.  Chief among the complaints will be that America has engaged in nation-building and regime change.  I very much doubt that will be the case in this operation.

However, I would point out a simple truth.  There is only one thing worse than ignoring the lessons of the past.  And that is to misapply them.  Regime change and nation-building in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-2021) were profoundly misguided and poorly executed.  In both cases, we failed to understand the objective—destroy terrorists—and the limits of what can be done to bring a 7th-century culture into a 21st-century world.  I do not believe we are doing that in Iran today.  Rather, we are ridding the world of a ballistic nuclear missile threat while opening a door to the Iranians to sort themselves out in such a way that they can coexist with the rest of the world, absent maniacal terrorists at the head of their nation. 

To that extent, regime change—the right kind—is needed.  And that change must come from the Iranians themselves.  We should encourage them to rebuild their own nation, but we cannot do it for them.

Good leaders are not born that way.  They learn how to lead, at least that is what I was always taught.  My personal experience, both in leading people and organizations myself and in observing others, makes me conclude that leadership skills are developed in people.  I was fortunate to have learned from military educational structures and then continue to do so as a soldier.  Learning how to lead in the Army was a transcendent experience, where those who led me taught me.  I learned not only what they said about leadership, but how they did it.  In time, I would assemble in my mind some key points of leadership.  Here are some to consider.  

When in Charge, Be in Charge

There are a few things worse than a leader who doesn’t, well, lead.  One might say they are “LINOs,” leaders in name only.  Leaders are normally in charge of people and things.  But they must do more than appear to be in charge.  They must be so.  Leaders who do not assert their authority over those whom they lead will soon find out that leadership hates a vacuum.  In time, if the leader flags in his responsibility to be in charge, someone, often the wrong one, will fill the void.  I’ve seen this even in the military, and what results is organizational chaos.  So, when in charge, be in charge.

The Way vs. the Thing

There’s a fictitious story of a platoon sergeant who had to inform a soldier, “Private Smedlap,” that his mother had died.  Forming the platoon for morning rollcall, the sergeant read the orders of the day and at the end, announced, “Private Semdlap, your mother is dead, report to the Orderly Room for your leave orders!” Of course, Smedlap collapsed in shock.  Afterwards, the Platoon Leader cautioned his sergeant to be more sensitive in such announcements.  Promising to do so, the chastened sergeant had a second opportunity with “Private Tentpeg” the next week.  After reading the daily orders, the sergeant then announced, “All soldiers with fathers still alive take one step forward, except you, Tentpeg.  See me afterwards!”  Tentpeg crumbled to the ground.  The point?  In leadership, it is important to remember that the way you do a thing is often more important than the thing you do. 

The OODA Loop

Many of us in the military learned the OODA Loop in decision-making.  When confronted with a problem to solve, we were taught to observe, orient, decide, and act. That involved observing necessary information, orienting on the key factors, synthesizing, analyzing, deciding how to proceed, and then acting.  Throughout the process, feedback on the initial observations is expected to help validate processes in the loop.  It’s not a perfect approach and has been criticized.  But I learned over the years that it often brings a degree of order to decision-making that helps the process move forward.  For what it’s worth, we could use more OODA in Congress and other places.  But then that might become an orderly process, something that would shock all of us.  In the meantime, try it, but don’t do so at home.  Your family will think you’re acting weird.

Make the Call

Recently, a person I know who is an important leader made a decision of consequence affecting the people he leads.  After the decision was made and the activities proceeded to a conclusion, he mentioned to me in passing, “I hope I made the right call.”  Sensing his doubt, I asked rhetorically, “Well, did you make the call?”  He responded, “Yes.”  To which I responded, “Then you were right.”  I had a point in mind.  Leaders must rely on the best information that they have to “make a call.” Whether it plays out as right is one thing.  But it is “right” to make decisions when you have the right information.  Looking back is only necessary to make a better decision in the future, not to doubt whether you were “right” in making it.

Own It

Finally, this. When you make a mistake, own it.  Bad painters often blame their paint.  Real leaders have the guts to own up to their mistakes.  Indeed, it’s not a sign of weakness, but rather it signals strength, the uncommon courage and humility of an exemplary and respected leader. 

So, there you are.  My leadership memory shelf is now dusted.  Please don’t sneeze.

Nonetheless, I am indebted to my dad.  He was a loving and brilliant man.  Having entered the University of Richmond at 15 years old, he would graduate when he was 19, enter the Medical College of Virginia, and, at the tender age of 22, become a practicing physician.  He was beloved by friends and patients alike. But for me, he was simply dad, a man who taught me a lot.

Itches

I grew up in Richmond amid the era of segregation, when black people living just a few blocks from us were deprived of the rights we took for granted.  Yet my father, who was not a social justice warrior, had a heart for the downtrodden. That I am sure was based on his own experience as a poor white boy during the Great Depression.  As a “Country Doctor,” he would serve poor farmers and black laborers on the outskirts of Richmond.  House calls were the norm in those days.  Later, when he became a dermatologist, he had an office on Richmond’s Monument Avenue.  There, his waiting room was populated with both whites and blacks sitting beside one another, while other physicians’ waiting rooms of that era were still segregated.  Curious, I asked him why his wasn’t.  His response was simple. “Son, an itch is an itch.”  In one brief response, my dad taught me how people should be treated.  Equally.

Stiches

My dad enjoyed his boat.  We had a 30-foot Chris Craft cabin cruiser that he just loved.  It was the one big luxury of his life, and I would always come along to the river to be with him.  One day, while he was fueling the boat at a marina dock in Kinsale, Virginia, a lady stumbled and fell into the water.  Grabbing a piling in the process, a large splinter of wood lodged in her leg.  Without missing a beat, my dad came to her aid.  Turning to me, he directed me calmly to fetch his medical bag, which he kept on board the boat. To my amazement, he laid out surgical gear on the dock, removed a huge sliver of wood from the lady’s leg, cleaned the wound, and stitched her up before a gathering crowd of onlookers.  Afterwards, he did not speak about it.  His actions did all the talking, teaching me all I needed to know about caring action done humbly. 

Switches

As a boy, I became fascinated with politics during the Nixon-Kennedy presidential contest. Neither of my parents spoke much about politics.  They were busy working, raising kids, going to church, and engaging in various social functions in our neighborhood.  Yet I was curious about what my dad thought about, and I asked him who he voted for in the 1952 elections, the year after I was born.  He had supported the Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1952, but switched to Adlai Stevenson, the Democrat, in 1956.  This fascinated me, and I asked him, “Why?” His response was typically pithy. “Well, I thought Stevenson was smarter.”  Actually, that made sense to me, coming from a man who at 15 was still wearing knickers in his first year of college as he studied Latin, Greek, and German along with a full load of subjects in preparation for medical school.  For my dad, intelligence mattered, and that was reason enough to switch.

As I reflect on my dad, his inclination for justice, his unhesitating care for people, and his preference for intelligent leadership, I suspect he would be quite displeased with what we are witnessing today.  He would abhor the spiteful bitterness and the race-based political vindictiveness that do nothing to bring people together, something that simple respect accomplishes quite well.  He would be concerned with our neglectful care of others.  And of course, he would be stunned by the vacuous nature of modern politicians who routinely display their ignorance of civics and their disdain for civility. 

When it comes to itches, stitches, and switches, he’s still teaching me.

Nevertheless, think about that task today in light of the mess that has accumulated in America.  That would include not only the government mess we have on our hands, but the moral, societal, and cultural dung that has built up, so deep that it would take legions of shovelers to dig away the decay and rot.

Where to begin?  Congress would be a good place.  There, we are ruled by self-righteous gasbags who crave power over selfless service.  They have become an oligarchy that spends more time expostulating on partisan peeves than legislating on genuine issues.  They see themselves as our masters, not as servants to the people who are actually the sovereign in our republican form of government.  They care nothing about limiting their power as our founders intended. They truly believe they have a mandate to tell us how to live our lives, indeed what we can say and think, rather than to listen to us about how life should be lived.  Their lust for power, desire for privilege, and unethical behavior have resulted in a sort of excrement built up around them that would defy the largest of bulldozers.

What of our centers of higher education?  There, we find a sort of indoctrination that holds our nation and its founders in contempt.  No longer is education the object and intent of institutions of higher learning, itself an oxymoronic term.  Higher education has been exchanged for lower expectations.  Many students entering college are unable to spell, write, or do mathematics.  They leave no better, not knowing how to think, but rather as virtuosos in reciting and spewing the propaganda of activist professors who despise the idea of objective truth.  The dung mounds up.

What of our media?  Many years ago, men like Walter Cronkite of CBS, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley of NBC, and John Daly of ABC reported the news with the integrity of a Sunday School teacher. They were regarded as honest and factual. People trusted them, saying, “I heard on the news today,” a phrase that in itself communicated trustworthiness. Few like them exist in broadcast journalism today.  Contemporary talking heads are advocates for one view or another.  They do not pretend to be balanced. They don’t know how.  Besides, doing so would drive their obsequious followers to go in search of a new source to satisfy their itching ears for whatever they want to believe on any topic. The waste that surrounds them is deeper than the Grand Canyon.

Not long ago, I had a lengthy discussion with a dear friend and colleague.  We served together in the Army.  These days, we reflect together, searching for answers concerning the state of affairs that is America.  He is of the mind that we are lost, that things have gone too far. Where is the redemption?  And then, recovering an optimism that better suits his instincts, he reels back his cast, asking as a second thought, “What must we do?”  Indeed, what will it take?

I find myself sharing his doubts about our nation. How can I resist doing otherwise based on what I can see with my own tired eyes?  Yet as we talk, we conclude together that our only true hope is in revival, that is, a Christian one where objective truth is at the center of a biblical worldview. 

There’s a saying that the best way to get out of a hole in which you find yourself is to stop digging it in the first instance.  What will that take?  When Heracles settled on how to dig out of 30 years of accumulated dung in the Augean Stable, the myth says he created a hole in the side of the structure and caused two rivers to converge and wash through it to carry the waste away.  It was thought to be an impossible task. 

Today, we do not need to depend on mythical rivers but rather use the living waters of truth to wash away the corruption that has overtaken our government, society, and culture, which has built up as we allowed our moral compass to be replaced by one that consistently points toward corruption.

It’s time to clean the Augean Stable in America, or we will be buried by what must be washed away.