Grunts Won. What Now?
Keith Nightingale
Last night the Grunts won. The Grunts of our Nation that do all the heavy lifting. The silent, obedient, functioning, productive portion of our country.
These soldiers of our story-the people that cleared the forests, farmed the land, poured the iron and worked the mines that make us what we are today. These soldiers of our Nation that silently pick up their tools, shut their mouth, lower their heads and do what they can with what they have. These soldiers that make us a better place. At last they spoke.
And the Nation had no choice but to listen.
Like the uniformed Grunts of before, now and tomorrow, they labored in obscurity, focused on their work, took their lumps, accepted ignoral and consistently provided the glue to their families and friends as soldiers do to their squads. Loyalty is local and all else must be endured. Nothing else matters.
Last night their endurance was awarded.
For much of their existence, their leadership went in directions they did not like and did not understand. But still, they labored, obeyed and persevered in their small world to make life at least better for the people they could effect-or at least thought they could.
Last night they took the hill.
It was a hard, long and painful slog. Their story was the Hamburger Hill of National elections. It was not about race, religion, ethnicity or parochial values. It was about the squads of the Nation, bound by the deep visceral glue that only prolonged combat can create, rucking up and moving out with a sense of deep determination to achieve the previously unobtainable.
The complexities, subtleties and nuances were lost to a steely resolve that something had to be done. No more casualties. We must act.
As in combat, the price for success is to act in common cause.
Last night, the Grunts landed on our electoral Omaha Beach and carried the cliffs.
Now that the Grunts have carried the Hill, what do we do with it?
Can the leaders be worthy of the led?
Comments
Addendum to my offering above:
Here is an excerpt from a "Jacksonian Revolt"-like article Mead wrote for the "The American Interest" about this time last year:
"Whatever happens to the Trump candidacy, it now seems clear that Jacksonian America is rousing itself to fight for its identity, its culture and its primacy in a country that it believes it should own. Its cultural values have been traduced, its economic interests disregarded, and its future as the center of gravity of American political life is under attack. Overseas, it sees traditional rivals like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran making headway against a President that it distrusts; more troubling still, in ISIS and jihadi terror it sees the rapid spread of a movement aiming at the mass murder of Americans. Jacksonian America has lost all confidence in the will or the ability of the political establishment to fight the threats it sees abroad and at home. It wants what it has always wanted: to take its future into its own hands. The biggest story in American politics today is this: Andrew Jackson is mad as hell, and he’s not going to take it anymore."
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/17/andrew-jackson-revenant/
The parallels -- re: the Andrew Jackson era and today's times -- is also interesting:
"In essence, the men and their rank and file voting allies, along with Jackson, fought a rear-guard action against encroaching industrialization and market economy. Although they won the pivotal battles, they lost the war, because their notion of a pre-capitalist agrarian society succumbed to the industrial economy after the Civil War."
https://books.google.com/books?id=8H-iCQAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA194&lpg=RA1-PA1…
Thus, to suggest that while the "Grunts Won" -- in Andrew Jackson's time much as they did again recently -- ultimately they would/will "lose?" This, because the era that these folks longed/long for (agrarian society then; manufacturing society today?); these such eras were/are already -- or soon would/will become -- obsolete/no longer competitive?
Thus, to see these fights -- by those who wish to go backwards (and, thus, become less-competitive/non-competitive and, accordingly, become less safe and less secure?); these such fights -- much as we are seeing throughout the world today (for example not only in the Western World but also in the Islamic and other "worlds" also) -- these such fights would seem to be common to traumatic state and societal "change" eras --
Such as that exemplified by the Industrial Revolution back in Andrew Jackson's day. And such as that exemplified by the Globalization Era currently?
(Thus, those nations in the world who are able to prevent themselves from moving in such a backwards direction in the first place -- or having moved in such a backwards direction are able to "reverse course" most quickly -- these such enlightened nations to ultimately come out well ahead of those backwards-looking nations that [a] fail to quickly see the error of their ways and [b] fail to rapidly "reverse course" accordingly?)
Thought that the recent Walter Russell Mead article: "The Jacksonian Revolt" -- in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs -- might best fit here at COL Nightingale's "Grunts Won. What Now" column.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-01-20/jackso…
In an earlier (2011) New York Times article entitled "The Tea Party and U.S. Foreign Policy," Mead noted:
"Today’s Jacksonians are unlikely to disappear. Americans should rejoice that in many ways the Tea Party movement, warts and all, is a significantly more capable and reliable partner for the United States’ world-order-building tasks than were the isolationists of 60 years ago. Compared to the Jacksonians during the Truman administration, today’s are less racist, less antifeminist, less homophobic, and more open to an appreciation of other cultures and worldviews."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22iht-edrusselmead22.html
Of course as we all know now, in both our recent Republican presidential primary, and in our recent presidential general election also, those espousing such less-exclusive/less-isolationist/less-radical/less-extreme/more-accommodating views -- such as those noted by Mead above re: the Tea Party cir. 2011 -- these such folks were defeated; not only here in the United States but, indeed, throughout much of the Rest of the World also? In this exact such light, to understand both the "Grunts Won" and, indeed, "What Now?"
Bill C made my point. Regardless of why Trump won-it will differ from voter to voter-the key issue now is So what?
Ultimately its all about governance-something we havn't recently accomplished. Trump won because people thought his approach was better than hers. Now he has to prove it. This will not be a personal event-Congress and a zillion "interest groups" will have to figure out how to share a half loaf or some other polarizing personality will emerge amongst the torches and pitchforks.
Against the enormous political, economic, social and value "change and sacrifice" demands of globalization/globalism/ the global economy, might we say that the "grunts" (the conservative elements of virtually all the world's populations?) appear to be winning/appear to have had their say --
This, not only here at home, but also:
a. In the Greater Middle East and as per AQ, ISIS, etc., and, in general, the appeal of Sharia Law;
b. In Europe and as per the Brexit and its possible follow-on countries (for example: France);
c. And in Russia and as per the popularity of Putin's appeal to conservative values and traditions, etc?
(Recent events in Turkey, in the Philippines and elsewhere, to also be seen in this "rise of the conservatives"/"revolt against the demands of globalization, etc.," light?)
Thus, to suggest that the election of Mr. Trump here in the U.S. -- and, in general, the rise of the "grunts" (the conservative elements of virtually all populations?) worldwide -- this is best understood from the perspective of acknowledging that:
a. The amazing and unending political, economic, social and value "change and sacrifice" demands of globalization/globalism/ the global economy have proven to be too great; this, for ANY civilization to tolerate as is. And, thus,
b. The revolt against globalization/globalism/the global economy can now be said to have -- indeed -- "gone global?"
(In this more-international/global revolt against globalization, etc., light to, thus, properly consider both COL Nightingale's "The Grunts Won" thesis and, indeed, his "What Now" question?)
Bottom Line:
When one sets about trying to transform the world more along alien and profane political, economic, social and value lines -- as the Soviets/the communists did in the Old Cold War of yesterday and as the U.S./the West has attempted to do in the New/Reverse Cold War of today -- then one must expect that the conservative/no change elements of the world's populations (to include those in your own home country) will be your "natural enemies."
Thus, you must, obviously, plan and proceed with this reality in mind.
The fact that we now have a "global revolt" against the exceptional/excessive demands of globalization, etc., this indicates that this such planning, proceeding, etc., obviously, (a) was not done or (b) was not done well enough.
Thus, it is back to "square one" for the pro-globalization/globalism/global economy crowd.
(Of whom the Clintons have always been key players/proponents; hence, as per my thoughts above, Hillary's non-election.)
I agree that the people have spoken, and our system of government meant that there will be a peaceful transfer of power. But I am not going to idealize what has happened. I am not one to lie to myself or others about it. I will not put my head in the sand about why it happened. In the end, the "why" will matter far more than the "who." Because the "why" answers the question "What Now?"
Don't kid yourself. It was "about race, religion, ethnicity [and] parochial values." All you have to do is talk to any victor who believes they have a mandate to rid the country of anything Obama, including any progressive social changes as well as people of color challenging establishment values. I know, I had that conversation today ... more than once.
On a social scale, the changes are easy. A Supreme Court Justice here, a repeal of a law there, and all will be back to America circa 1970. Your Gay Marriage licenses won't be worth the paper they are printed on. But the reality of technology and economic interdependence will be the killjoy. And when the economic policies fail, who will get blamed then? Only time can tell, but anyone with half a brain can guess.