Don's Tuesday Column

                   THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   10/03/2017

                                Anti-war bias; true moderation

After watching the entirety of Ken Burns’ and Lynn Novick’s “The Vietnam War,” and reviewing what I wrote based on Lewis Sorley’s “A Better War; The unexamined victories and final tragedy of America’s last years in Vietnam,” I can unequivocally affirm that Burns and Novick provided a mostly factual, but highly slanted, accounting of the period from 1968 through the fall of Saigon. It made sense if you took for granted that it was created, written, narrated and edited by generally liberal opponents of that war in particular, and American war-making in general. The voices of Sorley and others that could have provided a “fair and balanced” story were minimized and marginalized. It struck me that if they had applied a similar framework and perspective to any of America’s wars, even WWII, they could have similarly crafted a portrayal that focused on military mistakes, allies’ shortcomings, public doubts, protests and cynicism.

While including the views of death, defeat and futility (and triumphalism) by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters, it failed to convey the ways the war was succeeding before Democrats in Congress, in spite of promises of support, dealt our ally defeat and misery.

A few words are in order on what constitutes “moderation” in political opinion; particularly whether it is accurate to say that I am not a “moderate conservative.” (Mr. Minch, as usual, does not evidence plain statements, much less a clear stand on the relevant issue.) If there is an identifiably “conservative” position on most issues, I’ll not hesitate to affirm my agreement, assuming that position results from examination of facts and adherence to principles of constitutional and economic freedom, America’s national interests and social order.

The issue: Is it appropriate for athletes, particularly NFL players, to “take a knee” or sit down during the playing of the national anthem in the pregame ceremonies? The way I see it—the way President Trump sees it—is, indeed, the way most Americans see it. Quinnipiac a year ago found us disapproving by 54 percent to 38 percent; a recent poll now has that number over 60 percent disapproving of such NFL knee-taking protests. Athletes simply should not do such things during the anthem. Actually, the NFL’s own rules spell out with great specificity what players are to do during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner: stand, hold helmet in left hand freeing the right for placement over the heart, without fidgeting or talking. Those not following those rules are to be punished individually; their team can even lose draft rights.

As in all private businesses, exercising such a marginal “freedom of speech” action is completely subject to the purview of the business owner—in this case the team’s owner—during the time they are paid to perform, and on the team’s property. Employees, particularly high profile ones like athletes, are subject to disciplinary action for non-game activities, even their public statements, that reflect poorly or improperly on the business or, in this case, the team.

That protests during the playing of the national anthem should be punished is not an immoderate position when the NFL’s own rules say just that. The NBA had a player, in 1996, sit during the anthem at a game; he was suspended without pay for that game and the practice stopped. The same reasonable response would be proper now for the NFL; athletes in college, high school or any other level of competition should likewise be punished to send the message that our anthem, our flag and, by extension, our nation cannot be disrespected in that way without repercussions. That’s my position; Mr. Minch should be willing to say whether he agrees.

To disagree is to support the rather immoderate position that the protests, that began last season with 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling during the anthem, are proper. As I noted, most folks disapprove; I am in the mainstream, and moderate, center. That means you support his socks portraying “cops as pigs in uniforms,” his and others’ contention that police are racist abusers of black people and that America is a racist nation. Look up “Is America a seething hotbed of racism and bigotry?” by S. Hayward; the answer is “no.” Kaepernick is so anti-law enforcement that he contributed some $25,000 to a cop-killing woman that escaped to Cuba.

Everyone is free to peacefully protest (that disallows riots and property destruction, whether by Black Lives Matter or fascist thugs of “antifa”) but no one is exempted from others’ criticism and their employers’ reactions. Perhaps I missed it when liberals objected to the retaliation against pro-traditional marriage supporters and conservative speakers on campuses.

It might be “immoderate” for President Trump to call anthem-kneeling-or-sitting NFL players (not all NFL athletes) S-O-Bs; it might be likewise immoderate for me to call them another expletive with the word “mother” in it. However, Mr. Minch’s self-styled range of political labels must be juxtaposed with his oft-cited sources: the San Francisco Chronicle, The New Yorker and likely CNN and MSNBC. In that liberal media bubble, moderation means letting NFL players disrespect (protest) the anthem, the flag, law enforcement, our military and, by extension, America because of supposed racism, injustice, white entitlement, etc.

Now their default line is “unity” but unity is when we all set aside our politics and ideology for a few hours of football, starting with uniting as American citizens in singing or respecting our flag and the playing of our national anthem. That’s not a pro-Trump, pro-Republican or “moderate (or radical) conservative” position. I urge Mr. Minch to read the admittedly Trump-critical words of Michael Reagan’s column printed next to his “I Say” piece, and set aside Trump hatred; recognize that true “moderation” sometimes requires only the simple affirmation of what principles we all share. Those principles include acknowledging our flaws as a nation while agreeing that ours is the best among a world of far more flawed nations; we can always resume our disputes, free of state interference, post game.