As a child, I played all sorts of sports thus experienced my
share of injuries, most of which were benign and not worth discussing. As an
adult, I witnessed a few instances of violent behavior among people, two of
which came to mind this morning, January 8, 2013, while I was reading the Wall
Street Journal.
Let me first tell you about the two instances of violence I
witnessed, after which I shall explain how I see them relate to what I was
reading this morning. The first instance happened at eleven o'clock in the
morning of a November 11 in a given year some four decades ago. I was working
for a big company where the siren used to blare at that exact moment once every
year, and we all stood silent for two minutes to honor those who made the
ultimate sacrifice in past wars.
But on that particular day long ago, things did not remain
as silent as they were supposed to. What happened instead was that a young
worker who was a new hire was seen to lunge toward an older man. He had the
look of anger on his face, telling the man to stand still while shouting other
obscenities at him. The older man seemed to be dazed during those moments but
regained his composure after a few seconds.
As the young hire was still telling him he must show respect
for the heroes who “fought for our freedom,” the older man put his right leg
behind those of the young man and pushed him with two fingers. The young man
tripped and fell on his back whereupon he injured his head and was taken to the
company clinic.
What the rest of us knew that the young hire did not know
was that the older man was a veteran of the Korean War. He was wounded fighting
for the freedom of the young hire who was now trying to lecture him on the
subject of honor. What really happened at that moment which caused the incident
in the first place was that the older man had just come out of a pit inside of
which he was doing some work.
As it can happen at times, even younger and healthier men
experience a moment of dizziness while exerting themselves to come out of the
pit through the narrow opening which is there for the purpose. This is what
happened to the older man, and this is why he was staggering; a sight that the
young man interpreted to be a sign of disrespect for the abstract hero he had
in his imagination not knowing that the real hero was staring him in the face.
The second instance where I witnessed a violent moment
happened at a bus stop. I had left my car in Toronto
and went to do a temporary job for a few weeks in the Montreal region. I would take the bus at the
terminal in the South Shore every morning to go to the island of Montreal
One morning, while standing in line waiting for the bus
along with the other passengers, we saw a man come rushing as the bus was
approaching the terminal. He reached the front door of the bus as it was
opening while shouting: “I am crazy, I am crazy, let me get there first.” And
he got on the bus ahead of everyone else that was standing in the queue, but
nobody objected.
The self described crazy man put on the same performance a
number of days in a row while most of the time, the same passengers would be
standing in line, and no one did something about it. But then one day, someone
decided that the time had come to do something about it, and he volunteered to
do it without telling anyone. As the “crazy” man was approaching the door of
the bus, he was met by the volunteer who was standing nearby waiting for him.
The volunteer pulled a stick he was hiding inside his coat,
started shouting: “I am crazier than you” and hit the legs of the other man. He
kept hitting them till the man dropped to the ground at which time we all
applauded and got on the bus. We never saw the original crazy man again but
were happy to see the crazier one board the bus every morning after that.
What I was reading this morning that brought to mind the
memory of those two incidents were first of all, the Bret Stephens column which
has the title: “Chuck Hagel's Courage.” In it, the author denigrates the work
done by the man whom the President chose to be his secretary of defense. To do
the denigration, the author cites the history that fits the moment,
interpreting it the way that makes the point he currently expresses. And you
can be certain that he will contradict these views – as he always does – when
discussing something else in the future; and will find it more convenient to
say the opposite of what he is saying today.
But why does he want to denigrate the work of Chuck Hagel in
the first place? He wants it because the man was not consistent in all that he
said and did in the past, says Stephens. He adds at the end of the column that
Hagel was consistent only when it came to expressing himself about Israel . He
calls that a mental twitch that cannot be helped. And this is why young Bret
Stephens is unhappy with the nomination of veteran Chuck Hagel to the post of
secretary of defense.
Well, nobody is perfect but the difference between the man
and the boy is that the man will give himself the right to be smarter today
than he was yesterday. (This is a quote from a German politician whose name
escapes me.) The man will change his views when the circumstances will change
to remain on the right side of current events, and be in step with them. By
contrast, the boy will make a smart aleck remark today only to reverse himself
and make another smart aleck remark tomorrow – believing in his own mind that
he is correct today as much as he was yesterday – and will be tomorrow.
And this is why Chuck Hagel should figuratively put one leg
behind those of Bret Stephens and push him with two fingers. The kid deserves
to be taught a lesson that will help him mature.
As to the second article I read this morning, it was an editorial
in the Journal having the title: “A Hagel Education.” In it the editors do what
Stephens did in his column in that they cite the history which suits them to
make the point that works for them at this time. And the main point they make
is this: “The Berlin Wall fell after Reagan's successes rebuilding U.S.
Strength and credibility.”
No. Things did not happen like that. What Reagan did was
stand tall on the strength and credibility of the United States of America as they
existed already at the time. They were represented by the industrial might of
what was a genuine superpower, not the borrower that has seen its industrial
might hollowed out by such gamblers as those who work on Wall Street, are
stationed on the West Coast of the United States ,
and are doing their dealings on some island off the coast of China .
The time in which Reagan operated was known by the acronym
MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction.) And there was a kind of madness in the way
that the events were developing, especially following the Cuban missile crisis
when Kennedy basically said to Khrushchev: “I am crazier than you” in the same
way as did the volunteer at the bus stop in Montreal .
But Reagan was smart enough to know that history never
repeats itself in the exact same way. Thus, he did not repeat Kennedy's
performance but relied on something he knew he had in the hand instead of
gambling with something he feared could backfire.
Yet, this is what the boys in the editorial department of
the Wall Street Journal are asking for today; and this is what the man named
Chuck Hagel will most likely refuse to do.
And the whole world will thank him for that.