Realizing that there are less than 80 days until Election Day, I need to pick this Reading for Democracy tempo up a notch. Also, I frighten easily, so I should move more quickly to get past the scary stuff. Good luck to me.  Anyway, Section Two, Chapter 4 frightens me. Is that what it‘s meant to do? 

If you are following along with the structure of this Mandate, you will hopefully recognize that by moving on to Chapter 4, we are now moving into a whole new section.  Look at us clicking right along here.  Section Two is titled, "The Common Defense."  This is, of course, excerpted from the Preamble to the US Constitution.  (Sing along here if you are a School House Rock fan like me.) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This entire second section seems to outline that our common defense is deeply troubled by a progressive agenda that "emphasized leftist politics over military readiness," and " unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates."  (Mandate, p. 87). "Divisive symbols such as the rainbow flag or the Black Lives Matter flag have no place next to the Stars and Stripes at our embassies." (Mandate, p. 89). Emmmhmmm.  Or what about flying said Stars and Stripes upside down at the homes of our Supreme Court Justices?  Oh wait, did I say that last part out loud?  Yes, frightening on so many levels.  But let's quickly look at these chapters.  

Chapter 4 is about the Department of Defense (DOD).  I think we can all agree that our common defense is critical stuff.  The chapter offers recommendations for improving our armed forces and generally subscribes to increased spending on defense.  The chapter talks about support for Israel while also empowering our Gulf allies to take more responsibility in their own defense.  Likewise, there are also recommendations for South Korea to take the lead in their own defense as well. 

The chapter also recommends removing entrance criteria exceptions for military service for people who are might be predisposed to medical treatment like "HIV positive or suffering from gender dysphoria."  (Mandate, p. 103) The chapter continues, "...those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service."  (Mandate, p.103).   

Sigh.  If I had all the time in the world to write about this.  

What really frightens me in Chapter 4 is the recommendation that,  "The United States manifestly needs to modernize, adapt, and expand its nuclear arsenal.  Russia maintains and is actively brandishing a very large nuclear arsenal,  but China is also undertaking a historic nuclear breakout."  (Mandate, p. 94). I'm a Cold War kid.  I watched The Day After in 1983 and promptly freaked out.  Granted, I only have memories of the end of the Cold War, but let's talk for a second about what the Cold War actually was.  The American Yawp textbook I use in most of my classes says, "The Cold War was a global, political, and ideological struggle between capitalist and communist countries, particularly between the two surviving superpowers of the postwar world: the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). “Cold” because it was never a “hot,” direct shooting war between the United States and the Soviet Union, the generations-long, multifaceted rivalry nevertheless bent the world to its whims." (Yawp, Ch. 25). It shouldn't be overlooked that any "hot" conflict during this era - a period of increased atomic and eventually nuclear capabilities  - would have been catastrophic for the entire global community.  Did we all see Oppenheimer?  

So Chapter 4 of the Mandate is filled with words like increase, accelerate, modernize, and replenish.  The overall intention is to increase military preparedness and spending.   And, it seems, nuclear proliferation.   "The United States must restore its necessary nuclear infrastructure so that it is capable of producing and maintaining nuclear weapons." (Mandate, p.124) Look, I don't know nothin' about defensive military strategies.  However, when I don't know something or when something scares me, I turn back to the history.  

In the 80s President Reagan's policies on nuclear weapons were controversial.  Again in 1983, the same year as my scare watching The Day After - don't miss that context, Reagan announced plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a space-based system that could shoot down incoming Soviet missiles.  Critics labeled this Reagan plan "Star Wars," and said it was unrealistic.  Reagan's policies to increase and accelerate nuclear capabilities led to a strong nuclear freeze protest movement.  Eventually, after massive historical events like Iran-Contra, Chernobyl, and Mikhail Gorbachev's leadership, Reagan supported the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) of 1987, which committed both Russia and the United States to a sharp reduction in their nuclear arsenal. (Yawp, Ch. 29). 

In 2019, the Trump administration formally withdrew the US from INF.  Are we paying attention?

The Cold War reshaped the world and the generations of world citizens, like me, who grew up under its shadow.  I, for one, don't want to return to shadows.  

“Overview of the Preamble | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.” 2015. Congress.gov. 2015. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-1/ALDE_00001231 

“The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at a Glance | Arms Control Association.” 2019. Armscontrol.org. 2019. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-inf-treaty-glance.

Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War : a new history. United Kingdom: Penguin Publishing Group, 2005.

Connect History. 2024. “Reading Deeply for Democracy Day 9.” Connect History. 2024. https://connecthistory.org/f/reading-deeply-for-democracy-day-9.  Archived blog post.