Sometimes hate is counterproductive, and makes us say and do silly things, and I worry that some people's hatred for Trump is so visceral and profound that they cannot present themselves as reasonable when it comes to him. For example, a friend of ours said if Trump showed up at his door he would shoot him in the face. One of my relatives said Trump should be executed, referencing the American soldiers killed in WW1 were "suckers and losers” and several other fabrications disseminated by the establishment press as absolute fact but all undeniably false. Neither of these two people are otherwise unreasonable, and in fact are very decent, but in regards to Trump they just can't control themselves: anything Trump does or says is automatically wrong, and the opposite is always right.

We’ve all heard the slogan “everyone should be equal under the law,” and in theory it’s true, but in reality it’s not, the narrative being controlled by the establishment, and often executed by the bureaucracy. I think Hillary Clinton is probably the most despicable American politician of my time, but I don’t hate her. You might recall the inane populist chants of “lock her up” heard during Trump rallies in the 2016 election. Though there is no doubt in my mind she broke numerous and serious national security and perjury laws, crimes that would have justifiably brought indictments and perhaps convictions, it would have been a mistake to pursue them. The reason being prosecuting a person of such national prominence would have placed us in the realm of a 3rd-world oppressive government, so in a way she was appropriately “above the law.” This never became an issue because she was protected by the highest level bureaucrats and, in case you didn’t notice, did not become a target of Trump as president. The same courtesy was not given to Trump.

Years ago, when I still listened to NPR, I heard a local talk show (the announcer with that ubiquitous saccharine timbre heard across all NPR affiliates, as predictable as the MacDonald’s menu) discussing what, in my time, were referred to as food stamps. The interviewee was a social worker of some sort, and he mentioned “food insecurity,” shifting family patterns, economic displacement- basically all the expected points were made. If I remember, it was a caller who identified herself as a checkout person at a grocery store for 2 or 3 decades, and she told of her experiences where many, many times people used food stamps to buy upper end items- the steak and shrimp- that she couldn’t afford. Unless it’s changed, unlike WIC, which limits the type of items to staples, there are no limits when using food stamps other than already prepared meals. The point is, who would you believe, the educated professional with probably little or no actual experience on the end-user side or the low-wage worker who interacted with food stamp users daily: who would be consulted by the establishment/bureaucracy when setting policy? My experience is that the check-out lady was correct, but would be given no voice.

We have kind of an interesting paradox in that people who become administrators and supervisors in what are called bureaucracies (there being nothing innately wrong with bureaucracies), are often the same people that on-the-ground/hands-on employees ask, “how could that person be promoted, he or she is totally incompetent?” The other consideration is that people who are competent are inclined to stick with their chosen field, which allows for a certain evolutionary (or devolutionary) natural selection. Your question, who decides who are the worthless bureaucrats, is a good one, and the answer is complicated. The short answer is that true leaders, with wisdom, spines, and situational awareness, should be crucial in making the determinations, and that awareness includes knowing what even the lowest level employees think (I hear these tragic stories of kids killing themselves after being bullied at school, and I wonder, “how could they- the teachers and administrators- been unaware?”). It was never any secret among the staff who the incompetent medical practitioners were, but that knowledge somehow didn’t make it to the decision makers- worthless bureaucrats if you will- who were either willfully ignorant or had their own agendas. Sometimes “it” hit the fan, and it was time for throwing the protected incompetent under the bus, trying to shift the blame, rationalizing what happened, or plain old cover up, depending which way the winds were blowing.

Having worked in the military and Federal and state governments, I’ve never not seen waste of resources and money, as well as true abuse of authority by those empowered to make decisions and set policy. I’ve never experienced a government workplace in which there were no toxic bureaucrats, but at times had the good fortune to work when they were just a nuisance, with administrators who knew their role was to support the mission of the organization and the people carrying it out. I get the impression you are fortunate enough to have never witnessed or experienced what I have, and that is truly a good thing, but there is a wealth of evidence that bureaucracies and bureaucrats do redirect their goals from accomplishing the mission they were created to fulfill to those of self-preservation and aggrandizement. I might add that there is no question in my mind that you have risen (quite impressively) based on merit, competency, experience, qualifications, and work ethic, the way it should be.

The seismic societal shifts we have undergone in the past 20 or 30 years, despite the enticing lexicon that pleases the deluded, weak, and ignorant- “social justice,” racial justice, inclusion, diversity, fairness, et al- are nothing more than a quest by a relative few for power: political, economic, cultural, academic, etc. They have adroitly used traditional societal institutions- including bureaucracies- to achieve these ends, especially by creating a fascinating amalgam of almost a secular religion, where one is compelled to have faith in not just the unseen, but in the counterintuitive. Where accusations of heresy and blasphemy, under the guise of racism, misogyny, transphobia, misinformation, xenophobia, et al, are liberally wielded and can have severe consequences.

It is indeed an anxious time when people only concerned with their self interests and agendas assume control of the establishment, and the organs that run it. I have no doubt there are plenty of people in command and administrative positions throughout government who are true to their missions, but likewise I have no doubt there are too many of them who are only true to the advancement of their own personal agendas and benefit, and these people really, really need to go. Here’s an easy one- that idiotic Air Force Lt. General Jay Silveria who stated “Diversity is a force multiplier. We must do this together — all ranks and ages, races and religions, sexual orientations and identities — all of us." Gen Silveria made this and other emphatic statements in response to an apparent racist incident at the Air Force Prep. Academy in Sept 2018, and man did he come across as righteous and outraged. The curious thing is, the culprit was identified two months later, one of the "victims" in what was a racist hoax. " Using the religion reference from above, this diversity drivel would be analogous to stating something like belief in the Christian Godhead is our greatest military strength.

In the 2022 the JBLE (a military base in Virginia) “Breaking Barriers Alliance,” a committee in the base’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion, hosted the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Summer Festival. The highlights included drag queen performances, featuring Harpy Daniels, and to keep kids otherwise entertained and enticed, there were bouncy houses and face painting. The base commander, Colonel Gregory Beaulieu, approved this and a statement was issued: “JBLE leadership is committed to celebrating differences and cultivating an inclusive environment where every Airman, Soldier and civilian feels valued.” I glanced at an interview with Col. Beaulieu and discovered his sign is Leo, and when asked if he would rather be a cowboy or wizard, he replied, “Straight up, a wizard. I'm a Harry Potter fan. I even own a Harry Potter wand.” Harpy Daniels (they/them), real name Joshua Kelley, is enlisted active duty Navy, and in 2023 was asked by the Navy bureaucracy to be a “digital ambassador.” I recall one of the ways to distinguish a Drill Sergeant when I was in Army basic training in 1976 was they wore a badge with the words, “This We’ll Defend.” I’m pretty sure it didn’t mean defending the self-serving and self-perpetuating bureaucracy. Colonel Beaulieu is a disgrace, and should be gone from the Air Force.

When Biden nominated Lloyd Austin for Sec. Of Defense, I thought, “at least there will be one cabinet member who is an adult, a serious guy who’s not an ideologue beholden to the leftist progressive narrative.” Unfortunately that illusion was short-lived, when during his confirmation hearings Austin pledged that he would “rid our ranks of racists and extremists,” followed by Dept. of Defense-wide “stand down” to address “extremism.” The US Military Academy presented a seminar entitled “Understanding Whiteness and White Rage;” the hired instructor described the Republican Party and Republican Party platform [as] a platform of White supremacy. A 3-credit course offered at West Point, “The Politics of Race, Gender and Sexuality,” serves as “an introduction to the concepts of post-modernism” and includes “a focus on feminist theory, critical race theory, and queer theory.” Recall the heroic commanders at Minot AFB, warning of a pro-Trump rally in Nov. 2023, and that the leadership were told to remind those under their command that “participation...could jeopardize their continued service in the US military.” They didn’t plan on being caught and had to disavow their words once they were- the behavior of truly weak and cowardly bureaucrats, in uniform or not.

Decisions such as these are not made in isolation, but clearly demonstrate a pernicious bureaucracy concerned with facilitating a progressive political agenda at the expense of the mission. The same could be applied to any political message being pushed by what should always be a nonpartisan bureaucracy or military. Any commander, administrator, policy maker, director, etc who neglects (and in some cases, abandons) the mission they are there to fulfill in favor of a personal or political ideology needs to go. Sanctioning or being complicit with the facilitation of “critical race theory,”  the “1619” absurdity, LGBTQIA2S+ “pride,” or promoting the “Diversity is our Strength” mantra at best is wasting resources, but more significantly acting antithetical to the interests of the government, military, the Constitution, and the people overall. Likewise, anyone using their authority within the bureaucracy to promote discrimination, actual racism (versus the pretend “1619” version), or any partisan agenda needs to go: in my lifetime the tilt has always been toward progressivism, but it applies across the board. Just as allowing service people to march in “pride parades” in their uniforms is contrary to the values of the military (though clearly permitted by those in command in the military bureaucracy), so would be allowing attendance at partisan political events in uniform regardless of affiliation.

The values of America, as enshrined in the Constitution, have proven to be the brightest beacon in the parade of history. These include justice, not “social justice; equality, not “equity;” opportunity for all based on accomplishment and merit, not on skin color or sexual preferences or desires; and freedoms such as speech and the press for all, not only what the group in power wants to hear and be disseminated.  A good person in a bureaucracy, civilian or military, is in a tough position when word comes from above to act contrary to these values. What should a mid-level supervisor do, for example, if told the “transgender”should be promoted simply because he or she is “transgender,” or that the Christian white guy should be promoted  simply because he attends the same church as the director (probably not a likely scenario!)? Is it better to work from within and try to find compromise or some reasonable solution? Certainly the answer is Yes at times. Or should someone be willing to leave the pay, stability, accoutrements, and benefits associated with the job because it is the right thing to do? These decisions should never have to be made, and as far as I know you’ve never been required to do so, thankfully. I have had personal experience in this regard, and have no regrets over my actions and decisions, though it wasn’t necessarily easy.

Concluding with A fictional encounter between the real Colonel Beaulieu and a made up Lt. Winchester:
Sit down, Lt.
Yes sir.
Do you know why you are here?
Not exactly sir.
Are you aware of someone in your platoon named Spec. 4 Crystal Fabulous?
Yes sir.
Specialist Fabulous, who identifies as non-binary, came to the Commander’s Open Door the other day. Zee told me you referred to zee using masculine pronouns, not zee’s preferred pronouns. Is that true, Lt?
Yes, sir, but it was an unintentional error.
Be that as it may, Specialist Fabulous felt zee was not in a welcoming and inclusionary environment which, as you know- or should know- is one of our primary goals in today’s military? Additionally, zee felt enormously traumatized  and even a victim of violence.
That was not my intention, sir.
Lt. Winchester, you being a West Point grad should know better than others that our troops need to feel they are in a welcoming and inclusive environment where they can feel safe and comfortable expressing their authentic selves in order to complete the mission. Do you agree?
Of course, sir. It will not happen again.
I believe you are not truly a transphobic, cisgender bigot, but your actions cannot be ignored.
I understand, sir.
I am going to have you stand down from your Platoon Leader position until you successfully complete sensitivity training. Assuming you receive a favorable evaluation from the instructors, you will then return to your duties. Any questions?
No sir, and I thank you for this opportunity to increase my level of sensitivity and awareness concerning our valued transgender and non-binary soldiers.