Freeman Hunt offers some:
Ten years ago I was a very far left liberal. Probably more of a communist. And an atheist. And wanted to work for the government.
Hey, there’s nothing wrong with atheism. As long as you don’t proselytize…
Anyway, maybe there’s even hope for some of my commenters.
Maybe there’s hope for you.
The hope for me is that we turn out this pack of liars and thieves next November. Starting in Massachusetts this month.
And elect another pack of liars and thieves. Sounds like a plan to me.
Hey, Mark, I don’t like them any better than you do, but let’s try peaceful revolution first, OK?
And elect another pack of liars and thieves.
If a “no incumbents – because they’re liars and thieves” policy was actually followed in the voting booth, the liars and thieves might actually get a clue.
The part that boggles me is places like Seattle. “We keep voting for change, and we keep getting the exact same crap!” Well, duh. 80% votes for the incumbents. Over and over.
I used to be a neo-con, supported GWB, the War on Terror, everything. That was back when I allowed fear and emotion to triumph over reason.
OK, Mark, here’s a solution: take enough power away from government that it doesn’t matter whether you elect thieves and fools or not. Thieves and fools are only problems when they have power, right? You can only get thieves and fools to run for office? Isn’t the solution obvious, when you put it that way?
And it’s not like the idea is revolutionary. Or rather, it’s Revolutionary, meaning what the damn Revolution was all about, 240 years ago. We could return to (or at least towards) that Jeffersonian ideal.
Been there, done that. In the 80s was a Reagan Republican, mostly for national security reasons. And that was before I had my own business and had to deal with government regulations.
Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and we faced no existential military threat. We elected a liberal Democrat with poor personal morals, and he was more successful accomplishing conservative goals — economic growth, welfare reform, trade liberalization, deficit reduction, reductions in drug use, crime and teen pregnancy — than any GOP president in my lifetime. Meanwhile, the conservatives I’d trusted on national security went nuts trying to resurrect the Cold War in the form of rag-tag Islamic terrorists, and their GOP allies doubled-down on intolerance for gays, immigrants, and non-Christians. They reacted to being out of power not by improving their ideas, but by subscribing to crazy conspiracy theories about Clinton, the media, ACORN, and now Obama. Their political program has devolved into saying no to everything.
I heard Michael Steele on Hannity’s radio show yesterday. Hannity asked him about dumping the RINOs now ensconced in D.C. Steele says it’s up to the people in those states to get rid of them. To which I say, get rid of Steele.
Unless the RNC starts ridding themselves of ANY affiliation with or allowing the RINOs to call themselves Republicans, the RINOs will stay where they are. Personally, I’d like to see how much money & support, the RNC has given to the RINOs. Given their backing of McCain and Romney in the last go around and lack of support for Paul, Thompson and some others, the RNC screwed the pooch, not the voters. By the time we got to national election day, we had The One, and No One, and we all know Who Won.
The people state to state can’t beat the nationally backed candidates in the states, and Steele is just a big fat liar for implying that they can. The RNC is backing the most electable candidates, not the most conservative ones. Reagan must be spinning a hole to China to see how they operate.
I do have hope for the future though. Even here in Democrat stronghold, central NC, the recent elections saw the school board in Wake County turn out the old guard, hand wringing, social engineers, in favor of neighborhood schools and less bus travel.
And Kay Hagan (D), our Jr Senator, is taking a beating over her support of all things Obama. Some Dem Congressmen from NC might need the help wanted ads too sooner than they expected.
Jim has many hats, concern troll being but one.
Leaving out the part that the Republican landslide of 1994 being the reason for Clinton’s drift to being a moderate President, not because he wanted to be one. In fact it was a reaction to his policies that caused it too.
Hillary-care? BTU Tax? Besides others. Or were you just asleep at the time?
Hear no evil, see no evil…
Jim, neither the Clinton of 1992 nor 1996 was a “liberal Democrat.” Don’t you remember the “third way?” “Triangulation?” If the same man had run in 2008, he would have arguably been to the right of John McCain. Furthermore, as noted, he abandoned his most liberal ideas (health-care reform) and advanced his most conservative (welfare reform, less budget growth) after getting his balls busted in the 1994 elections by Newt Gingrich.
Furthermore, you note that Clinton accomplished more in the conservative economic way — balancing the budget, deregulation, trade liberalization — than any GOP President in your lifetime save Reagan. But that probably includes Bush the Elder, Jerry Ford, Nixon, and maybe the last bit of Eisenhower, if you’re older than you look. Leaving aside Bush the Elder, who had no serious economic differences with Reagan, and was a short-timer to boot, and Jerry Ford, who was almost a caretaker President, and Eisenhower, to whom I seriously doubt you were paying attention in kindergarten, if you were even alive, leaves Nixon, and the Nixon of 1968 and 1972 — Mr. wage and price controls! — was hardly what you’d call an economic conservative. Had he run in 2008, he’d have been to the left of where Obama said he stood.
I think this points to your essential confusion, and bad choice. You are putting your faith in a label — “Democrat” — like you once put your faith in a different label — “Republican” — and foolishly thinking that the meaning of those labels stays constant over time. It doesn’t. The Democrats of the 1950s were totally different from the Democrats of the 2010s, or even the Democrats of the 1970s. So were the Republicans.
The brutal fact is that both parties are largely run by opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites. How could it be otherwise? If they had a real life, and real ambitions to make something of themselves, they’d have started businesses, invented widgets, and reared strong and moral children, like the rest of us. You don’t go into politics — and you don’t succeed at politics — unless there is something just a little broken inside your head that gets more joy out of the televised adulation of millions (and the power this brings) than in the smile of your own child, or the satisfaction of giving your employees a nice Christmas bonus because the company’s done well this year.
You’re like the woman who flees one abusive relationship only to settle into the arms of her rescuer — who rescued her by threatening to beat the hell out of the original man, slash his tires, et cetera, and now says he can’t live — will kill himself! — without her. Can we predict the future of this woman? Or of you? After a while, you’ll find your blind loyalty is not repaid, or rather, repaid by brutal exploitation. And then you’ll flip back to being equally blindly loyal to the other party. Madness.
Put not your faith in politicians, Jim. They’re not normal people. Give up the dreams of the Strong Leader who can solve Big Problems. He doesn’t exist. Any person or agency with the personal qualities necessary to acquire sufficient power won’t use it responsibly, and anyone who would use it responsibly lacks the merciless ambition and coldness of soul necessary to acquire the power in the first place. It’s a dream of perpetual motion, or all the children being above average, something that probably violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Carl,
Many politicians at the local level are normal people who just want government to be better. But for them to make it on the big stage they have to have something to give them enough energy to run and they have to be able to build a coalition. That does not make all of them or even most of them opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites, anymore than physicists are uniformly arrogant, as I’ve heard tell.
Based on your comments you should also be telling Jim not to put his faith in physicists – which you probably would.
My point is that we need both politicians and physicists, and if we want to actually improve our political institututions and our scientific institutions we are going to have to find sufficiently good (not perfect) politicians and physicists and then support them.
Yours,
Tom
Carl,
I’ve been reading this blog for a number of years and I don’t think I’ve ever ready any comment of yours that I could disagree with.
So my question is:
What do you think men that value Liberty and freedom as the highest idea should do?
I currently live in the peoples republic of CA, I’m aching to move back to NH and help the freestate people make a principled stand for liberty, but my business partner won’t live anywhere but San Diego and walking away from the business would hurt a bunch of our employees.
But for them to make it on the big stage they have to have something to give them enough energy to run and they have to be able to build a coalition. That does not make all of them or even most of them opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites.
Yeah it does. Sorry, Tom. I can’t agree. I will freely admit the occasional exception, and if you like except the entire class of local politicians from my skeptical conclusion, but I think big-time national-level politics is such an extraordinarily competitive and vicious blood sport that you need to be obsessed if not a littlle deranged (and not a little narcissistic) to make it to the top. The game takes over your life. It’s like trying for the gold medal in the Olympics, except that after the Olympics you can at least try to become a normal person again.
I’m not saying that means you should never trust national-level politicians. Trust them when you know their interests are aligned with yours, when you have them on a short leash, when you’ve made sure the power they have to mess your life up is sharply limited.
And yes indeed, I would equally advise Jim not to put his faith in physicists. Heck, faith in general is something for your friends, your woman, your God. WIth strangers you should cut courteous deals in which explicit, sensible agreements take the place of any acts of faith. Otherwise we descend, as a society, into a wars of religion 16th century struggle over the precise nature of public faith and morality. Feh.
if we want to actually improve our political institututions and our scientific institutions we are going to have to find sufficiently good (not perfect) politicians and physicists and then support them.
A good goal, always, Tom. But I submit for your consideration the wisdom of James Madison, who wrote our Constitution based on his (very unpleasant) experience essentially running the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War we almost lost through bickering, infighting, egos and the like. He pondered long and hard over the problem of guaranteeing that your political leaders are a better breed of men than, say, your average philandering, tax-cheating, office-supply lifting voter. He concluded this was a fool’s errand, and that instead we should try to build political structures that would function even if fools and knaves were put in the positions of power.
It would, of course, not be a very efficient government — it would at best muddle forward slowly when inhabited by men of sense and good morals. It would have difficulty prosecuting a long war in which there were significant early reverses (a fact he personally experienced during the War of 1812, interestingly). It would probably be forever unable to “solve” such truly existential problems as ensuring every American citizen lived a life as close to the ideal as possible. In short, it would never really be able to force the mass of citizens to rise above their nature, or to solve problems that free citizens in voluntary association couldn’t solve themselves.
But it would be very resistant to being turned into the mighty engine of oppression he knew (and European experience demonstrated) it could so easily become. Would-be Napoleons and Caesars could be safely elected, and would retire, frustrated, having accomplished little of their dreams. Special interests would always be scrapping for tidbits off the common table — it being impossible for any one of them to take over the table as its personal lunch counter.
That’s unquestionably a pretty pessimistic view on which to build your social structures. But let us note well that Madison’s “dark pessimistic” view has resulted in the most enjoyable and wealthy society ever seen by men, while the more “bright optimistic” views of various utopians from Marx to Woodrow Wilson have resulted in short-lived, oppressive, and poor societies. Empirically speaking, being pessimistic about human nature (at least human nature with power) turns out to lead to the brightest future. Weird species, us.
What do you think men that value Liberty and freedom as the highest idea should do?
What they’ve always done, Paul. Live your life so that you can stand naked before God at the end of your days and be proud of who you were, what you did, what you said. Honor your wife. Rear your children well. Be straight with your employees and friends. Pay your debts. Apologize when you screw up, clean up your own messes. Be kind to those in need, defend women and children. Support worthy men with your money and vote, and do not cut deals of convenience with the devil or any of his agents. Know your limits: do not wield power you have not earned, or know not how to use. Give even your enemies courtesy and respect, even while you’re regretfully finding it necessary to cut their throats — use a sharp knife, and be quick.
We may not succeed, not in this time. Good men have sometimes fought rearguard actions when humanity takes a serious wrong turn, as it sometimes does, as it sometimes must, free will being the two-edged sword it is. But that’s not all that bad a fate, to go down — but with honor intact, and fighting hard. When the Sun comes out, as it always eventually does, our children (or grandchildren) will honor our names.
I sympathize with living in the People’s Repuiblic: I live in Orange County myself.
Carl,
Madison is a good source. You almost silenced me with him. But then I thought a little.
I think you overestimate how hard it is to get elected to an open Congressional seat, provided you are sufficiently optimistic and good at expressing yourself. And most Congressmen, once they are in can coast. I think you also underestimate the average voter’s ability to detect opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites – such detection is a pretty good survival trait.
Lastly, I think you vastly, vastly underestimate the capacity of the truly hard problems of governing to make utter fools and knaves out of normal people who are not at all opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites. I invite you to read your own descriptions of how the climate scientists fooled themselves. Richard Feynman advised scientists to not fool themselfs. Great advice! But it’s about as easy to follow as “Don’t make mistakes!”
Those are the real reasons not to trust politicians. It’s not that they are opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites – although some are. One example is that they are not and never will be wise enough to know the problems that they are not wise enough to solve. (Like how to have a fair system of paying for health care.) Another is that they will be responsible for solving problems that they know they are not wise enough to solve and they will have to try anyway. (Like winning WWII – no one was wise enough to know how to win it and they had to try anyway.) And there are probably other ways that normal people are forced / fooled into knavery and folly.
Yours,
Tom
I used to be a neo-con
I doubt that. In fact, I doubt if you even know what the word means. (Hint: Dick Cheney was not a “neo-con”.)
I think you overestimate how hard it is to get elected to an open Congressional seat, provided you are sufficiently optimistic and good at expressing yourself.
And lucky. In fact lucky is a major qualification.
Yours,
Tom
I think you also underestimate the average voter’s ability to detect opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites – such detection is a pretty good survival trait.
The detector seems to have broken down last year for much of the electorate. It has only become repaired this year, too late to prevent a lot of damage to the nation.
A piece of the issue with such a large slice being de facto welfare recipients is the inherent lack of personal investment in the system itself. Instead of having a bank account of savings dedicated to health care with a catastrophic-coverage-only insurance policy, one has an empty bank account and a promise from the government. Social security is similar.
So a fair chunk of people can be wandering around with “True monetary assets = 0.” Once you’re there, the entire ‘liability’ layer or civil infraction layer of our courts is neutered. The egregious cases here still end up in criminal court (Pit bull maulings, etc.) But the ‘So what can they do to me, I’m already at rock bottom’ attitude is pernicious.
The same situations with a person who has nominal ownership and control of a health account and a retirement account – of exactly the same “lifetime value” – should (eventually) result in somewhat different behavior.
The detector seems to have broken down last year for much of the electorate. It has only become repaired this year, too late to prevent a lot of damage to the nation.
Maybe so. People wanted to be fooled too much by the particular fooler, and the grumpy old man was not optimistic enough. I’m not seeing a rash of opportunistic megalomaniacs and parasites among the new Congresscritters though. They seem to want to go slow and get reelected.
I am seeing national Congressional leadership which has been surrounded by yes people and ensconsced in their echo chamber long enough that their ability to avoid fooling themselves has been seriously empaired, especially since they think they are on the cusp of a long held political dream – a dream long held by plenty of normal non-opportunistic, non-megalomaniac non-parasites like my Mom and Dad, who really think that the government can help poor people get medical care. They grew up believing FDR and Truman, after all.
BTW, I think FDR was an opportunistic megalomaniac. Truman was not. This did not prevent Truman from any amount of foolish knavery.
Yours,
Tom
P.S. The same problems that will always prevent politicians from properly knowing which problems they can’t solve also will always prevent voters from knowing which problems politicians can’t solve.
I mean really. The issue of “Health Care Reform” is one which so completely begs people to fool themselves it’s a wonder any of us can think straight. It hits a log of very hot buttons (death, illness, fairness, money, power), and it hits them all hard.
This would explain the anger on all sides, wouldn’t it?
Yours,
Tom
Eh….Tom, we may disagree only on terminology, and inasmuch as I’m an equations kind of guy myself — if it can’t be written down in math I’m never sure I know the meaning at all — by me that’s close enough.
A few points, however. First, open Congressional seats are relatively rare, you know. And it’s only relatively easy to get elected to one if you belong to the dominant political party in that region. That is, if an open seat arises in good ol’ boy Texas, then, sure, if you’re in good with the local Republican leadership, you probably only have to remember to put your socks on before your shoes and you’re in. Same if you’re a Democrat running for an open seat in the Bay Area. But… what if you’re a Republican running for an open Senate seat in Massachusetts? Or a Tea Partier running for an open seat…well, anywhere? That’s another story, is it not?
Is it really plausible that pretty much everyone who wants to work in Congress just happens to fall into the Democratic or Republican philosophies? Or is it that people find it necessary to compromise their own individual principles nontrivially, fairly often, in order to secure the blessings of a major political party necessary for election? Honestly, this is one of the things that would stop me from running for Congress. I’m not sure I could in all honesty subscribe whole-heartedly to either party’s platform enough to earn their endorsement. How many other decent people feel similarly? And what does it say about those who go ahead and do it anyway, to get elected? I don’t have solid answers — but I have grave doubts, I do.
I generally do trust the Bullshit-A-Tron detector instrument most reg’lar folks have on board — when they meet individuals personally, and can size them up with the full bandwidth of nonverbal communication. You can — and people do — tell a lot about a man by how he looks you in the eye, shakes your hand, answers your questions, addresses you, et cetera and so forth. That’s often why minor unscripted and unguarded Joe the Plumber moments can be the making (or breaking) of politicians, if caught on tape.
But the difficulty is that, at the national level, it’s no longer a question of person to person contact. You only meet these guys carefully packaged on TV, and the amount of scripting and prompting and make-up, both literal and figurative, added to the packaging makes me doubtful we really know them very well at all. A wise person learns to distrust the impression he gets from the tube, of course, and this probably accounts for an increasingly restless cynicism among voters, but…what do we do when that’s all we get? At some point, the will to believe — to hope he really is what he seems like — despite a few nagging doubts — appears to take over. It takes a strong spirit to say, no, a relationship based on a pretty photo, a clever self-description, and hope is not going to go well. If people can’t do it successfully in the context of Internet dating, why expect it can be done well when picking political leaders, where the immediate rewards and penalties are far less? And don’t we have some prominent examples of tuned-in, supposedly whip-smart intellectual pundits (Althouse, Noonan, Buckley) who pulled the lever on the basis of hope for President O last fall — and have now come to realize they deceived themselves?
As a species, we are very susceptible to the delusion of messianism, do you not agree? Dad is going to come along and Fix Things, punish the guilty, reward the virtuous, set all aright again. We just need to give him our loyalty. And arguably, in a very local, tribal context — the family, small firm, local neighborhood — where we can really size each other up, one ape to another, this works out OK. But transplant that tendency away from its natural checks into the arena of TV special effects and simulated reality, where our protective instincts are short-circuited, and…watch out. By me, we’re better off realizing the limitations of our psychologies. If God had meant for us to build efficient effective cohesive tribes of 300 million, he would have given us wings — and six legs: made us insects instead of men.
I don’t have any problem agreeing that anyone who tries to do what the voters routinely demand of their government — outlaw bad luck! Make the evil past not have happened! Save me from my dumbass decisions! Make water flow uphill! — would be forced to grow rather cynical. If he didn’t quit. Which is what I suggest a normal reasonable person would do. But this gets me back to my original prescription: citizens, expect less of your government, and you will fare better. You’re adding perhaps the additional note that you’ll also stop forcing your political leaders to lie to you.
On a separate note, neither Feynman nor myself would ever suggest that the quality of science rests on the good behaviour of scientists. Quite the contrary. Empirical science — which, as I have argued here before, climate studies is not — has deliberately built a deeply cynical, extremely inefficient structure specifically in order to eliminate the necessity for trusting scientists. This is why we insist on all this very expensive, apparently “wasteful” duplication of experimental results by multiple researchers, open exchange of data, yadda yadda. We do not trust ourselves. We know that only the iron rule of empirical verification prevents bullshit and fantasy from creeping in, despite our best intentions.
Not a bad prescription to use in our politics, too. I look forward to the day when the promises and theories of politicians are put to the same empirical proofs as scientific hypotheses. Let Senator Blowhard make specific, measureable promises about his bill. If they fail to come true — no more lawmaking for you, buddy. Ever. And if you can’t provide a measureable outcome? Then the proposed law is far too dangerous to pass. Like driving a car with a new braking system untested in the lab.
The issue of “Health Care Reform” is one which so completely begs people to fool themselves it’s a wonder any of us can think straight.
Quite right. Which is why a sensible, thoughtful political leader wouldn’t have touched it. There was no need to. People weren’t dying on the sidewalks, or being forced to live in cardboard shacks to afford their blood pressure meds.
What does it say about our current crop of leaders that they waded in anyway? You know what they say about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.
And you can also keep in mind that the most reliably profitable cons — Find the love of your life! Get all the hot chicks! Never grow old! Make $millions overnight! — touch our other hot buttons (sex, death and security, both financial and emotional). Con men, too, are eager as decent people are not to dive into the powerful dark currents of those murky half-unconscious waters.
I think we generally do agree, Carl. One thing that would really improve Congress is more and smaller districts. The Athenian Assembly was not too big to hold a vote. Five thousand Congressmen mean districts of sixty thousand people – small enough that we could really know our Congressmen.
Yours,
Tom
Al Says:
A piece of the issue with such a large slice being de facto welfare recipients is the inherent lack of personal investment in the system itself.
Quite right. Add to that the fact (from the IRS’s own figures) that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only about 4% of income taxes. They have no investment in the notion of limited government. Indeed, they’re quite rational in voting for the candidates who promise them more free stuff, because for them, the stuff really is free.
Add to that the fact (from the IRS’s own figures) that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only about 4% of income taxes. They have no investment in the notion of limited government.
The notion that the poor do not contribute to the expenses of government is a pernicious falsehood. In reality they pay a similar fraction of their income as other groups:
Rand,
Nice swipe. I was a Wolfowitz fan way back in the first Bush admin. I’ve since gotten over it.
How much of that 17% is returned in direct benefits to the relevant quartiles over a lifetime Jim?
I was a Wolfowitz fan way back in the first Bush admin.
So was I. I still am. That doesn’t make me a neocon, then or now. As I said, like many (if not most) who throw the word around, you apparently don’t know what a neocon is.
How much of that 17% is returned in direct benefits to the relevant quartiles over a lifetime Jim?
Nothing close to, say, the benefit that the top quartile gets from the mortgage interest deduction.
The point is that the poor have just as big a share of their income going to government, and are therefore more invested in having it spent well than the wealthy are (because less of their spending is discretionary).
Apparently, you don’t either.
They’re more interested in getting it back, because the principle things they’ve actually paid into as “taxes” are advertised as payments to their future self. With a shitload of interest.
The higher quartiles (all three, actually) tend to get less money back from Social Security than they put into it – making it a true tax. Unlike SS from the lowest quartile perspective.
Rand,
I refer to the contemporary Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, et al neoconservatism. Would you like to haggle some more or just tell everyone what you think it means?
I think that just because you agree with Wolfowitz, Perle et al, it doesn’t make you a neocon. Again, you don’t understand the meaning of the word. It’s not about what you believe, but the route by which you came to believe it.
Neocons are former liberals who became hawkish on foreign policy. Does that, or did it ever, describe you? It certainly doesn’t describe Dick Cheney, who has always been a “con” (as in, “conservative”).
Yes Rand, I know the history and origins of neoconservatism. You can subscribe to neoconservatism as a belief system without having been a former liberal or part of that generation of former liberals. What else would you call an adherent to neoconservatism?
Also, neocons are not merely liberals who became hawkish. I am still a hawk. The difference is in the direction of that hawkishness. Neocons advocate using military power, among other things, to promote democracy and respect for human rights overseas. That’s where I part company with the neocons. I view it as a futile endeavor.
To Carl Pham: I have no idea who you are and, until this thread, had no idea where you lived. But a quick Google search seems to indicate that (1) you choose not to have a blog, and (2) no magazine or other journal is paying you to write your opinions on a regular basis.
Those, sir, are travesties. Can you please fix one or both situations, immediately?
Neocons advocate using military power, among other things, to promote democracy and respect for human rights overseas. That’s where I part company with the neocons. I view it as a futile endeavor.
You failed history, didn’t you? Or at the very least had a brainwashed professor who thinks in unicorn-land much the same.
I’m thinking the correct term for you is “Moby” not “former neo-con.” As pointed out, neoconservative has a very specific meaning, one which you fail to meet. Unless maybe you’re an imperialist, as you claim to be hawk but against using military force to turn former enemies into functional democracies. How should we use our military force, then, for expansionism? Blind rage and revenge? Show tunes and dance numbers?
One of our allies, who was turned into a functional and capable democracy by our military power, has a word to describe you. Baka.
Nice ad hominem, John. Get a hold of yourself. There is no rulemaking body that says neoconservatism is exactly this and is encompassed by only these people. It’s a school of thought. Wolfowitz was most ably to place some of its tenets into practice.
Also, you seem to assume I advocate democracy. I don’t. Democracy creates a tyranny of its own as some realized during the Bush era and others are so painfully learning in the age of Obama. Even if I did, I wouldn’t advocate utterly destroying a nation first, as was required with Germany and Japan, just to create a democracy.
The military is not a humanitarian organization. The purpose of a military is to kill people and destroy property. That’s fine, the military is a necessary evil. I don’t advocate that we use the military for anything other than the defense of the nation. You won’t nail me down on what defense of the nation means because threats and how you deal with them vary over time.