In the world of William Jefferson Clinton, political campaigning is always in season. There appears to be no circumstance, whether a eulogy, a tragic event such as the Oklahoma City bombing, allegations of racist burnings of black churches, or the Olympics that are off-limits as he extols "diversity."

       For Bill and Hillary Clinton and their coterie "diversity" is the catch phrase to justify racial and gender quotas, and is reflected in their selection of Cabinet secretaries and senior aides. Genuine diversity, on the other hand, is entirely different than the Clinton Brand X.

       Gail Heriot, a professor of law at a California university and co-chair of the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), writing recently in The Washington Times on the differences between real diversity and the Clinton-Gore numbers games, makes the point that if we are really interested in diversity, we need indicators more meaningful than sex or skin color. She argued that universities should be looking indeed for faculty with differing perspectives and experience, both liberals and conservatives.

       Regarding the California ballot question -- CCRI -- which would foster true diversity, she notes a recent poll that shows 62 percent of voters there favor the initiative, with only 32 percent against. The Clinton administration opposes CCRI, which reads, "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."

       If the president is sincerely interested in understanding what his diversity celebration is doing to the unity of the United States, he might open the Bible he has been photographed carrying from church, and start reading Exodus, in which the steadfast leadership of Moses, who trusts in the Lord, forged the Hebrew tribes into a great nation. There were no celebrations of diversity. The strength and success of the Israelites was due to their unity, a unity of attitude and purpose and a common understanding of their history and destiny.

       In this country at the moment, notwithstanding polls that show Mr. Clinton with a lead over Robert Dole, there are other polling data indicating that 57 percent of those who did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1992, and many others who did, are increasingly concerned about the course on which the president is leading the nation. The number of books written about the president and the first lady this year, generally critical of his performance and her role, whatever it is, may set a record.

       Unlike most of the widely read recent books about the Clintons, full of personal details, a book that focuses on the effects and future implications of his diversity policies is a cautionary tale, "The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future," written and published by Gerald L. Atkinson.

       A third of the 266-page book details the demoralization of the Navy by special treatment and the establishment of quotas for females and minorities. This is an area in which Mr. Atkinson is well qualified to analyze -- a former naval aviator, test pilot, carrier landing signal officer with Vietnam combat experience. His academic credentials -- four degrees including a doctorate in nuclear engineering -- give him both the knowledge and authority to build a convincing hypothesis that the Clintons and their Baby Boomer elitists are the new totalitarians, leading this country on a radical course that will destroy the institutions and traditions on which America was founded.

       In the section on the Bosnian intervention, he poses the simple question: "Can a multiethnic people who accentuate their differences ever live in peace?" I believe the answer is clear in the case of Bosnia, but the eerie parallel to our own situation should alarm thinking Americans.

       Mr. Atkinson supports his hypothesis with more than a thousand references from books, newspapers, magazines, talk radio, TV interviews and selected letter-to-the-editor. The book is neither a quick or easy read, but it is serious, thought-provoking and timely.

       Being an octogenarian who has spent more than half my lifetime in the Navy, I occasionally find myself looking back on the demobilization after World War II, which was similar in many ways to our post-Cold War downsizing of the armed services. In the summer 1996 issue of The Hook, the Journal of Carrier Aviation published by the Tailhook Association, there is an excellent article by Barrett Tillman about World War II demobilization.

       Then, as now, there were political and budgetary problems and the debate was often heated and bitter as the new technology of the atom, the jet engine and missiles impacted on the organization of the new Defense Department amid the scramble for roles and missions as a new war-fighting strategy evolved.

       Louis Johnson, the Secretary of Defense, arbitrarily canceled construction of the Navy's first postwar aircraft carrier, United States (CV58), and the Secretary of the Navy resigned in protest. CAPT John G. Crommelin, the legendary World War II naval aviator who had served as air boss and executive officers of the Enterprise in 1942 and 1943 when was the only fast carrier in the South Pacific, was forced into retirement in 1949 when his outspoken support of aircraft carriers was in direct conflict with the Truman administration's plans to savage naval aviation and give the new U.S. Air Force sole responsibility for the strategic attack mission.

       Mr. Tillman concludes his commentary on the lessons of history by noting that the national defense debate was resolved and settled by outsiders who almost no one knew at the time -- North Koreans, outside our declared area of interest -- who launched a combined-arms blitzkrieg on South Korea on June 25, 1950. Secretary Johnson was quickly relieved by President Truman and the wartime chief of staff, former Secretary of State and VMI graduate, George Marshall, took over at the Pentagon. World War II aircraft carriers were rapidly taken out of mothballs and, by the end of the Korean War, in-commission carriers had more than doubled from 15 to 34.

       Although it is clear there are lessons to be learned from the post-World War II situation, in which we were abruptly caught short by the belligerence of a third-rate nation, there are two additional negative factors imperiling our national security today.

       The first and most fundamental difference between then and now is that the commander-in-chief then was Harry Truman, and the second factor, that flows from the first, is that the radical feminist diversity policies of the current commander-in-chief have undermined the morale and integrity of the combat forces.

       Appreciations and understanding of the dedication, strength and wisdom of Mr. Truman was recently notched up with publication of a new, single volume biography of the 33rd president. In the August 1996 issue of the American Spectator, the eminent British writer and historian Paul Johnson wrote an extensive and highly favorable review of Alonzo L. Hamby's "Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman." Mr. Johnson, a perceptive observer of American politics, wrote in that review that "there are striking parallels between the backgrounds of Truman and President Bill Clinton. No man who has five times been elected governor of a state like Arkansas can possibly be honest. That observation has been fully validated by events."

       Truman, however, emerged from the corrupt Pendergast political system of Jackson County and Kansas City, Mo., but was still honest and his own man. Truman, not despite his background but because of it, had the character to lead America and the Western alliance when he was thrust into the presidency.

       It is well known that Harry Truman served in the American Expeditionary force in France in World War I, just as it is common knowledge that Bill Clinton Dodged the draft and never served a lick of time in any military service. This significant difference is highlighted in part of the Paul Johnson review: "It was the First World War that made him. It showed he could, and given the chance would, lead from the front. He enlisted as soon as possible in a spirit of old-fashioned patriotism, served in France as a battery commander in the 129th Field Artillery, led his men with conspicuous courage and skill and was discharged from active service as a major. He loved his gunners and they loved him. He remained a reserve officer throughout the interwar years, regularly going into camp on maneuvers. Truman's nearly 30 years with the U.S. Army was part of his Americanism -- his desire to join, to participate in, every aspect of life in his community."

       Although Gerald Atkinson in "The New Totalitarians" stops short of saying the Republic will be in jeopardy if Mr. Clinton is re-elected, he does make the case that many traditional American institutions, in particular the Navy, will be irreparably damaged by a second Clinton term -- due in large measure to his policies of placing women aboard ships and in combat roles.

       With two months until the pivotal presidential election, every American should pay careful attention to the qualities of character and leadership of the man who would be commander-in-chief for the next four years. The lessons of history demonstrated that strong and virtuous character traits are essential for the man who holds the office of the president in our great land.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ADM Thomas H. Moorer, a naval aviator, graduated from the Naval Academy in 1933 and served in both the Pacific and Atlantic. In 1967, he was nominated to be chief of naval operations by President Lyndon Johnson and in 1970 became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for two terms.
___________________________________________________________________________________________


                                                                                              Return to:


                                  Home                           A failure of generalship                 The Pretenders: A Failure of Admiralship