Walt Kelly was one of our preeminent political philosophers, and as such much of what he said concerning politics and politicians continues to ring true. Understanding the politician can no more change its spots than can a leopard, in his “Pogo” strip Walt much like Al Capp’s “Li’l Abner” portrayed politicians for the amoral creatures they are. As We the People along with the rest of the world are “treated” to the furious back-peddling of politicians about their previous votes in Congress on Iraq, one scene from Walt comes vividly to mind. Congersman Frog is telling Ol’ Mouse how he had been gulled into voting for the Tompkins (Tonkin) Gulf Resolution of ’64, and was now telling any and all he had been “hoodwinked, soft-soaped, laundered!” Mouse is so impressed by this passionate disavowal he exclaims “I don’t see why we can’t get the (Nobel) Peace Prize for you on those grounds alone!” To which Congersman Frog replies, “For that kinda dough I’ll say twice as much, twice as brave.”

That accurately describes shameless politicians pandering for votes now that are trying to claim they were “hoodwinked, soft-soaped, laundered!” into voting for Caesar Bush’s wars, but in order to promote themselves and bring in the cash for their campaigns it only amounts to “For that kinda dough I’ll say twice as much, twice as brave.” But they will only do so because politicians no longer make speeches “to the sound of cocking pistols in their audiences.” However, the way things are going…

Cheney says “Al-Qaida can’t win in a stand-up fight.” Rhetorical question: Could Cheney? It’s a whimsical thought, that any of the ilk of Cheney, Bush, Clinton (him or her), would actually put their lives at risk in a stand-up fight. How easy it is, and has always been, for the rich and powerful to start the wars others will die in, for politicians to make the decisions sending countless numbers into harm’s way.

Oh good, politicians are “Outraged! Shocked, shocked!” about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Don Imus really reamed those responsible in unmistakably clear language. But like the efforts of Lou Dobbs concerning our porous borders and the invasion of millions of illegal aliens from Mexico it’s like speaking into the air. Politicians will only do what they need to get elected and stay elected. And when the “opportunity” for war presents itself, politicians will vote for war. Why, perhaps because war is called by some “The ultimate aphrodisiac.” To be sure such a thing is insane, but this as much as anything explains why peace has never been an alternative to war.

Many of you will recall the scene from “Fail-Safe” where the professor confronts the rich, spoiled young woman, slapping her because he knows she is one of those for whom war is the ultimate aphrodisiac. She is bored with life and the very idea of a nuclear holocaust is so exciting to her she would push that button for the sake of an ultimate high. But she is far from being alone; too many wars have been waged out of what is no more than boredom. When Elmer Gantry is drunk, he wants to go out and use his fists. Of course, he loves using his fists drunk or sober; but somehow being drunk makes it easier to pick a fight, makes it easier for him to justify picking a fight. The cause is only secondary at best, if at all. And how very like those drunk with their own power. Caesar Bush? Iran’s Mad Mullah? North Korea’s “god?” Far from being alone in such a thing. Their “ancestry” goes all the way back to the very beginnings of humankind.

There are many historical precedents making the case for the romantic aspect of war. “War is hell” would seem to depend on the point of view. It may be Napoleon’s or Patton’s love of war on the grand scale, the Kamikaze diving his plane into a ship, that German soldier who after the war claimed “Under Hitler I really lived for twelve years and I haven’t lived since,” or simply “loving the smell of napalm in the morning.” There is a ferocity and predisposition to violence in much of humankind; and we are surrounded by the statuary and other commemorations exalting Mars. To the sensible and rational mind there is nothing of glory to die in the muck or be blown apart by a bomb. And it is the innocent in the millions that pay the price for the wars men make. But I often refer people to James Jones’ Pulitzer-winning “WWII” as an authoritative resource on the subject of war being either heaven or hell depending on the point of view.

It seems humankind demands its wars, demands its books like “War and Peace” and films like “Since You Went Away,” its heroes like the Sergeant York’s and Audie Murphy’s as though we humans were struggling to make some kind of justification for war; as though to say “since war is inevitable, let’s at least romanticize what we can of it.” In “The Wind and the Lion” those toasting the idea of a world at war, even though they may die in fomenting such a thing thought it “a glorious way to go out.” If these men were insane they have a lot of company in their insanity.

The history of humankind being one of wars the whole world is in need of the analyst’s couch, though analysts have proven no better than witch doctors in “curing” mental illness. Now I’m a reasonably rational human being and am all for peace rather than war. And I’ll keep on being an advocate for peace though there isn’t any Nobel on my horizon. “I’ll say twice as much, twice as brave” despite there being no dough in it. What I find despicable is politicians pandering for votes, talking “bravely” when their own lives are not on the line. But if Cheney were facing recuperating at Walter Reed… and so it goes.

Hitler should have been stopped at Munich. The bullies, the tyrants and despots will always be there as well as the Chamberlains. “Peace in our time?” Not when the world is filled with tyrants and despots. It is silly at the most charitable to talk of peace when the bullies are demanding others bow to them. Such bullies like those now in North Korea and Iran will no more than Hitler or Stalin do anything but take advantage of those who in their silliness speak of peace all the while trying to placate the bullies.

Let those that speak so glibly of peace do something about the monsters in human guise torturing and murdering children, about the members of gangs that prey on the weak and the law-abiding. In sum, let those that truly want peace do something substantive to cure what must surely be an infectious dementia, the most irrational act of humankind that has taken a greater toll on life than any disease or natural disaster: War. But like any bully or disease it won’t go away by simply talking about it no mater how “bravely” people speak of peace. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address makes for a lovely sentiment; but like all such it remains only a romantic sentiment denying the ugliness of reality attendant on all wars.

There is no “glory” in war; there is no “field of honor” or “noble dead,” there is only what people romanticize about war that gives such things any credence. But it is a most powerful element in any war, and to deny its allure is to deny the reality of it. For those of us who lived WWII we know the allure of such romanticism; and the fact it helped us win the war against the Axis Powers is the justification for such romanticism. Better there had been no Hitler or Tojo; but those were the ugly realities to be overcome by our own romantic reality of making the sacrifices necessary to overcome these bullies. Now, if those in power throughout the world were required to make such sacrifices there might be a chance for peace. But they aren’t.

I want the Gandhi’s not the war lovers to predominate. But they don’t. And so long as multiplied millions live in poverty and ignorance, so long will there be the need of those to confront the bullies in order to give the Gandhi’s any chance at all, to give the real romance of life a chance to prevail. The meek may inherit the earth, but first the earth must be made safe for the meek.