Draft horses, not people

In an astonishing act of stupidity, the incoming Democratic Congress has decided to introduce itself to the public by calling for a resumption of the military draft - this time dressed up as "national service," which would be more "comprehensive" and would include various forms of "social service" in addition to the military kind.

Actually it's not fair to blame this remarkable development on the whole Democratic Congress, since it is really the brainchild of a single congressman, the eccentric Charles Rangel, soon to chair the Ways & Means Committee. Restoring the draft has been a pet project of Rangel's for some time - though when the Republicans allowed the idea to come up for a vote, almost every member of Congress voted against it. Including (you guessed it) Charlie Rangel himself.

If you think Rangel's vote against his own proposal indicates he is not entirely serious about it, you're probably right. Truth is, it's hard to know what's going on in Rangel's peculiar mind. It's like trying to figure out what Michael Richards thought he was doing when he started yelling the n-word on a comedy club stage. No doubt he had some intention that seemed reasonable to him at the time, but it is probably a wasted effort to determine what it was.

What's more interesting than Rangel's proposed bill, which will go nowhere, is the fact that some on the left actually do seem to support a return to conscription. This is odd, since opposition to the draft was the defining feature of the 1960s-era politics that forged contemporary liberalism. Meanwhile conservatives, who mostly supported the draft in the Vietnam years, are almost all opposed to it now. I think there are several reasons for this turnaround.

First, some liberals harbor an unhealthy nostalgia for the '60s - the sit-ins, the love-ins, the marches, the whole counterculture atmosphere. They want a return to those days, and since the draft was a big part of the picture, they want a return to the draft, as well. This doesn't make much sense, but as Woody Allen observed in another context, the heart wants what it wants.

Second, some liberals just cannot wrap their minds around the fact that the people who volunteer for military duty really do want to serve. To their way of thinking, there is no way anyone would ever willingly submit to the hardships and hazards of military life. Ergo, today's soldiers must be volunteers in name only. They are "really" being forced into the military by economic privation. In support of this thesis, liberals like Rangel (and John Kerry) trot out the shopworn claim that our soldiers are disproportionately drawn from the ranks of disadvantaged, poorly educated minorities. This has not been true for decades; the educational level of the US military today is actually higher than that of the civilian population, and the racial breakdown includes a disproportionately high number of Caucasians (minorities are slightly underrepresented). But facts don't stand in the way of feelings.

Third, there's some strange equalitarian notion of "fairness." In this view, it is unfair to let people choose to join the military or not join, but very fair to force them into the military against their will. We see a similar concept of fairness in the liberal approach to education (it's unfair to let people choose their schools, but fair to force them into bad schools) and health care (unfair to let people choose their doctors, fair to force them into crappy HMOs) and economics (unfair to let people choose to shop at Wal-Mart, fair to force them to shop at higher-priced stores). I think the underlying assumption is that most people, who are not nearly as smart as congressmen and college professors, can't be trusted to make intelligent choices, so it is best for them to be allowed no choices at all.

Fourth, there's the idea that wars are fought at the bidding of the super-rich, using the sons of the poor as cannon fodder. If the sons of the rich were on the front lines, so goes this line of thinking, there would be no more wars. This ignores the fact that for most of American history, the sons of the rich were on the front lines, and there were still plenty of wars. Rich men's kids served in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. (Joe Kennedy, Jr., was killed in the Second World War, and John Kennedy served on PT-109 .) They served in Korea (remember that rich doctor on M*A*S*H?) and even in Vietnam (hello, John Kerry). US casualties in all these wars were orders of magnitude higher than in more recent conflicts like the Gulf War, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If the "sons of the rich" thesis were true, one would expect to see higher casualties now that the rich can opt out and only the "poor" are left to fight. Why would heartless war profiteers care about the lives of cannon fodder? Instead we see the opposite - the lowest casualty rates in the history of warfare, with constant efforts to drop them lower still. 

Finally, I think many liberals care less about military conscription than about the "social service" part of the program. Forcing every eighteen-year-old to carry bedpans in a nursing home or to bus trays at a soup kitchen will instill an attitude of "commitment" to "public service" and to "giving something back." As I interpret it, this means kids will be indoctrinated in the notion of government service as the be-all and end-all of life. "Ask not what your country can do for you," JFK rather ominously advised, "but what you can do for your country." His admirers have taken him at his word. These days most of us spend half our working lives producing revenue for the local, state, and federal governments, but according to the more statist liberals, it's still not nearly enough. Why, the government is simply starved of money and manpower. Famished, actually!  So why not give more money (let's raise taxes) and more time (let's institute national service) to our government masters? The poor dears are simply wasting away for lack of "resources."

As you have guessed by now, I am no fan of Charlie Rangel's proposal (and, if one can judge by his voting record, neither is he). I don't want government further limiting people's choices and imposing itself even more deeply into their lives. I don't want a return to the draft, whether for military service or social service. I don't pine for the glory days of the 1960s - which were, as I remember them, a very bad time in American history, with the nation rent by the violence of political, generational, and racial conflict.

Nor do most people, and the smarter Democrats know it, which is why Rangel's idea will be allowed to quietly die. All he's accomplished is to make himself look foolish and make the new Congress look weird. And to remind people that politicians are no wiser than the rest of us, and frequently less so.

Comments

[John_C]

Are there any other Democrats besides Charlie Rangel who support the idea of reinstating the draft? On the surface it is not a bad idea, part of citizenship in many countries. But I agree, that it is entirely too much of an infringement on personal liberties. If one does not believe in a war, they should not be forced to fight in it.

You do know that President Bush is now on record (on Rush Limbaugh) stating that we are in Iraq to keep the oil supplies from falling into terrorists hands who might raise prices and hurt our country. That is now are latest stated reason for being in Iraq and confirms what many on the left have been saying all along, that this is a war driven by economic forces.

One startling fact I just pulled out of Forbes.com is that the U.S., as of 2004, imports 65% of our oil, and that is expected to increase to the 70% to 75% range. That is reaching very dangerous numbers and should cause us to consider our energy policies for national security purposes.

[Art]

It's just human nature to bicker and argue. You say "po-tay-toe" and I say "po-tah-toe". It's all about experiencing duality and separation. "I am not you." Or, "I am separate from you." Once you've experienced enough of it you get to graduate on to the next level.
excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE:
I suddenly just relaxed completely and allowed "myself" to dissolve (?) open up (?) merge (?) into the "oneness" that surrounded me." http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html - Art

[tina brewer]

Nations form according to the universal law of attraction of similars. The holding of certain common values and principles is the glue which binds any nation. Service to the "greater good" in the form of public service is in NO WAY oppressive when it is held as a common ideal. If our country has come to the point (and I definitely think it has) that we no longer have common ground as a distinct people, then our nation will inevitably disintegrate because it will be in violation of a basic natural law. The process of disintegration will be long and painful. Arguments over things like the draft, as well as many issues in the culture wars, are just symptoms of the fact that "American" no longer means anything particularly binding.
Sometimes we look on in astonishment at the speed and effectiveness with which other nations are able to enact legislation regarding things over which we can only endlessly dispute. My favorite example (I am in alternative medicine) is the breastmilk/formula debate. Everyone knows that breastmilk is vastly superior to formula in every way. The evidence is compelling that the amount of money spent on healthcare for children whose health is damaged by the use of formula (increased infections, allergies, etc.) is significant. However, in our country this knowledge will never lead to any formal PUBLIC policy which might serve to strengthen and benefit the culture of breastfeeding. That is because we don't agree fundamentally that anything is of greater value than our individual right to choose whatever we wish. In Australia, by contrast, it is only possible to use formula for your baby if you obtain a prescription for it from your doctor because you cannot nurse. We might look at those poor Australians and say "man, what an oppressive system" because we have long since lost the ability to experience the joy of commonly held values and their public expression. Think of the example of a house full of vegetarian roommates living together. THey share this binding common value of vegetarianism, and in order to protect and uphold this value, they agree that the house rules are that no meat will be prepared in the common kitchen. Is this oppressive? Or is it an expression of an important value which is made official and therefore BINDING EVEN IN THE FACE OF THE TEMPTATION TO DISOBEY, which disobedience would effectively erode the common value? I guess I just think you are too quick to label every transpersonal social demand as being somehow oppressive. And the thing is, I am not a liberal. While I definitely agree that service as a spiritual ideal is in no way limited to public service, nevertheless public service is potentially noble and provides a psychic glue which has the potential to greatly strengthen a nation.

[Michael Prescott]

>Think of the example of a house full of vegetarian roommates living together.

If they choose to be vegetarians and live together, fine. If they're forced to adopt this lifestyle, it's not fine. And remember: a government that can force you to be a vegetarian can just as easily make vegetarianism illegal. A government that can prohibit the use of baby formula can just as easily make breastfeeding a crime. Think this couldn't happen? There are already periodic efforts to outlaw herbal medicines and other natural remedies. It's easy to assume that only the "right" policies (i.e., the ones you agree with) will be enforced. The reality is that once we give government this much power over us, they can enforce any policies they like, and many of these policies will be ones you disagree with.

>"American" no longer means anything particularly binding.

What it used to mean is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...

>Nations form according to the universal law of attraction of similars.

Most nations form through warfare and accidents of history. The USA formed according to a set of politico-economic principles based on individual rights.

>you are too quick to label every transpersonal social demand as being somehow oppressive.

You could have said exactly the same thing to any critic of Nazism, Italian fascism, or Soviet Communism. Those systems imposed plenty of transpersonal social demands. If today's society is moving in a statist direction (which in some respects it is), it's not because there are too few transpersonal social demands, but because there are too many.

That government is best which governs least.

[Matthew Cromer]

"That government is best which governs least. "

Amen.

[John_C]

"That government is best which governs least. "

As I grow older, I find myself more in agreement with that old saying. Government as an institution is completely messed up. It does not matter what particular party is in control of the government. It functions in a completely dysfunctional manner. Starting and continuing wars for dubious reasons, spending amazing amounts of money overseas and neglecting domestic priorities, picking winners and losers in the marketplace, etc. How many companies could survive if they spent money recklessly and made poor decisions like the U.S. government does, not any, at least not with government "help".

[John_C]

"government that can prohibit the use of baby formula can just as easily make breastfeeding a crime."

Public breastfeeding is actually a crime in many states within the U.S. That demonstrates how absurb government, those who pass the laws, can be. There is nothing more natural and more vital to human being's historical development than "breastfeeding", yet in modern America it is deemed inappropriate to be done publicly and a crime. Kind of nutty.

"Most nations form through warfare and accidents of history. The USA formed according to a set of politico-economic principles based on individual rights."

That is a bit of a warmed over view of the formation of the United States. There was a bloody civil war between breakaway colonists and those loyal to the British crown, which we now call the American Revolutionary War, that was the actual event that allowed the United States to form in the late 18th Century. Certainly, the United States codified and promoted individual liberties in its fight for independence, but it was savage violence and the power of the gun that really allowed the rebel colonists to establish their own country.

[Michael Hardesty]

I take it that you are the lowlife who attacked me on the Randzapper blog.
When I briefly posted my comments on holocaust revisionism on the Barnes site you raised no objection or gave any semblance of an argument.
Your whole approach is Hey,isn't this outrageous that someone could doubt this holy truth. Several folks have and the uniform response in many countries is to imprison them. Here they can't quite do that yet so smears are the only "argument" of the traditional defenders of the holohoax.
Sometime check out the video of the Michael Shermer-Mark Webb debate and you can decide which side here has the facts.
By the way wasn't the "someone" on the oofy Barnes site who asked me about holocaust revisionism you ?
Even Vad Vashem and the Wiesenthal Center don't peddle the hoary human soap nonsense.
Read Faurisson, Rudolph, Butz, Hoggan, Rassinier,Rassinier, Harwood, Sanning et al and seriously look at the many informative essays on the JHR part of the IHR website. If you can refute anything, let's see it.
Since NO one said Auschwitz or any other camp was a nice place you are inventing a strawman of your own making.
The fact that I reamed some moron who voted for Bush in strong language is not a bad thing.
I had stronger words for John Lewis at ARI. Michael, you are still haunted by The Silence Of The Laughs as I explained to you at site for popperian goofs.
You are pathetic, you are a liar and you are a coward.
Oakland News was a one person website of a local Demo Party hack and vulgarian named Jeanette Sherwin who was struck down dead a few months after she banned me. Gee, maybe Rand's wrong about God. Good riddance was the majority view in Oakland of people of all ideological shades.
She would ban people when she was losing the argument, a quite frequent occurrence.
As far as some typos go, it happens and you
wouldn't even bring it up if we agreed.
On abortion, I was relaying the substance
of Rothbard's argument in The Ethics of Liberty. Where's the rebuttal ?