« Best Practices | Main | Spoilage »

McCain and Militarism

05 Feb 2008 02:42 pm

NCCC%201.jpg

Justin Logan argues that John McCain's brand of militaristic nationalism extends to the home front:

In fact, Senator McCain has indicated that not only would he like to unleash the U.S. military on substantial portions of the rest of the world, as president, he would work to militarize American society. In a 2001 article in the Washington Monthly, after lamenting that it was “not currently politically practical to revive the draft,” McCain went on to praise and argue for the expansion of the National Civilian Community Corps, a federally-administered program where volunteers “wear uniforms, work in teams, learn public speaking skills, and gather together for daily calisthenics, often in highly public places such as in front of city hall.”

McCain glowed at the fact that the participants “not only wear uniforms and work in teams…but actually live together in barracks on former military bases.” There is already a place where young people wear federal uniforms, live in military barracks, and gather for calisthenics in front of government buildings: It’s called North Korea.

I assume things won't quite get that bad. One striking fact about American society, however, is that our political culture is shot through with a strain of liberal individualism that tends to deeply effect politicians from both sides of the country's ideological divide. McCain, though, doesn't seem to share it. Instead, he appears to regard the self-sacrifice of the military man not as admirable because it helps protect and sustain a liberal society at home, but because it's actually preferable to have people's lives organized around regimentation, comformity, and sacrifice. Under the circumstances, what normal people might view as the downsides of war are in fact benefits, and the militarization of the home front is desirable as well.

Share This

Comments (47)

Those girls sure look dangerous to me! What tripe.

Well, he's a conservative, so he can't be a fascist.

Three guys and seven girls?? Why would anyone complain?

Doesn't McCain realize that group calisthenics will make our women skinny, thereby decreasing productivity?

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/best_practices.php

Good ol' Americorps NCCC. As a former corps member, I'd say that comparisons to the military are pretty overblown. Sure we lived on a decommishioned navy base, but we could leave whenever we wanted. There wasn't any stringent code of discipline. We wore uniforms only during the work day. We didn't, um, engage in combat (unless fighting each other after living and working together for 10 months counts).

Still and all, Americorps allows my wife and I to answer the question "how did you meet?" By saying "in an abandoned mattress factory that was being used as a homeless shelter." Aweseome.

This is how I know that I'm not a real American -- I seem to be resistant to that strain of liberal individualism you're talking about. I actually love the idea of (mandatory?) national service, and what I find most inspiring about, say, the FDR era, is the sense of common cause. I'm sure it's what Jonah Goldberg would call fascism, and what Justin Logan and his ilk would compare to juche, but I prefer to think of it as a kind of benign nationalism, oriented around public service and the common good rather than the obliteration of enemies or Others or whatnot.

I appreciate that part of John McCain's message, even if I reject almost all of the rest of it.

I, for one, welcome the sacrifices of our new calisthenics-in-coed-barracks lifestyle.

Three guys and seven girls?? Why would anyone complain?

Also note that Mr. Dyed Crewcut and Mr. At-Right-Of-Photo look, frankly, pretty damn swish. This means that even the ridiculous hat the lucky Mr. At-Left-Of-Photo is wearing is unlikely to impede the successful performance of his "national service."

So, presumably Justin Logan thinks that volunteer firefighters are also part of the creeping militarism in this country. You know - the uniforms, the physical fitness, the working in teams, the honorary places in parades, and whatnot. (And let's not even talk about PAID firefighters - why, to Justin Logan, they must be practically SS members.)

Alternatively, Justin Logan is a moron.

One of the difficulties with our current defense posture is that we are using the Army to do things armies aren't really designed to do, since armies primarily exist to destroy other armies, which, I think we all remember, was the easiest, shortest part of the Iraq War. It would really be interesting to see what would happen if a humanitarian force, organized with the same sort of regimentation as the military, with a similar allocation of financial resources (a pipe dream, I know), was created to deal with the kind of state-level interventions that our Army is currently being repurposed for. It could be as effective for our national security as a military in this day and age, and I would feel less bad about blowing hundreds of billions of dollars a year if I knew it was going towards feeding starving people or responding to natural disasters.

In the olden days a Conservative might have waxed, something, about McCain's embrace of Sparta over Athens, today, a Conservative would call him a Liberal Fascist...

Romney's comment on Dole was appropriate because Dole was taking sides. And it was also a good reminder that Dole was the one that was called so electable with all his name recognition, and so senior in the Senate, and damn, he was a war hero too who SERVED!! unlike any of his challengers in either Party

- then he ran a low energy, lackluster campaign and was thrashed.

What isn't excusable is McCain and his new Military-worshippers. Now swaggering around with a monstrous sense of entitlement that no ex-military person may be criticized by a "lesser citizen" who "never served".

Which puts, as some in the media and certainly McCain wishes - the professional, intergenerational Southern professional military caste on the highest pedestal - with lesser tiers for volunteers, wounded, draftees. Then "hero" government employees like cops and firemen and DEA.
And still lower still tiers for enlisted and non-line command officers who "never saw combat" - but SERVED!!!

Then various strata of mere civilians in order of their patriotism...

McCain then retaliates by wrapping himself via Bob Dole in the Flag: McCain said he was "saddened and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who is an American war hero, who built our party, who served our party so well for so long

Same tactic McCain has gone back to whenever he is in a scandal or wishes to promote his interests and intimidate critics. The scoundrel in his usual "Pay Homage to This Heroic POW" refuge.

McCain, taking lessons from Al Sharpton, goes on:

Bob Dole has served his country in war and in peace in a way that all of us admire, and to disparage that, or criticize him in such a way, is just not appropriate, I think, in the minds of most Americans." Then McCain demanded an apology on Dole's behalf from Romney

Notice what the scumbag does in his political tactics: He takes criticism of either his or Doles bad politics and reframes it as unpatriotic disparaging a war hero, not paying proper homage to their service, and worth apologizing for - like an officer upbraiding a lower-ranked officer or an elisted for failing to salute them.

Nothing new, McCain has been on this "I was captured by the enemy, that makes me special" sanctimonious high horse for decades. And hiding behind the flag and his vaunted service every time he gets caught in a scandal, gets caught in a public temper trantrum or making nasty threats to others, cover for his many lies and acts of treachery, or an excuse for some dimbulb move that shows how clueless he is on many matters a President will need to deal with.

I much prefer the attitude of George McGovern, Richard Nixon, Eisenhower, Bush I, Gerald Ford, JFK, Truman, Bob Kerrey - who faced equal or greater risks than McCain - and never dealt with people with an attitude that they were morally superior to civilians who never did military time. Who only rarely and with some embarassment used their military service to promote themselves, and never used Present-Day militaristic themes hammering other people with symbols that They Served!
("While you're saying my Immigration Plan is wrong, remember I was being tortured as a POW while you were on a deferment in Law School, you Fuck!"
"I know everything about winning wars. I served and therefore am ready to be Commander in Chief from Day 1"
"I was just a mere footsoldier at the start of the Reagan Revolution."
"I didn't come back from Vietnam with an arm that had to be rebroken twice and look at that wonderful Flag to later tolerate that Flag being tarnished by those who are voting against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform")

Remember, McCain was passed over by US Navy Command as unfit to be Admiral and act as a superior executive officer. On matters of performance, temperment, character (lies to his superiors about adultery), and judgement. McCain, of course, - blamed his rejection, his affairs, and nasty behavior to subordinates and peers as an emotional reaction from his POW experience. Except one of his wingmen on the Forrestal said he was the same nasty little hotdogger fighter jock after he was released from POW Camp as he was before he was captured.

As an ex-officer, a combat Vet, and a conservative Republican, I am sick of that guy and think he would be a dangerous Commader in Chief. I will never vote for him.

Go Obama! Go Hillary!

"affect"

I was at that NCCC campus (Perry Point, MD) that year (2006) with those people (the red head to the far left is especially cool, and the blond under the "National" in the sign is hot.) It was nothing like the military. Boy Scouts was more like the military. Cub Scouts might have been.

I don't know, is this some sort of savvy play by chris ford to sicken me from voting by endorsing the democratic candidates? It's almost effective. I always thought Hillary hatred was deeper and more abiding than McCain hatred among the atavist right, but I find their ways inscrutable, so I may very well be totally wrong on this score.

So whats the photo courtesy of?

He takes criticism of either his or Doles bad politics and reframes it as unpatriotic disparaging a war hero,

While I completely agree that this is a despicable tactic, hasn't this been the entire strategy of the GOP over the past 7 years?

In other words: The GOP takes criticism of either their or Bush's politics and re-frames it as unpatriotic disparaging of the troops.

So since you are a "conservative Republican" and I am not, can we agree that this tactic is vile and disgusting whether McCain or his nemesis Rush Limbaugh uses it?

Also note that Mr. Dyed Crewcut and Mr. At-Right-Of-Photo look, frankly, pretty damn swish. This means that even the ridiculous hat the lucky Mr. At-Left-Of-Photo is wearing is unlikely to impede the successful performance of his "national service." - James Gary

I dunno ... I've been in situations where there have been about 7 straight girls, two gay guys and me. Ya know what happened? I'd still get the "you're a Nice Guy(TM) and all and I like you but not in 'that way'" treatment ... indeed, being in with the gals often caused me to be stuck firmly in the "friend zone".

I do hope Mr. At-Left-Of-Photo is not getting that reception because, as fun as it is to have a chance to be surrounded by teh hawt like that ... it can get awful frustrating (and result in a feedback loop in which one descends into Nice Guy(TM) hood quite quickly) as well.

Alternatively, Justin Logan is a moron.
Or, alternatively, you are, since you either ignore or completely miss the distinction between federally administered national programs, and locally administered community programs.

Is that Michelle "Queen of the Concentration Camps" Malkin in that photo? Maybe they just took a break from internment practice to snap this photo....

The following post is a bit off-topic, but here goes.

If liberal individualism is our defining trait, why is the NFL more popular than the NBA, which offers more spectacular feats of athleticism? (For every Reggie Bush in the NFL, there's 10 Wes Welkers.) I don't think it's just marketing. Clearly there's something about an army of helmeted soldiers, led by their "tanks" up front, advancing on the enemy to seize field position, that resonates in the culture...

Yglesias wrote a post on Freedarko about the internationalization of basketball, but I don't think he really touched on the militarism issue. Why has American football not succeeded abroad where other American exports like baseball and hoops have flourished? Maybe because other societies have extinguished the militarism that still suffuses American society. Japan has a tradition of big dudes engaging in athletic feats (sumo) but football never caught on. In Europe, the World League of American Football died a slow death.

Then there's the CFL, which I guess ruins my thesis... (and where are the Israelis in the NFL?)

Even if you get stuck in the friend zone, it's still great practice to live and work with hot chicks. After honing your mojo skills on the practice squad, you might move up to the big leagues!

If it is a McCain vs. Clinton race, rarely will have the American people ever been asked to choose between two candidates who so fundamentally hold the electorate in such contempt.

Besides, from what I hear, kids today screw their friends just for fun.

Besides, from what I hear, kids today screw their friends just for fun.

Now you are just exaggerating. It's blow-jobs, not screwing. Blow-jobs are the new high-fives. It was on Oprah. Or it's teens who take virginity pledges and then have anal sex every other day. That abstinence only sex-ed really works, I tells ya.

"There is already a place where young people wear federal uniforms, live in military barracks, and gather for calisthenics in front of government buildings: It’s called North Korea."

There were such places here in the 1930s as well; they were called CCC camps. Damn that liberal fascist FDR!!

"Besides, from what I hear, kids today screw their friends just for fun."

The friend label is attached to the opposite sex when you still want attention from them, but don't want to sleep with them. That said the ratio in that group seems to be pretty good, so you'd have a better shot there then the local bar.

You know it's interesting to look back to a century ago when this debate was raging--see TR's writings or William James' "The Moral Equivalent of War". In general, intellecutals of all stripes seem to agree that a civilian corps based on military values and the "strenuous life" was a needed antidote to modernity and liberalism.

I like the idea of a civilian corps that gives young people discipline and identity and helps foster needed improvements to our infastructure and education systems. But there are reasonable concerns about what sort of constraints such organizations would be bound to in terms of inculating ideology.

Meanwhile, it's important to note that our current way of doing things (volunteer/professional military force funded by draining the treasury) is unsustainable and immoral. Standing professional armies and tyranny have been buddies throughout history. Worse, a volunteer/professional army creates a situation where many Americans don't even know anyone in the military.

A national draft carries with it the danger of spreading an unsavory miliarist ideology among a relatively peaceful and prosperity-minded people. Any reimplementation of the draft has to vigilantly guard against this danger. But at the same time, a national draft means everyone could potentially pay the ultimate price. It forces citizens and leaders to be more realistic about matters of war and peace. It ends the illusion that those waging war are not "us". All Americans are responsible for the wars we sponsor and the weapons we sell.

You know it's interesting to look back to a century ago when this debate was raging--see TR's writings or William James' "The Moral Equivalent of War". In general, intellecutals of all stripes seem to agree that a civilian corps based on military values and the "strenuous life" was a needed antidote to modernity and liberalism.

I like the idea of a civilian corps that gives young people discipline and identity and helps foster needed improvements to our infastructure and education systems. But there are reasonable concerns about what sort of constraints such organizations would be bound to in terms of inculating ideology.

Meanwhile, it's important to note that our current way of doing things (volunteer/professional military force funded by draining the treasury) is unsustainable and immoral. Standing professional armies and tyranny have been buddies throughout history. Worse, a volunteer/professional army creates a situation where many Americans don't even know anyone in the military.

A national draft carries with it the danger of spreading an unsavory miliarist ideology among a relatively peaceful and prosperity-minded people. Any reimplementation of the draft has to vigilantly guard against this danger. But at the same time, a national draft means everyone could potentially pay the ultimate price. It forces citizens and leaders to be more realistic about matters of war and peace. It ends the illusion that those waging war are not "us". All Americans are responsible for the wars we sponsor and the weapons we sell.

No one was worried when we faced the threat of a federally-funded and organized midnight basketball league. Has that stupid idea from the Clinton small-ball era been mercifully killed? It's hard enough to get black folk up for work in the morning without having them run fast breaks until the small hours.

I have the sneaking suspicion that John McCain was one of the few people who saw Starship Troopers and thought it a wonderful utopian vision for the future.

a strain of liberal individualism that tends to deeply effect politicians from both sides

Apparently all your fancy schooling -- which you love to highlight & drone on about -- hasn't learneded you the difference between affect and effect.

Nice work.

I can has job bloggingz at big maguhzine?

"McCain . . . appears to regard the self-sacrifice of the military man not as admirable because it helps protect and sustain a liberal society at home, but because it's actually preferable to have people's lives organized around regimentation, comformity, and sacrifice."

Pretty much the definition of conservatism, new and old. The Right's ideal male is someone like Ollie North. Am I right, Mr. Ford?

nbt:

The invention of the point spread.

the finer the civilisation, the further removed is the military from public life & politics

You want "discipline" in young people? Start a martial arts program - one that emphasizes the martial philosophy that should accompany such training.

Individual discipline is what's needed - not imposed military discipline.

And that happens to be what's wrong with the military in the first place. There's a difference between cannon fodder "soldiers" and "warriors." Warriors can act in groups with military-equivalent precision and discipline - but their discipline comes from within, not imposed from without.

The Boy Scouts are equally stupid. My father served as a Boy Scouts small arms marksmanship and safety instructor at Scout camps in Connecticut. I had first-hand looks at the Boy Scouts - and wanted no part of it.

Any time a uniform is put on - a uniform mind is what is being promoted.

"the finer the civilisation, the further removed is the military from public life & politics"

The Athenians had a pretty fine civilization, and just about every male citizen served in their equivalent of the reserves. Similarly, the Swiss have a pretty good civilization as well, and nearly every male citizen there is a military reservist as well.

To double-down on Fred's remarks, almost all of the great artists of the Italian Renaissance once served as soldiers in the City-State armies or Navies. And military service was ubiquitous in the Ruling Elites of the Spanish. French, British Empires so the men of arts and letters either served in armed forces or lived daily alongside those who did.

The nexus between militarism and dominance in the arts was never more pronounced than in feudal Japan. The more relentless their quest for life&death excellence in warrior skills, the more relentless they drove the perfection of their society's arts and civilization by taking a similar philosophy to it. And through insisting that all on their estates conduct their lives accordingly in the most menial of jobs...
That warrior-created philosphy of civilization may be the Nipponese's best export to the West.

nbt,

I love football. I played football for several years. I travelled and lived around the world. I have tried to convince people from other nations about the virtues of the American football game, all to no avail. Most people from other countries hate (or don't like) American Football for the following reasons:

1. They think the game itself is boring (and that includes the Europeans I was with on the night of the Super Bowl, who thought that game was boring). And yes, they do think that Soccer is the most thrilling game ever (on a side note, I also think that Soccer is a really exciting game and I can't understand why most Americans don't like it).

2. Too many starts and stoppages and not a continuous flow of the game (like Soccer, which hardly ever stops). Basketball has fewer starts and stoppages.

3. Too many rules.

3(b). Too many rules that are inconsistent and incomprehensable.

4. It is very expensive to put together a football team (pads, helmets, a place to play, etc.) so a lot of kids never grow up playing it or understanding it (notice that most other sports require little equiptment).

5. The game takes too long. An average football game is over four hours long. A soccer match is over in 2 hours.

Chris Ford wouldn't understand Japan if Sonny Chiba kicked his ass.

Attributing Japan's excellence in all fields on their military arts is just ridiculous. It goes much deeper than that. Other Asian nations have similar philosophies. Martial arts do have an impact, but it arises from deeper philosophies rooted in the Asian historical and cultural realities. And all of it is directly opposed to the Western military concept of "cannon fodder".

Fred's attribution of the Swiss system on their military is also ridiculous. They have the military and reservist system they have because they have always been small, neutral, and a supplier of mercenaries to other countries. Their political system is based on their being small and neutral (not to mention made up of at least three different nationalities) - not militaristic.

"An average football game is over four hours long."

No it isn't. NFL games average 3 hours.

Well, maybe 3 and a quarter.

I've also never understood why the continuous flow of soccer is considered a feature and not a bug. I like having the opportunity to talk to someone, get another beer, or whatever. The last World Cup final was an interesting thing to watch, but it wasn't anything like as good a social experience as the Super Bowl.

The worst aspect of soccer is that it is too easy for an athletically inferior team to hold an athletically superior team scoreless, or nearly so. Hockey has the same problem, depending on how the rules are enforced. Thus you end up with a lot of ties, or deciding a lot of games via shoot outs that have little realtion to how the vast majority of the game is actually contested. It would be as if it were common to have 1-1 games in baseball that were decided by a homerun contest after 10 innings. Or 6-6 games in basketball that were eventually decided by a game of horse.

Will Allen makes a great point above about the ludicrousness of the penalty kick shoot-out in deciding soccer games.

"Or 6-6 games in basketball that were eventually decided by a game of horse.

Posted by Will Allen | February 6, 2008 1:19 AM"

Yeah, but then we've missed out of years of Shaq and Yao Ming yelling out "HO!"

That crazy bastard killed more sailors than the North Vietnamese did.
Mention war hero McCain to any squid and he'll laugh in your face.

Re: The Athenians had a pretty fine civilization, and just about every male citizen served in their equivalent of the reserves. Similarly, the Swiss have a pretty good civilization as well, and nearly every male citizen there is a military reservist as well.

The key word here is "reserves". In ancient Athens and in modern Switzerland there is/was no standing military, rather the army is/was called up from civilian life when there is/was need. Victorian Britain did have a standing army, but it was almost entirely overseas, not marching around Britannia proper so the homeland culture was imperialist certainly, but not militaristic. Compare this with ancient Rome where the legions had too much time on their hands and ended up making war on each other under the leadership of generals seeking political power, and eventiually ended up making and unmaking emperors.


Comments closed February 19, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.