Hell, it’s scarcely even going to be blogged:
But the attempt to make the current war into a replay of Vietnam is failing quite dramatically. What’s missing is the key element that provoked many of the old radicals to oppose the Vietnam War in the first place: the draft. It wasn’t really the war per say that a lot of them opposed; it was the prospect of themselves actually having to go fight it. Lacking that impetus, the younger generation seems distinctly unimpressed by the urgency of ending a war fought so soon after the 9/11 attacks.
What do the old radicals have left to offer the youth? Socialism. One can understand the attraction of this credo back in the 1960s, when its American adherents only had the millions of victims of the Soviet regime to contradict their assertion that socialism would provide a positive alternative to capitalism.
But now, we know of the atrocities of a whole new set of postwar socialist regimes in China, Cambodia, Romania, and countless other places — including Vietnam — as well as the final collapse of most socialist governments and the turn toward capitalism of nearly all the remaining socialist regimes. Younger activists may have the Iraq War to fight against, but they need something to fight for — and with socialism, their older role models are not offering them anything appealing.
Actually, in a strange way this sort of narrative provides both the most compelling reason for the people to want a draft, and the most compelling reason for the state to avoid one. Unguided by any overarching positive ideology and absent unenlightened self-interest, the most energetic class of potential protestors mostly want to just posture and hook up, while providing that same class of people with a reason to actually get excited about mandatory service during a conflict would constrain the power of the state to act.
Which line of thinking takes us down unpleasant corridors in a democracy, nu?
Shipmates,
Well, slowly, but surely, most of the folks are starting to realise that message of the left is very much in the mold of the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
The “lower classes” as it were, are starting to laugh and point…
‘sbout time.
Respects,
Funny you should post this, Lex, considering I addressed this same issue with the “younger generation,” this weekend. My girlfriend of 2 years is a student at the University of New Hampshire and took a bus ride down to DC for the protest this weekend. She rode for nearly 20 hours on a bus to go stand in the cold and speak her mind about why she thinks this war is wrong and we should get out. I asked her, “so sweetheart, what was the answer? Did anyone express or talk about any alternatives to the war? What should we do to deal with the current issues if we are suppposed to pull all our troops out now?” This immediately sparked hatred, animosity, and name calling from her. It seemed that she, as well as those people with whom she came in contact, didn’t necessarily have a reason or answer for why the war should be over, but rather insisted that it end on the general principal that war is bad and dying is worse. According to my girlfriend (who bless her soul is no Mike Wallace) there was a guy from Iraq who said that all Iraqis hate America and want us out, as well as such notable political/intellectual powerhouses as Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Jesse Jackson to dissuade us warmongers from propogating our unnecessary violence against those innocents in Iraq who are being killed by rogue US soldiers who gun them down like animals (to which I snidely commented that maybe I made a mistake not selecting Marine Ground).
Regardless, I couldn’t help but think that the leadership at this massive peace protest that was supposedly the “voice of the empowered youth” were unqualified film actors, a random Iraqi who is incidentally NOT currently living in Iraq, and a “reverend” who god help him can’t put a sentence together without somehow attempting a cartoonish Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. impersonation.
For reference regarding the above mentioned actors, see the movie “Team America: World Police,” and the “Film Actors Guild” (F.A.G.) that is composed of notable hollywood figures…can’t help but think that the whole “peace” movement has become unrecoverably farcical, with or without a draft. Until someone thinks up a Sh!t hot solution for the whole “mess” or at least an alternative to continued U.S. combat forces on the ground, I am pretty sure there will only be hot air coming from us young folk.
~Ens Tim
I’m confused about something – help me out here. Although I question the philosophical basis of some of the viewpoints expressed here, I am in basic agreement with a lot (the majority?) of what is posted. Actually, I abhor political extremism from either side and Lex is so good at pointing it out from “the left”, that I have no choice but, for the most part, to agree with him.
But remember how, I think it was around the time of McCarthy, some people referred to Communism as the boogey man under the bed. Something like that. Well its starting to look to me that for a lot of present day conservatives, socialism is the new boogey man under the bed.
When I look at a standard dictionary definition of socialism, I don’t like it any more than the majority of the readership here. But when I look at the concepts that more and more often get lumped under the umbrella of socialism, it just doesn’t compute for me. For example, I have, on occasion, heard Canada referred to as a socialist country. Whereas in reality, our system is much more capitalist than socialist.
Does using the tax system to redistribute wealth to a certain exent make a country socialist? Does providing some form of health care (no matter how limited) to those in society who cannot afford to “purchase” their own make a country socialist? What about a government providing services to the disabled? You better hope not because, if so, then the US is already a socialist country. Too late. Game over.
Let’s get real – in reality, none of us (in the US or Canada) live under a purely capatist or socialist system. And quite frankly, I say Thank God to that because I would not voluntarily choose to live in the “pure” form of either system.
But why lump so many of the ideas of the left with which you (perhaps qutie legitimately) disagree with into the category of socialism? That’s what I don’t get. Do present day conservatives like it very much when they are all lumped into the apparently derogatory category of “neo con” as the left is so fond of doing? Is there really any difference between that and calling all the ideas you disagree with “socialim”?
A Google search gives over a dozen definitions of socialism that call for government to hold the primary means of production and distribution of wealth; most refer to “eliminating private property”. Only one definition reads a little differently – A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society and the economy via taxation, regulation, redistribution, and public ownership.
If the latter is the definition of socialism that’s being used here, than I can at least comprehend what is being said – and can go from there to decide whether or not I agree with the point being made. Perhaps what I am really asking is whether that lone definition of socialism is what is being used or whether its the more standard dictionary definition.
My apologies for the length of the comment – apparently I am feeling rather verbose today.
Ens.Tim,
re “I am pretty sure there will only be hot air coming from us young folk.”
I was younger than you when I first started hearing the same B.S. from the same variety (yes, they are a variety) of folks. For us older folks we’ve had ‘em around most of our lives. Looks like our cross to bear (no pun intended) will be yours also. Their very existence sure says something for us being a tolerant people, eh? Personally , I wonder how much lithium and prozac was consumed last Saturday on the mall.
Oh yeah another piece o’onsolicited advice for ya…nahhh.
—————————
Michelle,
re- “…in reality, our system is much more capitalist than socialist’
You’ve been lucky so far, or is the cup 1/2 full?
Lex,
re “draft”. Unrelated- did you catch GWs offering in the SOTU ,of an international service corps (non-mil) or some such for our folks? I’m sure all 30k of ‘em will join!
b2
Your latter definition of soclialism fits that which we lib-cons rightly abhor Michelle.
The thing that strikes me is that while virtually everyone detests and insulates themselves – quite correctly – from extreme rightward positions such as fascism (let’s don’t start that discussion again), there are still plenty of apologists for socialism and communism. The first has shown itself to be a bust everywhere it has been implemented because it wishes away humanity’s well-established and immutable tendency towards self-interest, while the second has broken more skulls than even the most rigid fascist tyranny – no mean feat.
Thus are the lunacies of the left more interesting to display.
Michelle is asking an important question. My sense is that the instinctive reaction of many here is to refuse to be dictated to by a self-appointed transnational elite who are convinced that they alone have the answers to complicated questions, and that these elites feel themselves to be a new aristocracy, booted and spurred to ride humanity with a Marxist divine right. For all their ‘compassion’, they show extreme hostility to the individual decisions of ordinary people, who don’t happen to make the ‘correct’ choices –choices dictated by these elites. Socialism is as close to a religion as these elites can get. It is the power to control, with an equality of misery for everyone else –except the socialist elites who, by virtue of their purity, are entitled to perks and benefits that their ‘fairness’ would deny to everyone else. These elites don’t have to work, perform, compete or innovate to earn these benefits, as they would have to in a free market. They can’t be replaced by someone who can do a better job. Their religion of scarcity requires distributive rent-seeking to ensure their power base —not to solve the issue of scarcity itself. That would upset the whole apple cart.
Innovation that reduces scarcity and increases individual choice requires freedom of action and freedom of association to occur. Socialism effectively cuts off these freedoms, paralyzing innovation and individual choice. Where innovation does occur, it is prevented from expanding to its eventual potential by the crippling limits imposed on other choices needed to keep the socialist system stable. As an example, for every American who has freely chosen to emigrate to Canada, there have been far more Canadians coming south to seek opportunities that for whatever reason were not available to them at home. I work with several Canadians and Canadiens [all now American citizens] who left for these reasons. They love Canada [who would'nt'?] and visit families often. They don’t like the abrupt callousness of the American workplace. But would they go back? Never–they say they value the freedom to go as far as they want on their own merit far too much. They ask me if that’s selfish. I reply, “So what do you think?” They just laugh and say “HELL NO!!”
Michelle is right that we don’t live in a ‘pure’ form of capitalism or socialism, as the available definitions describe it. A principle of ensuring reasonable equality of opportunity for the individual –leaving the final outcome largely to the efforts of the individual –seems to me to be the best means of bridging that gap. That’s not Utopia, it can never be perfect. But it’s irresistable engine of improvement is the liberated personal energy of individual choice. Will ‘bad’ decisions be made? Of course. But individuals can learn and make new decisions. Societies that unreasonably hinder individual decision-making are nearly always at a disadvantage to others that do not. They fall behind the power curve. What my Canadian colleagues could have, should have, accomplished for Canada had they stayed at home can never be known. Canada raised and educated these good people and then —what? The U.S. benefits without incurring any of the ‘production costs’ of this human capital.
‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ and ‘Peace, Order and Good Government” are not mutually exclusive. One is a cause and one is an effect. They may also be both, but the question is:
What is the driving force?
CPTJ- eloquent as always.
Becuz I arent art-iclate, I’ll let others do my talkin’.
Never forget that:
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Let us agree on this:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-Winston Churchill
And that this is a fact:
Government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
-Ronald Reagan
However:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Ta-da!
b2
CPT J, I wish I had the chance to chat with your Canadian (American) friends sometime. I don’t see a lot of huge differences between Canada and the US. Certainly the States appears more polarized to me politically and more extreme on each end of the political spectrum than us Canucks. Obviously you have more military might, a larger economy, more power on the global stage. Other than these things, the issue of health care and the fact that many of us up here still seem to operate under the delusion that we can always be the “nice guys” and have everyone love us, I don’t see that many differences. Obviously, there must be some that I’m missing.
Your definition of socialism and references to the Marxist elist are out of my range of reference – luckily for me, I guess. Perhaps I am move niave than I give myself credit for or perhaps I just move in the wrong (or right) circles. BTW, the way you describe those “socialists”, isn’t that description incompatible with the very definition of socialism?
Assuming I am correctly following your LLPH v. POGG reasoning, then I might have to agree, perhaps there is a trade off there. And that as much as I have always thought (and still do) that it would be nice to dual Cdn-Am citizenship, when push came to shove, I would opt to stay where I am and keep my passport handy for the occasional visit south.
Lex, thanks for cleaning up the definition issue – should save my ceiling from a few claw marks as I read along. But I suppose my problem stems mainly from this – while I can’t imagine apologizing for communism and socialism may well have proven itself to be a bust around the world (I freely admit to not having the knowledge base to debate that particular point), I can neither understand nor accept what often looks to me like an all-consuming love affair with capitalism – as if a purely capitalist economy could or would prove itself to be the saviour of us all.
And so it goes.
Shipmates,
One of my favorite jokes from the old Soviet Union was told to me by a Russian Emmigre. He said he could sum up life under the Communists as simple: “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”
Respects,
B2, I like your quotes …. and would agree with most of them. Must confess that Churchill gives me a little trouble here though – perhaps a little too glib for my liking. But maybe the real sticking point is just how much of your money you choose to place on Jefferson’s (valid) observation. Problem is, while all are apt to a degree, none quite propose a solution.
Re: art-iculativeness; I thought I could speak and write the English language fairly well until I came here. Now I find myself struggling when I attempt to type anything of substance. I have been thinking for a while now that Lex really should invite our friend Kerry for a visit. A brief glance at the quality of the writing of the “military types” found here should be more than sufficient to show not only the incredible stupidity of his comments, but also just how pathetic his poor attempt at humour was (for any who actually bought the story he later tried to sell).
Michelle,
I have to agree about a joint citizenship. Having distant Canadian family members, many nearby Canadian friends, and numerous trips up North to a wonderful place I feel instinctively at home in, the differences seem minor. The Canadian military serving with NORAD that I grew up with were proud warriors, second to none. The Canadian forces I did cadet exchanges with in the 90′s kept up that tradition in a culture that largely ignored their skills, and seemed to ignore the history of Canada as a nation that they embodied. For many, that was harder than fighting an actual war. It was if Canada suddenly was embarrassed by being strong, and took it out on its federalist sheepdogs.
That history was not passive, requiring the greatest faith and determination. A modern welfare state tends not to emphasize frontier values of individual and small community self-reliance. Obviously not everyone can be self-reliant, but more can be than they realize. I guess my Canadian friends now living here in the States feel more comfortable with that earlier definition of Canadian self-hood. They tell me it seems more compatible with the raucous American temperment. At least they feel they can live it without having to apologize for wanting more individual choices on their terms. Maybe only a cosmetic difference, but it was enough for them to make the move.
CPT J, you said:
The Canadian forces I did cadet exchanges with in the 90?
CPT J, you said:
The Canadian forces I did cadet exchanges with in the 90’s kept up that tradition in a culture that largely ignored their skills, and seemed to ignore the history of Canada as a nation that they embodied. For many, that was harder than fighting an actual war. It was if Canada suddenly was embarrassed by being strong, and took it out on its federalist sheepdogs.
You might well have something there – we definitely went through a period (for at least a decade, maybe longer, pre 9/11) when we wanted to see our military as “peace keepers” and nothing more. Looking back, the downfall was probably the “nothing more” side. I think it was more a reflection of how we wanted to see ourselves, our national identify, than anything else. But now I can see how that might have been hard on the sheepdogs; experience broadens horizons (sheep dogs – I like that term, it makes me smile although I’m not sure its suppose to).
A few of the things that 9/11 did for Canada was make us realize that we need a military (however laughable our military may seem to some citizens of other countries) and that you can’t always play the role of peace keeper cuz there ain’t always peace to keep. Exactly where we stand now I’m not 100% sure as we start to slip (on a less extreme scale thank goodness) into the same debate over our continued role in Afghanistan that America is engaged in over Iraq.
Thanks for the opportunity to do some Canadian navel gazing