The New Model Army

A bitter thought has been germinating in my head for some time now, and the current row over Social Security has provided it enough water to push up from the soil.

Basically, some conservatives finally see a chance to dismantle Social Security. Why? Because it's an integral part of what they deride as a "nanny state." But Social Security is not the only major program of its kind. The old pension system was liquidated under Reagan; welfare has long since been lamed, but—what about the Armed Forces?

For all his flaws, Eisenhower was a remarkably progressive President. His Defense Education Grants paid for PhDs in liberal arts, on the theory that the best national defense was an educated, informed and wealthy populace. Such thinking has been successfully chased out of the national discourse by the right-wing Noise Machine, but it persisted in the Armed Forces, which has been, in essence, a giant "workfare" program for pulling people out of poverty, giving them a sense of purpose, and educating them. For half a century, it was as progressive a vision of a standing army as history can attest to.

What began under Johnson, in Vietnam, is now being advanced by Rumsfeld: The conversion of the Armed Forces from a progressive "nanny" into an imperial military modeled after the old empires of Europe. This transformation is part and parcel of the transformation of America into an imperial power, and as it requires the subjugation and dehumanization of the people we invade, it also requires the subjugation and dehumanization of the people we invade with. Instead of the ready militia of citizens, the volunteer army, we have conscripts (as of the "backdoor draft"), and the reigning ethos is "ours not to wonder why/ours just to do or die." Absolute obedience trumps the value of individual life. The government is no longer grateful for and solicitous of service and sacrifice from its citizens; it requires them of its subjects.

This subjugation and dehumanization has a number of side effects: The government no longer feels any obligation to properly provide for its troops, before, during, after, or outside of the theater of combat. "War on the cheap" necessitates the dismantling of the Armed Forces as a (relatively) progressive engine: You don't go to the trouble of providing cannon fodder with college degrees.

This might explain the boldness with which Bush has tackled Social Security. It's not the first assault on a progressive government program. It's simply the latest, and one of the last. Every other dismantling has been successful, so why should they worry about this one?

I hope my first diary here has been somewhat coherent. To attempt to bring it around into a call for action: It looks likely that Social Security will, in fact, be the first loss that the conservatives have sustained in their effort to destroy American progressivism. We can fight like hell to ensure that they lose, but we shouldn't stop there. We're aware, and we're energized. We can win back some of the ground we've lost. The very first one we should plan for is the Armed Forces. We can, and we should, and we must reclaim the progressive doctrine that defined much of Eisenhower's national defense policy. It beats color-coded alerts, and it really, materially, concretely, supports the troops. We have half a century of evidence of that.

[Edited to get italics tags right. This ain't vBulletin...]

•  and that RAND outsourcing

  rumor is scarry - we will have a private military 100%, not not not not good

  by Tom Kertes on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:42:46 PM PDT

•  Tip Jar

  I hope this is how it's done, anyway.

  I really believe we can win this. A lot of people do like progressive ideals. Mostly, in my experience, they have trouble believing that the people in power can really be that greedy or that ruthless. And almost no-one remembers the system that predated the 401k...

  by oldjohnbrown on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:54:21 PM PDT

•  Very good Idea's, and Great first diary.

  I was a victim of the new G.I. Bill from the Nixon/Ford era and like most of my compadres we figured what we learned in the service was enough. There was no need to invest for college. We need to show our troops the country value's them.

  This Week in Fascism is up.

  by Tomtech on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 07:00:03 PM PDT

•  My service ended in 1964,

  and I was one of the last to get GI Benefits: Paid college, mortgage backing, etc. It was  invaluable in getting me started.

  Thanks for bringing this up. It was so long ago I had almost forgotten how generous the military used to be.    

  by agincour on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 07:56:55 PM PDT

  •  Don't know if we're talking about the same thing

    The last to get GI benefits? How so? I left active duty in 2001, and I get GI Bill education benefits, a VA home loan, and all sorts of things. Hell, if anything, benefits are skyrocketing: in 1964 could you get $50,000 for college on top of everything the GI Bill pays after you get out?

    by Howl on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:09:49 PM PDT

    •  Oh,

      I assumed he meant those benefits. If not those, then what is he talking about?

      by agincour on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:15:28 PM PDT

      •  Ack, I was afraid of this

        So that's the one thing they apparently haven't slashed, yet.

        In fairness to agincour, the costs of both private college educations and housing have soared since the 1960s, both in dollar amounts and relative to the average income in the U.S., so it's not fair to compare dollar amounts. But still, I clearly need to do more work on this. I believe my point still stands, but I need to shore this up.

        Any suggestions, since I seem to have the attention of some veterans?

        Thanks!

        by oldjohnbrown on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:43:40 PM PDT