Hawks and pols

August 23, 2000

We want to get rid of the militarist, not simply because he hurts
and kills, but because he is an intolerable thick-voiced blockhead who
stands hectoring and blustering in our way to achievement.

No one could miss the effort the GOP made to look pro-defense and
pro-military during the recent conventions. War heroes sell big, always
have. Not that the Dems are doves, of course. During the primaries, a
Salon.com profile of Al Gore by reporter Jake Tapper included in a list of
Gore’s political brownie points the fact that he retains a good Vietnam
record. A point at which I can only wonder, what’s so good about
that?

Obviously, the point is to contrast with Bill Clinton’s refusal to serve
and George W.’s wimping out in the Air National Guard. (Recently,
aspersions have also been cast on Bush running mate Dick Cheney for his
Saigon slip.) To be honest, however, the only thing I disdain about
Clinton’s refusal to serve is that he has shown himself more than happy to
send other family’s boys across the globe to Third World sewers to get shot,
maimed and otherwise ruin their weekend plans. That’s what bothers me —
not that he dodged the draft. Given the chance, I’d dodge the draft — just
on

philosophical grounds alone.

But the noble art of draft dodging aside, as far as politics and elections are concerned, serving time in This Man’s Army means next to nothing, except that you learned how to get bossed around a lot — and usually do a bit of bossing as well.

I can remember a local politician, B.T. Collins, running for the California State Assembly as a Democrat against Republican Barbara Alby. His TV campaign ads made sure to mention the fact that he served time in the military — was even wounded. Thankfully, Alby, who never served in the military, won; she did far fewer things to bugger up the state than ole B.T. — would have.

American history should tell us that hawks do not necessarily make desirable pols.

Ulysses S. Grant’s administration has only been recently trumped as the most corrupt administration in U.S. history by Bill Clinton’s.

Eisenhower promoted statist plans out the wazoo.

George Bush Sr. was the same. Mr. Ace Pilot hiked our taxes higher than the altitudes at which he flew his plane and seemed bent on cooling whatever steam was left in Ronald Reagan’s presidential kettle.

Then there’s presidential wannabe Sen. John McCain, always quick to pull out the cammies long enough to garner sympathetic vet votes. Yet, as a Republican, the man’s an embarrassment to conservative principles, co-authoring the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that just interjects more government regulation into the electoral system, instead of working to reduce federal power and, thus, lower the incentive for folks to buy candidates for the perks they can afford. Less power means less perks and, it follows, less big-money campaign participation — something McCain has failed to grasp as yet.

George Washington, of course, was an outstanding general before becoming president. But compare him with any of the men in the previous list; he succeeded because he had an abiding passion for liberty that the fellows above clearly do not share.

People often suggest that a man who’s a military leader will naturally fit into political leadership (hence, the worse-than-incessant bantering for Gen. Colin Powell to find his way to the nearest ballot). This kind of nonsense is especially tossed around when talking about the particular lack of leadership in the current administration. In case people have forgotten, however, a free state is not an army. Armies operate with a top-down chain of command, carrying severe punishments for dissent and disobedience — things like stockades and firing squads. The chain of command in a free state, however, is bottom-up: we elect folks to represent us and bust their chairs when they don’t.

I know you’re going to object, “Get a clue, Joel! We don’t have that kind of system any longer. We barely have any control on who gets elected — witness the virtual Republican coronation of G.W. Bush. And we can’t control what they do anyway. They don’t listen to us at all.”

Agreed. We live under marginal tyranny right now, a top-down system — despotism lite. So why do folks get excited about electing someone trained to govern in a top-down fashion, or look down upon those who aren’t trained to do so? You try to send a janitor into a dirty bathroom, not the guy who messed it up. Top-down leaders know how to do one thing: boss folks around. Do you like getting bossed around?

Me neither. So why elect someone who’s trained to do it?

Free people don’t need to be bossed. They need to be left alone to run their own lives, decide what’s best for themselves, plan their own futures and determine their own circumstances. That leaves little room for the Caesar Jr. brand of military commanders-turned-politicians in this country.

We need leaders who can be tough when duty calls, but whose default mode of governing isn’t that of a drill sergeant. Gen. Patton, in short, belongs on the battlefield, not the ballot.