For years I have found it ironic that Southerners, conservatives and those from rural, traditionalist backgrounds love to praise the US military. This is because, as pointed out in the article excerpted below from the Independent Institute, the Federal military has been a force against traditional values at home and around the planet (and has fought against the interests of Western peoples – as was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo, for example). This was explained to me at a young age by my mother when I remarked on the great number of non-traditional couples around areas with Federal military bases. The South is full of Federal bases, a legacy of our military conquest and occupation by the Federal Government in 1865 as well as decades of single-party rule in the Southern States (which contributed to seniority for Southern Congressman and allowed them to “bring home the bacon” by putting bases and other Federal projects in their States and districts). Few major Southern towns are more than a stone’s throw from one of these massive government installations. The social and cultural implications of this are grave indeed, if we consider the points made by David Theroux (as well as related taboo topics he dare not discuss).
In his latest column for the New York Times, “Our Lefty Military,” the iconic “liberal” commentator Nicholas D. Kristof has now come clean on the reality of his own collectivist views that military means and organization embody the “liberal ethos” (“progressivism”), an admission that liberals rarely face up to. While numerous liberal and conservative pundits have long mistakenly supported military Keynesianism as necessary for national defense and economic prosperity, Kristof has now taken this view far further to claim that the military provides the all-inclusive socialist model for all of society….
According to Kristof:
The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.
You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.
Ironically, much of what passes for the Right today practically worships this bloated Federal bureaucracy. This is just one of many indications of traditionalism’s defeat in the US. Rather than fight more than a century of Leftist social experimentation, the American Right has adopted most of the Left’s goals and even much of its rhetoric. All that is left of the old Right is symbolism, with the ever-growing important institutions now safely in the hands of Leftist bureaucrats. The defeat of American traditionalism is clear when supposed Right-wing leaders like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are heard praising Martin Luther King, Jr and other socialist, anti-Western radicals from the 1960s. Dr Paul Gottfried discussed this recently in his speech at the Property and Freedom Society.
Even when Leftists brag about their nearly-complete victory, I doubt many of those who consider themselves on the Right will take notice – they’ll be too busy kowtowing before the Federal banner. Of course, traditionalists have always valued patriotism and self-defence and there is no doubt that a free South would be a well-defended and highly patriotic land. And hopefully with our cultural bias against centralisation, bureaucracy and social engineering, a free South could escape the fate of self-destruction embraced by the USA and much of the rest of the Western world.