Reason.com
New at Reason
On the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Cathy Young stands up for agitators, troublemakers, and other free citizens.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|12.16.04 @ 2:21PM|#
Cathy Young,
This article against militarism was great. Thanks.
|12.16.04 @ 2:29PM|#
I wouldn't expect a politician to know much about the Constitution, but it's a pretty basic idea that the State (and its agents like the military) don't give the citizens anything, especially freedom.
I think Mao got at the same thing Zell was getting at, in a more eloquent fashion:
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
|12.16.04 @ 2:31PM|#
This was a very good piece.
And it was very generous of Ms. Young to attribute Miller's equation of opposition and treason to a coherent political philosophy, rather than a willingness to use the nearest convenient club to bludgeon a rival.
|12.16.04 @ 2:54PM|#
I also liked it!
And it was very generous of Ms. Young to attribute Miller's equation of opposition and treason to a coherent political philosophy, rather than a willingness to use the nearest convenient club to bludgeon a rival.
Generous criticism is all the more difficult to refute. You either say "No, I wasn't speaking from a coherent philosophy, I was just being a shameless and over-the-top critic", or you dig yourself a deeper hole by sticking to the philosophy that your critic has already refuted.
Very clever.
|12.16.04 @ 3:01PM|#
Why isn't Cathy a pundit on Fox? She's the epitome of fair and balanced.
|12.16.04 @ 3:21PM|#
Zell's half right: the gun gave us many of the freedoms we hold dear.
But he doesn't seem to understand that civilian control of the military allows us to keep it.
|12.16.04 @ 3:23PM|#
Keep "them", not "it".
Apologies to all who use grammar good.
|12.16.04 @ 3:37PM|#
Zell and our standing army should both be seated.
|12.16.04 @ 4:46PM|#
jon,
Lots of things "gave us" our freedom, including people with ideas who never set foot in the Americas (e.g., Harrington, Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, the physiocrats, etc.). In other words, its a pretty damn diverse set of things that led to that outcome in other words & putting an exclusive role on the military is historically inaccurate and a grand overstatement.
|12.16.04 @ 5:27PM|#
Ruthless, please have a seat. This seems to have been written specifically to disabuse me of the idea that libertarian philosphy tends to incorporate a realistic approach to human nature. (A belief I stubbornly hold on to despite some of the things I read here.)
Yes, it's a realistic assessment of human nature to believe that the world will be a much better and safer place once we dismantle the U.S. military... This strikes me as a corollary (or coronary?) to the idea that guys like Stalin and Mao are exceptions to the general rule of how people who are granted absolute power tend to behave rather than facing the uncomfortable truth that they tend to be the rule.
In a democratic society, an all-volunteer military seems a farily straightforward and logical extension of the basic right of self-defense.
As Heinlein put it, "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier."
I'm no believer in militarism, defined as "a nineteenth-century liberal pejorative label for systems which overvalue the military virtues, glorify war, or give inordinate power or rewards to soldiers." But there's a big defference between militarism and the US incarnation of a standing military.
Much like I think it's a wrong-headed generalization to equate, as Cathy Young does, that "unthinking support for 'our troops'" as "a feature of profoundly illiberal societies."
It's a mistake to think that you can't support and sympathize with those who are ordered to carry out a bad military policy or strategy, while arguing that the civilian command structure is completely wrong in their decision on how to use the military or that it should be used at all. Anyone with a lick of sense can see that.
The really interesting thing is that from my experience, it's US military officers who most wholeheartedly embrace the idea of civilian control of the military. The last direction I'd expect a threat to liberty to come from would be from the military. Civilian law enforcement, particularly at a federal level, on the other hand... (Of course, "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!")
|12.16.04 @ 5:49PM|#
Democratic societies have a hard time with armies. They like them too much in a time of war and too little in a time of peace. While Ms. Young writes a wonderful piece, I am hardly surprised that she sings the praise of journalists. Ah, self love.
I am not sure I would pick agitators, journalists or soldiers as the heroes of democracy. Democracy seems to work because the average person tolerates agitators, journalists and soldiers.
|12.16.04 @ 6:07PM|#
Cathy marshaled the wisdom of Madison and Jefferson brilliantly. Thank you
Cathy:
It is even more illiberal to view a wartime president as a military commander whose authority must not be undermined by criticism. This is a particularly dangerous proposition in a war on terror that has no end in sight. Here again it is useful to recall the words of James Madison: "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
I remember a while back, a poster on this stellar blog (Mona), said that for military matters, Zell Miller spoke for her. Well, with this article, Cathy Young just spoke for me.
|12.16.04 @ 6:18PM|#
rob,
It's a mistake to think that you can't support and sympathize with those who are ordered to carry out a bad military policy or strategy, while arguing that the civilian command structure is completely wrong in their decision on how to use the military or that it should be used at all.
And of course Young never argued otherwise; unfortunately, you've mischaracterized her argument. *cackle*
|12.16.04 @ 6:20PM|#
Rob,
Yes, it's a realistic assessment of human nature to believe that the world will be a much better and safer place once we dismantle the U.S. military...
Who, pray reveal, is arguing that this is a "realistic assessment?"
|12.17.04 @ 9:39AM|#
Zell Miller is giving the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth a medal the American Conservative Union convention.
Seems about right.
|12.17.04 @ 12:40PM|#
Cackle all you want, Gary, cluck like a chicken or crow like a rooster. In my immodest opinion, you come off like a gobbling turkey in your responses.
(Still think you're probably "a helluva guy an' a great Amuhricahn," tho...)
Gary: "And of course Young never argued therwise; unfortunately, you've mischaracterized her argument. *cackle*"
I don't think I've mischaracterized Young's arguments. At one point Young states that "with soldiers but without reporters and political activists, we would be at risk of losing [our freedom] to a domestic military dictatorship." Coupled with the later equation of supporting the troops providing for the nation's defense as a "feature of profoundly illiberal societies" certainly doesn't lead me to believe I've made an inaccurate characterization. (OTOH I won't claim that I know what argument Young intended to make better than she does, so I am willing to stand corrected - but my characterization is as valid as yours until then.)
I have a problem with the supposition that anyone who realizes that the military is at worst a necessary evil is viewed as the sort of American who probably shines his jackboots no less than fortnightly. For clarification's sake, please note that I'm of the heavily biased opinion that the profession of arms is a worthy calling when dutifully carried out with integrity and honor.
Gary: "Who, pray reveal, is arguing that this is a 'realistic assessment?'"
The guy in the post above mine. You know, "Ruthless," the guy I identify in the very first word of my post. Now I'm off to put on a bit of Pink Floyd in your honor Gary. Cackle on you crazy diamond! :)
|12.17.04 @ 2:33PM|#
rob,
I don't think I've mischaracterized Young's arguments.
Yes you did.
Coupled with the later equation of supporting the troops providing for the nation's defense as a "feature of profoundly illiberal societies" certainly doesn't lead me to believe I've made an inaccurate characterization.
That's crap. She used the term "unthinking support" not mere "support." Quit lying through your damn teeth. Also, let's note that you quoted her correctly earlier, but now you've backed away from that, and I suspect that's likely because you realize your argument is cannot be supported. Nice bit of sophistry on your part. :)
I have a problem with the supposition that anyone who realizes that the military is at worst a necessary evil is viewed as the sort of American who probably shines his jackboots no less than fortnightly.
Now you are creating strawmen.
The guy in the post above mine.
Of course he didn't state anything like this.
|12.17.04 @ 5:25PM|#
Gary Gobbler,
The post above mine from Ruthless (which is what I was replying to) reads "Zell and our standing army should both be seated. Comment by: Ruthless at December 16, 2004 03:37 PM."
Hmm... I suppose I'm omitting something or mis-reading that. I'm sure you can super-heroically leap into action to clarify that for me, and that what it means to me when I read it is wrong since I do not have the Trademarked Gary Gunnels Superpower to determine the "One And Only True Meaning Of Any Written Text." (I opted for the "Amazing Superpower Of Sarcasm And Mockery" instead, and I gotta admit that it's coming in handy.)
Pardon me for not including "unthinking" the second time. Somehow I'm a liar because I omitted unthinking? Pardon the hell out of me, but I don't see how that makes me a liar or changes my argument one iota.
Wait a second - That I left out a word is your smoking gun?!?! Maybe you and reality should schedule a little quality together time!
I'm not backing away from anything I said earlier, and your most recent rebuttal of "Yes you did." is about as intellectually compelling as watching two kids yell "did not!" and "did too!" at one another. (Please tell me you don't actually expect to win arguments with this tactic.)
I certainly didn't intend any malicious sophistry in my post, though I'm sure you can explain how "Yes you did" as the only person who can actually define what someone actually meant. In fact, I'm sure you can tell me what I meant even better than -I- can tell you what I meant, so amazing are your super-abilities...
Before you go all "How about a little fire, Scarecrow?" be sure you've actually got a straw man. What you claim is a straw man is just my opinion, and it's not aimed at Young, or even Ruthless for that matter. (And it's not even aimed at you, but I'm sure you can prove that I'm wrong and that I "did too" mean that as well!)
BUT, for the record, I didn't attribute that to anyone because it's MY opinion of a specific sort of person. I didn't claim that anyone here fit that description or made that argument. That's just one of the sorts of people who get under my skin - kind of like you're doing.
|12.17.04 @ 7:05PM|#
rob, I recently stumbled across this particularly amusing post while looking for something else in the archives:
I guess JB wasn't the only person on the internet to adopt that style of debate. There are others as well, it seems.
|12.17.04 @ 10:44PM|#
thoreau,
Are you honestly and seriously suggesting that Rob's interpretation of her article is correct? Really? Are you really that obsessed with me?
Rob,
That one word is very critical.
There is a decided difference between mere support and "unthiking support." You attempt to sophistically argue (by implication) in your second post that she mentioned mere "support," when of course that is not even remotely correct (and you know that's the case because you used the language correctly the first time around to come up with your erroneous interpretation of her article). You also know this because I specifically contrasted "support" and "unthinking support" in my response to your second post. This isn't an issue of poor phrasing on your part, or whatever other bullshit excuse that thoreau can think up, this is you not facing up to the error in your argument.
Now, I'd like you to do a little bit of a thought experiment: do you think that there is a difference between "support" and "unthinking support" or not?
|12.17.04 @ 10:45PM|#
Rob,
Wait a second - That I left out a word is your smoking gun?!?! Maybe you and reality should schedule a little quality together time!
Words and their usage are important; be it their inclusion or exclusion in a sentence; you materially changed the meaning of her statements by omitting one word. That's the reality. :)
|12.17.04 @ 11:06PM|#
thoreau,
So? I can't make another argument?
Nice strawman.
|12.18.04 @ 3:08AM|#
Gary, eventually you'll realize that my main disagreement is rarely with your stance on the issues at hand. Instead, I dislike your debate style:
1) Point to a minor inconsistency.
2) The target tries to reconcile his statements or clarify.
3) You seize on the clarification as "proof" that the target is lying.
Why not engage the person's main point?
You have a lot to contribute, but a few times per week you set all that aside and go after the most nitpicky things.
|12.18.04 @ 7:30PM|#
thoreau,
Next strawman please?
|12.20.04 @ 12:14PM|#
I thought about posting a response to Gary, then realized that to do so would be a waste of time since he has yet to actually attack any of the points that I made.
So, essentially, there's no argument from Gary, other than some gobbling noises to the effect that Gary just didn't like the way I made them.
Combined with a few "did not did too" diversionary tactics and some quibbling that my citations don't match up to his stringent AP Style Guide requirements caused by my negligence to include one word... Since I had included it before, I just fail to see the relevance.
The next time someone makes a point, I think I'll attack something totally tangential to the argument and start blurting out "sophistry!" and "straw man!" with a a little "did too!" thrown in for variety.
So, here are the other few relevant points made about this article:
While Ms. Young writes a wonderful piece, I am hardly surprised that she sings the praise of journalists. Ah, self love.
I am not sure I would pick agitators, journalists or soldiers as the heroes of democracy. Democracy seems to work because the average person tolerates agitators, journalists and soldiers.
Comment by: Jose Ortega y Gasset at December 16, 2004 05:49 PM"
And one by you, Gary, before you got all bizarre:
"jon,
Lots of things "gave us" our freedom, including people with ideas who never set foot in the Americas (e.g., Harrington, Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, the physiocrats, etc.). In other words, its a pretty damn diverse set of things that led to that outcome in other words & putting an exclusive role on the military is historically inaccurate and a grand overstatement.
Comment by: Gary Gunnels at December 16, 2004 04:46 PM"
Normally, I wouldn't quote an entire post, but I'm afraid that if I don't I'll be accused of violating some anal-retentive rule of citation that only matters to the guy with the power to decide True Meaning...
And for the record, I still think Gary's a heckuva guy, just like thoreau said.