Beware of Brounshirts

David Weigel | November 11, 2008

Yes, Rep. Paul Broun is the Constitution-minded Republican I profiled earlier this year. Yes, I've seen this.

It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force. I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism. That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.

There are so many points in there at which Broun could have shut up. Maybe the phrase "exactly what Hitler did"? Maybe the totally baseless claim that Obama's mulled-over "civilian security force"--still not a good idea, by the way--would be some sort of Chavista unit "answering to him"? This extra excerpt of the Broun interview is illuminating.

Broun theorized that after Obama creates this national police force he'll ban gun ownership.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

That's another fringe position, but it's one egged on by the NRA, which warned gun owners that a President Obama would literally rip their firearms from their warm, living hands.

Jake Tapper, in that last link, calls this "Obama Derangement Syndrome." I think this is some of the first anti-Obama wackadoodlry that isn't specific to the candidate. This was the language used to scare the fringe right about the last Democratic president, too. It's incredible dumb and off-putting, not to mention wrong.

UPDATE: The Angry Optimist says:

If someone wants to make the comparison of pre-Reich Germany and Obama, Mr. Weigel, it is incumbent on you to say why it is dumb.

OK. First, the Democrats didn't seize power through violence and threats against their enemies. I'm sure someone can point me to isolated stories of Obama supporters bullying McCain supporters, but I doubt any conservative are nervous about stepping outside without their Democratic Party membership cards. Second, the Schutzstaffel (which Broun appears to be invoking) was created as a personal guard service for Hitler. Obama is proposing a new civilian force that he'd command as he commands every branch of the military.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Anon|11.11.08 @ 3:04PM|#

Well, Obama did say something about a civilian security force: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

|11.11.08 @ 3:04PM|#

I do not like Godwinning debate any more than the next guy, but I think we have gone too far the other way about it.

I do not think it is a good argument, but if someone wants to make the comparison of pre-Reich Germany and Obama, Mr. Weigel, it is incumbent on you to say why it is dumb, not just say "that is a dumb comparison".

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:06PM|#

Uh, if it was in Obama's power to institute a nationwide handgun ban, I have not a single doubt that he would do just that. You don't seriously disagree, do you?

When all that prevents him doing that is a fragile shell of pro-gun Democrat senators and (perhaps) a SCOTUS justice...I'll forgive the NRA for being a mite twitchy.

Kolohe|11.11.08 @ 3:09PM|#

Obligatory-
"So, Republicans. Looking to improve your political fortunes? What can Broun do for you?"

Also obligatory-
"Heck of a job, Brounie!"

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:09PM|#

And I know this is an ad hominem, but I seriously wonder whether Weigel was this vigilant about attacking comparisons of Bush with Hitler.

Fluffy|11.11.08 @ 3:13PM|#

Republicans are in a bind.

If they wanted to talk about the thousands of ACTUAL REAL WAYS in which liberty in the US is restricted, they'd end up criticizing their own party's policies.

That means that when they want to pose as champions of liberty, the only way left to them to do so is to invent fantasies where Obama is planning a Reichstag fire and extermination camps for churchgoing Republicans. [That's when they aren't engaged in Steynian fantasies about Islamic conquest of the US, complete with detailed masturbatory daydreams about being bound and gagged and beheaded.]

This is what happens when you're caught between the competing priorities of wanting to pretend to hate big government, but not wanting to criticize any of the big government we've actually got. Your rhetoric needs an object, and if reality can't be the target for one reason or another, fantasy will have to do.

|11.11.08 @ 3:13PM|#

cunnivore - I got tired of the "Weigel is Teh Shill"...but don't kid yourself. No, there was not this much anger over the Bu$hitler stuff that was tossed around.

Let's be fair though, a civilian national defense force does sound a bit ominous, especially one that is as well prepared and funded as the military as Sen. Obama has suggested. It's creepy.

What would such a force do that the military doesn't already do other than not leave the country? So what would this massive police force be for exactly? Who would it answer to? Senator Obama hasn't explained why we need this or what its primary task would be.

Sure, Rep. Broun's comments are overboard and tacky but they aren't crazy.

I find the idea of a massive federally funded police force that is comparable to our national military to be terribly disturbing. The one psychological trait that runs through small-government people is often a distrust of the government - the same as conspiracy theorists which - which is why we occasionally sound more than a bit paranoid.

|11.11.08 @ 3:16PM|#

uh, Fluffy? This national service stuff and the Corps of Civilians isn't a fantasy projected onto Obama by crazy conservatives. You would be wise to take note when this idea popped up again (hint: it has to do with a character from Entourage...)

Hogan|11.11.08 @ 3:16PM|#

why does weigel think that unlikely fringe criticisms of obama are interesting? does he have some kind of goal he's trying to reach, after five hundred posts like this he'll stop?

|11.11.08 @ 3:17PM|#

"I do not think it is a good argument, but if someone wants to make the comparison of pre-Reich Germany and Obama, Mr. Weigel, it is incumbent on you to say why it is dumb, not just say 'that is a dumb comparison.'"

Until there is a whiff of genocide in the air, I think Hitler comparisons, especially ones that use the word "exactly" can be called "dumb" without much cause for worry.

For example, I can say that comparing Obama to Stalin is dumb, unless, of course, Obama has a history of slaughtering 12 million of his own people. Did I miss some grand announcement on the youtubes? Is Barack Obama going to be slaughtering homosexual peasants in lieu of raising taxes?

open tag. Sorry.

Dave Weigel|11.11.08 @ 3:23PM|#

why does weigel think that unlikely fringe criticisms of obama are interesting?

This isn't some blogger. It's an elected congressman whom I profiled, in a pretty fair and flattering way, this year. I'm disappointed.

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:26PM|#

Sorry, Lamar, but I think there's some value to learning from history in order not to repeat it. People who fell into totalitarian traps back when totalitarianism was a new thing can be forgiven. If we in the 21st century, who should know better, shun *apt* comparisons of what's going on now to what went on then, that's much worse.

But by all means, if you think the comparison is inapt, say so.

Doug|11.11.08 @ 3:28PM|#

If they wanted to talk about the thousands of ACTUAL REAL WAYS in which liberty in the US is restricted, they'd end up criticizing their own party's policies.

QFE

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:33PM|#

So we're not allowed to even say the "H" word until the concentration camps are set up and Obama is walled up in his Wolf's Lair in Chicago? Cause you know, I think it would be too late then.

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:35PM|#

Sorry, I should have noted that I was responding to Weigel's update above, where he notes that a bunch of stuff that Broun didn't say isn't true.

Fluffy|11.11.08 @ 3:36PM|#

cunnivore - I got tired of the "Weigel is Teh Shill"...but don't kid yourself. No, there was not this much anger over the Bu$hitler stuff that was tossed around.

Maybe that was because the Bushitler stuff started after Bush started wars of conquest, ordered torture, began the construction of a camp for extrajudicial detention, etc.

Obama put a couple of lines in his stump speech about a national service corps to get campaign donations from aging hippies who remember being in the Peace Corps.

If Obama actually sets up some sort of civilian corps of informers and intimidators, then get back to me and I'll join you in denouncing his incipient Nazidom.

|11.11.08 @ 3:39PM|#

Obama said it himself.....

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/11/wsj-obama-wont-radically_n_142943.html

Obama plans to use the same intel and interrogation technichues Bush used. That would be something worth blogging on. Certainly Reason has blogged the hell out of the subject in the past. You would think they would be livid over this and have something to say. But since they all voted for Obama, maybe they aren't that worried about it.

Matt Welch Makes Me Sleepy|11.11.08 @ 3:41PM|#

"And I know this is an ad hominem, but I seriously wonder whether Weigel was this vigilant about attacking comparisons of Bush with Hitler."

At the moment, Weigel is still in the throughs of obomagasm.

robc|11.11.08 @ 3:43PM|#

This isn't some blogger. It's an elected congressman whom I profiled, in a pretty fair and flattering way, this year. I'm disappointed.

He is a congressman.

A blogger I expect to be more respectable.

Monroe|11.11.08 @ 3:43PM|#

"civilian national defense force"

So what would become of the National Guard?

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:44PM|#

Fluffy, it's generally better to expose totalitarian behavior when it first rears its head, before the totalitarian infrastructure is in place.

I'm not saying that it's rearing its head now. I'm just saying I'd rather not wait till we're living in the Fourth Reich before mention of the H word is allowed.

|11.11.08 @ 3:45PM|#

Hey, fame and fortune!

I think the word "exactly" undercuts the entire (stupid) argument anyway. I guess my larger point was that I think we need to draw a line between "insta-Godwin" and waiting until the fences go up to start drawing comparisons.

after Bush started wars of conquest, ordered torture, began the construction of a camp for extrajudicial detention, etc.

He did that all by his lonesome, did he? I give Germans a pass because at least they can credibly claim they lived in a surveillance state where fear of retribution was palpable. Americans (including the so-called "opposition party") went along with the initiatives you think validate the "Bushitler" stuff.

Brock|11.11.08 @ 3:46PM|#

While acknowledging that his very politician-ness makes him a defacto douche-weigel (the flexible neck between the bag and the nozzle), faulting Broun for hyperbolic skepticism seems astoundingly quaint.

Besides, a republican/revolutionary guard outside the strictures of Posse Comitatus and absolutely zero constitutional basis? I can't imagine why Broun would be concerned about that.

And when, exactly, is it OK to point out the jagged rocks at the bottom of the slippery slope? After 5 million dead?

If we're all sitting around the campfire holding hands and singing cum-bah-yah and Barry (who's been drinking since 9 am) starts heading towards the gas cans it seems reasonable to warn the others. I don't think we have to wait for the third-degree burns we got when Al tossed one on the fire.

Weigelese to English Translato|11.11.08 @ 3:47PM|#

"This isn't some blogger. It's an elected congressman whom I profiled, in a pretty fair and flattering way, this year. I'm disappointed."

Weigelese to English translation: This is not the Rep. Paul Broun I knew.

fyodor|11.11.08 @ 3:47PM|#

Focusing on Weigel for focusing on Broun is, ironically, committing the same sin Weigel commits in the first place.

At the risk of going all pollyanna on y'all, rather than getting bogged down with each other's choice of rhetoric about something we all seem to agree on, why not focus on what we agree on? That this is a stupid and awful idea! Why the hell do we need a national police force?

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:47PM|#

TAO, what's really sad is that the Godwin-shouters don't even know what Godwin's Law is. It says that if an argument goes on long enough eventually there will be a comparison to Hitler. It does not say that anyone who makes a comparison to Hitler automatically loses.

|11.11.08 @ 3:48PM|#

"Americans (including the so-called "opposition party") went along with the initiatives you think validate the "Bushitler" stuff."

That is because the opposition party plans to do the very same things that Bush did. Read the link I posted above. You are going to see a general rehabilitation of Bush over the next year or so, at least in regard to his terror policies. You are going to see media mavens and mainstream liberals say "no one ever said Bush was bad on the war on terror, just the economy". Try not to vomit because it is going to happen.

|11.11.08 @ 3:49PM|#

Second, the Schutzstaffel (which Broun appears to be invoking) was created as a personal guard service for Hitler.

Wellll...if we are going to be picky about it, a national paramilitary force answerable to the party would be the Sturmabteilung (SA), who were the original brown shirts.

Of course, I guess that means we will have our own "Night of the Long Knives" when the Bill-Ayers headed TSA purges the Civil Security Corps.

Let's be fair though, a civilian national defense force does sound a bit ominous, especially one that is as well prepared and funded as the military as Sen. Obama has suggested. It's creepy.

It also ain't gonna happen. This was a poorly, if at all, thought out comment during the campaign that has no basis in reality. The paranoia about Obama amazes and tickles me. He's a bit to the left of Clinton. He's hardly a Hugo Chavez clone and the power of the presidency, while too great IMHO, is not near dictatorial.

|11.11.08 @ 3:53PM|#

I don't think Obama is going to be Chavez. He will either do really stupid things like ban conceal and carry and raise taxes during a recession and give the Congress back to the Republicans in two years, or he will govern like Clinton and leave his leftist supporters feeling betrayed.

Monroe|11.11.08 @ 3:53PM|#

"Obama put a couple of lines in his stump speech about a national service corps to get campaign donations from aging hippies who remember being in the Peace Corps."

The don't have to rely on memories. They can still join today:

http://www.peacecorps.gov/

Hogan|11.11.08 @ 3:54PM|#

to be clear, although this guy is more prominent than many other obamarumormongers, i'm just perplexed by weigel's desire to be Your One Stop Source for claims that nobody reasonable takes seriously about larry sinclair, birth certificates, whitey tapes and the rest of the Obama Troof. i just don't see why it's interesting. there are plenty of legitimate complaints about him.

Pedro|11.11.08 @ 3:55PM|#

"If Obama actually sets up some sort of civilian corps of informers and intimidators, then get back to me and I'll join you in denouncing his incipient Nazidom."

But what if YOU'RE an informer?

|11.11.08 @ 3:56PM|#

Hogan,

That is because Weigel still has his tongue up Obama's ass. If he blogged on the legitimate complaints, like the decision to continue Bush's counter terror policy, he might have to take his tongue out and say something bad about Obama. Weigel is just not ready to do that. So instead he blogs on the crazy stuff to make himself feel better.

|11.11.08 @ 3:57PM|#

you know, I kind of feel bad for Obama (a little bit). Mushy-headed "centrists" and "independents" (Read: ignorant morons who think showing how independent they are makes them "smart") are never going to be happy, the right is never going to be happy and the left is never going to be happy, even if Obama does all he can to throw the left a bone.

He's got a tough row to hoe.

|11.11.08 @ 3:58PM|#

Obama is proposing a new civilian force that he'd command as he commands every branch of the military.

OK, but the only time the President is true Commander-in-Chief is when the nation is "at war" (which is now just at the discretion of the President)...so, will this security force always be "at war"? What "wars" are they going to fight? How and where would they be deployed?

Frankly, this sounds like the WPA or some other FDR-like works program cloaked in national-security rhetoric.

Jesse Walker|11.11.08 @ 3:59PM|#

You would think they would be livid over this and have something to say.

I'll have something to say when we see what Obama's actual policies are. I read the Journal article you're touting. I thought it was vague and speculative. (And yes, I refrained from blogging anti-Bush articles for the same reason all the time.)

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 3:59PM|#

If your subjects are pinned beneath the boots of your minions, it doesn't matter to you whether they're happy or not.

Bill Ayers|11.11.08 @ 4:00PM|#

"He's hardly a Hugo Chavez clone and the power of the presidency, while too great IMHO, is not near dictatorial."

That's not the Barack Obama I knew.

|11.11.08 @ 4:00PM|#

"He's got a tough row to hoe."

I think you are right. His only hope is that he really is a cult of personality and the morons will like him anyway as he betrays everything he promised them.

O\'Brien|11.11.08 @ 4:01PM|#

Picture Obama's boot stomping on a human face...FOREVER

Matt Welch Makes Me Sleepy|11.11.08 @ 4:03PM|#

"Weigel is just not ready to do that."

Still in the throughs...

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 4:03PM|#

I agree, John. There's nothing sadder than partisans clinging to their guy even as he destroys everything they supposedly believe in.

[HINT: I'm chuckling at the irony as I type this]

|11.11.08 @ 4:03PM|#

To pick nits -- I don't think it's accurate to say that the Nazis seized power through violence and threats. They tried that, but failed. It was after they got into power through legal means that they _consolidated_ their power through violence and threats.

Jessee,

I find it hard to beleive Reason ever pulled a bunch against Bush over the last four years. I would love to see some examples of things you didn't blog about.

I will beleive you will go after a President Obama when I see it. You guys all voted for him, how can you?

Monroe|11.11.08 @ 4:05PM|#

"To pick nits -- I don't think it's accurate to say that the Nazis seized power through violence and threats. They tried that, but failed. It was after they got into power through legal means that they _consolidated_ their power through violence and threats."

Thread winner.

|11.11.08 @ 4:07PM|#

Still in the throughs...

It's "throes". Get a brian, moran.

You guys all voted for him, how can you?

OK, enough...no, not all of "them" voted for Obama, and frankly, I think that reason is objective enough that they pulled their punches on some of the more ridiculous and speculative shit put out there about Bush.

|11.11.08 @ 4:09PM|#

"OK, enough...no, not all of "them" voted for Obama, and frankly, I think that reason is objective enough that they pulled their punches on some of the more ridiculous and speculative shit put out there about Bush."

I don't. Yes, not all of them voted for him, but the majority did, even though the protest vote for Barr was available. It is not like they didn't have a choice.

|11.11.08 @ 4:11PM|#

Even the folks at Little Green Footballs are laughing at this moron for his pre-emptive, pre-inauguration Godwin.

Sigh|11.11.08 @ 4:12PM|#

It's going to be a fun four years watcing Weigel say of every Obama atrocity "But it's not that bad!"

First, the Democrats didn't seize power through violence and threats against their enemies

Yeah, I don't think Joe the Plumber would agree with you there.

Bingo|11.11.08 @ 4:14PM|#

Broun: Obama wants to institute a national security force! It's a violation of your rights and a awful step toward totalitarianism! Hitler did the same thing!
Weigel: Yo dude, just chill. It's totally not like Hitler.

Very weak, Dave. Can't wait for the Department of Homeland Security to be given a domestic defense force. That should be a riot! (pun fully intended)

Matt Welch Makes Me Sleepy |11.11.08 @ 4:14PM|#

"It's "throes". Get a brian, moran."

Thanks, Mister Spellchecker!

Mike Laursen|11.11.08 @ 4:15PM|#

I will beleive you will go after a President Obama when I see it. You guys all voted for him, how can you?

Woh, woh, woh. Go back and look at the article where the staff declared who they were going to vote for. Like two staff members said they were going to vote for Obama.

Let\'s Just Imagine|11.11.08 @ 4:16PM|#

What if Bush had started talking about mandatory government service and a "civilian defense force?" Would Weigel be here defending him from cries of being the next Hitler?

|11.11.08 @ 4:16PM|#

i just don't see why it's interesting. there are plenty of legitimate complaints about him.

Airing all the crazy shit about Obama sucks all the oxygen out of the room, no? Anyone coming along with a legit complaint later will be automatically assumed to be one of the crazies, and their complaint dismissed.

If I was an on-line commentator who wanted to immunize someone against attacks, I would keep a steady diet of the crazy shit people say about my guy coming.

Matt Welch Makes Me Sleepy|11.11.08 @ 4:17PM|#

"Woh, woh, woh"

That's should be spelled Whoa, whoa, whoa. Or maybe woe, woe, woe.

cunnivore|11.11.08 @ 4:18PM|#

I'm too lazy to go back, but I remember that more voted for Obama than Barr, and none voted for McCain. There were a bunch who said they weren't going to vote at all. It was definitely more than a couple, since I remember Weigel and Cavanaugh writing articles about voting for Obama and there were others besides them.

Sean Scallon|11.11.08 @ 4:20PM|#

Sad...Broun seemed to have so much potential. Fears of a civilian militia under Obama's control can be discussed without delving into "Obama is Hitler" or "Obama is Stalin" territory which utterly negates his legitimate concerns.

Hello, any intelligent GOP politicians out there? Hello? Hello? (is it just me or is my voice echioing).

My word Obama has even taken the oath of office an already the madness has begun.

|11.11.08 @ 4:22PM|#

"If I was an on-line commentator who wanted to immunize someone against attacks, I would keep a steady diet of the crazy shit people say about my guy coming."

It appears Weigel has taken your advice. Reason will jump on every crazy thing the right says about Obama and ignore everything else as much as possible as "speculative" or "no worse than Bush".

Mike Laursen|11.11.08 @ 4:23PM|#

It was definitely more than a couple, since I remember Weigel and Cavanaugh writing articles about voting for Obama and there were others besides them.

I think the confusion is because there were a bunch of respondents on the list who aren't reason staffers.

Mike Laursen|11.11.08 @ 4:24PM|#

That's should be spelled Whoa, whoa, whoa. Or maybe woe, woe, woe.

How do you know I wasn't quoting Tom Jones?

|11.11.08 @ 4:26PM|#

Judge for yourselves.

Fluffy|11.11.08 @ 4:29PM|#

Americans (including the so-called "opposition party") went along with the initiatives you think validate the "Bushitler" stuff.

The people who would employ comparisons between Bush and Hitler are not the people in the opposition party who "went along" with Bush.

If John Kerry had been walking around comparing Bush to Hitler, after endorsing virtually every Bush policy at one time or another, that would have made John Kerry a dick.

But if Ron Paul wanted to walk around talking about Bushitler, I would cut him some slack.

And trust me, I am waiting for my opportunity to start denouncing Obama. The rumblings about creating some sort of secret "national security court" would, if proved to be true, be enough to start denouncing his skinny ass. And if he actually tried to start some sort of Night Watch with millions of civilians informing on their neighbors, that would also be enough. But right now Broun is embarrassing himself with his hyperbole.

|11.11.08 @ 4:30PM|#

WE already have a wonderfully overfunded civilian force, called the armed forces. if they were doing thier job of protecting America, not fighting dumbass wars on foreing soil (afganistan is justified IMHO, iraq...hell NO)

|11.11.08 @ 4:32PM|#

And if he actually tried to start some sort of Night Watch with millions of civilians informing on their neighbors, that would also be enough.

A la TIPS? There would be some irony in that.

Boston|11.11.08 @ 4:33PM|#

Weigel - Obama - would vote for Barr if on Ballot
Doherty - NV
KMW - NV
Moynihan -NV
Walker -Barr
Welch - Barr
C Young - Barr
Bailey - Obama
Gillespie -Wavering - most likely Barr
Cavanaugh - Obama
Sullum - Barr
Root - wavering between Bob Barr and None of the Above
Chapman - NV
Balko - Barr

(Riggs, M Young apparently not available for comment)

Obama - 3
Barr- 6

|11.11.08 @ 4:34PM|#

"He's got a tough row to hoe."

Boy, you botched that old saw.

She's got a tough road to 'ho

Matt Welch Makes Me Sleepy |11.11.08 @ 4:37PM|#

"How do you know I wasn't quoting Tom Jones?"

As a fan of Sir Tom Jones, I retract my comment.

Hogan|11.11.08 @ 4:38PM|#

boston - chapman voted obama

This Michael|11.11.08 @ 4:41PM|#

So what would become of the National Guard?

It'll still be there. The "civilian force" will fill the dire need for state-sanctioned hall monitors throughout our major cities and will consist mostly of gangbangers and ex-cons.

Nat|11.11.08 @ 4:44PM|#

"gangbangers and ex-cons"

But you repeat yourself.

Tom Jones|11.11.08 @ 4:47PM|#

Thanks, MWMMS!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3so6ClU9I

Boston|11.11.08 @ 4:49PM|#

Sh*t, he did. Dammit. Good Catch.

Puck|11.11.08 @ 4:53PM|#

I knew when I saw this on another forum last night that if it appeared here, it would Weigel bringing it up as an opportunity to bash people who don't like Obama and lump them all in as the lunatic fringe right, as if there's no lunacy on the left at all.

This Michael|11.11.08 @ 4:54PM|#

"gangbangers and ex-cons"

But you repeat yourself.

No, I don't. Not all gangbangers have been convicted and not all ex-cons are gangbangers. Anyway...oops! Did I say gangbangers and ex-cons?

I meant community activists.

|11.11.08 @ 4:57PM|#

The kind of conjecture that Broun engaged in is wrong every time. Until it's right.

|11.11.08 @ 5:13PM|#

If he blogged on the legitimate complaints, like the decision to continue Bush's counter terror policy,

John,
Quick question. Who is the president?

Assuming you came up with the correct answer, how could Obama overturn Bush's policies. If 2010 rolls in and all the policies are the same, then you can criticize. It's pointless and makes YOU look like a moron if you criticize a guy for not changing policies when he's not going to be president for 2 more months.

|11.11.08 @ 5:21PM|#

The problem with the civilian defense force isn't necessarily a problem with Obama directly. It's when you establish something like this and it never goes away. At some point someone else will be in power and have access to the same thing. What will he do with it? Imagine if Nixon or FDR when elected to office had access to something like this.

It's maddening to see these idiots who get elected to the presidency who can't seem to understand that they aren't going to be president forever. And their party isn't going to be in power forever either. Then they freak out when the other party uses all the amassed power the previous administration acquired against them.

BDB|11.11.08 @ 5:34PM|#

Ok, before I even read the comments I'm going to assume 1)this thread was bursting with The Stupid, and 2)TallDave and OLS made one or more cameos(under whichever name they happen to be using).

BDB|11.11.08 @ 5:35PM|#

Well, 2 out of 3 a'int bad.

SIV|11.11.08 @ 5:38PM|#

There was another Georgia Congressman who warned us of tyranny. Larry McDonald warned us about the threat of communism.He was called crazy, fringe and paranoid right up until THIS HAPPENED.

Orange Line Special|11.11.08 @ 5:40PM|#

More great "reporting"/fluffing by Weigel!

Meanwhile, perhaps he could explain why Obama's explanation for what he said doesn't exactly seem that credible.

Then, hyped up on Libertarian courage, he can actually ask the BHO camp to provide details on the scheme. Since BHO's spokesman admits that it's an actual BHO scheme, and since that BHO scheme doesn't appear on his websites or elsewhere, then shouldn't a real reporter try to get the details?

BDB|11.11.08 @ 5:42PM|#

Oh, speak of the devil!

Do you ever link to anyone besides yourself and Malkin, OLS?

|11.11.08 @ 5:44PM|#

Pain inspires me to write a new Iron Law:

Never give someone you support any powers unless you want someone you don't support to have them, too.

|11.11.08 @ 5:46PM|#

Hmm. Not pithy enough. Any help?

BDB|11.11.08 @ 5:47PM|#

Don't give powers to the side you support unless you're willing to give them to the side you oppose.

|11.11.08 @ 5:54PM|#

Perhaps the cognizance the Lord Acton's maxim cuts both ways?

That's a little intellectual for partisans, though.

No Name Guy|11.11.08 @ 5:59PM|#

"Second, the Schutzstaffel (which Broun appears to be invoking) was created as a personal guard service for Hitler. Obama is proposing a new civilian force that he'd command as he commands every branch of the military."

Let's see....what do we have with the current bunch of "Civilian forces" under the command of the prez:

- FBI: Ah yes...those fine bunch of uncorruptable hacks. As I recall, they like to shoot kids in the head out in Idaho.

- ATF: How many dead in Texas?

- DEA: Radley keeps us up to date on the death and suffering caused by the continued WOD. Not to mention the poor folks suffering needlessly due to overzealous enforecement on docs who treat chronic pain suffers.

And Weigel, you're not worried about the creation of a new alphabet soup agency that will almost certainly be totally political in nature? I can guess it's first task will be to root out anyone who speaks ill of "The One", since, after all, speaking ill of The One will be classified as hate speech or making terrorist threats, or some such similiar load of BS.

What RC Dean said at 5:44. Don't give the Govt. the power unless you'd trust your worst nightmare of a politician to have it.

Craig|11.11.08 @ 6:28PM|#

In other words, "don't worry about that stockpile of train cars, an elected politician would never have us hauled away in them, and they're clean and well-ventilated, anyway."

Actually, I think that pro-liberty activists and bloggers being hauled off to government camps is a lot more distant danger than the currently-brewing plans to seize our 401(k) assets and turn them into Government Retirement Accounts, managed on our behalf by Big Brother.

|11.11.08 @ 6:30PM|#

At a party on Sunday I was saying to a friend that it will be a relief when grown ups re-establish control of the Republican party and that an intelligent conservative party is good for the country.

The fact that so many of you are getting the Godwin vapors over a guy that has yet to take office, tells me that that day is still a ways off yet.

robc|11.11.08 @ 6:31PM|#

"Dont give away power"

Much simpler.

Orange Line Special|11.11.08 @ 6:55PM|#

I apparently missed the update where Weigel, assuming that BHO's spokesperson is telling the truth about his plan, pointed out that the plan is not on his website. I also missed the part where Weigel explained exactly what BHO's "reserves" would do here in the homeland.

Anon|11.11.08 @ 7:02PM|#

David,

Not to defend the comments which were perhaps slightly over the top, but contrary to what you intimate in your post, the Nazis came to power, in large part, due to Democratic elections. And they came to power in the midst of a financial crisis.

Mike Laursen|11.11.08 @ 7:12PM|#

I assume you meant to say that the Nazis came to power, in large part, due to democratic elections (lower-case D).

Lefiti|11.11.08 @ 7:21PM|#

PAY ATTENTION TO ME! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

K.T.|11.11.08 @ 8:20PM|#

So, why does Sen. Obama call it a "Civilian National Security Force?" He essentially wants to create an uber-AmeriCorps of state-sanctioned dogooders. How is that "national security?" Are they going to beat unruly Americans or foreign invaders with their copy of Audacity of Hope?

Imagine, a Pres. Obama with direct command authority over an "army" of "community organizers."

Okay, that actually is pretty frightening.

jtuf|11.11.08 @ 8:25PM|#

Jake Tapper, in that last link, calls this "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

Interesting. Liberals made similar speeches about Bush for the past 8 years. I don't endorse rants, but I'm concerned. First, it's scarry that someone could so lightly equate criticizing the president with having a mental disorder. Second, it's noteworthy that rants only got equated with a mental disorder when they were directed at a Democrat.

jtuf|11.11.08 @ 8:28PM|#

K.T.,

A bunch of protesters came into town to "raise awareness" about the IMF and World Bank near my college. It took several days to clean up the vandalism they did to my college campus. I don't want a group of these guys as big as our army working for the feds.

K.T.|11.11.08 @ 9:10PM|#

"A bunch of protesters came into town to "raise awareness" about the IMF and World Bank near my college. It took several days to clean up the vandalism they did to my college campus. I don't want a group of these guys as big as our army working for the feds."

Oddly enough, the day they came to Washington D.C., I was starting a new job a couple blocks from the White House. Got some nice whiffs of tear gas and was blocked access to my building. "Hey boss, sorry I'm late for my first day, I couldn't get through the tear gas."

|11.11.08 @ 9:18PM|#

TAO wrote: "Frankly, this sounds like the WPA or some other FDR-like works program cloaked in national-security rhetoric."

Right, it sounds like a muddled scheme in response to the talk about National Guard units in the US unable to respond to disasters due to their equipment being in Iraq.

I can't find any such program described on change.gov, mostly because all the agenda items have been removed.

|11.11.08 @ 9:21PM|#

jtuf wrote: " I don't want a group of these guys as big as our army working for the feds."

Right, because the first people to sign up to work for a government in league with the IMF and World Bank are the wannabe anarchists who protest the IMF and the World Bank.

|11.11.08 @ 9:49PM|#

Sad...Broun seemed to have so much potential. Fears of a civilian militia under Obama's control can be discussed without delving into "Obama is Hitler" or "Obama is Stalin" territory which utterly negates his legitimate concerns.

I don't think that a calm, measured warning call from an obscure GOP House member like Broun would have gotten much press.

This, on the other hand, got tons, and it put the scariness of an Obama-headed "domestic security force" into the public consciousness, which is where it needs to stay if it's to be avoided.

The problem is some libertarians attempt to seek out "good" Congressmen or "good" statists. So we find guys like Ron Paul and to a lesser extent the Jeff Flakes of the world.

Then, in order to find more nonexistent "good guys" we become more "liberal" in our criteria and search every corner of the Earth for any politician that gives lip service to "small government" "The COnstitution" or fiscal responsibility.

Then we are SHOCKED when such a person who meets perhaps 10% of our criteria for a "good Guy" says something or does something stupid or offensive.

WHY?

It's time to stop pretending that some statists are somewhat good.

All the Statists are bad Guys. So they do and say bad things.
DUh.

GILMORE|11.11.08 @ 10:00PM|#

jesus fucking christ

God?

i had prayed to you that we all be free from election politics bullshit the day after?

Its been a week, bitch! what the fuck??

please strike all the partisans to death with AIDS or something... NOW. I want them all dead, so we can all discuss our collective fucktitude over the bipartisan "bailout" (= money burning exercise) effects that will affect our futures.

amen.

kill talldave too please jesus. he's a big civilian pussy who keeps talking tough on army issues. please? I will promise to not abuse lonewacko next time i feel the itch.

economist|11.11.08 @ 10:12PM|#

"Right, because the first people to sign up to work for a government in league with the IMF and World Bank are the wannabe anarchists who protest the IMF and the World Bank."
You would be surprised how quickly their anarchist principles can go out the window when they get the chance to have power.

|11.11.08 @ 10:12PM|#

here is an archive of the change.gov website.

http://notatypewriter.com/Obama-ChangeGov/

GILMORE|11.11.08 @ 10:14PM|#

John C Jackson | November 11, 2008, 9:49pm | #

The problem is some libertarians attempt to seek out "good" Congressmen or "good" statists. So we find guys like Ron Paul and to a lesser extent the Jeff Flakes of the world.

Then, in order to find more nonexistent "good guys" we become more "liberal" in our criteria...

No, not exactly...

look, incrementalism isnt exactly a preferred strategy, but from the "weasel owning, bazooka wanting, internet weirdo-approver of transgenderism, dope smoking, confusing monetary policy obsession-having, tattoo-politics discussing, science-fiction debating, bill-of-rights quoting, friend-of-anarchists having, ayn rand reading, dildo-rights supporting" current demographic of convinced libertarians... voting for a major ticket candidate is more of an issue of limiting the total bad rather than trying to make baby steps to our perfect libertoid utopia

i guess i'm speaking to the present ron paul/rockewell types that are so more focused on ideology rather than practicality... but why bother - apostates are always more reviled than heretics.

speaking of heretics, i wonder whats going on with super-right discussion boards like RedState etc. are they smashing babies on rocks?

Orange Line Special|11.11.08 @ 10:15PM|#

Jon H: if you're concerned about the Agenda items being removed, why don't you go to BHO's site and fill out the feedback form, stating your displeasure and asking to be alerted when BHO update the page and tells us what he's going to require us to do?

Oh, and give a big shoutout to Reason for supporting BHO as you're freezing on the train to Alaska.

Jeffersonian|11.11.08 @ 10:23PM|#

I don't really care about this Rep Broun. He seems like a Constitution party type candidate. However, I do care about the NRA...the most consistent pro freedom group in our nation for the past 20 years. Yes, more than ACLU, Republican party, Democratic party, Libertarian party, and more so than Reason Cato or any other Washington group. NRA's ads and statements on Obama were completely factual and not a single one had any lies or misstatements. Record over rhetoric is the NRA's policy and should be Reason's policy as well.

The moment antigun legislation comes out of this coming Congress and Presidency, I expect the heads not of Progressives who can't help themselves and their ideas. I will want the heads of libertarians who defended Obama and bashed the NRA.

GILMORE|11.11.08 @ 10:30PM|#

God?

forget previous prayer

Orange Line Special | November 11, 2008, 10:15pm | #

you are a screaming idiot. you achieve nothing with any of your efforts. how do you look in the mirror to yourself?

Rex|11.11.08 @ 11:37PM|#

Gilmore,

you seem to have a direct line to God; drop a good word for me:)

Rex|11.11.08 @ 11:41PM|#

Wiegel,

Hitler came to power winning in a democratic election amidst economic turpoil in Germany.

If Obama proposes a civil armed force (with a budget comparable to the DoD budget) who do you think will be most of the members? and who will be their leader?

I am not saying obama is hitler - but when someone brings up the possibility that more federal govt (armed) forces within this country is not desirable, don't act dumb!

Rex|11.11.08 @ 11:42PM|#

"turmoil"

Sean Scallon|11.12.08 @ 12:17AM|#

Matt, I agree that Broun expressing his sincere concerns about a civilian defense force would not have brought him much attention. But instead of using comparing Obama to Hitler, may I suggest that he should have done a strip tease act in front of the reporter. By the time he would have taken it all off, he would have gotten the required attention for his concerns without descending into damaging hyperbole.

Of course we all believed in the "Bush is Hitler" comparisons from the extreme left, right?

Mike Laursen|11.12.08 @ 12:42AM|#

Obama - 3

OK, three Obamas if you count Cavanaugh, whose day job is writing at the Los Angeles Times.

Mike Laursen|11.12.08 @ 12:55AM|#

I can't find any such program described on change.gov, mostly because all the agenda items have been removed.

Wow, you're right. There's were dozens of "Obama and Biden are going to do this and that to fix everything" items listed under that link. Now there's just a paragraph of broad policy.

matt|11.12.08 @ 5:58AM|#

By the time he would have taken it all off, he would have gotten the required attention for his concerns without descending into damaging hyperbole.

I guess I just don't see the risk of damage here at all. Who could be damaged? Obama's public image won't be crushed by this attack, and it certainly won't rehabilitate Hitler, either.

So much is said about how certain comments are "ruining the tone" in DC, but seeing these guys get along and play golf on the weekends isn't high on my list of concerns.

In my book a new domestic national security force headed by the federal chief executive is much more concerning.

|11.12.08 @ 10:05AM|#

"Wow, you're right. There's were dozens of "Obama and Biden are going to do this and that to fix everything" items listed under that link. Now there's just a paragraph of broad policy."

At least the "Agenda" section hasn't been renamed "Kampf".

I kid, I kid.

|11.12.08 @ 10:24AM|#

all the agenda items have been removed.

You can believe in that change.

economist|11.12.08 @ 10:27AM|#

Jeffersonian,
Which is why I'm a 20+ year member of the NRA.

Mike Laursen|11.12.08 @ 12:59PM|#

In my book a new domestic national security force headed by the federal chief executive is much more concerning.

Setting aside the "civilian national security force" wording he used, I believe the proposal was to require college students to do fifty hours of community service and possibly require civilians to take a civil defense course (stuff like first aid training). Yes, it would be an exertion of Presidential power over the citizenry, but let's keep it in perspective: it's not a proposal to set up standing armed Obama Youth Brigades. Can we wait until he is sworn in as President and is actually really about to do something egregious before we condemn him?

|11.24.08 @ 6:30PM|#

George W. Bush is indeed hated and despised. Bush may not be "self-aware" relative to his narcissistic personality disorder. A lot of mentally ill people are oblivious and/or in denial of their mental illness. But Bush is probably aware that he has psychological problems. Bush may quibble over semantics or interpretations or opinions about whether it would be appropriate or fair to say that he has psychological problems of "clinical significance."

George W. Bush is gravely mentally ill and needs help.

It is on the Internet: people are "counting the days til Bush leaves office."

The American people can hardly wait til Bush leaves office. The presidency of Bush has been a nightmare for the American people and for the world. The narcissistic personality disorder of Bush has certainly contributed to what is almost his inability to do anything right.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements