hilzoy

by Eric Martin

While I generally try to leave the filleting of the conservative movement's more outrageous voices to the experts (knives being sharp and all), I occasionally attempt a skewer or two when so moved.  At the risk of relying on anecdote, though, it seems that every time I write something about Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh I'm chided from the left ("why waste time talking about them?") or the right ("they don't really represent the Republican Party/conservative movement in America").

Well, an interesting thing is happening within the Republican Party, and it only exposes the prominence of voices like Limbaugh's, and the extent to which he can actually bring elected GOP representatives to their knees.  I'm sure many of you are already familiar with the story of Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who recently had some mild criticismsfor Limbaugh – particularly appropriate given Limbaugh's recent declaration that he hopes the Obama Presidency fails, consequences to the American public be damned, and that the Republican leadership seemed frightened to pursue such a strategy. 

After Gingrey's faint rebuke, Limbaugh lashed out, and Gingrey supplicated himself before El Rushbo:

“I never told Rush to back off,” Gingrey continued. “I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives — that was not my intent … Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.”

As Steve Benen observed:

Gingrey went on to say, "I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh," adding that he's among millions of Americans "inspired" by Limbaugh

Note, Gingrey hadn't said anything especially controversial yesterday. It iseasy for political observers on the outside to criticize, as compared to keeping a party together. But Gingrey not only faced a swift rebuke for daring to question Leader Limbaugh, but apologized, in writing, and in an embarrassingly meek tone.

The Republican Party is suffering something of a leadership vacuum. It's pretty obvious who's calling the shots. [emphasis added throughout]

Indeed.  But it didn't end there.  Mike Pence (R-IN) was next in line to make gestures in Limbaugh's direction cooing about how he "cherish[es]" Limbaugh's "voice in the debate."  Yeah, what's not to love. 

But stillit did not end there.  The Wall St. Journal lept into the fray and offered Rush a spot on its Op-Ed pages from which to offer a solution to the economic crisis – a sophomoric proposal that doesn't even pretend to take into account questions of efficacy.  No, to Rush, it's all a political ruse:

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion—$486 billion—will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46%—$414 billion—will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Brilliant!  Erected on such solid economic principles! How could that possibly fail! 

So there you have it, the cherished voice of the conservative conscience offering a fiscal gimmick that, however ludicrous, the GOP leaders know better than to question.  No, I expect them all to tiptoe around l'enfant terrible as if he was little Anthony Fremont.

But now that the GOP has acknowledged Rush's place in the movement's firmament, shouldn't we all drop the protests that Rush is too insignificant to discuss, or that discussing his views would be a waste of time because he doesn't really speak for the GOP?  Why, he's one of their most revered pundits.  "Inspirational" even.

Given this, I believe it would be fair – no necessary - that the media ask a whole host of questions of GOP representatives regarding Limbaugh's past statements/positions.  After all, the media has a duty to inform the American people of just how much influence the extreme right wing has over the Republican Party.

A short list below the fold, but feel free to add your own.

Read more

by Eric Martin

For the first installment of the America's Defense Meltdown series, I thought it would be useful to review some of the history applicable to the evolution of America's military institutions as presented in the anthology itself.  That history provides a useful context within which to assess the range of options going forward, and perhaps appreciate some of the anachronistic aspects of our defense posture/industry that have long outlived their utility, passing from asset to hindrance.  The establishment of a permanent standing military force of considerable size over the past century, coupled with the gradual consolidation of war making authority by the Executive branch, has distorted the policy making process to detrimental effect, all at enormous cost.

Lt. Col. John Sayen (US Marine Corps, ret.) provides a summary of the overall picture:

Our military has broken its constitutional controls. Our Founding Fathers wanted no more than a very limited size and role for a federal military. They feared standing armies not only because they might be used against the American public, i.e. to establish military rule, but also for their potential to involve us in costly foreign wars that would drain our treasury, erode our freedoms and involve us in the “entangling alliances” that George Washington warned of in his farewell address. At that time our armies were composed mainly of state militias that the president needed the cooperation of Congress and the state governors in order to use. Today, we have one large all-volunteer federal Army, which for all practical purposes responds only to the president and the executive branch. It has engaged in numerous foreign wars, involved us in many entangling alliances, drained our treasury and eroded our liberties just as our Founding Fathers foresaw. It has enabled the president to take the nation to war on little more than his own authority. The recent repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 allows him to unilaterally use the military not only against foreigners, but against the American people as well.

While it is easy for children of the World War II/Cold War era who have grown accustomed to an enormous, permanent standing Army to assume that this was always the state of affairs, a closer look at the preceding decades reveals a different story.  At the time of this nation's founding, there was only a nominal national force – with most arms residing with state-based militias.  While this force was gradually augmented over time, even "as late as 1898 the Army was still authorized only 27,000 men."  It is that point in time that marks the dramatic break from past traditions. 

The state of military affairs prior to the turn of the 20th century reflected the prevailing political will: there was an overriding concern that a large standing Army could usurp representative government, exert outsized influence over that government and/or lead it into unnecessary adventurism through the seductive lure of martial power.  Rather than constructing a force that could pose a threat to the republic, or facilitate far-flung folly, US leaders by and large relegated the military to one overriding purpose: defense of the nation's homeland. 

A brief recounting:

Congress…established the relationship between the federal government and the state militias with two militia acts passed in 1792. The first gave the president the authority to call out the militia in response to foreign invasion or internal disorder. The second ordered that the militia consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. Each member would arm and equip himself at his own expense and report for training twice a year. The state legislatures would prescribe the militia’s tactical organization (companies, battalions, regiments, etc.). As time went on, however, and the nation grew more secure, militia service effectively became voluntary. Militia units began to resemble social clubs more than military organizations, but even as late as 1898 the militia could field five times more troops than the U.S. Army.

If the president wanted to take the United States to war, he would need a national army that, unlike the militia, could fight anywhere, not just within its home states. Unless the war was to be of extremely limited scope and duration, the regular U.S. Army would be too small. To enlarge it, the president would have to go to Congress not only to obtain a declaration of war, but also the authority and funding needed to call for militia volunteers. Assuming that Congress was forthcoming, the president would then issue a call for volunteers, ordering each state governor to raise a fixed quota of men from their respective militias. These orders were difficult to enforce and during the war of 1812 and the Civil War several governors refused them. However, those that complied would call on the individual companies and regiments of their respective militias to volunteer for federal service. The members of those units would then vote on whether their units would become “U.S. Volunteers.” Individual members of units that volunteered could still excuse themselves from service for health or family reasons.

Given that most militia units were below their full strength in peacetime, and that a portion of their existing members would be unwilling or unable to serve, they would need a lot of new recruits if they were to go to war. They would also need time for training and “shaking down.” Secretary of War John C. Calhoun in 1818 noted that the United States had no significant continental enemies and was essentially an insular power. Thus, the Navy could ensure that an invader could not land in America before the U.S. Volunteers had time to prepare. The system certainly made it harder to go to war.

The structure of America's military apparatus made it difficult to go to war on a whim, or for anything less than a cause deemed vital by enough actors across a broad swath of geography, class and ideology.  The warriors themselves had, in essence, veto power.  The results that stemmed from this were unsurprising: "In the first 100 years of its existence the United States fought only two significant foreign wars."

Under our current system, on the other hand, the military lacks the same level of autonomy or prerogative when it comes to making decisions.  Our modern day volunteer force receives orders, not ballots, when there is a call to arms.  Further, whereas multiple actors needed convincing prior to fielding an army in the past (from Congress, to sate governors, to militiamen themselves), increasingly, in modern times, there is only the President. 

…[T]he National Defense Act of 1916, passed in anticipation of America’s entry into World War I. In effect…transformed all militia units from individual state forces into a federal reserve force. The title of “National Guard” became mandatory for all militia units and, within the War Department the Division of Militia Affairs became the National Guard Bureau. Instead of the state titles that many had borne since the colonial era the former militia units received numbers in sequence with regular Army units. In addition, the act created a U.S. Army Reserve of trained individuals not organized into units and established a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) in the colleges and universities.

…The political cost had been high. America now had the large professional standing army (with no counterbalancing militia) that our Founding Fathers warned us against. The president now controlled all of the nation’s armed forces in peacetime as well as in war. He would no longer have to beg either Congress or the state governors for troops.

Within a few years he would not have to ask Congress for a declaration of war, either. Yes, Congress still holds the purse strings but, as other chapters of this book will show, it has never gripped them very tightly…[T]he new U.S. Army was effectively accountable only to the executive branch of government.

Read more