Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:02 AM Dec 2016

Kernel of an idea that has destroyed many democracies

from Josh Marshall at TPM: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/something-disturbing-about-tulsi-gabbard

Something Disturbing About Tulsi Gabbard

... she just answered a question on CNN that struck me as very troubling and made me see some of her earlier comments in a different light. It was about the number of generals Donald Trump is putting in senior cabinet positions.

TAPPER: Quickly before you go, I know that some of your colleagues, democrats, have expressed concern about too many retired generals being in the trump cabinet. You have the national security adviser general Flynn and he's talked about general Mattis and general Kelly at the Pentagon and homeland security. Do you share their concerns or disagree?

GABBARD: I don't share their concerns. As a veteran and as someone still serving in the Hawaii National Guard, I found it pretty offensive for people to outright discriminate against veterans. Here you have generals who have literally spent their whole lives serving our country, putting service before self, putting their lives on the line to defend democracy. Yet people are criticizing them and discriminating against them saying, just because you served as a general previously you are disqualified from serving in a high position of leadership in our government. These people, arguably, have put far more on the line and are far more deeply personally committed to upholding and protecting our democracy than their critics.


The issue of civilian control of the military and wariness of military or ex-military influence over the civilian government isn't some new-fangled idea from coastal cosmopolitan elites. It's deeply rooted in the American political tradition. Indeed it was even more potent earlier in the country's history. That's why ex-generals are actually barred from serving as Secretary of Defense for seven years. Mattis needs a specific waiver. Indeed, the importance of military subordination to civilian government and the penumbra of concerns like the one we're discussing here are deeply inculcated in the U.S. military's officer corps itself — for obvious reasons.

...The real kicker in my mind comes at the end when Gabbard says that these men are "far more deeply personally committed to upholding and protecting our democracy than their critics." The suggestion here is not about the particular individuals, who I believe are deeply committed to America and its democratic institutions. But what Gabbard is suggesting here is that as generals they are more committed than civilians.

That is the kernel of an idea that has destroyed many democracies, the idea that career military officers are simply better, more patriotic, more efficient than civilians. That is a deeply dangerous idea that needs to be snuffed out whenever it raises up its head. It is completely at odds with the entire American tradition.


read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/something-disturbing-about-tulsi-gabbard
39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kernel of an idea that has destroyed many democracies (Original Post) bigtree Dec 2016 OP
I agree. One cornerstone of our system is civilan power, so the generals stay in their place. TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #1
Is this the same anti-gay Tulsi Hawaiians don't like? leftofcool Dec 2016 #2
I don't like her one bit.. she's my rep Cha Dec 2016 #7
just curious elmac Dec 2016 #24
She's got wealthy conservative roots and just changed her stance on abortion to run in HI where Dems bettyellen Dec 2016 #26
By her logic, only former Generals would qualify to run for office world wide wally Dec 2016 #3
Right.. It's ridiculous Cha Dec 2016 #8
Apropos of the notion that only those in the military rusty fender Dec 2016 #34
WHOA, !! Nellie. Or rather WHOA, Gabbi !! pangaia Dec 2016 #4
Absolutely NO guarantee, agreed. Aimee in OKC Dec 2016 #22
Unfortunately it is part of the fabric of the U.S. SamKnause Dec 2016 #5
And so much more - flag adulation etc BSdetect Dec 2016 #27
How the hell does she know? "these men are "far more deeply personally committed to upholding and Cha Dec 2016 #6
Blindly supporting military leaders is no better than blindly criticizing them. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #9
She was being bandied about for leadership positions in a possible Sanders administration. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #10
She was also bandied about in the trump admin.. Cha Dec 2016 #38
Ask the next veteran you meet if the Army is a "democratic institution". eppur_se_muova Dec 2016 #11
It's also one of the largest socialist organizations in the world. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #13
Perhaps you should learn what "Socialist" means. Indydem Dec 2016 #25
Too many Americans believe "patriotism" means blind obedience to authorities----unless the authori- WinkyDink Dec 2016 #12
Wasn't the cop killer in Dallas former military? world wide wally Dec 2016 #14
My usual response to the blind support the military crowd is: Timothy McVeigh TwilightZone Dec 2016 #15
Is "Putting Their Lives On The Line" An Accurate Statement? ProfessorGAC Dec 2016 #16
It is worrisom. But the generals bother me a lot less than some of the others. Abu Pepe Dec 2016 #17
I think it mostly has to do with the public assurance bigtree Dec 2016 #18
I guess I just trust generals more than WS guys Abu Pepe Dec 2016 #19
their's is a more autocratic experience bigtree Dec 2016 #20
agreed. but the silver lining might actually be someone more familiar with the Constitution and Abu Pepe Dec 2016 #23
Welcome to DU, Abu Pepe. Hekate Dec 2016 #21
'Father of Jose' No relation to the racist frog. Abu Pepe Dec 2016 #32
Hey there! rusty fender Dec 2016 #36
K&R Solly Mack Dec 2016 #28
I think the soldier-worship in this country is getting ridiculous! lastlib Dec 2016 #29
Exactly. Always there is this idea treestar Dec 2016 #30
But, but, but she supported Bernie and stood up to the DNC! KamaAina Dec 2016 #31
Yes, that kind of ignorance is appalling. alarimer Dec 2016 #33
K&R ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #35
K&R... spanone Dec 2016 #37
KICK Cha Dec 2016 #39
 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
26. She's got wealthy conservative roots and just changed her stance on abortion to run in HI where Dems
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 01:58 PM
Dec 2016

Rule. She appears to have switched to Dems and grabbed onto Sanders coat tails to make herself a name as quickly as possible. That's probably why she's trying to jump on the Trump train.

world wide wally

(21,742 posts)
3. By her logic, only former Generals would qualify to run for office
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:11 AM
Dec 2016

Gee, just what we need. A country run by John McCains

 

rusty fender

(3,428 posts)
34. Apropos of the notion that only those in the military
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 03:45 PM
Dec 2016

can run for office: Robert Heinlein wrote a book titled Starship Troopers, in which only those who served in the military could vote. These people were called 'Citizens.' It should be noted that in Heinlein's book, the military was only fighting big ol' bugs, not other humans.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
4. WHOA, !! Nellie. Or rather WHOA, Gabbi !!
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:13 AM
Dec 2016

That little statement there IS frightening.

Either she has no idea what the problem with it is.
OR
She knows exactly what the problem is.

Also I would not guarantee these all these guys are "... are deeply committed to America and its democratic institutions."

Just because they were in the military? No siree.

SamKnause

(13,101 posts)
5. Unfortunately it is part of the fabric of the U.S.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:14 AM
Dec 2016

You can't criticize the military or you are labeled unpatriotic.

You can't criticize the police or you are labeled unpatriotic.

You can't criticize Christians or you are labeled unpatriotic.

You can't be anti-war or you are labeled unpatriotic.

BSdetect

(8,998 posts)
27. And so much more - flag adulation etc
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 01:59 PM
Dec 2016

The sheer numbers of males who have been trained to obey is frightening.

It may come down to red vs blue again one day not too far away.

Cha

(297,184 posts)
6. How the hell does she know? "these men are "far more deeply personally committed to upholding and
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:22 AM
Dec 2016
protecting our democracy than their critics."

Something Disturbing About Tulsi Gabbard

...The real kicker in my mind comes at the end when Gabbard says that these men are "far more deeply personally committed to upholding and protecting our democracy than their critics." The suggestion here is not about the particular individuals, who I believe are deeply committed to America and its democratic institutions. But what Gabbard is suggesting here is that as generals they are more committed than civilians.

I'm sure trump and bannon appreciate her sticking up for the trump generals. Does she know a damn thing about Flynn and Mattis?

They're more committed to protecting our Democracy than any civilian criticizing them? Right tulsi. Whatever.

She stepped in it. I mentioned bannon because there was some article about how much he liked her.. that I read awhile ago.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/something-disturbing-about-tulsi-gabbard

Thank you for this, bigtree.. "Kernel of an idea that has destroyed many democracies"

I'll say.

TwilightZone

(25,469 posts)
9. Blindly supporting military leaders is no better than blindly criticizing them.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:46 AM
Dec 2016

Do you suppose she gets that?

Putting Michael Flynn in a cabinet position and putting Wesley Clark in a cabinet position are two wildly different things.

She also needs to learn the meaning of the word "discriminate". Objecting to an insane person being placed in the president-elect's cabinet is not discrimination.

TwilightZone

(25,469 posts)
10. She was being bandied about for leadership positions in a possible Sanders administration.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:48 AM
Dec 2016

And as a possible VP.

eppur_se_muova

(36,261 posts)
11. Ask the next veteran you meet if the Army is a "democratic institution".
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:48 AM
Dec 2016

That will put to rest any notions that generals are somehow more inclined to democratic ideals.

TwilightZone

(25,469 posts)
13. It's also one of the largest socialist organizations in the world.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:57 AM
Dec 2016

Government payroll, housing, health care, clothing.

I always find that a tad ironic, considering the GOP's (usually feigned) never-ending support of them.

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
12. Too many Americans believe "patriotism" means blind obedience to authorities----unless the authori-
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 11:50 AM
Dec 2016

ties are liberal Democrats.

ProfessorGAC

(65,010 posts)
16. Is "Putting Their Lives On The Line" An Accurate Statement?
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:27 PM
Dec 2016

Generals, in the modern warfare era are on the front lines? Like Patton or Bradley or Grant?

Mattis' Wiki page doesn't mention Vietnam and he joined the Marines in 1969. How did he avoid that.

And if they've been generals for a while, were they on the front lines in the first Gulf War? Or were they 150 miles from the front lines in Kuwait? (Or in Florida, for that matter.) Mattis served in Afghanistan but it doesn't say anything about actual combat duty.

Flynn is younger than me so he couldn't have been Vietnam. And, it doesn't appear he was actually in Grenada while the fighting was taking place. Everything else is described as an administrative position in the intelligence arm.

What war were these guys in where they legitimately had their lives on the line?

Abu Pepe

(637 posts)
17. It is worrisom. But the generals bother me a lot less than some of the others.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:46 PM
Dec 2016

With the exception of Flynn. He is my pick for being right in the middle of any unconstitutional craziness.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
18. I think it mostly has to do with the public assurance
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:57 PM
Dec 2016

...that our government is in civilian control.

Absent some sort of mass resignation, that could be an open question in a crisis in which public confidence in decisions made by the Executive would be at issue.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
20. their's is a more autocratic experience
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 01:02 PM
Dec 2016

Last edited Fri Dec 9, 2016, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

...than their civilian roles require.

I'm not certain I completely trust them all to respect the limits in our democracy on their authority and actions in public office.

Abu Pepe

(637 posts)
23. agreed. but the silver lining might actually be someone more familiar with the Constitution and
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 01:37 PM
Dec 2016

democratic traditions of the country than the average robber barron. but I don't dismiss the concern.

Abu Pepe

(637 posts)
32. 'Father of Jose' No relation to the racist frog.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 03:04 PM
Dec 2016

That almost stopped me from using it but it has been the nickname for the name Jose forever. And Abu is "father of" in Arabic. So its Father of Jose.

And thanks for the welcome.

lastlib

(23,222 posts)
29. I think the soldier-worship in this country is getting ridiculous!
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 02:13 PM
Dec 2016

WAY out of hand! Yes, they make sacrifices, sometimes lay their lives on the line to defend our country, and I respect that when it's appropriate. But in the modern military, a huge percentage of them haven't been within smelling distance of an actual battle--yet they want us to worship them and the ground they walk on. They all volunteered for service, none of them were conscripted to serve. It doesn't necessarily make them more patriotic than me or anyone else. I fully agree with you that we must challenge this new assumption, or we risk becoming a military dictatorship. Eisenhower saw this when he warned us about the danger of the military-industrial complex. It has already become something of a reality, and we need to turn it back.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
30. Exactly. Always there is this idea
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 02:15 PM
Dec 2016

they are more or better than us. That's dangerous.

Not everyone serves in the military. But without us, paying taxes, etc., the military could not exist either. We do our part.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
33. Yes, that kind of ignorance is appalling.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 03:14 PM
Dec 2016

I think Gabbard is wrong (in addition to being ignorant). We fear military control of our institutions because of history. Historically, it makes governments vulnerable to coups. She also is wrong in that they do not necessarily know more about protecting democracy. They know tactics and strategy for wars but that is not the same thing. They know how to give orders; they do not necessarily know how to administer departments with mostly civilians who do not respond especially well to barked orders, nor should they.

I take issue with some of the generals because they were bad administrators and were removed from their positions for cause. Petraeus committed a crime.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Kernel of an idea that ha...