General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKernel 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
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Cha
(297,184 posts)what don't you like about Tulsi?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)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)Gee, just what we need. A country run by John McCains
Cha
(297,184 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)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)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.
Aimee in OKC
(158 posts)And I say that as a former military wife and as a military mom.
SamKnause
(13,101 posts)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)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)Something Disturbing About Tulsi Gabbard
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)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)And as a possible VP.
Cha
(297,184 posts)"steve bannon likes her"
eppur_se_muova
(36,261 posts)That will put to rest any notions that generals are somehow more inclined to democratic ideals.
TwilightZone
(25,469 posts)Government payroll, housing, health care, clothing.
I always find that a tad ironic, considering the GOP's (usually feigned) never-ending support of them.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Because the US Military Ain't It.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)ties are liberal Democrats.
world wide wally
(21,742 posts)Come to think of it.... Lots of them are
TwilightZone
(25,469 posts)He covers a lot of bases.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)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)With the exception of Flynn. He is my pick for being right in the middle of any unconstitutional craziness.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)...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.
Abu Pepe
(637 posts)which is a low bar.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)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)democratic traditions of the country than the average robber barron. but I don't dismiss the concern.
Hekate
(90,667 posts)Interesting name!
Abu Pepe
(637 posts)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.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)I had a cousin(now deceased) who was named Joseph, but we all called him "Pepo."
Solly Mack
(90,763 posts)lastlib
(23,222 posts)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)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.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)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.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Not just democracies--I'm thinking of the Japanese during WW2