Hindsight from The New Gun Week July 10, 1998
When Does Right Wing Become Radical?
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
Many Gun Week readers may consider themselves politically conservative as opposed to politically liberal. Yet most of them, as far as I can see, are more likely to be Jeffersonian liberals-libertarians, with and without a capital "L"-who support the original intent approach to interpretations of the Constitution.
Many of these readers have expressed a deep concern about the increasing interference in our daily lives by an increasingly powerful federal government. The concept of a Nanny state doesn't sit well with most readers, or most gunowners for that matter. Existing and proposed controls on firearms ownership and use, however, has gone from the "don't do that or you'll poke your eye out stage" to the "don't do that or I'll kill you" stage.
Now most would say that this is a result of the many years of liberal Democratic control of government, a party that views government as the final arbiter of what's good for thee and me. Curiously, liberals like to claim that they support more individual freedom and civil liberties for everyone, but the more they use federal government to impose those rules the less real liberty exists.
Republicans, who have tended to support less government and greater economic freedom have often been linked to less support for individual freedoms.
Left and Right Meet
Thus, the Republicans, often referred to as the "right wing" in American politics, have been the conservatives who have resisted social change. The Democrats, often referred to as the "left wing" in American politics, have been the liberals who promote social change through more government controls.The problem is: in the circular nature of politics, the extremes of right and left tend to eventually meet, and then you end up with the most extremely despotic form of government.
With these thoughts in mind, it is interesting to return briefly to the concerns many readers had with a study conducted among Marines at the Twenty-Nine Palms base a couple of years ago. The questions asked of the military that most disturbed observers were those having to do with the confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens if ordered to do so by the government, and whether the men and women in uniform would shoot at those civilians if they resisted.
In many minds, this survey suggested that the federal government was actually planning to use the US military to disarm the civilian population. It worried a lot of people.
Also worrisome have been evidence of the growing militarization of civilian law enforcement, including their reliance on the military for support as has been the case at Waco and elsewhere. (Note: the government is providing local civilian police agencies with helicopters, armored personnel carriers, machineguns and real assault rifles, even bayonets. Ostensibly this is for legitimate use in extreme situations, or even encounters with terrorists.)
In addition, high ranking government officials in and out of the military have been recommending greater use of the military and military-style operations along our borders, and in international waters and airspace to block drug smugglers and interdict massive drug shipments. These ideas were causing concern even before the young shepherd armed with a .22 rifle was shot by Marines on US soil near the Mexican border.
Whether these proposals and actions of government can rightfully be called "right wing" is a matter for debate. That they may be the wrong way to go certainly is an obvious conclusion. One that worries more and more people.
The trouble is that it looks like the extremes of the right and the left are coming together. Both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to have a hard time limiting the powers of government agents, government prosecutors and government rulemakers.
More Bad News
Now, if being reminded of all this hasn't curdled the cream in your coffee, get a load of what The Wall Street Journal published on Nov. 11, 1997. This was a report about a study of political attitudes among the military which had been conducted over several years by Prof. Ole Holsti, a political scientist at Duke University. The headline read: "Duke Study Finds Sharp Rightward Shift in Military."If on the surface, you read the story as possible good news for the Republican party, you may have missed the scariest parts.
We'll return to the political shifts, after we look at some quotes from the article by Thomas E. Ricks, adapted in part from his book, Making the Corps, which was published in November 1997 by Scribners.
Here's one section from Ricks' WSJ article:
"Indeed, there is some evidence of extreme views seeping into military discussions of world affairs. In an essay recently carried in 'Proceedings,' the professional journal of Navy officers, retired Marine Maj. Gen. J. Lynch argued that American society is 'showing signs of serious decay.' In the same vein, three analysts (two of them Marine reservists) argued in a 1994 essay in the 'Marine Corps Gazette' that American society is 'collapsing.' Their startling conclusion: 'The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil.' The subject of 'domestic peacekeeping' has become a hot topic in the Marine Corps' Command and Staff College in recent years, with some officers arguing for giving the military powers to detain a suspect, confiscate weapons, and conduct searches without warrants."
Whether there are now more Republicans among the military hierarchy and fewer independents than ever before, may in part be linked to Democrat-led efforts to reduce the size and budget of the military, thus ending careers and opportunities for those who believed the recruiting ads. But some see this a serious shift in philosophy that could change not only the way the civilian and military communities view each other, but undercut any remaining respect that one group has for the other.
Mutual Respect
According to Ricks, "Gregory Foster, a childhood friend of President Clinton and a decorated infantry veteran of Vietnam who now teaches at the National Defense University," civilians and military are both "settling on a dangerous pretense: 'Civilians pretend to control the military, and the military pretends to be controlled.' ""As it has become politicized and alienated, adds Prof. Foster, the post-Cold War US military has become 'an institution that has lost its identity, that no longer has confidence in or respect for those it is supposed to serve.' "
People who don't like the current Administration may tend to blame Clinton and his policies for much of that alienation, but that isn't the only reason. Since the end of the draft and changes in world conditions, fewer people in the general population have actually served in the military. Even fewer are now in government. The military veterans, particularly those who have experienced combat, are now the exception in Congress where they were once the rule.
Ricks quotes Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), one of the most respected defense thinkers in Congress. "What I am mainly concerned about is that the professional military may be becoming more and more isolated from the rest of society." Ricks wonders if Skelton sees public support for a well-prepared military dwindling away." But that may be only another part of the problem. People also now seem to be less and less concerned about world politics and events. At the same time, they seem to be more and more dubious of government in general. And, as the government uses the professional, or "mercenary," approach to filling military ranks rather than citizens soldiers, the alienation of both will continue. Further, the increased use of the military in civilian law enforcement actions is likely to widen the gulf between the citizens and their military even further.
That said, let me return to a few of the political findings in the Duke University study.
In 1976, one-third of the senior military officers interviewed by Prof. Holsti said that they were Republicans. By 1996, the share had doubled to two-thirds.
Ricks reports that "equally surprising is the sharp decline of those who say they have no politics-for decades a key military tradition. In 1976, more than half the officers polled said they were independent or non-political, by far the largest category. Now, only a quarter say they are non-partisan."
Ricks goes on to report that the sift toward the right is even more pronounced among junior officers.
What this rightward drift may be leading is still open to question, but when linked to a more repressive philosophy, it is likely to be the wrong road.
Reprint of a column that first appeared in Gun Week Dec. 10, 1997.
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.net
Also, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com