American History

» JohnCrandall - militarization

Reconstruction and Lincoln in the Civil War is a whole different can of worms, and a very complicated one. Lincoln was definitely the first President to militarize the nation since George Mashington (Madison did build some armories and a better navy after 1812, but nothing huge in terms of expense). Lincoln was indeed the first step in getting to the type of executive we have today. His administration also saw the first income tax, although the Civil War taxes were later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

FDR is the first to mobilize the nation for war on a global scale, a footing we have now been on almost without a break for a little over half a century. The surprise today should not be that Bush has us at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather that we have had so much peace with such a large and expensive military establishment in place.

I know its old fashioned, but I liked the small standing military of bygone days, less taxes, less chance of troops spread all over the world getting us into something. But, more of an effort to mobilize should a true emergency arise, but maybe the years of peace and low taxes would make us strong enough economically to be able to convert our industry to war as in WWII (I know there was a depression, but it was immediately proceeded by a long period of strong industrial growth, and caused more by the pressures of mechanization causing unemployment and overproduction than anything else.) It's complicated, but from this point of view I would indict every administration since WWII for keeping up cold war tensions (and WWII taxes), and for keeping the military industrial complex in place. In many ways America after WWII resembles France after WWI, a huge standing army, a huge tax burden, puffed up and generally acknowldged as militarily superior, but with a huge bureaucracy and an economy barely growing, the only thing truly lacking is the internal discord between far left and far right that was a critical factor in France's undoing.

From another point of view with the nuclear option and the nuclear threat perhaps we really didn't have any options to the Cold War. Once again its a question of would what worked so well for our forefathers have worked in a nuclear world/ industrial world/ electronic age etc. etc. etc.

Thats one of the problems with studying history, you learn a lot about what worked then, but what would work now remains open to interpretation. Nonetheless, I think lower taxes would actually be a good thing, and cutting the gravy train to the military sector an excellent thing both for curtailing their voice/funds as a lobbying group and for turning some of our country's greatest minds away from developing destructive military devices and to useful and needed civilian uses such as hydrogen fuel cells and other green power, hybrid vehicles, mag lev trains, and so many more potential technologies and devices that might make our world a better place.

As for bureaucracy, history is full of precedents as to the true value and outcome of such institutions, and they are all bad. Sure, people who go to college and get degrees should make good money, but every single person on the federal payroll has to be paid from the wealth generated by the private sector/working man/producing portion of society, and it is very rare for a bureaucrat to produce anything but piles of paperwork. I know I'm not probably not in the majority some of these views. Just my two cents.

-- posted by JohnCrandall