Ben Stein's condescension

Ask Ben Stein when his dear Tommy will be heading off to basic training.

I'm sure he doesn't mean to come off this way, but good grief.

What did you expect from a guy pandering to the Intelligent Design crowd, moral rectitude?

Rod,

This is spot on. Without jeopardizing security, please keep us posted on your brother-in-law. These guys are the only heroes.

As for Ben Stein, I understand the angry reaction. But at least he's making the connection between the illusory existence we're all enjoying State-side and its dependence on these soldiers overseas. Who else in Hollywood will acknowledge even that?

One of the things I value about your blog is the focus on the economic, cultural and political "bubble" which most people are unaware they're existing in. The piece by Stein describes a different part of that disconnect. In so many ways, we're like a drunk on a binge. The inevitable hangover to follow is going to be a beaut.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Ben Stein has been calling for withdrawal, and confiscatory taxes on the rich, since December of 2006 at least, Rod. You don't know that?

I don't get it, Rod.

Is your beef that what Stein says is true -- that Americans live in luxury? (Surely not, you know that by world-historical standards that's indisputable -- even of our "poor.")

Is your beef that Stein says this luxury is made possible by the American military? (Hmm ... would you rather he said a la Ayn Rand that it wasn't, that it was made possible by genius entrepreneurs? Doubtful.)

Is your beef that Stein notes that he himself benefits "disproportionately" from that? (Surely not, nobody likes a self-poor-mouther or the middle-class put-on act.)

Is your beef that Stein thinks all these thoughts but he doesn't take it as reason, a la Father Pfleger, to throw away his 401k and trust fund? (I'd guess this ... but you don't strike me as a Pfleger Pfan.)

Is your beef that Stein is thinking all this while **my** relatives (rather than someone else's) are in a dangerous spot? (I hope not ... this is thinking with your emotions and hardly less "world revolves around me" than Stein lounging by the pool ... the one failure of tone I'd convict Stein of.)

Or is ultimately that you think some true things shouldn't be said for appearance's sake? (That's the most charitable and intellectually satisfactory answer I can come up with.)

Yes, it was all Bush's fault! Nobody else was eager for war. He lied to us, and dragged us kicking and screaming into war.

One other thing, now that I've read the TAC blog item (where what what I'm about to note has a far stronger presence):

Rod, whatever may be said of Stein's sentiments, they neither speak to nor are in any way affected by the justice or injustice of the Iraq War. Your brother-in-law, and every member in his unit even if he deserted tomorrow or had never been born, would be sticking their heads up to get shot at by Shiite SOBs no matter if a piece of paper were to show up tomorrow or had turned up four years ago saying, "Osama, the WMDs are ready to be delivered tomorrow for use against the American infidels, [signed] Saddam Hussein."

Rod, you'll learn that Ben Stein is like a big bowl of potato salad at a pool party; delicious, tempting, filling. Goes with fish or fowl. But if you taste it too late, (when the edges are starting to turn orange in the bowl) you'll get very sick. In other words, best to skip him rather than risk occassional vomitting.

this idea that living luxuriously here at home requires imperialism abroad. Perhaps Stein didn't mean to imply that, but it's how I read his piece.

He didn't even imply it. Nowhere in his piece does he mention the Iraq War or anything else that could be called "imperialism" (the TAC blogger does though) -- unless ones thinks Memorial Day celebrations and military hospitals and war-wounded per se count as "imperialism," and I know you don't. He also has a whole paragraph talking about other people that contribute to security at life's risk -- police, prison guards, etc.

I could grant you that it might be a bit vulgar to state certain truths bluntly (that was my last-named option). But then how else should Stein [or anyone else frankly] react to his wealth then besides embarrassed silence -- (a) give it up, or (b) pretend/argue that his wealth is not tied to security. (b) is how most of Show-Bizzery reacts. I love deriding limousine liberals as much as anyone (as do you rodbud), but your reaction here essentially leaves people with limousines no choice but to be liberals.

Joe:

I wasn't aware either that Ben has called for withdrawal. I think that makes the TAC post outright slanderous.

But Rod's closing joke ... it would have been despicable had Ben not practically asked for it by putting in those detail and saying it in that way (to be honest ... that was my first thought upon reading the Stein excerpt here ... do NOT say your wife "is upstairs" drinking X "or whatever it is." It's **such** a "Valley of the Dolls" image.)

Or maybe don't give the impression that the mechanic or the traffic cop is put there to keep you purring along in your limo.

Especially when its not a limo, and its not a mechanic.

It is a soldier, giving their lives so that Ben Stein can float hedonistically in his pool?

Gee, and I thought it was to protect us from WMD's (which has more impact than the enjoyment of luxuries) and to 'liberate the Iraqis from a dictator' (which has not one thing to do with Stein's pool).

Instead, the only conceivable connection between the Iraq War (the Iraqis never actually threatened our security, or our trade, you know) and Stein's luxuries would be if he were invested in either Halliburton or various oil companies.

It would be a surprise that Stein admits the role of the soldier was to improve his portfolio. Not a new concept, though. First mentioned by a high ranking retired Marine Corps officer, Smedley Butler, in the aptly named speech, 'War is a Racket'.

In it he noted..

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html

It should be noted that this was first delivered in 1933.

I just checked the column - no "little people" references that I gleaned.

But here's what I did find from Stein's column:

When I am alone in my pool, I think of them, alone in their beds of pain. And not only them: How about the policemen and state troopers and highway patrol and sheriffs and prison guards? How about everyone who stands between the weak, pitiful good people and the strong, vicious thugs who want to kill us, rape our wives, take what we have? How about all of them getting some credit once in a while? How about thanking the police once in a blue moon instead of damning them?

There is simply not enough time and blood in this world to thank these people and their families adequately. It is not the President who keeps us free, not the Congress, not the press, not the courts. It is the men and women who offer up their lives for us.

God bless them and their hero families for all eternity. Just for today, I am not going to think about my own pitiful, selfish self for a few hours. Instead, I will get to the safest place I know of -- my knees in prayer -- to thank God for these saints in armor.

This is someone who deserves derision?

Victor, it was only in AmSpec Dead Tree edition in early 2007 at the latest, so it was like it didn't happen... but he did say in his monthly column something along the lines of "They're heroes, they're overstretched, we're losing, and they may be needed elsewhere. Time to bring them home."

Regarding the other thing; Upon reflection, I will happily concede that Ben Stein walked into that one, and will withdraw my criticism. Strange detail, that.

"This is someone who deserves derision?"

If his gratitude goes no farther than this, yes. Real gratitude moves folks to do something, not just think "thank you." There are organizations in almost every community that are raising funds to help our men and women get some basic hygiene supplies. Some are STILL raising money to get decent body armor for troops, but our administration is FINALLY doing something about that.

And then there are the families, many left without the primary bread winner. These families could use some help, Mr. Stein. Does your thankfulness move you to open up that conservative checkbook and help out one of the local family support groups? If not, then it's not much gratitude, now is it.

If I've been unfair to Ben Stein, I certainly apologize. I didn't know he'd called for troops to be withdrawn. And of course Orwell is right. The point I was trying to make is a) I think there's something vulgar about publicly wishing the troops well from the comfort of your Beverly Hills swimming pool; and b) the idea that our living high on the hog depends on putting young men and women in harms way like we've done in Iraq is a harmful one. It leads one to think that we'll bear any burden to keep our swimming pools full, as long as "we" is "they."

Fair enough, Rod.

I'd still say that the main action in the essay was him getting out of the swimming pool, and getting on his knees and praying for our troops and all who put themselves in harms way, which is a perfectly noble thing whether you have a pool or not.

It leads one to think that we'll bear any burden to keep our swimming pools full, as long as "we" is "they."

And you know what, Rod ... I would have no problem with a draft on exactly the terms Orwell mentions (and with no c.o. ... the point would be to shape the "c" so it no longer "o'd"). I do think that a draft aids the notion of shared citizenry and narrows the distinction between "we" and "they," which does become poisonous when it becomes too great.

The German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt had an interesting definition of democracy ... he defined democracy as the psychological identification of the rulers and the ruled. I wouldn't define "democracy" that way (Schmitt hated the Weimar Republic and parliamentary rule as Anglo-Saxon formalisms), but I would define "legitimacy" that way.

And what you're correctly noting (if not picking a good example) is that legitimacy requires that the consequences of decisions by the ruling class (and there will always BE a ruling class, with one basis or another) cannot be insulated from the masses -- hence all the Windsor princes serving in the British military, Stalin's son being taken by the Nazis, and the siege of the Alcazar.

Yes, tears of that man seem to be crocodillic, but i can't understand another thing- in what way life of that man is being secured by people risking their lives in Iraq? Is Iraq a threat? Honestly, I can't understand anything in this story. If majority of the country condemns the war, why wouldn't people just say 'taking part in this war is against my moral principles, i will not go there with weapons', would that person be shot dead or sent for lifelong prison?
I heard many soldiers in Iraq are from emigrant families, they went there to gain promotion, for some of them it was a condition of getting citizenship for family members. Which is sad. Even if payments and pensions will be great, psyche of people who took part in real battles (were killing) is traumatized forever.

In boot camp it did not matter if your folks were rich or poor. After boot camp, you all had a common enemy, the officers and whatever fat sergeant was hassling you. It can be a real bonding, eye opening experience. Our country is lacking in those kind of nationally unifying organizations. Some kind of National Service Corps or something. Our infrastructure needs work anyway.

Concur re. draft = bonding experience. However, I'm not sure whether/how this mechanism would work in a non-military national-service context. How easily could one replicate the hardships of boot camp (& military life afterwards) in a civilian context?

In boot camp & military life afterwards, much hardship is imposed/endured in the name of military preparedness - "the more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war", etc. Can we see those running a national service program imposing similar hardship in the name of (say) infrastructure work - and would society countenance this? Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. What has been the experience of other countries in this regard?

As for our current military's opposition to the draft..."if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is sound advice; but OTOH, the IDF today & Wehrmacht of yesteryear seems to suggest that universal manhood conscription is not necessarily detrimental to fighting power.

But Rod, when you carry on about your Benedictine option, you never mention who or what will maintain civil order so that you can sing your antiphons and milk your goats in security and peace. I prefer Ben Stein, who when he isn't in his wicked hollywood swimming pool visits the wounded in the VA hospitals. There's much to admire in your views, Rod, but there is also an element of suburbanite cluelessness.

That said, I strongly favor the restocking of the rural yeomanry, one that is well fortified by God & guns&home grown food. Whddya say, Rob, will we be seeing you performing your military evolutions on the village green someday?

If the government can't convince enough people that a war is worth fighting, then it probably isn't

Even with a draft, the government would still have to convince people the war was worth fighting. If anything, it might have to be even more convincing, since more people would have a stake in whether or not we went to war.

Contrariwise, Friedman's logic only works if an AVF is limited to a Stateside manpower pool. An American Foreign Legion staffed with desperately-poor third-worlders could prove a formidable engine of empire while insulating American citizens from the cost (in blood) thereof.

To a certain extent, we already have "an American Foreign Legion staffed with desperately poor third-worlders"--a large and increasing pool of immigrants in our military, which is now a slightly shortened path to citizenship. I can see more of that happening, as a quickie solution to two problems at once.

Yeah, I know. As a son of immigrants, I don't necessarily find this problematic...in moderation. I'm wary of the slippery slope, however.

Jeanette- The marines pretty much always make their goals. Go look at the Army recruiting numbers. Also, the Marines are much smaller. Then remember that both Obama and McCain have said they would like to increase the overall size of the military.

Of course there are always robots! There is much recent interest in unmanned vehicles capable of more than just intelligence. We already have some. This would mean less blood and more money.

Steve

fbc: I do think, however, that our invasion of Iraq was shockingly immoral -- unlike most conservatives, here and elsewhere apparently.

I don't mean to gush, but I cannot tell you how happy I am that there is even one conservative out there who can say that. I grieve, too, that so few of my fellow liberals are able to say it, being stuck in I-told-you-soing and gleefully rubbing their hands together over opinion polls.

Stein comes off really badly in that essay. Who on earth could he think is his audience? Just a bunch of rich guys who've got it made? Good commentary, Rod.

"And it also resonates with me because I was sent by a family member over the weekend a network news clip of an incredibly dangerous operation US soldiers are now undertaking (I can't, for security reasons, discuss it)."

Umm, if its on a network news clip, how come it can't be discussed for security reasons.

And really, Rod, after ruminations on the best drink of summer and other regular comments on coming home and drinking champaign and enjoying whatever the "it" meal is on the cover of Bon Appetit I don't see that as being any worse than Ben Stein making comments about his pool, palm trees and Beverly Hills; at least his is Schtick from a comedian.

News outlets will often be asked to sit on pieces about individual operations until the operations are over with. This way we don't have silly journalists giving away our positions to the enemy in real-time. It's happened. Rank and file servicemembers abide by similar restrictions, as far as talking to the folks back home.

MI:
I was just watching the new Marine Corps commercial yesterday morning at the gym. It's the one with the long line of Marines in full dress uniform, stretched over the length of the country, doing formal drills with their rifles. It's almost overdone - but not if you listen to the words. The Marine Corps isn't selling anything, but rather stating their ethos and the larger ethos of military service. They do a pretty good job, like I said, it's hard to put the complex reasons and emotions behind service into words.

This continues at the recruiter's office. There is less talk of bonuses and more of service and challenge over on the Marines' side. Part of this is pure pyschology. I can remember being pushed to volunteer for Arabic. There is a dedicated language recruiter, though this person generally has a third of the country to cover, so my contact with mine was only by phone. I expressed interest in maybe being a Russian linguist. He made some comment about Arabic being where the action is. You WANT to be where the action is, don't you? (This was before the Iraq war would press everybody into action here, be they cook, mechanic, or linguist.)

Well, yes, I answered. Of course I did. Wouldn't I want to my service in the Army to be as big an adventure as it could be? Wouldn't I want to have stories to tell? Wouldn't I want to truly EXPERIENCE things rather than get some secure job in an office stateside?? There were other factors I took into consideration by the time I made my choice (bonuses and benefits), but his challenge to be "a part of the action" was what tipped the scale.

There's been days I've really regretted it, of course. And days I've been proud. But I'll never ask myself when I'm older, what if I had chosen the harder path?

I don't know how widespread that kind of mentality or motivation is. Maybe it is more common a mindset in young people than we give them credit for. I do know that the Marines are really good at going after that mindset and cultivating it and capitalizing on it, and I really don't think the Army can (or should) go on much longer without tossing out their "sales campaign" and doing the same.