"I, Jake Daniel Chapman, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I willingly took that Oath of Enlistment on September 12, 2001, as I began my journey as an Airman in the United States Air Force. The timing could not have been more poignant, and my resolve could not have been stronger than it was on that day. Now that I've been off active duty for over six years, I find some things exceptionally interesting regarding the Armed Services and how they fit into the current political dialogue and philosophy bandied about, especially during the recent Republican National Convention and the current Democrat National Convention.
We heard from the Republicans that the key to balancing the budget is to cut spending. This is a logical progression, and one that we can apply to our own household budgets. However, they also advocate an automatic INCREASE in defense spending be included in any budgetary legislation. This has had Democrats and people with brains scratching their heads for a couple weeks, now, and it brings to light something I have always found confusion in the modern conservative ethos.
The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
-Ronald ReaganFamous words from a very famous and effective President, and, regarding domestic policy, he stuck to this philosophy. However, the one huge departure from this philosophy he employed during his 8 years in office was regarding the Department of Defense. His reasoning for increasing funding and expanding military capabilities was sound. We were still firmly entrenched in the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and he bet on the American people, along with military contractors to out produce their Soviet counterparts and bankrupt the Soviet Union. He won the Cold War, in this fashion, and we all saw the fruits of this policy in the early 90's as the majority of Communist countries around the globe succumbed to the will of their people over the power of the state. The fact that the Department of Defense, which equates to enforcement arm of the Federal Government, seems to get lost in the shuffle, though.
I won't attempt to argue that defense spending is bad for the economy or even bad for innovation. The list of innovations that came from the Military/Industrial complex that have been commercialized is long and distinguished, and has lead to employment and opportunity for millions of Americans. However, this seems to run counter to the idea that Government spending doesn't create jobs. The internet alone, which began as a Military project called ARPNET, has completely rewritten the manner in which we interact and conduct business. While Al Gore didn't "invent" it, he and the other Congressmen that agreed to fund the project helped create one of the most significant advances in communications in the history of man kind.
Where having "less government interference or less centralized authority" is compromised is that the Department of Defense is essentially the muscle that backs up the power of the federal government. Please refer to the Oath of Enlistment, where I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution isn't the people or citizens. The Constitution is document that defines the structure and roles within the federal government. The military insures the authority of federal government. Do you see what I'm getting at?
The fact that supposed "Fiscal Hawks" view the defense budget as untouchable should give you a decent idea that their "Limited Government" premise is only selectively applied, and maybe scare you just a little bit. The additional fact that the US Patriot Act expanded Federal Government authority as it relates to surveillance, detention, and adjudication of suspected "enemy combatants" and was rammed through a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President should make you question this rhetoric almost completely. The idea that a Federal Government would employ its military against its own citizens seems deplorable and wholly un-American, yet the deployment of the National Guard at Kent State in 1970 and to South Central Los Angeles in 1992 did happen, both with Republicans in the White House. (I realize these actions were taken by State and Local Governments to quell riots and disturbances. This does not, however, remove the fact that these National Guard units were trained alongside active duty and reserve units, or that these units aren't military in nature and receive funding from the Federal Government. The number of National Guardsmen and Reservist I personally know who have deployed to an active combat zone during the War on Terror only ratifies this position even more.)
While I will try to avoid any additional fear mongering, or what can be construed as partisan attacks, I will make one final attempt to tie this all together.
You can't claim to be for "less government interference or less centralized authority" when your policies support expansion of those very things. A strong defense is something I believe most Americans agree upon, however, it is diametrically opposed to decreasing governmental influence or authority. You can't have it both ways. It should come as no surprise that the very foundation of a political platform is complete and utter bullshit. The fact that so many people swallow it, hook, line, and sinker should be troubling, because it shows a complete lack of critical thinking on behalf of the masses.
I don't pretend that I am somehow exposing hypocrisy. I am actually trying point out yet another instance of people regurgitating shit that they didn't seem to realize was shit when they swallowed it whole the first time. True Constitutional Conservatives like Ron Paul try to point out this fallacy and are minimized within their own party and by the national media. It's not because he's crazy. It's because he's absolutely correct.
At least the Democrats are relatively honest in their collectivist platform, while the GOP will sell you a copy of Atlas Shrugged, pretending to champion the Hank Reardons of the world, but only distributing copies printed by Orren Boyle from his factories in Malaysia. "We're for small government when it comes to our cronies being taxed and regulated, but for big government contracts for those same cronies."
It's because of this that I propose the creation of new political party in the United States of America: The Merkin Party. The choice of the word "Merkin" is for two reasons:
1. It's a vain and stupid attempt to poke fun at ignorance that always seems to manifest itself in a truncated enunciation of the word "American" or "America."
2. Dictionary. com defines the noun "merkin."
false hair for the female pudenda.
This essentially qualifies a merkin as a "pubic wig for females." While that may not strike many as an ideal name for a political party, let's examine it a little more. First, the term "Whig" is very historic in the American linear history. It was synonymous with the revolutionaries that fought rebelled against Great Britain in 1776, and later became an opposition party to Andrew Jackson's Democrats in the early half of the 19th Century. Secondly, since a merkin is essentially devised to artificially cover and shield a pussy from the elements, our party would metaphorically do the same for the pussies we are collectively becoming.
America needs two things, an enema and a merkin. I'll assist with the enema and be proud to provide the merkin.
Join me as we create a political party the right way!
