Conservatives
for Kidnapping
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
The guardians
of ordered liberty and traditional values over at National Review
are pushing a solution to all our problems: the draft, or, as they
say in the private sector, kidnapping. Or, if not the draft, the
magazine is pushing steps in that direction, as many steps as the
state can get away with.
William F.
Buckley, of course, has long favored peacetime national service,
as he demonstrated with his 1974 book, Four
Reforms, and again in his 1990 book Gratitude.
He may not have contemplated sending these kids off to their deaths,
but rather that they serve in some sort of "conservative"
social movement centered on civic loyalty and patriotism.

But once the
imperial state owns people, what else do you expect it to do with
them but send them to their deaths? The state acts as a kind of
anti-parent: to the same extent that moms and dads love and care
for their children, protecting them from harm, the state is careless
with other people’s kids, caring only about the public-opinion consequences
of body bags.
In wartime,
the gloss of civic duty and patriotism has been stripped away. Stanley
Kurtz, writing for the online edition of National Review,
doubts that we are militarily prepared for a full-scale war on Iraq.
Given the likely casualties, he says, we need a draft that "can
provide us with combat replacements."
This is a comment
that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. Just
to make sure we understand, let’s spell it out.
Kurtz, writing
from his comfortable chair at the Hoover Institution in lovely Stanford,
California, is urging an invasion of a country that has already
been reduced to pre-modern living standards by a twelve-year US
war, and he is fully willing to contemplate that this will likely
mean sending many American troops to their deaths.
Kurtz’s plan
for dealing with the massive loss of life is to forcibly drag other
Americans out of the workplaces and schools of their choosing and
send them to their deaths in a far-flung country as slaves of the
US military empire, all in an effort to impose ever-more suffering
and death on Iraq.
A more ghastly
public policy is hard to imagine, short of all-out nuclear war.
National Review conservatives like to posture as guardians
of virtue and manners, but when it comes right down to it, what
these people are pushing is morally reprehensible and uncivilized.
And they have the gall to decry libertarianism as morally lax?
Maybe we should
start using the word "combat replacements" more broadly.
"How many combat replacements do you newlyweds hope to have?"
"This education bill insures that no combat replacement will
be left behind."
Now, Kurtz
is aware that the draft would meet with political resistance. So
he has some suggested half-measures too. He wants people to join
the ROTC, a kind of young-pioneers training camp for the military
state. In fact, he wants Junior ROTC groups imposed on every public
high school, on pain of federal sanctions. "Growth in JROTC
and ROTC might solve much of our manpower needs, and do it with
volunteers (sic.)."
Yes, this might
be resisted, he admits, because we have all become corrupted "in
the wake of Vietnam and the sixties." He then informs us that
to purge people of such corruption is the real point of the conservative
"culture war." "So in the end, the real war and the
culture war are the same war."
That’s interesting
to know. In the 1980s and 1990s, many regular Americans thought
that joining the conservative’s culture war meant being against
teen sex, rap music, abortion, and family disintegration. They believed
that conservatives were fighting the influence of secularism and
humanism in the culture. Now, it turns out, according to Kurtz,
that there is only one real purpose of the cultural war against
the legacy of sixties: to make parents more willing to part with
their offspring as fodder in the war on terrorism.
Kurtz is hardly
alone in his views. There is a faction of the right that is trying
to whip up a kind of pro-draft movement. My fans over at Americans
For Victory Over Terrorism (chairman William Bennett attacked me
by name at the group's first press conference) have released a survey
on the draft. They asked college kids what they thought about having
military service forced on them.
The results
of the AVOT poll: 37 percent of students said they would evade;
35 percent said they would love it, even it meant being stationed
in Beirut; and 21 percent said they would serve but only within
US borders. This last group is puzzling: a government that steals
your college years to enslave you in the service of its imperial
military ambitions is not going to concern itself about where you
want to do so.
Why was AVOT
conducting a survey? To judge whether compulsory military service
is feasible. They probably were not very encouraged by the results
of their survey. In fact, they probably see resistance to the draft
as a sign of cultural decline. Actually, it’s the opposite. Those
who are willing to tell pollsters that they would defy the state
rather than be coerced to fight its wars are examples of the true
American spirit. That 37 percent of students are willing to tell
a pollster so demonstrates that not all is lost.
We shouldn’t
be surprised at the vogue of the draft on the right. The problem
with the post-World War II right is that its devotion to the idea
of freedom has been more rhetorical than substantive. They have
favored a planned military economy while decrying the planned economy
generally. They have pushed for an imperial foreign policy while
believing in small government at home. They want wars and more wars
that kill kids and take them away from families, but also favor
family values.
In the end,
they have to make a choice between freedom and the state. They choose
the state. That these people are now calling for making slaves out
of young workers and students so they can be forced to fight unnecessary
wars abroad, is merely the next step in a long ideological decline.
Freedom is threatened as much by these people as by any leftwing
socialist.
June
25, 2002
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send
him mail], is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Copyright
© 2002 LewRockwell.com
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|