Pro-Slavery Democrats
The incoming chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, said restoring slavery will be his top priority when Democrats resume control of Congress in January:
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.
In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
But Rangel's draft proposal really isn't about deterring future foreign wars; it's about destroying the right of individuals to control their own lives:
[Rangel] said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.Mandatory public service--indentured servitude--has been a silent objective of many Democrats and Republicans, including potential Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a Rangel ally.
If this policy comes to pass, in whatever form, I don't think it's one that Americans, and certainly not libertarians, can passively accept. If a draft comes, the only response that I can justify is one of violent resistance.
Comments (35)
He fears war, so wants to systematically escalate the state's ability to mobilize for war?
Makes sense.
Published: November 19, 2006 1:44 PM
"If this policy comes to pass, in whatever form, I don't think it's one that Americans, and certainly not libertarians, can passively accept. If a draft comes, the only response that I can justify is one of violent resistance."
What ever happend to non violence? I feel pretty libertarian myself, but I do believe in state monopoly in violence. I strongly oppose mandatory public service, (having performed it myself) but since when does that give me right to use force against my fellow citizen or their property?
Published: November 19, 2006 2:08 PM
Perhaps I should stay overseas for longer than I originally planned. If my number gets called up, but I am overseas do I still have to report "legally"? I should definitely pick up another passport from a safer country, no?
Also, It seems this guy is just searching for slaves for his, rather typical, socialist agenda. Great, now slave labor will be used to "guard" airports, "work" at schools (fed run?), and hospital work? Didn't the 14th amendment ban this sort of crap?
Published: November 19, 2006 2:08 PM
oskar, the violent resistance would be against agressors. not your neighbors. We are talking about a revolution, not a riot.
Published: November 19, 2006 2:37 PM
I believe Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., wants to re institute the draft for several reasons. Let me know which ones I have wrong.
[1] (Anti-Bush) Hit back at Bush by eliminating the fact the current military is ALL volunteer.
[2] (Racist) Rangel's public statements and belief that the military is overwhelmingly minority (non-white). So he would force more rich white kids into it.
[3] (Socialist) Everybody has/must have a state-supplied job.
[4] (Economic illiteracy) Force a small subset of the population (18-26 yr old MALES) to fight our wars at wages below market levels.
[5] (Meglomania) He can force America to take notice of his power.
TS
Published: November 19, 2006 2:37 PM
This rubric: "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Is similiar to the "abolish the Income Tax","repeal the 16th A." gambits of the "Fair Tax" of Boortz, et al.
Both are no more than Trojan Horses. Designed to accomplish the reverse of what they are outwardly "selling".
S.M. Oliva is quite right to smell a Rat.
This Maw, stretching ever wider, for ever more of us, doesn't deserve our flesh and bone, not even our toil or sweat, rather, a meal of bricks and bats, its first in too long, should, to be fair, be it's fare.
Published: November 19, 2006 2:45 PM
It's pretty much been established that whatever comes out of that snake of a man----Rumsfeld----is no more than lie. The institution of a draft is an inevitability for a war that we have been told will last a generation. It is the only recourse. The theme that Rangel now has started will only be picked up by others in the coming months and years.
Rangel's reasoning strikes me (I like to think of myself as relatively sane) rather daft, as though a draft would serve as sufficient deterrence for further military adventures. His vote for the war (I’m sorry, rather, wasn’t it a ‘police action’ as opposed to a full-fledged declaration of war; the distinctions are so tricky) against the Taliban essentially was one for a war against terror (a.k.a. severe blowback); one this nation, we are told, is willing to go to the utmost lengths to prosecute.
I seem to recall that the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee wields an enormous amount of clout. Hmmm...
I'm quite sure the conscientious objectors will be nicely occupied in the newly nationalized healthcare system should Rangel have his way and Hillary her presidential seal.
Well, so about this revolution thing…I’m in.
Published: November 19, 2006 2:53 PM
If that restoration goes through, there will be more cause to mourn Milton Friedman's death. He was far from being the only anti-draft advocate, but he was the one with the most political clout.
No need to wonder why a Democrat would be behind any restoration of conscription...
Published: November 19, 2006 2:55 PM
As a practical matter, a draft is not going to happen right now. While the Democrats control both houses of Congress, they lack the ability to invoke cloture in the Senate and of course would not be able to overcome a Presidential veto.
After January 20th 2009, when it is very likely we will have a democrat President and cloture enabled Democrat majority in the Senate. While they would have the ABILITY to pass a draft into law, I seriously doubt they would even attempt to do so, not wanting to risk their newly gained majority status on something as unpopular as a draft.
My feeling is that they will be too tied up in the process of socializing the healthcare system to be bothered with messing with a draft.
However, if a draft somehow did come about, violent resistance would be the way to go.
Published: November 19, 2006 3:07 PM
Yes, it's a very interesting rationalization: advocate the military draft to head off this nation's prospects for further military aggression. Very odd.
Obviously the members of the state, as well as its subjects which willingly acquiesce to it, must necessarily be subject to the influence of Orwellian doublethink. I think it is fun to take a quick look at a discussion of it at this juncture. ( from http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ )
"doublethink - Reality Control. The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them. An excellent example of doublethink in modern society is the war on drugs. If you ask people their opinion on alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, most people would agree that it was a complete failure. People agree that it only caused more crime, it made gangsters rich, it corrupted politicians, and most importantly ... it didn't keep people from drinking.
"Yet, we have almost the exact same situation today with war on drugs, yet most people think that our modern prohibition is a good idea ... and more than that, they believe that anybody that thinks that the war on drugs isn't a good idea must be completely out of their minds. In order for a person to be effective at doublethink, they must master the art of crimestop.
"This word has made its way into the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"dou•ble•think ('d&-b&l-"thi[ng]k), noun, Date: 1949 : a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.
"Here is how Winston Smith described doublethink in the novel [1984]:
"'To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'"
Published: November 19, 2006 3:11 PM
Yes, it's a very interesting rationalization: advocate the military draft to head off this nation's prospects for further military aggression. Very odd.
Obviously the members of the state, as well as its subjects which willingly acquiesce to it, must necessarily be subject to the influence of Orwellian doublethink. I think it is fun to take a quick look at a discussion of it at this juncture. ( from http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ )
"doublethink - Reality Control. The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them. An excellent example of doublethink in modern society is the war on drugs. If you ask people their opinion on alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, most people would agree that it was a complete failure. People agree that it only caused more crime, it made gangsters rich, it corrupted politicians, and most importantly ... it didn't keep people from drinking.
"Yet, we have almost the exact same situation today with war on drugs, yet most people think that our modern prohibition is a good idea ... and more than that, they believe that anybody that thinks that the war on drugs isn't a good idea must be completely out of their minds. In order for a person to be effective at doublethink, they must master the art of crimestop.
"This word has made its way into the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"dou•ble•think ('d&-b&l-"thi[ng]k), noun, Date: 1949 : a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.
"Here is how Winston Smith described doublethink in the novel [1984]:
"'To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'"
Published: November 19, 2006 3:12 PM
But, for the institution of the draft, all it would take would be a single catalyst. Just one incident---whether it be a terrorist attack in an American city, a false move on the part of the North Koreans, another higher tier of overt aggression on the part of Russia, China continuing to stalk our carrier fleets and encroach in sovereign Japanese territorial waters ---and I'm quite sure public opinion would change drastically. We need only point to WWI and WWII. Do I exaggerate? Perhaps. But with MAD effectively eliminating the use of nuclear weapons, that by no means prevents the clash of conventional arms.
Published: November 19, 2006 3:16 PM
I thank everyone for their comments. My impression is that Rangel wants to advance a broader "national service" agenda under the pretext of his military concerns. Remember, Rangel is an ally of Hillary Clinton, the queen of the "mandatory public service" advocates.
I expect to see "public service" drafts enacted over the next couple of years. For example, "No Child Left Behind" can easily be amended to mandate "community service hours" as a precondition of high school graduation. Student loan programs can be similarly altered to mandate service as a condition.
Published: November 19, 2006 3:19 PM
Of course, they COULD choose to go the mandatory conscription route, as opposed to a draft. That means every able bodied person, immediately upon high school graduation or dropping out, would be immediately inducted into the armed forces and required to serve four active duty years, with the government retaining the right to call you back to active duty until age 50, similar to what is done in Israel and other such countries. The service would be required to be completed before an individual could go to college. The government would then use the excess military bodies for government make work programs. It would certainly be a fine bedrock for a socialist regime to be built on top of.
Published: November 19, 2006 3:54 PM
Mr Rangel is going about it all wrong:
If you want to give pause to those who wish to start unpopular wars, the answer is not to force people into the militayr, but to allow those already in the military to leave more easily!
After all, if my employer orders me to go to my competitors offices and break their legs as they come in for work, I don't have to do it, I can say "cheerio" and quit. Soldiers aren't given that option (in fact they are threatened with death for attempting to quit).
Let's give them that option. I think something like changing the rules so that any soldier can quit, anytime, and they get evacuated after the wounded (if the exigencies of the fighting permit), are transferred to the U.S, and honourably discharged.
Thus, every soldier who risks his or her life would not be doing it because they feel they have no choice, but because they feel the risk is worth it. It would blunt the U.S. government's abilities to conduct offensive operations, but would enhance the U.S. government's ability to conduct defensive operations (should the warlike Canadians ever decide invade us).
Published: November 19, 2006 3:59 PM
Particularly those nuts in Quebec. I demand a pre-emptive tactical nuclear strike.
Published: November 19, 2006 4:08 PM
This, too: "Student loan programs can be similarly altered to mandate service as a condition." is one to give thought to.
After seeing the video of the UCLA student being repeatedly "Tasered" in front of at least 50 other "students", one thought that crossed my mind, in search of a rationale for their collective timidity, was that many were probably fearing the loss of their "student aid" if associated with any kind of disobedience of that nature--if they intervened, on behalf of the beleaguered student, against the "blackshirts".
I've long wonder why, if we are to be so emasculated, on our way to our very evisceration, why are so actively complicit?
Published: November 19, 2006 4:34 PM
If Rangel wants Congress to think twice about wars there's no need to enslave the rest of us. Just require each member of Congress to serve a tour of duty on the front lines in any war that happens under their watch.
Published: November 19, 2006 6:51 PM
I view this not as an advocation of slavery, rather a cynical political ploy:
To ensure that wealthy elites who get this country into wars that are wholly unnecessary do not escape the possibility of suffering grave personal loss by doing so. Checks and balances in this system of excess.
In that one respect, I find it commendable. In every other respect it's abhorrent.
Published: November 19, 2006 7:20 PM
FDR got the US to enact a draft in 1940 for a war we now know he wanted and brought about US involvement in.
The draft may have hastened the end of the US's longest war (Vietnam), but it didn't deter the STARTING of it, and took ten years to produce the "Rangel Effect."
I'm not impressed (pun intended).
Published: November 19, 2006 8:55 PM
I'm sorry Mr. Tucker but I'm going to have to post an uncivil comment:
Reinstating the draft for peace is like #%&*ing for virginity.
Published: November 19, 2006 9:25 PM
"You have wars because governments do not suffer any costs"
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: November 20, 2006 1:24 AM
"Waita minute, I'm in charge, I give the orders." [Shrub]
Published: November 20, 2006 2:10 AM
Another superb example of exactly why, no matter who wins an election, we all lose.
Published: November 20, 2006 7:14 AM
Mr. Oliva makes an excellent observation in his second post. Rangel's ultimate objective may be to mandate broader "national service” or “public service", as opposed to more narrow military service.
However, anyone with any intellectual integrity must admit that reinstitution of the draft for whatever reason and by whatever name constitutes involuntary servitude, which is clearly prohibited by a constitutional amendment, and, more importantly, a blatant violation of every individual’s self-ownership of his or her own person.
Interesting how laws and moral standards that are supposed to apply to everyone somehow do not apply to government. Rangel’s proposal is another example of the fundamental ethical bankruptcy of government.
Published: November 20, 2006 8:33 AM
On the plus side (and this is just for the sake of argument), American boobs might think twice about overseas wars if more of their kids actually had a chance of being called up to fight them.
The question I'd like to ask Rangel is why a draft should even be necessary in a nation supposedly enjoying the voluntary, deep-rooted loyalties of its citizens. This should lead people to question first, whether there really is a threat and second, whether the US is really a "nation" in the classical sense.
As a social democrat of course, Rangel operates from the same motive as all totalitarians: he is trying to uphold an inorganic and artificial construct by the only means available to it, brute force.
Published: November 20, 2006 10:44 AM
Dang it Tarran, you took the words right out of my sails,beating me to the punch by a missed field goal,(up here in Canuck,we call it a rouge.)
Published: November 20, 2006 12:39 PM
Rangel's premise is thinner than his moustache. Whether it's doublespeak and cognitive disonance or a talking point of a sinster agenda doesn't matter. The relentless "need" to dragoon individuals into "service" is a hallmark of tyranny (and always for the abstract "good of the State"). And how did a draft keep the US out of Vietnam?
Published: November 20, 2006 1:54 PM
Subjection to harsh orders yes. Slavery hardly. Placing a shilling where only words once stood in the heart's of "patriots" definitely. How You shrink from war when the lens of conscription threatens to cover all classes save from the those with the stoutest hearts and the emptiest pockets.
Rangel only intends to spread the sacrifice a little more toward the "officer class" which has sent scarcely too few officers or men to the fronts of Iraq.
With respect,
Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!
Pain
Published: November 20, 2006 1:57 PM
Pain,
you are incredibly wrong. Slavery is a system of conscribed labor; it can be enforced privately or by the hands of government, but in all cases, it means that an individual is forced to labor for another's cause. In the case of the draft, or even more broad national service, the individuals would be FORCED into LABOR against their will. How is this not slavery? To have no choice but (a) be thrown in prison or (b) put your mind, body, and products of your mind and body (your labor) in harms way for a goal you may not support and where you did not voluntary agree to the terms. Just because you'd be laboring for the goals of the state instead of the wealth of a plantation owner doesn't make it any less a form of slavery.
Published: November 20, 2006 3:18 PM
Charlie Rangel is possibly the smartest person in Congress on a pragmatic level. Maybe smartest since Pat Moynahan. To smart to run for president - he would have my vote.
I would like to see universal military training and then post training alternative service for those who don't want to kill people and break things.
Published: November 20, 2006 6:18 PM
Billwald,
the US government already offers both of those services on a voluntary basis. I feel if you can convince people that military training is good for them as individuals as well as good for our nation and commerce, you'll have no problem having enough serviceman. This blog is an opportunity for you to present your case. Why would it be good? And more importantly, how is it better in ALL CASES (since you support universal) than ALL OTHER opportunities that young people could pursue?
Saying that it would be good, and demonstrating that it would be good to a mass population, however, are two different things. Forcing it upon a population is even another thing altogether.
The military is composed of men and women who have chosen to join for whatever reasons, often because it is the most appealing of current options. If those demographics are skewed towards subgroups of the general population, solutions are for the military to pay market wages, or as earlier noted, allowing for people enlisted to get out more easily if they feel they have made a mistake. Actually, they don't receive less than market wages. The wage for putting your body and life in danger is very high indeed, but $30k is a decent income for a 20 year old with no specialized training or education, and if you add housing and insurance to that, you are talking about a $45k value.
The problem from the "we shouldn't deploy troops in ill advised wars" platform is that the government overpays our military, making it too attractive to segments of the population. The state subsidizes military market wages and is able to produce more troops than the actual demand (from the value associate to patriotism or willing to engage in disputes for moral purposes perspective). As a result, our troops are expendable for deployment because it is easy to obtain troops because we overpay and make it artificially attractive. Many, less comprehensive and shorter duration engagements happened under Clinton for this very reason. The State did not have to think carefully about how they would be deployed due to the availibility of troops. The resource was too accessible and lacked market pricing because the state distorted the market for war. Enter a war with a lack of forsight, along with an identified goal but not an identified plan for how it would be achieved, and you have the current problem.
Published: November 20, 2006 6:49 PM
Any time anyone demands that another person perform "service" of any kind against that persons will it is called "involuntary servitude" the key word here being "involuntary" The only time I work for another is when that other has somthing I want and I agree to terms to acguire said item. Any other way is slavery,period! If the so called govt of this nation would leave the people alone and uphold and defend the Bill of Rights they would never lack for people to "DEFEND" the nation, people would demand to be able to fight the invader, notice I said invader, (not to be allowed to help invade another place) but repel a hostile invader who was attempting to destroy our way of life. This America is not perfect and no place will ever be,but if we were invaded I would fight to stop the invaders myself but I will never serve a self worshiping power elite who feel it is their right to rule rather than their privilege to "serve" we the people, that is the only serving that was ever intended to exist here and I do not intend to allow any other type to be imposed on we the people by "them"
Published: December 5, 2006 12:38 PM
Jonsi, if you think the market wage for putting yourself on the frontline should be around 45k in saries and compensation, your out of your mind. I make that much working as a supervisor at a PC helpdesk and I am considered underpaid for my skillset. How you are ever going to convince anyone that living your life in constant danger or abuse, neglect, death or pemanent injury because of your job is only worth 45k is beyond me. Especially (this is if you've ever been in the military as I have) when they give you that statement, part of the "compensation" is the "medical care" that the VA and active duty medical facilities give you, and they count it as very expensive medical coverage when the care is absurdely below stanard across the board. Also as part of the statement is the housing allowance or the free housing, which once again they place at high market value, even if your living in places that have been falling apart for 50 years and you are responsible for the property as an owner, but with none of the benifits of owning. Also, please find me a job where they can order you to die, to shoot other people, AND YOU MUST FOLLOW THE ORDER OR FACE POSSIBLE DEATHS, and the wage is around 45k. The desciption ot the wage they pay you is a scam, and they way they describe it is a scam.
Also, a good 10-20% of military force at any time qualifies for food stamps and government assitance for the poor, these are real numbers.
How about the dig, where no matter where you work for the government as a soldier, or at what level your labor is worth the same. As an army airborne ranger you make extra "hazard pay" of around $200 a month to be in a unit payed to be on the front lines, and at the same rank you can be a back in the rear pump jockey and get almost the same wage, where is this being "overpaid" on the market place. Please sir, please find me an example of such a group of well equipped, well organized military groups that can fight anywhere in the world within 9 hours and defeat pretty much any other standing military, and they pay less then they pay our soldiers. You won't find it because the market does not exist, and so your argument even on the face of it is fallacious because your trying to askribe market forces to government monopoly.
You don't know much about the military, the free market, or the governent or how they work together. If you would like more information feel free to ask and I can fill you in.
Published: December 5, 2006 8:47 PM