Over and over, attendees are reminded that they should be grateful to the military for their freedom --- a nearby church sign says, "Thank our troops for our right to worship god."
On Jun 14, 2:16 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > The Founders Were AntiwarbyTom Mullen, June 14, 2011 > The 2012 presidential election cycle is underway. With the Democratic > candidate a foregone conclusion, there is not much uncertainty about where > the Democratic Party is going. For better or worse, Democrats will likely > continue to “dance with who brung them,” meaning Barack Obama and his brand > of 21st-century liberalism. > Not so on the Republican side. After historic defeats and victories in the > past two elections, respectively, the Republican Party has yet to define > itself for the future. It must come to grips with the fact that its > miraculous comeback in 2010, after crushing defeats in the presidential and > congressional elections of 2008, was due in large part to the Tea Party. > However, with that victory came a large group of new Republican lawmakers, > many of whom were not ready to fall in line with the Republican leadership. > The most striking example, of course, is Rand Paul, who has constantly > challenged mainstream Republican positions that do not jibe with his > libertarian-leaning constitutional conservatism. > Critics dismiss the Tea Party as simply a Republican Party publicity campaign > rather than a grassroots movement that truly seeks change in Washington. > However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the Tea Party did indeed > challenge the Republican establishment and defeated many establishment > Republicans in primary electionswhich means they obviously cared about far > more than simply defeating Democrats. So, if it’s not simply a front group > for the Republican mainstream, what does the Tea Party stand for? > If you ask them, they would answer that they stand for smaller, more fiscally > responsible government and a return to America’s founding principles. They > wish to rein in the federal government and restore the limits placed upon it > by the U.S. Constitution. This is why you can find Sarah Palin touring > 18th-century historical landmarks and Michele Bachmann evoking the shot heard > round the world at Lexington and Concord (Concord, Mass., that is, after > clarifyingher original statement). > It is easy to throw stones at the Tea Party for gaffes such as Bachmann’s. > However, it is wrong to attribute the shortcomings of politicians trying to > acquire political capital out of the Tea Party to the grassroots members > themselves. Just because Michele Bachmann might not know exactly where the > American Revolution began doesn’t mean that the Tea Partiers themselves don’t > understand the American Revolution or the principles that inspired it. > Indeed, the issue that galvanized the Tea Party in 2010Obamacarefundamentally > violates those founding principles for exactly the reasons that the Tea Party > opposes it. > Where the Tea Party departs from founding principles is on the subject of war > and the military. At any Tea Party rally, a large percentage of the speakers’ > comments, the signs and banners, and the general atmosphere of the event > amounts to glorification of the military. Over and over, attendees are > reminded that they should be grateful to the military for their freedom and > should remember that “someone paid for it.” In addition to enthusiastic > support for the gargantuan military establishment itself, unqualified support > is given for every overseas war or occupation that the U.S. military is > involved in. Whatever the president orders the military to do, it must be > right and essential to the freedom of every American. > This couldn’t be further from the ideas of most of the founders. The > Constitution reveals their suspicion of any permanent military establishment. > The Congress is given the power to raise an army, but only for two years. > This ensures that the people can disband the army during every congressional > election, as members of the House are elected at the same intervals. The > power to declare war is kept away from the president and given to Congress, > where two separate bodies have to vote on it. > It is apparent from the document itself and the statements of many of its > framers that they were very aware of the dangers to liberty that accompanied > prolonged warfare or a standing army in peacetime. Contrary to what most Tea > Partiers apparently believe, the founders were antiwar. > Remember that the colonists were reluctant to fight with the British right > from the beginning. The colonial militia at Concord held its fire even after > the British had fired upon it, killing two Americans. It was only when one of > their commanding officers yelled “Fire, for God’s sake, fellow soldiers, > fire!” that they fired upon the British. Three months later they sent the > Olive Branch Petition to King George in an attempt to avoid all-out war. > Once the Constitution was ratified, the administrations of the first three > U.S. presidents were dominated by efforts to avoid going to war. During > Washington’s administration, pro-France Jeffersonians urged the president to > take France’s side in its conflict with England. Instead, Washington approved > the Jay Treaty, which normalized trade relations with Great Britain. > Largely because of this treaty, John Adams spent most of his presidency > dealing with a hostile France, which considered the new American nation > extremely ungrateful after France’s support of it during its revolution. > Avoiding war with France was the dominant issue of Adams’s presidency, this > time under pressure from his own party to take Great Britain’s side. In fact, > while Adams maintained a commitment to enlarge the Navy to provide “wooden > walls” for the young nation, he steadfastly refused to grant Hamilton the > standing army he wanted, despite the fact that Adams was fighting the “Quasi > War” with France. Adams eventually achieved peace, possibly at the cost of a > second term as president due to the dissension it caused within the > Federalist Party. However, Adams considered peace the crowning achievement of > his presidency,saying, “I desire no other inscription over my gravestone > than: ‘Here lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility of > peace with France in the year 1800.’” > Not to be outdone, Thomas Jefferson went even further in repudiating > militarism. Having no standing army to disband, Jefferson went to work on the > U.S. Navy, decreasing it by roughly 95 percent. This allowed him to eliminate > virtually all internal taxation in the republic, leaving only the tariffs to > provide federal revenue. Jefferson refused to use ground troops in his > clashes with the Barbary pirates until the Pasha of Tripoli actually declared > war upon the United States. Later, in yet another effort to stay out of the > wars in Europe, Jefferson signed into law the Embargo Act. While he was > rightly denounced for this legislation, which was almost as hostile to > liberty as the Alien and Sedition Acts, it did demonstrate the lengths to > which Jefferson was willing to go to keep his country out of war. > It is Jefferson who is most quoted in Tea Party signs and by Tea Party > candidates, and rightly so. If one is consulting the founders for the purest > version of the American philosophy of liberty, it can be found among the > writings of Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson was also the most staunchly > antiwar of the early presidents, cutting all military spending not absolutely > necessary to defend the American borders. This is no accident. War is the > natural destroyer of liberty. As James Madison put it:Of all the enemies to > public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises > and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these > proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known > instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, > too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in > dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means > of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the > people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the > inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a > state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by > both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual > warfare.If the Tea Party truly wishes to reestablish America’s founding > principles, then part of their platform should be to disband the U.S. Army. > They would be in good company. Founding fathers from both major political > parties in the 18th and early 19th centuries opposed a standing army, most > adamantly Tea Party icon Thomas Jefferson. Only Alexander Hamilton, > Jefferson’s political archenemy, differed from the rest on this point. > Hamilton’s militarism was part and parcel of his imperial political > philosophy, which also included a controlled economy, a central bank, and a > national debt that would further tie corporations to the governmentall > policies that the Tea Party rejects. > While embracing militarism and championing liberty are philosophically > inconsistent, there is also a very practical reason to disband the Army. It > has outlived its usefulness. With the U.S. government’s nuclear arsenal and > dominant naval and air forces, there is no conceivable reason that an army of > ground troops is necessary to protect the United States. Think for a moment > how hard it has been for the U.S. to conquer a few backwaters in the Middle > East. Now imagine a foreign army trying to land in Maryland or Georgia, > against all of that air, sea, and missile power. It is inconceivable. > Furthermore, even the government’s own military “experts” for the most part > admit that a conventional army is ineffective in fighting terrorism. Given > these realities, the vast federal spending, deficits, and debtcore issues for > the Tea Partythat result from the existence of a standing army cannot be > justified in the 21st-century United States. > The Tea Party broke almost four decades of relative apathy by American > citizens in the face of unchecked expansion of federal government power. Not > since the Vietnam war had Americans taken to the streets as they did during > the 2010 elections. During the 1960s and ’70s, the left-wing-dominated > antiwar movement brought with it socialist domestic policies that were as > hostile to liberty as the war itself. Now, the right-wing-dominated Tea Party > embraces a foreign policy as anti-liberty as the domestic policies that it > opposes. It is past time for a movement that promotes liberty and opposes > leviathan government consistently on all fronts. Embrace America’s founding > principles. Restore the republic. Disband the > Army.http://original.antiwar.com/tom-mullen/2011/06/13/the-founders-were-antiwar/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
