Sustaining the national will is the expensive part of national defense
Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and Levine help sustain the huge deficits. The politics of governing in the two houses of Congress is complicated, and simple at the same time. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Understanding governing is much more complex than the great majority of Americans comprehend.
"National will" is a vital concept to understand in American naitonal security and defense issues. National will is the manifestation of sufficient political support to conduct a course of action to its ulitmate successsful conclusion. National will is NOT poll, or one vote, but rather the harnessing of sufficient support in the halls of Congress and within the executive branch to conduct a policy. National will may be expressed in terms of popular support, ie. a poll, or election, but it need not be. Part of sustaining national will is minimizing opposition, quieting the voice of opponents, while magnifying the voice of support. In American national will is extremely hard to define, yet when national will is absent, failure is imminent. The best example of losing national will for a military endeacor is Vietnam. The United States never lost a battle in southeast Asia, but lost the war in the halls of Congress. The best example of sustaining the national will was the winning of the Cold War. This competition lasted fifty years, through generations.
Let's start this way. Most people would agree that conservatives are for smaller government, and less taxation. Conservatives tend to be more true to the original Constitution and an element of the American conservative movement has strong ties to Isreal. Another thread which runs across the conservative movement is a hawkish, more pro defense voting record. Government should cost less, and be less intrusive when the conservatives are in power. But that changes when the nation is moblized for an overseas engagement. Notice I don't use the term war. If America were at war, meaning fighting a threat which could seriously hurt America, than it would be both parties involved in supporting the war effort. But, when America fights "police actions" or does nation building, or fights global terrorism, well many liberals see that as militarism and refuse to support it. In the case of Vietnam we lost a war because of defections by liberals. There simply were not enough conservatives to maintain control of both houses.
This is the situation the United States has been in since September 11th. The initial reaction to the terrorist attack was united and angry. But as time passed, support for US military actions in the Middle East quickly faded. The terrorists were incapable of launching follow up attacks on the US, and as time passed other things moved to the forefront of American politics. President George Bush had to trade on social issues, like "No child left behind" in order to sustain sufficient support in Congress to fund the wars. But actually he had to buy more than just a few Congressmen. He has to sustain the national will, and that's where it got expensive.
Sustaining the nation will is more than just keep enough Congressmen and Senators for a vote. Vietnam proved the power of the media. Once Walter Cronkite decided the war was lost, it took six more years, but we lost it. So Bush had to maintain a solid core of popular support. The conservative radio talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al) played a major role in that effort. And as you can see those players were not financed by the Republican Party. But if you look across America, whether it be Yankee Stadium and Kate Smith singing God Bless America in the 7th Inning (which only began after September 11th) or the various Support the Troop events which occur in churches and in towns across the land, there is a real coordinated effort to maintain support for the soldiers, and thus for the war. These efforts were absent in Vietnam.
More than that you don't see protests. You don't see flag burnings. Peae symbols have returned but not like they did in the late 60's, early 70's.
Though I cannot prove this statement, I do believe the House of Representatives was sacrificed by President George Bush to the Democrats in a trade for their continued support or minimized opposition to wars in the Middle East. But with the Democratic victory in the House, domestic spending went wild.
It is this policy, the policy of keeping America forward –deployed in the Middle East which is the reason for the trillions in deficit spending. Yes, the military deployments cost, but the real cost is the buying of the liberals, through expanded federal government, and reduced American business. We are literally spending ourselves into oblivion while we fight an enemy that doesn’t capable of really hurting America. I am not saying they can’t pull off an ocassional terrorist attack. What I am saying is that they can’t really hurt our nation.
Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of conservative talk show hosts remain committed to defending Isreal and fighting Isreal’s enemies in the Middle East. They would never admit the connections I make. But the fact is, Bush was no conservative, McCain even less so.
The socialism which is bankrupting America is the price we pay to defend ourselves in the Middle East, while we do almost nothing to guard our border with Mexico.
The nation is destroying itself, and in atleast one way, it’s the conservatives as much as the liberals.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
