Mike Rosen, house neocon for the “progressive-statist” Denver Post, laments the misuse of Eisenhower’s prescient warning: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
Playing to his jingoist, psuedo-conservative readers, Rosen- one who has little patience for statist-liberals who rely on personal smears to form the basis of most of their incoherent arguments- uses the terms “attack on America”, “leftists”, “anti-military types”, and “pacifists” to perk the ears of the fascist wingnuts of the GOP.
Are his readers rally that dense or are they just lacking alternative, traditional conservative sources? The mainstream media is pro-State and thus HATES paleo conservatives. Ever wonder why they tolerate Mike?
Then Mike quotes Eisenhower again thinking he has substantiated his imperial position: “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.”
This is where Mike veers off into goose-stepping land.
There is an important distinction between: 1) Having a strong defense that will thwart any aggressor and 2) having a bloated, dysfunctional, international empire, bogged down in two endless quagmires chasing 50 Al Qaida with WWII style ground invasions, and pushing us to the brink of insolvency.
The U.S. has over 700 military bases in over 100 countries. Why? Did these 700 bases and our aircraft carriers and our nukes thwart the agressors on 9-11? What does an empire of international “shock and awe” have to do with DEFENSE anyway? Empire vs. Terrorist = FAIL!
Mike, like all neocons, 50% of Tea Partiers, and all progressive liberals completely misses Ike’s point.
Ike knew what he was saying. His message was a warning against CORPORATISM which is a system where monied mega-corps form symbiotic relationships with politicians designed to enrich each other by looting the populace and by wiping out their cloutless competitors with regulations (called “rent-seeking” by Tullock).
The ‘industrial complex’ grows and grows and like the old axiom says, “the bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the ever expanding bureaucracy.” Eventually, “emergencies” must be concocted (ie terrorism, sub prime, global warming) by the establishment to get the sanguinated public to cough up even more dough and surrender even more liberty.
The “Military Industrial Complex”, like the Prison Industrial Complex, and the Banking Industrial Complex and the Agricultural Industrial Complex and the Educational Industrial Complex are just tax-feeding rackets. they are looting mechanisms and incompatible with free markets. This doesn’t seem to bother Mike who claims to be pro capitalism. What a fraud. If he were to read this he respond by saying “he’s just being a realist”. Translation: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
“Industrial Complexes” ARE CORPORATE WELFARE.
Mike, who constantly tries to point out inconsistencies in liberal arguments (not very hard to do against a “feelings-based”, collectivistic logical framework) can’t seem to come to grips with his own inconsistencies.
Mike, how can you oppose the Education Industrial Complex, yet support the Military Industrial Complex (oh, and the Banking Industrial Complex as well because YOU DID SUPPORT TARP.
Mike, if you are representative of “conservative” we are doomed.
