• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.

Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

Republicans in disarray!

Their freedom requires your slavery.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Why did Dr. Oz lose? well, according to the exit polls, it’s because Fetterman won.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

I really should read my own blog.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Archives for Politics / Politicans / Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin

Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin

We as a country need gun control; we also need Sarah Palin to STFU.

by Imani Gandy (ABL)|  January 31, 20119:46 pm| 49 Comments

This post is in: Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin

Plain and simple: Gun Control and Shut Up, Sarah1

Remember that dude who shot his TV because, among other reasons, he doesn’t like Palin, Bristol? (I wrote about him here.) Well, Palin, Sarah mentioned that dude in passing in remarks before Safari Club International in Reno, NV this weekend.

Sarah blathered on to the Safari Club: Non-real Americans are gunning for your guns; and you better keep your eye on the White House because librulz are totally taking your guns while you sleep gunless; and Tucson really sucked because librulz took all your guns and burned them at a gun(bon)fire while a bunch of hippy onlookers played drums. Although, the discussion seems to be focused on getting assault weapons with high capacity magazines off the street, and therefore of little relevance to the muckity mucks at the Safari Club, that didn’t stop Sarah from putting the fear of a Gunless Existence in them. (If any of you Safarians are hunting big game with assault weapons, I’m pretty sure UR DOIN IT RONG. )

After fearmongering for a while, Sarah Palin brought it home with some of her Wasilla-style folksiness:

“Here’s how I figure it. Remember that weird guy in Wisconsin was so angry, so upset, watching a Palin win slot after slot each week on Dancing with the Stars that he shot Bristol through his TV? He blasted his Panasonic? Well, I’m thinking, ‘Imagine more gun control. Then he’d have to attack his Panasonic with a butter knife.'”

Ha ha ha! Ho ho ho! It’s hilarious! Yes, let us imagine more gun control! What would that world look like? Weird right? You betcha! More alive people! Less not alive people! Unpossible! And besides, how will people shoot their TVs when they don’t like reality show results? Clearly, we need more guns (preferably with TV-monitor-piercing bullets).

Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg’s latest sting operation (Gunshow Undercover) demonstrates just how easy it is to purchase a gun in Arizona without a background check:

An undercover investigation at an Arizona gun show found that private sellers didn’t always require background checks of buyers, Mayor Bloomberg announced today.

The investigation came just weeks after a Tucson shooting that killed six people and injured 13 others.

Bloomberg, at a news conference at City Hall, showed several undercover videos of illegal gun sales — including one that showed a “buyer” purchasing an extended magazines like the one allegedly used by Jared Lee Loughner — an at the Phoenix gun show last week.

Loughner, 22, is the man arrested for shooting and injuring Rep. Gabrielle Giffords during a meet-and-greet with voters three weeks ago outside a Tuscon supermarket.

“We have demonstrated how easy it is for anyone to buy a semiautomatic handgun and a high capacity magazine, no questions asked,” said Bloomberg. “This country must take two simple steps to stop more of the 34 murders that occur with guns every day — make every gun sale subject to a background check, and make sure the background check system has all the required records in it.”

So, to sum up: While folks are trying to figure out a way to keep high capacity automatic weapons off the street in order to curb gun violence, Sarah Palin and Tall is cracking jokes about guns and people with mental health issues using guns to do crazy shit (the dude in Wisconsin was bipolar), and all of this less than a month after the Tucson shootings. Klassy.

She needs to fire her handlers and speechwriters. She’s sounding more and more like a fool with each passing media appearance.

[Video after the jump]

show full post on front page

1Actually, I take it back. We need Sarah Palin to keep talking.2 I may not survive another election having to listen to her whiny ass dumbspeak, but it sure would be fun.

2Actually, I take back that take-back. Sarah Palin winning the Republican nomination is too risky for a couple months of blissful schadenfreude. People just might be dumb enough to vote for her, and she might win — especially since she’d be helped by the likes of these assclowns.

[cross-posted here at Angry Black Lady Chronicles]

We as a country need gun control; we also need Sarah Palin to STFU.Post + Comments (49)

Conservatives Win Again

by Kay|  January 19, 201111:14 am| 87 Comments

This post is in: An Unexamined Scandal, Domestic Politics, Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin, Blatant Liars and the Lies They Tell, DC Press Corpse, Decline and Fall, Flash Mob of Hate, I Reject Your Reality and Substitute My Own

Thanks to commenter SpotWeld for this:

In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul America’s health insurance system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology, urged GOP leaders to call it a “government takeover.Takeovers are like coups,” Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. “They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.”

PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen “government takeover of health care” as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats’ shellacking in the November elections.

The phrase is simply not true. Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: “The label ‘government takeover” has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a ‘takeover.’ ”

We asked incoming House Speaker John Boehner’s office why Republican leaders repeat the phrase when it has repeatedly been shown to be incorrect. Michael Steel, Boehner’s spokesman, replied, “We believe that the job-killing ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of health care. That’s why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs.”

It’s a belief, so not therefore not a lie. They never said it had a factual basis.

The phrase appears more than 90 times on Boehner’s website, GOPLeader.gov. It was mentioned eight times in the 48-page Republican campaign platform “A Pledge to America” as part of their plan to “repeal and replace the government takeover of health care.” The Republican National Committee’s website mentions a government takeover of health care more than 200 times. Conservative groups and tea party organizations joined the chorus. It was used by FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

In 2010 alone, “government takeover” was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77 times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For example, during Boehner’s Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he challenged about it.

CNN beat Politico in shilling for the GOP in 2010, so that’s an upset right there. I had Politico as the favorite.

Last year Republicans (and allied organizations) won for “death panels”.

Any guesses on The Big Lie in 2011?

Conservatives Win AgainPost + Comments (87)

Weimar Politics in AZ

by Tom Levenson|  January 9, 20118:42 pm| 48 Comments

This post is in: Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin, Republican Stupidity, Assholes

What do we know about assassination as a political tool?

__

It works.  Not always, but enough.

__

It can be effective even if the assassin is truly a lone gunman, truly crazy, utterly denuded of membership cards or explicit links to more formal political groups.

__

It achieved the desired goal for the Confederate Party when Booth shot Lincoln.  White supremacists were able to play the politics of the next decade or so to resume, through the ballot box and violent terror, a political dominance that would only begin to wane almost a century later, and is not all gone yet.

__

It was devastating in Israel, where the settler-Likud alliance managed to transform the course of Arab/Palestinian – Israeli-Jewish peace negotiations after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin.

__

And so on.  It works — when it does — because even though in the immediate aftermath of a political murder all parties may decry violence, the combination of the loss of leadership and the chilling effect of murderous force itself take their toll on the targeted side.

__

So, while I agree with those who say that this particular assassin may not himself be a poster child for the presumptive murderousness of the American right, I think, as John put it and Kay echoed:

The point we have been trying to make for the last couple of years is that Republicans need to stop whipping up crazy people with violent political rhetoric. This is really not a hard concept to follow. There are crazy people out there. Stop egging them on.

Except I’d take this a step further, and say  — whatever the particular path this killer took to these murders — we need to follow that logic a little further, to look at what that rhetoric of hate is supposed to achieve. Sarah Palin et al., aren’t trying to debate. They are trying to gain power.  In that context, those on the right who chose to employ violent rhetoric do so to help gain ends that haven’t been won (or are too much trouble to acquire) by treading democratic paths.

__

__

This isn’t new, of course.  Let me offer one example of this kind of tactic taken to an extreme.  I spent most of a decade working on a book (Einstein in Berlin) — and in it, I spent some time engaging the tragic history of the Weimar Republic.  I’m not going to apologize for Godwinizing here, because, as you’ll see, Hitler and the Nazis don’t make an appearance in the episode below.

show full post on front page

Rather, in the early years of Weimar, you find murder turned almost into  a precision tool of politics, long before the Nazi party appeared on the scene. Between 1919 and 1922, the violent right reasserted its presence in Weimar governance while destroying the core of skill and leadership available to the left through a sustained and devastating campaign.  As I wrote some years ago:

Emil Gumbel’s dismal report, “Four Years of Political Murder” demonstrated the depth of the danger faced by the Republic, and by the left.  “The right is inclined to hope that it could annihilate the left opposition…by defeating its leaders.  And the right has done it” Gumbel wrote.  “All of the leaders of the left who openly opposed the war and whom the workers trusted…are dead.”  … Gumbel concluded, “the effectiveness of this technique is for the moment indisputable.”

The climactic and most famous assassination of the more than 340 political murders committed in this early period of Weimar came in 1922, when Einstein’s friend, Walther Rathenau, then Germany’s foreign minister, was killed.  Here’s what happened:

At about 10:40 a.m. on June 24, 1922, Walther Rathenau left his house in the countryfied suburbs of Berlin.  He settled into the back seat of his jaunty open car.  His chauffeur got behind the wheel.  There was no need for conversation between the two.  Rathenau, appointed Germany’s Foreign Minister less than three months before, drove to work each day along the same route at much the same time.  The driver put the car in gear and set out as usual up the Königsallee.  Germans are often parodied as creatures of order, and there was never a man who more aspired to be the perfect German than Rathenau.   By mid-1922 in Berlin, however, such precision had become not so much a routine as an invitation.

__

Rathenau’s driver drove on sedately, hugging the middle of the road.  About three blocks from the house he slowed to cross a set of streetcar tracks.  As he did so, a six-seater open touring car drew level with Rathenau’s automobile.  There were a driver and a young man in the front, and two more young men in the back, all wearing leather coats and driving caps.  A witness said that Rathenau looked over, as if worried the cars might crash.  At that moment, Erwin Kern, twenty-five years old, a former navy officer, leaned from the window of the overtaking car.  He rested the butt of his automatic pistol on his other arm and aimed at Rathenau.  The range was no more than a few feet.   Rathenau was looking at his killer as the man fired.  Kern shot  rapidly, five times — the witness said it sounded like a machine gun – and Rathenau slumped over.  As he fell, one of Kern’s accomplices stood up and pitched a hand grenade into Rathenau’s car.

Rathenau’s driver pulled over, then sped on to the nearest police station.  As he drove, the grenade went off, jolting the car forward.  The driver kept the car moving, though, and a young woman walking by, a nurse named Helene Kaiser, leapt into the passenger compartment.  “Rathenau who was bleeding hard, was still alive,” she said.  “He looked up at me, but seemed to be already unconscious.” The chauffeur turned the car round and raced back to Rathenau’s house.  His bleeding body was carried back inside, and set down in the study.  By the time the doctor arrived, Walther Rathenau was dead.

Who were the murderers?  No one, really.   They were just pissed off, underemployed, violent young men,* ex-military, (a couple of them), meeting and talking in the context of a sustained and successful campaign to paint everything about the Weimar democracy as a betrayal of the “true” Germany.

Kern and his band of four other disaffected students and veterans found each other, and began to plan to assassinate some Jew prominent enough to matter.  They settled quickly on Rathenau — he was the most obvious target, as made clear by the doggerel rhyme that had become popular among nationalist and anti-Semitic circles:  “Knalt ab den Walther Rathenau/die gottverdammte Judensau.” (“Shoot down Walther Rathenau/the goddamned Jewish sow.”)  The conspirators began to study their intended victim, learning his habits and his routes.

__

… A test run on June 20 convinced Kern that a revolver would not do; he would need an automatic to be sure of hitting his target.  He picked one up that evening, no great feat in the gun-ridden Berlin of 1922.  On the morning of June 24, car trouble almost sidelined the murderers, inviting unhappy comparison with the Serb gang that had by blind luck managed to kill the Archduke Ferdinand in that distant Sarajevo of June, 1914.  But the car revived just in time.  They pulled out of an alley behind the minster’s car.  Within minutes, Walther Rathenau lay bleeding to death.

__

Rathenau’s death marked more or less the end of the murder campaign.  But that was not because the outpouring of sorrow and anger at his killing finally compelled the German right to cease their viciousness. Rather, it was because the battle was won.  The left had been substantially weakened, and the stage was set for a resurgent center right — and ultimately, the far right as well.

History does not repeat itself.  The United States in 2011, after more than two centuries practice at constitutional democracy (and all our experience of its ups and downs), is not Weimar Germany, emerging from catastrophic defeat in the midst of international sanctions and constant internal strife.  Sarah Palin is no Erich Ludendorff, that’s for sure — for all her seeming willingness to ascend to power on her reputed skills with firearms.

But even if repetition is a myth, our past still echoes across time — and listening carefully, we may find clues to the meaning of what is happening right now.

__

Rathenau was murdered by sane conspirators motivated by those who created a climate of hate in which a disgraced militaristic right could return to the political arena.  Rep. Giffords was shot and others murdered by someone who may well be crazy — but that man acted within a context in which her colleagues and allies deemed it OK for an allegedly sane “leader” who lost the last election to post crosshairs over the names of her political opponents.  So here’s the lesson I draw from all of this:

__

The least we can do for Gabrielle Giffords, Judge John Roll, Christina Green and all the other victims of this murderous attack is honor them through acts of memory, so that whenever next someone advances or excuses the rhetoric of violence we say “no, not this time, not mindful of those we’ve already lost to this kind of evil.”  Naming and Shaming is not just good clean fun at this point; it’s a duty.  We have to do whatever we can to make it political kryptonite to play in that (quick)sandbox.**

__

As a late addition to that thought — if John Kyl, Senator and Congressional colleague to the terribly injured Gabrielle Giffords, thinks it “inappropriate” for the Pima County Sheriff to condemn the vitriolic rhetoric of talk radio and its consequences in Arizona, then he is, as Mistermix suggests below this, exactly wrong.  I’d go further.  In trying to muzzle the sheriff, Kyl is not just an assh*le. He’s part of the problem, an enabler of those who incite violence for political ends, and he should be contemned as such from every corner.

__

*An odd and sad footnote to that murder, the driver of the death car ultimately repented and recanted, joined the French Foreign Legion on his release, and was instrumental in saving Jews in Marseilles from the Holocaust.

**Not to blog whore, and to make sure I relegate to a footnote my contempt for a mostly negligible person in our civic conversation, let me here echo DougJarvus’s snark about McArdle et al.’s defense of open carry protests at presidential events.   Here’s my post on that subject, with a full frontal assault on McArdle’s capacity for reasoning, moral or otherwise.  It was fun to write at the time.  Rereading it now just makes me sad.

Images:  Jean-Léon Gérôme, The Death of Caesar, 1867.

Francisco de Goya, The Third of May, 1814.

Utagawa Kuniyoshi, The Actor, before 1861.

Weimar Politics in AZPost + Comments (48)

Why not just apologize

by Dennis G.|  January 9, 20111:48 pm| 199 Comments

This post is in: Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin, Assholes, Blatant Liars and the Lies They Tell

Camp Palin is trying to push pack on criticism of her map targeting Democrats with cross hair gun sites. Now her spokesgroupie is claiming that they were just harmless ‘Surveyor’s symbols’.

Of course one has to wonder why Palin herself celebrated them as her ‘bullseye’ icons in the wake of the November elections:

palinbullseye

Giffords was one of only two Members targeted by Palin to escape defeat. Would it be so hard for this hellcat from grifterville to admit that she was wrong, apologize and promise to stop inciting hate?

Of course it is.

Basic human decency is and always will be beyond her emotional reach.

Palin is pathetic and should be reviled.

dengre

Hat tip to Dkos Diarist el fuego for a link to Palin’s tweet

Why not just apologizePost + Comments (199)

I can not begin to describe the crazy

by Dennis G.|  November 20, 20101:11 am| 121 Comments

This post is in: Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin, Good News For Conservatives, Teabagger Stupidity

I know that we’re having a bit of a meta night and all, but I just finished reading Robert Draper’s profile of Sarah Palin for this Sunday’s NYT Magazine.

I was amazed by it on a number of levels. One, I thought Draper was writing the kind of soft introductory NYTs profile that seemed designed in part to ensure future access. No blame on Robert as I think that is part of the form for these early ‘possible Presidential candidate’ profiles. But even with the obvious efforts to be ‘nice’ to Team Palin the crazy just shined through.

At one point Draper asked Palin why she dropped the bi-partisanship that she ran on to be elected Governor of Alaska. The answer was steeped in paranoia and Fox-newsspeak:

I brought up her past efforts at bipartisanship to Palin. “I was so innocent and naïve to believe that I would be able to govern for four years and if I ever moved on beyond the governorship I could carry that with me nationally,” Palin said. “And it was proven when John McCain chose me for the nomination for vice president; what it showed me about the left: they go home. It doesn’t matter what you do. It was the left that came out attacking me. They showed me their hypocrisy; they showed me they weren’t willing to work in a bipartisan way. I learned my lesson. Once bitten, twice shy. I will never trust that they are not hypocrites until they show me they’re sincere.”

The betrayal of her trust was that these ‘liberals’ did not vote for her and the only way to prove your sincerity, your lack of ‘hypocrisy’ is to join the cult of Sarah. If you’re not with her you are an enemy to be attacked and destroyed.

Another amazing section has her talking about the books she reads.

The newsy bit is that she confirms that she is all but an announcement away from running for President–but that is hardly news to anybody paying attention. What struck me was the deep levels of paranoia of Palin and her team paired with a her demand for cult-like loyalty as a precondition to work for her. And her cult of Sarah is wedded to a world view that is seriously at odds with history, science, the Constitution and reality. Her run for the White House will be a solid bet on the stupidity of Americas and her ability to get them to trust her and her cult with the future of the Nation.

FSM help us.

While I would like to think that Americans are not so stupid that they will buy this pile of mock-moose shit, when I really think of the last twenty years then I know anything is possible.

As I said, I can not begin to describe the crazy of this cult of the Quitta, this Cult of Sarah.

Cheers

I can not begin to describe the crazyPost + Comments (121)

Paradox and Pandering

by Kay|  November 11, 201010:55 am| 37 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Election 2010, Election 2012, Fuck The Poor, Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin, Daydream Believers

Jumping off mistermix’s post, Republicans are going to have some problems cutting Medicaid for the same reason they can’t cut Medicare.

They ran and won on protecting and expanding benefits to senior citizens, and Medicaid is the other program that hugely benefits senior citizens.

They didn’t run on small government and conservatism. They ran on opposition to cuts in Medicare.

In Ohio. In Florida. In Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania.

Here’s Crossroads GPS in Pennsylvania:

The ad’s narration begins, “Over half a million Pennsylvanians unemployed, and what’s Congressman Joe Sestak done? He voted to gut Medicare, slashing benefits for Pennsylvania seniors. The Obama-Sestak scheme could jeopardize access to care for millions.” In the visuals, the ad says, “Reducing benefits for 854,489 seniors,” a statistic it attributes to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan group that studies health care policy. The ad also says on screen that Sestak “voted to cut Medicare by $500 billion,” citing his vote in favor of the Democratic health care bill that was signed into law earlier this year by President Barack Obama.

That’s Medicare. Which small government conservatives just promised to expand, indefinitely, no matter the cost.

But Medicare isn’t the whole story for senior citizens. Conservatives omit the second half, which is Medicaid.

Medicaid helps poor children, sure, and they’re easy to pick on, but most of what Medicaid spends goes to the elderly and the disabled, for long-term care, which includes nursing homes:

Children account for about half of all Medicaid enrollees but just one-fifth of Medicaid spending. Only one-quarter of Medicaid enrollees are seniors or persons with disabilities, but because these beneficiaries need more (and more costly) health-care services, they account for two-thirds of all Medicaid spending.

Middle class senior citizens and the disabled (pdf) rely on Medicaid for long-term care, and the federal government picks up most of the tab.

If conservatives want to pick a fight on Medicaid, and adopt a brave and principled stand on ending access to medical care for poor children, liberals should be more than happy to have that fight. We can just recycle the Crossroads ads, and change a couple of letters.

Paradox and PanderingPost + Comments (37)

How We Love A Man In A Uniform….

by Tom Levenson|  October 31, 20101:47 pm| 126 Comments

This post is in: Lies, Damned Lies, and Sarah Palin, Did You Know John McCain Was A POW?

Lost in the general haze of stupid/evil that hangs over Sarah Palin was a grace note in her recent speech supporting indictment-in-waiting Joe Miller, her cherished anti-Murkowski senatorial candidate.

In a sparsely attended rally for the fading Teabagger senatorial candidate, Palin recalled Miller’s military background, and asked “are we even fit to tie his combat boots?”

Are we fit?

Seriously?

Well yes – and what makes this so dangerous is not just that Palin is once again being Palin, but that after a decade of warrior worship, this kind of nonsense is staining more and more of our national fabric.

The end point of such hagiography is pretty well mapped out.  If people persuade themselves that the military offers a unique reservoir of virtue — and especially if the uniformed officer corps come to believe it…then the next move is obvious.

…which brings me to an article published last month that I don’t think got enough attention.

Writing in the National Defense University’s Joint Force Quarterly,  United States Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Andrew Milburn found within himself the courage to say exactly what he thinks:

“There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. [italics added]

And there you have it:  a claim that the US military should take the hard duty of deciding national policy when – in the view of the officer corps – the civil powers are incapable of doing so properly.

show full post on front page

Most important, note that Milburn is not asserting that military personnel must refuse illegal orders.  This is already an obligation, and there are at formal safeguards to protect those who meet it.  (Though not those who frivolously invoke this duty – see the fate of the birthers who sought to deny President Obama’s authority as Commander in Chief.)

No, here Milburn argues that officers, especially senior ones, have a moral responsibility to refuse perfectly legal orders from their civilian superiors. His criteria are simple:  the uniformed services should reject orders that are – in the sole judgment of the officers concerned — “likely to harm the institution writ large—the Nation, military, and subordinates…”

As expansive a claim of uniformed autonomy as that may be, Milburn does not stop there.  He goes on to claim that military autonomy should extend not just to weighing decisions taken in the midst of war, but also over

“judgments that fall within the realm of jus ad bellum, [criteria for initiating a war] especially if Congress appears to have neglected its responsibilities in this regard.”

That is:  Milburn sees the military, or at least its senior officer corps as something approaching a fourth branch of government.  He even uses the core vocabulary of Constitutional interpretation to emphasize the point:

“The military professional plays a key role as a check and balance at the indistinct juncture between policy and military strategy. He should not try to exclude himself from this role, even on issues that appear to involve policy.”

But mightn’t such an expansive view of military authority lead to overreach?  Not to worry, says Milburn, exercising Hollywood’s conventional euphemism* for the phrase f**k you:

“Human nature, as well as professionalism, provides a bulwark against such an eventuality. It is fair to assume that generals like being generals, and thus would select judiciously those causes for which they were prepared to sacrifice their careers.”

For all that this may seem reasonable — shouldn’t officers resign when they face demands they cannot accept? – it’s almost impossible to overstate how radical a break this is with American traditions of civil-military relations, a shift made all the more parlous because it is an view not limited to this one officer. [Warning – Freeper link].

Thankfully, there has been some significant push back from within the officer corps that captures the essential wrongness of Milburn’s argument.  Here, I’ll turn the floor over to USA Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, writing in the invaluable Small Wars Journal blog.

Yingling takes Milburn apart step by step.  The best thing to do is read his whole post, but for just a taste, here’s how he eviscerates the Milburn’s core view of the bounden duty of an officer.  Consider the oath each officer in the US military takes, Yingling writes, a commitment that reads, in part:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

As Yingling notes, there is nothing here the resembles Milburn’s view of the officer’s obligation to defy civilian authority:

“the military officer’s oath prescribed by the US Code says nothing about the health of the military institution or the welfare of subordinates.  However important these goals may be, no act of law makes them co-equal with the preservation of the Constitution.

Yingling similarly demolishes the rest of Milburn’s case, leaving the obvious unspoken.  Even if Milburn doesn’t get this, the rest of us can reasonably grasp that the top brass are, of course, no more a unique repository of rigor or virtue than any other self-selecting powerful in-group.  That doesn’t mean that general officer corps is devoid of virtue, of course — just that they are no more immune to realities of human experience than the rest of us

At the same time, Yingling recognized the debt of gratitude that I agree we owe Milburn.   He is as wrongheaded as it is possible to be, but he appears to be an almost comically naïve honest man.  And so, Yingling writes:

However regrettable Milburn’s arguments may be, we ought to thank him for making these views public. Many others who apparently share his views lack his candor. Anonymous military officers’ bitter condemnations of civil authorities have become standard fare in many media outlets.  These are the officers we should truly fear – those who skulk sullenly in corners with like-minded victims of alleged civilian malfeasance, drawing their wages while condemning the society that pays them.

Which brings me back to Palin, and other such mindless hagiographers of the uniform and the gun.

I don’t actually think that the US is in any proximate danger of a military coup.  But as Yingling recognizes, Milburn’s article – published, remember, by a journal from one of the military’s own graduate schools — is just one of many examples of the pressure that military and its fans put on any civilian leadership.  This is yet another warning shot aimed at driving upstarts like President Obama and his administration out of the rooms where real men make decisions.

And if I’m even close to right in my reading of this, then let me end on a bit of pre-Godwinization

In January, 1919, long before Hitler found his way to his first Nazi Party meeting – while he was still in bed, recovering from a gas attack he endured near the end of World War – the new Social Democratic government struck a devil’s bargain with the German General Staff.  Defend the nascent republic, the new defense minister, Gustav Noske, said, and the civilian socialists would leave military matters to the autonomous authority of the high command.

The deal paid off, at least in the short term, as the generals suppressed the communist uprising known as Sparticist week, using both regular army units and the first of the right-wing militias called Freikorps.


In the long run?  It did not, as we all know, turn out that well.**

*Old joke:  how does a Hollywood producer suggest you should be intercoursed?

A:  “Trust me”

**See Peter Gay’s Weimar Culture for an excellet brief overview of the lows, highs, and deeper lows that flowed through that post “Great” War Germany.

Images:  Constantino Brumidi, “The Apotheosis of Washington” (detail), fresco in the US Capitol rotunda, 1865.

Beham, (Hans) Sebald, “Three Soldiers and a Dog,” c. 1540.

Captured British tank, used by troops to suppress the Spartacist uprising, Berlin, 1919.

How We Love A Man In A Uniform….Post + Comments (126)

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Elizabelle on Monday Morning Open Thread: Go, Team Biden! (Feb 6, 2023 @ 12:20pm)
  • Tom Levenson on Roast Chicken Chronicles…entry [n]…. (Feb 6, 2023 @ 12:19pm)
  • Elizabelle on Monday Morning Open Thread: Go, Team Biden! (Feb 6, 2023 @ 12:17pm)
  • trollhattan on Monday Morning Open Thread: Go, Team Biden! (Feb 6, 2023 @ 12:17pm)
  • NotMax on Monday Morning Open Thread: Go, Team Biden! (Feb 6, 2023 @ 12:16pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc