"Strong Military" is "conservative" BS
In my last two posts, I talked about two BS “conservative” tenets: “Small Government” and “Low Taxes.”
In this post, I’m going to take on the third BS “principle” of conservatism: “Strong Military.”
It is easy to see that this one is different from the previous two. It’s quite obvious that no government can long survive without a strong military to defend the nation and its people. One of the six functions of the Constitution mentioned in its Preamble is “to provide for the common defense.” So how can "Strong Military" be a BS “conservative principle”?
It’s BS because there is nothing “conservative” about it. It’s just common sense. And there isn’t anyone except a few crazy idealists and anarchists who would question the fact that we need a strong military to defend us.
You don’t get to claim as a special principle something that in no way distinguishes you from everyone else.
"Conservatives" might just as well claim that supporting "Good Nutrition" makes them different and special. It's laughable.
So why, then, does this BS “principle” exist as somethign that “conservatives” think belongs to them particularly?
Because way back in the 1960s, there was a movement of adolescent utopians who believed that love and peace could conquer all. The anti-war movement was fueled by government lies that got us into Vietnam and kept us there for a decade. They were fueled by police violence, racism, and governmental abuse of power.
These naive people actually thought that the world could do without military force and police power. They made a huge societal stink about it, which resulted in some good things—women's rights and Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, gay rights, and so forth.
But they made “conservatives” angry, and the result of that anger was a stupid prejudice that liberals are *against* a strong military (and a strong police power too).
This is nonsense. Liberals, like everyone else, know and acknowledge that we will not be a nation long without a strong military (and a strong police power too). There is no rational person who could support a “Weak Military.” That’s like supporting a weak immune system.
The difference between liberals and “conservatives” on this point is not “Strong Military” versus “Weak Military.” It’s that liberals insist on a “Strong Military” that is also responsible. Liberals know that the military (and the police as well) are given powers to use force that other citizens do not have. They demand that people who have extraordinary powers act responsibly with those powers. And when those people abuse their powers, they must be held accountable.
“Conservatives” do not believe this. They believe that the whole point of having power is so that you can do whatever you want and not be held accountable.
You can see that “conservative” belief in action all over the place. Trump, of course, and all of his followers are all about this. Sure, you can storm the Capitol and not be held accountable. Trump will pardon you if he gets the chance. In Arizona, they are trying to pass a law that will make it illegal for bystanders to video police abuse with their cameras. After all, why should the police be held accountable for abusing the powers given to them?
Why do “conservatives” take this attitude? Because, as I said in my last two posts, the fundamental “belief” of “conservatism” is the worship of power. Just as “Small Government” and “Low Taxes” are smokescreens for the power to do what one likes no matter how antisocial it is, so too is “Strong Military” a smokescreen for having the power to literally force others to capitulate to one's will.
So when you hear “Strong Military,” recognize it for what it really is—yet another “conservative” demand for power without responsibility.