For facebook's thumbnail
Posted on 05/16/2014 7:35:26 AM PDT by Lazamataz
You may have never seen this quote. It may never have been taught to you in school, when studying the Founding Fathers. There may be a reason this particular quote was omitted -- perhaps the powers-that-be did not want you to focus on the truth contained therein.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, on January 17, 1961, famously warned us of the 'military-industrial complex'. Yet, in that speech, he spent little time in describing the results should we not heed his warning. George Washington, on the other hand, succinct laid out the results in a single sentence.
We see that our first President is entirely correct. Our over-grown military establishment is bleeding into the civilian living space: We have 'excess' MRAP armored vehicles being delivered to local law enforcement; we have drones that were pioneered by the military being increasingly used against the American populace; we are now universally monitored and spied upon; and more and more, we see the training and doctrine of the United States Military being applied by law enforcement.
No one would argue that we, in America, are not rushing headlong into a totalitarian police state. George Washington informs us that it was inevitable, when we decided to have the most over-grown military in the world.
Gracias senor!
On the other hand, lack of a military establishment can also be troublesome. Our tendency to scrap most of our army and navy following the conclusion of a war has resulted in us being unprepared or under-prepared to fight wars or respond to crises from the Indian wars of the 1790's to the Korean War.
For facebook's thumbnail
Ooh! Ooh! Make me 245, pleeeeeeeazze?
Srsly.
jagusafr
I'll bet four-hundred ninety-nine politicians in five-hundred, and nine-hundred ninety-nine cops and judges in a thousand would argue that their system is not headed for a "police state."
“Or they won’t get funding for the next stuff. “
Actually the MRAPs are a gift from the feds. (At least ours are.)
Good catch on a great Geo Washington quote, Laz.
Perhaps now, 200+ years later, we might look at his "military" remark within that context for further clarification.
The following excerpt from that Farewell Address may be apropos:
"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." - Excerpt from Washington's Farewell Address
Ain’t you a cutie!
Oooops! Note that the links to “Constitution” within the quoted material must be accessed from the Yale site referenced at the beginning of the quotation.
The more I learn about George Washington, the more I realize how he was God’s agent to bring America into existence.
He risked everything to found this country. He could have been hung if he was captured.
To fight for over five years against the most powerful empire in the world to that point in time, with all of the problems and disadvantages thrown his way, it was a God powered miracle that America won.
Mt. Vernon is so beautiful, it was hard to imagine a man could leave it for years and years to suffer as he did with his army for what—not land, not power, but an IDEA!
What a man!
Thanks for bringing his words some new life.
What you said, dittos to it all.
William Flax
There is a context around the quote that reveals IMO what he was talking about, and that in a nutshell would be separate armies within the country, which eventually led to the civil war as his warning was not heeded. (slavery had little to do with it, but served as a buster to the war IMO)
THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT: (the whole address must be read to get the full contextual impact)
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
Untrue. It has absolute bearing on what is happening today. The military, overgrown as it is, is turning the guns inward (offset by one level of indirection, in the form of Agencies and Police).
There is a context around the quote that reveals IMO what he was talking about, and that in a nutshell would be separate armies within the country, which eventually led to the civil war as his warning was not heeded. (slavery had little to do with it, but served as a buster to the war IMO)
Fine, I agree. However, his words are utterly pertinent and applicable to today, albeit in a different way.
Agreed. It brings to mind shades of how the Germans gave in to the Nazi Party and Hitler. It is interesting to watch Americans arming themselves at the same time. Almost like they know what is coming. Hopefully it will be enough to deter any would be American dictators.
We spend about 1/2 of the budget on paying the troops. The other half includes such things as fuel and ammunition.
Our potential adversaries spend much less per troop. They can put bigger armies into the field. They also use what would be called deceptive accounting practices anywhere in the West, so the reported amounts they spend on their military are massively understated.
Welfare recipients don't provide any goods or services for the money they get.
Could it be more efficient? Yes, but most of the inefficiency is driven by Congress and the military bureaucracy. Funding, and thus execution, of R&D is very unstable.
As the number of weapons systems developed and procured continues to shrink, so does the number of companies involved and there have been many consolidations, especially under Clinton, but under Obama as well. The companies, being bigger, develop more layers of management, and more internal bureaucracy, which also contributes to the general froth and stop/replan/start nature of the industry.
I was supporting 3 different projects when I worked at Ft. Hood. One was the existing system, one a near term future development, and one a longer term dual purpose system.
All three suffered from the start/stop issue, and eventually all three were canceled, and the mission had to continue without any of them. My job was canceled along with the systems.
The next project I worked on, a joint development of US, Italy and Germany, suffered from the same start/replan/start issue, mainly due to two factors. Obama, in one of his early acts in '09, declared the US would not procure the system, but would live up to it's development agreement with the other nations. Congress said, if we're not going to buy it, why should we pay for (part of) the development? only because of the "continuing resolution" nature of the funding, did the project continue, but at lower levels than originally planned. The last couple of years there actually was a defense budget, but it went down to the wire every year, and funding was always in question.
When flight test finally came, after I'd been cashiered again, the missiles shot down both targets as promised. 3rd missile was wasted as the 2nd hit the more difficult target, which had two missiles assigned to it, per doctrine. So, we delivered for our Welfare checks.
Providing for the Common Defense, is the main function of the federal government. Diplomatic and trade interactions with other nations follows that. But those are not what the federal government spends the bulk of the money on. Look to those other areas, not provided for in the Constitution, which have grown exponentially in the last 1/2 century, for the solution to the spending/borrowing problem.
Thanks for the ping, Lazamataz! The more I learn of the thoughts and statements of our Founders, especially Washington, the more in awe I am at What God Hath Wrought through them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.