Making Cannon Fodder

In his book, Making Patriots, Walter Berns of the American Enterprise Institute argues that traditional American individualism, with its emphasis on natural rights to life, liberty, and property, creates a serious dilemma for the state (and hence for neocons): Not enough young people will be willing to sacrifice their lives in the state’s wars. Too concerned with leading independent lives within their own families and communities, America’s youth are not sufficiently keen on dying for "abstract ideas" that are fed to them by propagandists for the state (i.e., Straussians like Berns and his AEI colleagues).

For example, Berns says "we cannot be indifferent to the welfare of others," no matter where these others may reside in the world. America’s youth must be prepared to sacrifice their lives for these anonymous "others," all over the globe if necessary. This of course is a complete repudiation of the foreign policy ideas of the American founding fathers, which was commercial relations with all nations but entangling alliances with none. The founders would think the neocon agenda of America as the world’s policeman is insane.

The "dilemma" that is addressed in Making Patriots is how to go about motivating America’s youth to make such sacrifices and become cannon fodder in the neocons’ perpetual wars for perpetual peace. The answer to this dilemma, says Berns, is to devise a new "civil religion" so that young people will think of themselves as more or less "religious" crusaders as they march off to slaughter or to be slaughtered. This "civil religion" is patriotism – at least as it is defined by Berns. In other words, America’s youth must be indoctrinated into thinking of themselves as the Western equivalents of mad Muslim fanatics on a mission to compel the rest of the world to adopt their "civil religion" – or else.

Berns incredibly insists that this brand of patriotism – sacrificing one’s life for the state – is quintessentially American, based on the beliefs of the founding fathers. But in reality its roots lie more in European fascism. As Mussolini wrote in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (1935), fascism "stresses the importance and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the state." And, "[C]lassical liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism regards the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

In his "noblest form" the Aryan "willingly submits his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it," wrote Hitler in Mein Kampf. "The child is the mother’s contribution to the state" was the slogan of the Hitler Youth, the policy of which was to compel German youth to perform "service rendered to the nation to lift men out of economic interest, out of acquisitiveness, to free them from materialism, from egoism...." (Robert A. Brady, The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism, p. 180).

This of course is patently un-American. The American founders believed that the people should be the masters of their government, not servants to it. To the founders, the purpose of government was to protect man’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property, not to conscript the nation’s youth into an endless series of wars for...what?

Berns’s solution to the dilemma of how to persuade American youth to become servants of the militarized state is that they must by mesmerized by some kind of "national poet" whose rhetoric can convince them to abandon their individualism and their selfish desires for peaceful and prosperous lives. Luckily, says Berns, a "national poet" is at hand and is personified by Abraham Lincoln, who Berns describes as "statesman, poet, and . . . the martyred Christ of democracy’s passion play" (p. 100). If they are to be goaded into making the supreme sacrifice for the state, Americans must be brainwashed in "his greatness," which consists not in his actions but "in the power and beauty of his words" (p. 88).

Berns devotes a chapter of Making Patriots to a recitation of many of the myths and delusions about Lincoln that his fellow Straussian neocons are so well known for advancing. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter, where no one was killed or injured, with a full-scale invasion of the Southern states because "his purpose was peace" (p. 87). Napoleon III offered to broker a peace before the war broke out but Lincoln refused to even talk with him because "his purpose was peace." After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval officer Gustavus Fox for his assistance in manipulating the Confederates into firing the first shot because – you guessed it – "his purpose was peace."

Lincoln illegally suspended habeas corpus and had his army arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents; he censored telegraph communication, shut down opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors, jailed some two dozen duly elected officials of the state of Maryland, rigged elections, waged war without the consent of Congress, orchestrated the illegal creation of a new state, West Virginia, and deported an outspoken member of the Democratic Party, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio. All of this rampant illegality took place, says Berns, because of Lincoln’s supposedly deep concern that "the laws be faithfully executed"!

Lincoln wrote a book as a young man that challenged the veracity of the Bible but it was destroyed by friends so that it wouldn’t damage his political career. He was never known to have become a believer and never joined a church. He was famous for his dirty jokes, and nearly every minister in Springfield, Illinois, opposed his nomination in 1860. Yet to Berns, Lincoln "of course . . . read the Bible" and used Biblical language to "save the American Republic . . . with his words" (p. 89).

In keeping with the standard Jaffa/Claremont/Straussian lies about Lincoln, he supposedly had nothing at all to do with the war, but became a "great statesmen" once he realized that the war "was coming" (p. 94). It just came, out of nowhere, unannounced and unanticipated. What bad luck for the Illinois "railsplitter."

Lincoln famously micromanaged the waging of war on civilians as well as combatants for four years, including the bombing of cities, the killing of civilians, the pillaging and plundering of farms, homes, and businesses, and the burning out of entire regions such as the Shenandoah Valley. He also compulsively experimented with the development of more and more devastating weapons of mass destruction to be turned loose on the Southern population. But to Berns, Lincoln "never looked upon the Confederates as enemies" (p. 96). His armies killed Southerners by the hundreds of thousands because he loved them, and he "purged his heart and mind from hatred or even anger towards his fellow-countrymen of the South" (p. 96).

This is a prerequisite for being a card-carrying member of the Lincoln-worshipping Straussian neocon cabal: One must put on the pretense of being able to read the mind of a man who died almost 140 years ago and to also supposedly know what was "in his heart." Why bother with historical facts when one can read minds (and hearts)?

Lincoln’s war, which resulted in the death of 620,000 Americans – roughly the equivalent of more than 5 million Americans standardizing for today’s population – was all worth it, says Berns, because Lincoln’s political rhetoric taught Americans "to love the Union" and "helped make us patriots" (p. 98). To Berns, "us" obviously does not include the citizens of the conquered Southern provinces.

The "greatest importance" of the Lincoln myth, says Berns, is that it was used for generations "in the public schools" where "we" were supposedly taught to "love our country." Berns seems to conflate "country" with "government," as in "love and obey our government."

It appears that Berns exaggerates the power of Lincoln’s words just a tiny bit. In his own time, Lincoln was despised by millions of Northerners despite – or perhaps because of – his political rhetoric. He only won 39 percent of the popular vote in 1860, and in 1864 he won a mere 55 percent despite the fact that the Southern states were out of the union and the military had rigged the election by intimidating Democratic voters. Tens of thousands of Northern men deserted the army or evaded conscription in Canada and elsewhere.

In addition to introducing the slavery of conscription, Lincoln recruited tens of thousands of immigrants from Germany, Ireland, and elsewhere to fight in his war by offering them free land under the Homestead Act. Entire regiments of non-English speaking immigrants were sent South to teach – at gunpoint – the grandsons of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry what it really meant to be an American. Many of these men soon perished in Ulysses S. Grant’s suicidal assaults on well-entrenched Confederate army positions in the Virginia countryside.

At least it is refreshing for a Straussian neocon to come clean and admit the real reason for the neocon infatuation with the Lincoln myth: making cannon fodder out of America’s youth.

Not enough young people will be willing to sacrifice their lives in the state’s wars

I guess the author would be hard-pressed to explain all those young men who stepped up during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, Viet Nam, etc, etc, etc!

More hypocrisy from "palaeocons" who despise the United States government but who worship Franco, Salazar, Stroessner, Chiang, Rhee, Petain, Papadopoulos, and Pinochet (and Peron?).

If Bush and Ashcroft were to change their names to any of the above or suddenly turn on Israel they'd be "palaeo" heroes too.

PS: I notice DiLorenzo, advocate of Confederate-style free trade, has no trouble with being allied with the new protectionists. Does anyone else notice the inconsistency?

At least it is refreshing for a Straussian neocon to come clean and admit the real reason for the neocon infatuation with the Lincoln myth: making cannon fodder out of America’s youth.

What an ass.

Allow me to get biblical on this author. In a long ago Isaeli battle, all of the men of Israel went out to fight.

God said to their leader, "let all the men that want to go home, go home", many went home. Then God said to their leader, "let the men worried about their wives and children go home", more men left for home.

Then God said to their leader, "take the men to the stream to drink, if a man does not lap water from his hand while watching the hills for the enemy, send him home", a large percentage were sent home.

What was left was one mean fighting machine that had no trouble besting a larger army. That is more or less what we have now. The trick is, to keep politicians from playing with their brave, warrior lives, and allow them to do their thing, kill the enemy.

> Not enough young people will be willing to sacrifice their lives in the state’s wars
>
> I guess the author would be hard-pressed to explain all those young men who stepped up during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, Viet Nam, etc, etc, etc
>
>
With respect, he's not criticising our young men for not volunteering or being unpatriotic. He sees certain men as manipulative, arrogant, and power lusting. He is trying to warn us that these men will try to use our young men for their own goals. Although I'm for the Iraq war (reasons available upon request), I am not for wasting American lives all over the world. Berns, as represented here, is a despicable elitist, who imagines, that his mere cleverness entitles him to be a designer of men.

It's sad that a term such as "neoconservative" can be used so unfairly and with such derision by this writer. I wonder if he realizes that he is polluting the discourse between conservative groups. Imagine the reaction the next time someone uses that term here; instead of provoking debate on policy, the audience will simply wonder whether that person is spewing the same sewage as we see here.

<>i>"Berns incredibly insists that this brand of patriotism – sacrificing one’s life for the state – is quintessentially American, based on the beliefs of the founding fathers. But in reality its roots lie more in European fascism. As Mussolini wrote in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (1935)..."

So giving one's life for your country is uniquely fascist?

Funny, I could have sworn that Nathan Hale ("I regret that I have but one life to give for my country") was born before 1935. I guess all of those patriots who gave their lives for the country were closet-fascists.

More bum-fodder from DiLorenzo. Unfortunately, you left out the main -- the only -- point of this screed: the link to his book, though it's good that you didn't post Tommy's own ugly mug. Surely the scariest thing in the article:

Loving one's country doesn't always mean loving its government, but hating that government may well come to mean hating one's nation and doing it harm. Give in to every group of ambitious politicians who want to break up the country, and you'll sure enough end up hurting the country and its people. Anarchists and "minarchists" are so small a minority that they can imagine that their ideas have no consequences. But the tendency of their ideas is to promote "the war of each against all," and we are fortunate that more people aren't won over to their views. What's offensive is the assumption that George Washington and the other founders would have had much use for a philosophy that denied ideas of citizenship, patriotism, and public obligation.

I should have said: 'But the tendency of DiLorenzo's ideas is to promote "the war of each against all," and we are fortunate that more people aren't won over to their views.' There's nothing wrong with "minarchism" if it means limited government. If, on the other hand, it includes anarchist ideas of limited secession on demand, it's indeed dangerous.

I wonder if he realizes that he is polluting the discourse between conservative groups.

You bet your ass he does. DiLorenzo is not the least interested in Conservatism. He's a nut ball cross between a populist and a libertarian. Neither are our friends.

Some here have actually condemned Washington for being an advocate of "Statism" and it is fairly common to see Jefferson claimed as a libertarian when neither could be further from the truth. But this follows from a flawed and false view of history.

It's sad that a term such as "neoconservative" can be used so unfairly and with such derision by this writer. I wonder if he realizes that he is polluting the discourse between conservative groups

That is his intention. It's called divide and conquer. The writer is a liberal, a supporter of the welfare state. Call it Communist, Facist or Progressive, it's all Socialism.

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Saddam are all Socialists. To call them conservative just shows the stupidity of the of the fools who listen to this trash.

"Hitler in Mein Kampf. "The child is the mother's contribution to the state" was the slogan of the Hitler Youth". The Hitler youth were property of the state. Their mothers got a welfare check to breed these monsters for Adolf.

Conservatives are family men. Family men will not send their children off to fight for a Hitler. That's why Socialism requires the destruction of the family culture.

"I guess the author would be hard-pressed to explain all those young men who stepped up during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, Viet Nam, etc, etc, etc!"

Why do you think that?

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.