How the Left Can Win the Military, and Save America’s Soul
from Dissent magazine:
How the Left Can Win the Military, and Save America’s Soul
Lyle Jeremy Rubin - April 9, 2012 2:45 pm
That the warrior class tends to think and vote conservatively goes without saying. You only have to spend twenty minutes in a military town to bump into a burly fella with a shoulder tattoo that reads something akin to “I hate liberals,” although you’d probably already gotten the idea driving off the exit ramp behind a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that reads, “At Least Bush Was American.” It might therefore come across as quixotic to suggest the Left stands a fighting chance at gaining the favor of what has traditionally proven a reliable right-wing constituency. But as someone who was immersed in barracks life for nearly five years, both in the enlisted and officer ranks, both at home and abroad, I suspect that you’re wrong, and that the Left does stand a chance, and a quite credible one at that.
The key text here is Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? The book has already been discussed ad infinitum, so I’ll spare you the nuts and bolts. Suffice it to say Frank makes a compelling argument that a significant portion of “middle America” votes against its economic interests (that is, votes Republican) as a matter of cultural principle. Even though the rise of unions proved the greatest boon to working-class and middle-class Americans in their history, and even though progressive taxation ensures a power and wealth distribution they might find enticing, both causes fail to be accepted—or even opposed—on their individual merits, but instead are subsumed into larger soap operas about commies versus capitalists, abortionists versus Christians, gays versus straight folk, and traitors versus patriots. I would add preventing costly and immoral wars to Frank’s list of reasonable policies historically rejected out-of-hand by the working-class and middle-class Right.
I don’t believe, then, that strong military support for Ron Paul should be dismissed as a lone curiosity. Ron Paul’s devoted following in the Republican primary, especially among our nation’s war-fighters, does not merely represent a symptom of grassroots libertarianism, but indicates a growing frustration among our foot soldiers, their families, and their communities with American foreign policy in toto. They, along with millions of foreign civilians, have been forced to bear the brunt, going on sixty years now, of America’s failed and demoralizing tries at “muscular” intervention. It appears the question is finally being asked, on the part of those who should be the ones asking: “Are our blood, sweat, and tears truly worth it anymore?” ...............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=726
= new reply since forum marked as read
I think maybe 10% of your acquaintances are liberals, but I would not agree with you that your reality is actual reality. I know far too many moderate and liberal members of the military. My ret. Lt. Col. AF uncle and his buddies being among of them. The old guard is very angry with the destruction of anything that was admirable about your, I mean, the Republican Party. 
Thank you for your input...welcome to DU.
I was referring to the military as a whole if, as your unsubstantiated perspective goes, your measure is accurate.
One of Rush Limbaugh's many nicknames in these parts is Rush Limpballs because of his . . . 
. . . Viagra episode.
Welcome to DU, overthehillvet.
A simple "Jane Fonda" would have done just as well.
FWIW, I think she did a good thing badly posing with AA guns. 58,000 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. I think she was trying to make the case that millions of Vietnamese were killed; Bombed and slaughtered by people from a country halfway around the world whom Vietnam never attacked. But, as usual, the anger directed toward her is staggeringly misplaced. People are upset with her instead of being upset with the people who sent the jet pilots over there in the first place.
"Live" goes on, I suppose. 
So does life.
I crewed a tank in the Gulf in 1991 ( a rare post-WWII win ), and I have to ask anybody rah-rahing for the right wing: have you ever noticed that, since World War II, we only ever pick on people we think won't fight back? And then a-la Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., we seem shocked when they do? I'm not making this up. You want to know how many times I've had people ask me: 'What're they fighting us for? They're supposed to be grateful to us!" ?
is being broadcast daily to the troops have anything to do with what they believe?
Can't imagine a better example of the kind of person with whom I'd like to be on the same side.
That segment made Romney's criticism of Obama's foreign policy seem silly & out of touch. The icing on the cake is when Wes graciously gave Romney credit for being an effective governor -- more than Romney deserved, but it shows which side is more sensible & sound.
Thanks for the clip, ellen!
