Pro-state “Peaceniks”: The betrayal of the formerly anti-war left

In addition to the paramount cause of peace, the anti-state, counterculture movement of the 1960s placed a high emphasize on liberty. The movement was successful in removing legal sanctions depriving gays, blacks, women, and other historically oppressed groups of their natural rights. Yet the New Left also promoted moral relativism, bizarre “religious” practices, and dehumanizing cultural hedonism.

Today, the establishment left promotes the sexual revolution, plant-worship, and socialism  full-throttle while treating peace and liberty as nothing more than slogans. Many liberals seem to think wearing tie-dye, watching “Ellen,” and spewing wishy washy clichés  is the only prerequisite to ride aboard “the peace train.” These folks believe we must support Obama because he is a political correctite who wants health “reform,” “equal pay for equal work,” and other “progressive” initiatives. The brown infants he kills and maims are really not that relevant since Obama is a well-intentioned guy. Indeed, putting an end to this murder and mayhem is a distant priority for most of them.

Call me a conspiracist, but I don’t think this dumbing down is coincidental. At the very least, it “conveniently” serves the interest of the ruling elite. For they can now manipulate the left to support all sort of pro-state, pro-war, endeavors under the veil of the progressive social causes. Code Pink, for example, has been convinced to rethink withdrawing from Afghanistan on the basis of “women’s rights.”

We see this today with Obama’s drive to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Obama has also — with the support of some “feminists” — advocated that women register for the draft and is open to the possibility of allowing women to serve in combat.

Leaving aside the well-known fact that  female and gay soldiers have already seen combat in the “War on Terror,” it is shocking that the legalization of such measures should be considered desirable  the left. Allowing gays soldiers to serve openly and women to serve in the infantry will vastly increase the amount of soldiers ready to kill for the state at any given moment.  Do the large majority of liberals opposed to the current US wars really want to give the government  the manpower to launch one or even two more aggressive wars?

Whether or not they are allowed to serve fully and openly, leftist advocates of gay rights and women rights should remember that the military is not a particularly friendly place for either of these groups. A 2006 poll on the matter showed only 30% of military personnel supporting allowing gays to openly serve — far lower than the general population. Being  sexually abused or raped is also a very real risk for women in the military. 

Should female soldiers be assaulted, the nature of the military further complicates things. With a male-dominated working environment, de facto free speech suppression, and with the “court martial,” as the go-to option for legal restitution, it’d clearly be particularly intimidating for women in the military to bring their attackers to justice.

But regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation, the “anti-war” left ought to discourage friends and family from serving in the military like they did in the 1960’s. Why is  increasing the amount of people killing and dying in wars the left supposedly opposes “progressive?” Clearly it isn’t, and those liberals supporting these measures have betrayed the pro-peace message that they — or at least their ideological forebears — used to believe in.

As a reminder of how these forebears would react to these sort of pro-military measures, I would like any “anti-war” liberals reading this to remember the words of the heroic Phil Ochs:

Published in

Post a comment