Cory Doctorow points approvingly to a Kotte post about the unexpectedly leftist structure of the U.S. military. The source for that piece is a NYT piece by Nicholas Kristof. His point is that the military provides a workable model for lefty policies, and those policies should be adopted by the broader society. Lean back left, Nicholas, lean back left:
The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees. This is a rare enclave of single-payer universal health care, and it continues with a veterans’ health care system that has much lower costs than the American system as a whole.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the American military isn’t its aircraft carriers, stunning as they are. Rather, it’s the military day care system for working parents.
While one of America’s greatest failings is underinvestment (sic) in early childhood education (which seems to be one of the best ways to break cycles of poverty from replicating), the military manages to provide superb child care. The cost depends on family income and starts at $44 per week.
Cory and Nicholas are both laboring under the premise that this model is worth adopting broadly. On a practical level, this is silly. That conservative bastion of fascist opinion, NPR, reported that “Health Care Costs New Threat To U.S. Military“. Quoting Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
“The Defense Department runs the risk of the fate of other corporate and government bureaucracies that were ultimately crippled by personnel costs,” he said, “in particular, their retiree benefit packages.”
Here’s what Gates was talking about: In the past decade, military health care costs more than doubled. They account for $52.5 billion in next year’s proposed budget. Retirees’ pay represents another $50 billion or so a year.
But at least the quality of care is top-notch, yes? Consider the Walter Reed scandal, or the cancer survival rates under Canada’s government-run systems versus our system. So if costs, quality, or outcomes aren’t compelling reasons to change, there must be SOMETHING there right? Something to justify space in the nations paper of record?
It’s common to hear bromides about investing in human capital, but the military actually shows that it believes that. Partly as a result, it manages to retain first-rate officers who could earn far higher salaries in the private sector.
I’m unclear why that’s a good thing. Higher salary is a signal of potential value, but officers routinely forego that opportunity? Now we’re adding less efficiency or productivity to the list of dubious benefits?
But forget gross factual inaccuracies, there’s a deeper moral question here. Kristof cheers the idea of a national “mission” that the military embodies, but for the life of me I can’t see why that would be applicable outside the realm of defense. He’s stuck arguing for fairness-in-inputs as a guiding principles. In his words:
According to my back-of-the-envelope math, top C.E.O.’s earn as much as $1 a second around the clock, partly by cutting medical benefits for employees. So they must be paragons of efficiency, right?
Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.
Note the cognitive dissonance in his premise. Efficient? NO! Productive? DAZZLINGLY. He has no clear distinction here.
He pines for some kind of unity, some national purpose (that doesn’t get people killed). Hayek called socialism the road to serfdom. The military takes it beyond serfdom. Such total abrogation of free will and free choice is indescribably monstrous. Americans believe in freedom, free choice, free expression, free commerce, and obeying the dictates of ones own conscience. Lord Acton said ”Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought.” The military isn’t exactly big on dissenting opinion. In case you think I’m overstating or embellishing for rhetorical effect, I asked a former Marine friend for his experience in the Corps:
You really can’t take a shit without permission. And the only way it works is by committing the entire corps to a common purpose, a common set of values and a uniform code of procedure. That’s not what America is all about. There’s no other common purpose to America than Liberty. Nation-wide uniform obedience in the name of liberty is an oxymoron.
