New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof: The Military as Socialist Model for America
By David J. Theroux • Saturday June 18, 2011 5:14 PM PDT • 35 Comments
In his latest column for the New York Times, “Our Lefty Military,” the iconic “liberal” commentator Nicholas D. Kristof has now come clean on the reality of his own collectivist views that military means and organization embody the “liberal ethos” (“progressivism”), an admission that liberals rarely face up to. While numerous liberal and conservative pundits have long mistakenly supported military Keynesianism (see here and here) as necessary for national defense and economic prosperity, Kristof has now taken this view far further to claim that the military provides the all-inclusive socialist model for all of society.
Interestingly enough, the recognition that militarism is socialism is consistent with that found in the Independent Institute’s new edition of the classic book by the renowned historian Arthur Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military. But in direct contrast to Kristof, Ekirch opposes militarism, showing why such command-and-control government is exactly contrary to liberty, prosperity, human decency, peace, and the rule of law. As a result, we can only be grateful to Kristof for drawing this very clear line in the sand for others between the good of liberty and the evil of tyranny, with him supporting the latter.
According to Kristof:
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.
You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.
Really? Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs has documented in his book Depression, War, and Cold War and other works that it is government intervention into financial markets that “periodically blows up our financial system.” And, such interventions include the exact Federal Reserve and New Deal-type policies that Kristof and other “liberals” support.
And as Research Fellow Jonathan Bean reveals in his Institute book, Race and Liberty in America, desegregation not only began in the private sector decades before federal courts and laws intervened, but it was government regulations (e.g., Jim Crow laws, labor regulations, etc.), including that mandated by the military, that institutionalized racism on a huge scale and made desegregation so difficult.
Kristof approvingly quotes General Wesley Clark, who ran for the 2004 Democratic Party nomination for president, on the nature of military organization:
It’s the purest application of socialism there is . . . It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well.
Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the unconstitutional Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000. In his retirement, Clark became an early and avid supporter of the war in Afghanistan and while initially a critic of the war in Iraq, he went on to support expanded U.S. military forces there because he believed the U.S. invasion and occupation was “undermanned.” As a “progressive” Clark has further indicated that he likes the Democratic Party because it stands for “internationalism”, “ordinary men and women”, and “fair play.” Hence, both Kristof and Clark believe that achieving the “liberal ethos” requires socialism, and militarism is the ideal form to do so.
Kristof goes on:
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 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.
“I absolutely think it’s a model,” said Linda K. Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, which advocates for better child care in America. Ms. Smith, who used to oversee the military day care system before she retired from the Defense Department, said that the military sees child care as a strategic necessity to maintain military readiness and to retain highly trained officers.
The German-Prussian “Iron Chancellor” Otto E. L. von Bismarck could not have said it better in his establishing the German welfare state (Sozialstaat) in order to pursue imperial wars in the 1880s.
Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me.
In his article, Kristof unmasks his own deeply held admiration for the Total State, exalting the military in every respect not just as a “compassionate” and “egalitarian” welfare state, but as the socialist model to organize the entirety of American society:
So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.
Hoo-ah!
Or as the fascist Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini stated:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
—Speech to Chamber of Deputies (9 December 1928)Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State.
—”The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932)
Tags: American History, Books, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Corporatism, Culture, Defense, Employment, Fascism, Government subsidies, Healthcare, Imperialism, Iraq, Labor, Liberalism, Liberty, Mercantilism, Middle East, Military, Morality, Nationalization, Peace, Power, Socialism, Terrorism, The State, War, Welfare 
It is a tale, told by an ......, Signifying ..
ralph | Jun 19, 2011 | Reply
Right, the military model allows service members to retire after 20 years of service (maybe 42 years old) on half salary with benefits collected IMMEDIATELY.
Many of the retired officers drawing those pensions then go on to work as DoD contractors making 100 Grand a year supporting program offices they just retired from. 100 large for PowerPoint engineering. Must be nice.
Another side benefit is gaming the system to claim that the aches and pains of getting older are “service related”, so toss in a disability bump to the retirement package.
And don’t forget the great medical benefits for life. Anybody else retiring (or getting fired) from a job is faced with a huge COBRA bill or no insurance accessibility at all. Retired military? Fat and happy with military Tri-Care and the VA system.
While we’re at it, toss in the domestic PX system that allows military retirees living fat and happy access to heavily discounted consumer goods.
And OBTW, that retired military ID scores big on hotel discounts and other vacation niceties. The ol’ “Government Rate” even though retired military are separated from the government.
I’m with Kristof, I want some of that...
SteveM | Jun 19, 2011 | Reply
“The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation.”
No, that was Harry Truman’s doing. The military had to be dragged kicking and screaming to desegregate.
As for endorsements of the social benefits of the army, one might add Hitler in Mein Kampf:
“In the Army a corporation director was no more important than a dog barber.”
John Moser | Jun 20, 2011 | Reply
Great article in that it ties in with the “military socialism” and “national socialism” touted by Edward Bellamy and his cousin Francis Bellamy, author of the “Pledge of Allegiance” (1892), the origin of the Nazi salute used later by the National Socialist German Workers Party. The USA, via the Bellamys, influenced German National Socialism, its dogma, symbols and rituals. See the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of Pledge of Allegiance Secrets). The USA already has military socialism, and the Bellamy scheme was imposed to a large degree. Many people want to expand it even more.
Tiffany Bell | Jun 20, 2011 | Reply
I read the entire piece in yesterday’s K.C. Star. Kristoff conveniently sidestepped some very important facts about miitary life (I write as someone who served 8 1/2 years on active duty in the Air Force).
1. You have no input on what career you want to pursue. The military tells you what you will be doing, based on their assessment of your skills. Your desires have nothing to do with it.
2. You have no input on where you will be assigned. They send you where they want you or think they “need” you. I tried to change things a couple of times and was told I did could choose – accept the assignment or go to jail.
I could have made a career of it, but decided in the end the life of a free man was more important than exchanging my freedom for room, board, and medical care.
Phil Dillon | Jun 20, 2011 | Reply
And the money to support all this comes from where? You got it – someone else, the taxpayer.
Kris S. | Jun 20, 2011 | Reply
Ah, yes, their fabulous “child care:” when both mommy and daddy are in the military, both can and frequently are deployed overseas, with little or no bother with who will “care” for the “child” left behind. This country is littered with tiny victims of the trauma of parents “serving” in the military.
Mary Theroux | Jun 20, 2011 | Reply
@ Phil Dillon: I was also regular Air Force for eight years but then returned to finish off a twenty-year career, so I have to disagree with you on a couple of things. It was a carefree life. I was owned by the government but then you are pretty much owned everywhere you go. The aptitude tests you take are pretty accurate and you do have an input on the career fields you qualify for. You also have input, at the least, on East or West Coast. After that you game the system just like you would in civilian life. I got everything I wanted. Freedom? Wake up pal. America is not a democracy and you’re not really free but live under a debt-based system under a ruling financial oligarchy.
Carax | Jun 20, 2011 | Reply
“The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees.”
This is beyond satire. I hope this retard is put to work on a few burn pits.
And as for camaraderie, I hear the Waffen SS were pretty much unequaled. And they were not state military but a party organization! Maybe some lesson can be learned, hmmm?
El Tonno | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
I have lived in a town near a military base – it so weird that the retired guys go to the base barber shop, still get their groceries at the commissary, and even take their pets to the base vetenarian and yet the town always votes strictly Republican. The retired military love socialism – except for anyone else.
richard vajs | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
Only 1% of the US population was or is in the military.Only 1% have taken the choice to be a military person for a short time or for a career.The other 99% are free to run their lives how they see fit including career choice , family, transportation, living area etc etc.To compare the two is absurd but if you want to compare than might as well compare the budgets eh?It takes alot of money to run that huge organization and i highly doubt you could pay for that on a large scale!
Lemon | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
Just as militarism = socialism, so ANTI-militarism = ANTI-socialism.
Barry Loberfeld | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
So Kristof’s position is everybody who is unemployed or unsatisfied with their health coverage should just join the army and all would be fine. Hmmm, perhaps those who don’t meet the Pentagon’s physical requirements could work for the Post Office. Oh wait, they’re bankrupt too. Just who is gonna pay for all these new additions to the government dole?
As Bastiat wrote: “The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
Tim | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
O...M...G! It’s clear that Kristof has never worn the uniform!
solly | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
if the military does such a good job of training and educating personnel, why is the education not applicable to civilian jobs after military service?
Kristoff apparently is enamored with the failed soviet system of military primacy. it didn’t work then, and won’t work now.
Kristoff is also touting the Voodoo of a country of wonks working in a top down system and really really loving the fuzzy good fun of wonkism.
The man is clearly of his head, and is backing a system antithetical to the founders’ vision. A nation of unquestioning wonks – like the slaves of yore – who love dancing for massa, don’t want freedom because they’re too child-like to make a go of it, isn’t the stuff that leads to independence of thought or action or personal autonomy.
lawrece fitton | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
I thank the author and several comment writers here for making thoughtful comparisons between modern liberals/socialists and the fascists of the early 20th century. Reading Kristof’s material, I kept imagining that I was living in fascist Italy or Germany, where similar rhetoric must have been employed to promote the increasing militarism of those societies.
It CAN happen here, and even though we caution people against choking off debate by calling each other “Nazis,” we must nevertheless be able to draw fair comparisons between those old fascists and their genuine ideological heirs. If we don’t allow ourselves to recognize the enemy and see him coming, we may find it impossible to avoid being defeated by him. I paraphrase an old saying: If it steps like a goose...
James Anderson Merritt | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
All males in my family have served in the military; its an unwritten rule. At family gatherings we discuss military culture and why most of us have chosen to become civilians after serving a hitch or two. The consensus we reached is based upon two observations: 1. There is an inverse correlation between rank and IQ. 2. There is an inverse correlation between rank and testosterone levels. In other words, the higher the rank the lower the IQ and the higher the rank the smaller the testicles. Real men, with brains and testicles don’t want to be subordinate to limp-d*** morons.
Drake | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
Yes, but remember: you MUST support the troops!
Alonso Schneeweiss | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
I think Kristoff’s purpose here is not to seriously suggest that the private sector model itself after the military, but to endear ‘progressives’ to the military, now that a ‘progressive’ president is waging 5 or 6 wars (upped from Bushs’ 2) at once.
Lloyd | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
Here we have the intellectual class providing cover for endless war.
Destroy Things and Kill People | Jun 21, 2011 | Reply
Read your reply about the “military as a model for socialism articles”.
You say B.S. because the individual has no freedom of choices in the military. That’s true, but the key word is “socialism” which is a system very unlike the regular liberties and free-choice of non military citizenry. Socialism s**** because choice is limited. Russia s**** because it is socialist/s***-choices. Obama-care is socialism-esque because it eradicates your free choice when -You have to pay in, and what you get is c*****. So, all in all, “keywords” just saying.
friedrich | Jun 22, 2011 | Reply
Carax
I must have served in a different military.
There was a huge gap between what they believed I was good at (aptitude) and my desires.
And, unlike you, I wasn’t good at gaming the system. I never have been.
Phil Dillon | Jun 22, 2011 | Reply
Hah! This is absolutely wonderful, the fact that Kristof is actually admitting this that is. I wonder how many of those “anti-war” or “anti-militarist” “progressives” will deal with this.
M.R. Orlowski | Jun 22, 2011 | Reply
Let us then run the economy like the military.
I will be one of the Generals. Mr. Kristoff will be a Private. I will feed and board him in the manner which I prefer, and decide how much he gets paid.
I will also require him to kill anyone I dislike. He can write about it in his spare time, although publishing it will be my prerogative, as is his comportment, physical fitness and private relationships.
You might respond that that is not the life Mr. Kristoff implied when really, of course it is.
Jim | Jun 23, 2011 | Reply
The military is the prime example of a planned society. It knows how much money it will get, plus or minus a very small percentage, next year (it has been in negotiations with Congress on that for over a year and is currently working on the next story it will present Congress come the first Monday in February). It knows the prices of everything, or at least it thinks it does. Whatever it decides to buy, it tells the seller how much it will pay, and the seller has to agree or go someplace else. Granted, because of its amazingly imperfect knowledge sellers line up to be so lucky as to count the military as their customer. And there are a set of rules that you must follow. No exceptions. Well, no exceptions unless you’re considered to be an exception. Wink wink. You know who you are... you were in the right place at the right time, associated yourself with the right flag or general officer, or rising star who was obviously going to be a flag or general officer.
I could go on, but Mises and Hayek already wrote enough on this. Sure, let’s plan our society... that’s going to work just fine. Geez!
Eric | Jun 24, 2011 | Reply
The problems with military service is that you may be called upon to participate in a war, police action, kinetic military action, etc. and not everyone gets to be a general. And, privates who get killed get “honored” but do not receive the perks of their service. You might want to rethink that. If not, please join the Army.
Greg Webb | Jun 24, 2011 | Reply
Is this article a serious argument for structuring a society about the US military model? If it is, the author’s a moron. The US military and its $44.00 dollar a week day care is subsidized by everyone else not in the military, and of course you are not compelled to join and you are free to leave (most do) when you have fulfilled your contract. Does Kristoff have any views on liberty? I know I do.
Grabt | Jun 24, 2011 | Reply
You are incorrect in stating these things. I don’t know about the air force, but you don’t seem to know about the army. The army allows one not only to choose the specific job on which they will be trained but also allows them to have input on where they will serve.
Perhaps your lack of choice in these things is a trade-off for the relative lack of hardship faced by the average airman as compared to the other services.
Jeffrey McAnarney | Jul 2, 2011 | Reply
Jeffrey, You are indeed correct that the Army allows recruits to have say in “the specific job on which they will be trained but also allows them to have input on where they will serve.” But this is quite different from the private sector in which a potential or current employee is not only also given such options, but quite frankly far more lenient ones as opposed to the socialist organization of military bureaucracies.
However, the real and deeply disturbing difference is that if a private employee does not like an assignment, he/she can quit and go elsewhere. In the military, if you were to do so, you would be court-martialed and sent to prison, and if you try to resist and escape, lethal force will be used. The military is a form of involuntary servitude (slavery) once you enter it, which could not exist legally in the private sector.
David Theroux | Jul 2, 2011 | Reply