[lit-ideas] Defense Welfare
- From: "Lawrence Helm"<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:18:24 +0000
Andreas accused me of being a recipient of welfare because I served in the
Marine Corps and worked in America' Defense Industry. There's no reason to
belabor the nonsensical nature of that view, but there is a sense in which
Defense Welfare exists. I am not the recipient of it, but our European allies
are:
"As for America's 'friends, there's another paradox of the non-imperial
hyperpower: the United State garrisons not remote ramshackle colonies but its
wealthiest allies, thereby freeing them to spend their tax revenues on
luxuriant welfare programs rather than on tanks and aircraft carriers and thus
further exacerbating the differences between America and the rest of the free
world. Like any other form of welfare, defense welfare is a hard habit to
break and damaging to the recipient. The peculiarly obnoxious character of
modern Europe is a logical consequence of America's willingness to absolve it
of responsibility for its own security. In 1796 George Washington wrote to
Alexander Hamilton: 'The nation which indulges towards another an habitual
hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to
its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest.'
"That neatly sums up the Euro-American relationship: the United States has
become a slave to its habitual if largely misplaced fondness for Europe, while
Europe has become a slave to its habitual if entirely irrational hatred for
America. There's a line conservatives are fond of when they're discussing
welfare: what's batter for a man -- to give him a fish or to teach him to fish
for himself? That goes double for defense welfare." [Steyn, p 159-60]
I don't know about that, Steyn. Do we really want to trust those wackos with
weapons again?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
