The leftists of the 60s and 70s openly hated the military. Every college football game I’ve attended for the past 2 years is honoring members of the military at every game, which they deserve. I and We have staunchly admired and honored our military for decades, so why has it reached a new level just recently? Future compliance training? Don’t be a hater. I’m just asking the question. Socialism in the USA must ultimately lead to Communism because there are too many freedom-loving individuals who will become violent once we run out of “other people’s money.” Let’s avoid this so it doesn’t get ugly.
I don’t think it’s about that. It’s about peer pressure. People put themselves into contests where they need to one up each other by saying something that is almost universally popular. You say you support the troops and lots of people cheer and wave flags.
The people that insulted military personal after the Vietnam War had some extremely severe blowback. The government forcefully drafted people, sent them overseas, then when they came home they were subsequently egged by anti-war protestors. Lots of heightened Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, depression, and suicide ensued, and the protestors that insulted the military personal were eventually despised for their conduct. The cultural reaction to this is that these days, when a person is in the military, they are treated with respect or are even venerated. As a race, we all have a tendency to overcompensate for past actions.
I’m not against individuals honoring the military. I’m just surprised by the highly choreographed and organized leftist entertainment media being behind the movement.
I think one main difference between the 60’s and now is that in the 60’s the anti-war movement made the mistake of directing their protests at the lowest level soldiers. Since then they have realized that was a mistake, both to their cause and to justice. Now those opposed to the military actions of today draw a distinction between the leaders who they see as responsible for the decisions and the followers who are to be honored for their service, even if it is for actions commanded by those leaders. It is not so surprising to me.
It is hard for this 24 year veteran to think today’s honoring of the US Military is any harbinger of a sinister plot to take away our Freedom.
I think America came to realize it was wrong to disrespect the common GI in its protest of the Vietnam War, especially when they saw the homeless Vets. So they are intent to never make that mistake again, I think.
THE best way to truly honor our Military is to live a life of Honor.
Tomorrow, November 19, is the 150th Anniversary of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Take time to look it up and read it slowly, like a prayer.
The scheduled key note speaker at Gettysburg tomorrow is the Secretary of the Interior.
I haven’t connected honoring the military with socialism. However, I agree we do seem to be moving in the direction of socialism, and that concerns me.
In fact, somewhere I was reading, maybe on the forum perhaps a time ago, someone who said she was from a formerly communist country said what President Obama was saying sounded an awful lot like how communism began where she was.
I was just looking online to see what exactly the difference was between socialism and communism. What I read at least on one website was that communism is an extreme form of socialism. I know at least with communism that it has shown itself to be very anti-religion.
I’ve watched movies on communism, and the films I watched, “7 Years in Tibet”, “China Cry”, “Romero”, “For the Greater Glory”…movies on Our Lady of Fatima echo this anti-religious sentiment over and over.
One can’t even be a good practicing Catholic and a communist. I don’t know if one can be a good practicing Catholic and be a socialist.
Have you wondered if increased honoring of the military
Sorry, but I’m wondering what increased honoring of the military you are talking about?
I guess I’ve missed, or I’m reading the wrong news stories. Increased honoring by whom?
By the government, Obama, or ordinary civilians?
It can mean that the politicians are getting the military to impliment foreign policy that is increasingly hard to justify to the voters back home. Its an appeal to a soldier’s sense of righteousness/duty over domestic popularity when popularity no longer motivates.
Of course for a Christian we must be “popular” with God.
Whether that aligns with temporal righteouness and honours is a completely different question.
I concur that the current pro-military culture is in part, a reaction to the shameful occurrences at the end of the Vietnam war.
Unlike Vietnam, due to such events as 9-11 and the marathon bombing, millennial America now understands psychologically that danger exists, and honors those who head out to meet it, whatever their opinion of official foreign policy may be.
I disagree that it has anything to do with socialism. Militarism is just as useful to fascists and monarchists as it is to socialists. But a proper honor to those who risk their neck in defense of the masses is not militarism.
This veteran also does not see anything sinister in honoring today’s military. When I was “in” we would have thought it unthinkable to take part in a coup that would have changed the political landscape and certainly not to socialist/communist. We knew that we were ruled by the civilian authorities and bound by the constitution and our oath to protect and defend same. Perhaps this honoring phenomenon is a sign that at some level the people of this country really recognize that we are on a war footing with radical Islam. Hyper-patriotism does happen during war-time. It is a common and healthy symptom.
I don’t get the logic.
There are socialist parties in European countries and they have absolutely nothing to do with communism.
I highly doubt that your hypothesis is correct. And I’m pretty sure we will never be communist. Don’t worry about things so much. You’re thinking too much.
And the devil smiles when we say there is no devil and there is no sin… live for today… don’t worry… JMO
It’s just that there are bigger things to worry about. Put your energy into issues that are more concrete. Or more specific. Wondering about possibilities just stresses you out, usually for no reason. I could worry about the country maybe becoming communist one day and miss out on time that could be spent praying for those who are actually in need right now, for example. I’m not criticizing, just giving my take on this.
The price of freedom is constant vigilance. It’s always good to ask these questions.
On the question of socialism and communism, I’ve always heard that a good Christian is a true socialist in practice–the early Church demonstrated sharing for the common good. But Socialism and Communism, as practiced in recent history by governments has been founded and lived in emptiness, craziness, and hypocrisy. It misses essential truths of allowing for God, and allowing for our humanity. A country which “honors” its militia without honoring its Creator is in great danger of worshipping the State.
An early American experiment with socialism
You’ve no doubt heard the well-known story of the first Thanksgiving in Plymouth, Massachusetts. But did you know that what you’ve heard is drastically inaccurate?
According to the writings of William Bradford, the colony’s first governor, the hardships and near-starvation of the entire population occurred because the colonists turned their backs on capitalism. They believed the old lie that an economy based on the concept of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” can actually work. They instituted a socialist system, and found out that socialism causes disaster:
The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
at college football games
Meh. That’s quite a delayed reaction to the Vietnam war. “Conspiracy theorists” would say that 9-11, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing have really helped gin up the authority of the government.
In some nations around the world in times past the military has represented a more socialist wing of the country. In others, it has been more right wing. In America, the military really does not have any socialistic tendencies. Just the opposite, I believe. The increased military presence is more a sign of increasing american nationalism and growth of government power, but not necessarily socialism.