Warfare State Debate

We'll be fighting in the streets with our children at our feet
And the morals that we worshipped will be gone
And the men who spurred us on sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
--The Who

Yesterday on his radio show, Glenn Beck ripped Ron Paul's performance during the preceding night's presidential candidate debate. He labeled Paul the 'biggest loser' of the debate.

While Beck agrees with Ron Paul's stance on the economy, welfare, and personal responsibility, he is at odds w/ RP on foreign policy, claiming that Paul is 'totally wrong' on his minimalist stance wrt the military.

Ron Paul is Constitutionally driven, meaning that he is a proponent of limited government. He has long sounded the warning that we are fighting illegal wars, and that our expansionist military strategy not only empties our coffers but increases animosity against the US. When RP suggests that our occupationist approach has likely been a factor in Middle East opposition to all things US, and perhaps helped motivate the 9/11 attacks, Conservative militarists go wild. Beck joined them yesterday.

I was surprised to learn how strong that militarist streak was in Glenn Beck. Surprised because it demonstrates inconsistency of thought that I had not previously observed in GB. GB evokes the Constitution constantly in opposition to govt sponsored social programs, the Federal Reserve, and other spending programs.

But he fails to realize that the same usurpation of freedom that comes from domestic welfare programs is also in play with foreign warfare programs. Supporting a far flung military reduces freedom because it requires people to give up economic resources under force. Civil liberties are also compromised in the name of safety and security. Moreover, a large standing army looms as a potential a domestic threat to freedom--as the founders well knew and as was operationalized during the Civil War.

A few questions for Conservatives who claim allegiance to the Constitution but support our approach to the military:

1) Where in the Constitution is the justification for our expansive military programs? If you offer 'to provide for the common defence' then this is similar to the Liberal argument for social programs in the name of 'general welfare.' If that is the Constitutional justification, then what is the limit to government's power along these lines?

2) Let's say that China buys some land from Mexico and Canada for military bases to 'protect its North American interests.' What's wrong with that? Or let's say that an individual who is accused of mass murder in China is thought to be hiding somewhere in the US. China wants to bring its military forces into the US to bring that that person to justice. Do you find that acceptable?

3) Is it right to step on the sovereignty and liberty of citizens of other countries in order to 'protect our freedom' in the US? Do only citizens of the US have the right to freedom or is it a self-evident natural right of all people?

Proponents of a strong military security face the same problem as proponents of strong social security. Neither is Constitutionally grounded. Both are ideologically inconsistent. Both stances compromise liberty.

Glenn Beck fails to realize or acknowledge that Ron Paul is that only presidential candidate, and perhaps the only politician in DC, who remains ideologically consistent and true on the principle of liberty.