Checkpoint: Modern Military Implies Modern Government
guvendemir
The debate over whether government best operates with expansion or within definite bounds endured far before the vitriolic punditry witnessed on the daily news. The Founding Fathers and their interlocutors entrenched the debate between two factions: Federalists were those in favor of ratifying the Constitution, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, while the Anti-Federalists, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, believed the Constitution would infringe upon state liberties. Despite these disagreements, the Founding Fathers always remained wary of pervasive government and the potential tyranny that loomed with it. Such wariness prompted James Madison in Federalist No. 45 to declare that “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” The inherent fear associated with the expansion of government, however, has shifted full circle.
Government efficiency is only hindered by the perpetuation of this debate. Modern events have shown that in times of crisis, the absence of substantial federal response acts as a detriment to the general welfare, and people suffer as a result. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the need for a robust departmental structure capable of adequately responding to the needs of its constituents. Nevertheless, the issue of government expansion remains one of the most partisan debates in the country. Republicans wield ideological deregulation and conservative values; however, federal authority and capability have burgeoned far beyond the founding conceptions of government. Proof of this fact exists in the vehement public support for expansive federal institutions like the military. We should abandon the partisan oppositional framing of the debate and instead determine how a large enough government to respond to such issues can do so accordingly with maximum efficiency.
Founders on Military
The breadth of America’s military-industrial complex stands in direct opposition to the nation’s founding ideals. We today maintain a standing army, navy, national guard, coast guard, air force, space force, reserve force, and several other forces. This abundance of armed service contributes to our “overgrown military establishments,” which George Washington warned, “under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty.” James Madison stated in 1787 at Federal Convention debates that “the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies.” Alexander Hamilton concurred in Federalist No. 8, affirming that “perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil.”
Apprehensions pervade not only writings by the Founding Fathers but even our nation’s most important document. Article 1 outlines the powers of Congress, and Section 8 includes distinctions between Congress’s abilities “to raise and support Armies” and “to provide and maintain a Navy.” Naval forces are naturally positioned off-shore and away from homeland soil; however, the Founders clarified that to “raise” an army is not to “maintain.” They feared the maintained presence of homeland armies would predispose an oppressive praetorian political force, and would thus degrade the conditions of the citizen. The Constitution states the requirement that government “provide for the common defense.” The word “defense” implies the Founders viewed the military as a reactionary force- standing sentinel against potential invasion, rather than a proactive force which was revealed by 2019 Smithsonian/Brown University research to be operating in 40% of the countries on Earth.
Modern Interests
In addition to provisions for the common defense, the Preamble prioritizes “domestic tranquility” and the promotion of “the general welfare.” General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in a 2020 speech that members of the military “take an oath to the Constitution,” and “will protect and defend that document regardless of personal price.” Therefore, it must be inferred that when the military allocates more than $81 billion per year toward protecting global oil supplies, it does so to promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility. The proactivity of our federal armed forces leads to the conclusion that other similarly proactive federal services are needed for the government to thoroughly complete its responsibilities to the people.
Against Deregulation
Further, the Republican party does not wield deregulation as an ideology, but in service of unethical partisan tactics. Representative John Ragan of Tennessee’s thirty-third district, for example, states on his campaign website that he “advocates for a smaller government that works for us and with us… lead actions to dissolve more than 15 unnecessary state departments and agencies.” Ragan, however, contradicts conservative ideals with his proposal of legislation to the Tennessee General Assembly restricting school funding based on critical race theory. This initiative serves larger conservative political interests but contradicts deregulation by forcing regulatory legislation upon schools and curriculums. Such policies invalidate conservatives’ ideology and allow us to conclude that small government is nothing more than a useful talking point for the Republican party. Such action concedes that limited government is only effective insofar as it serves traditional interests.
These conservative contradictions reaffirm the need for a robust government that promotes the general welfare as an ethical necessity of modern-day legislation; government cannot ensure domestic tranquility without expanding the means available to it. Many across the political spectrum approve of the proactive use of our military to uphold our standard of living. We therefore must trust other federal systems to do the same. Evidence for this failure can be found in our failed initial COVID-19 response.
Crisis Response
During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, the Trump administration elected to decentralize authority and allowed the states to coordinate individual responses to the pandemic, while inadequate federal funding in public health led to inconsistent nationwide responses still impairing recovery. Many were left forlorn until federal stimulus initiatives such as the CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan, and accompanying moratoriums on eviction bolstered the American people. A 2020 Morning Consult/Politico poll stated that, at the time, 75% of Americans opposed cutting unemployment benefits while White House and Congressional Republicans continued to dismiss second rounds of COVID-relief funding as wasteful government spending. The pandemic has clarified that a deregulated and underfunded government produces inefficient responses to modern challenges. The absence of effective government funding, messaging, and proactive response prompted avoidable death, rendering notions of small government increasingly unethical.
Conclusion
In the wake of unfettered conservatism, we would face similar difficulties throughout society: The Department of Agriculture could not regulate forest or farm services, The Department of Energy would be unable to operate its laboratories, The Treasury Department would be unable to regulate fiscal matters, nor could any department functionally operate. If the government is going to carry out its responsibilities to the people, it should be obligated to execute as efficiently as possible, and robust systems to promote the general welfare are necessary to do so. Events like climate change and the outbreak of COVID-19 have revealed the dire need for expansive productive government, but it must be approached with the same proactivity and efficiency with which the military executes its mission and holds itself to account. This level of efficacy and competence will be a requirement if the government is to resolve the ethical issues it faces today and uphold its Constitutional duty to the American people.