One of Reagans ideas seem to me to be very close to Social Darwinism and another not that man’s resourcefulness would get us through the future, but our infinite physical resouces. I not speaking of when he was running for president; I had seen him in an interview with David Frost shortly after he lost his first bid.

I’ll just say it, I thought his streotypes were just racist buzz words.

Aside from that, which ideas of Reagan’s were from the 19th century? Most of his ideas on economics were from the 18th century, ideas which, it turns out, were correct and the ideas of the 19th and early 20th centuries were incorrect (i.e. Marx, Engels, Keynes and a slew of others). Reagan actually used the military far less than any other 20th century president, except that he used it in the best way possible, to deter actual conflict. The interesting thing about the stereotypes that people decry is that they fit a significant portion of the group they are applied to, that’s why they’re stereotypes. Interestingly, many of his comments and quotes were taken out of context by the media without the benefit of alternatives like talk radio and blogs to set the record straight, yet he was able to overcome the handicap. Something that Bush 43 never could have done, for example, or Clinton either (to choose from the other side of the aisle).

But, more importantly than all of that, Reagan’s primary meme, that individual liberty should trump collectivism and big government paternalism, won the day. Now we debate whether government should be allowed to do something, before Reagan we debated whether individuals should be allowed to do something. Failing to recognize this immense change wrought primarily by Ronald Wilson Reagan in the American political landscape is the worst of the many unfair things done to the man.

Mike, it’s not just training a bunch of conscripts, it is the inevitable destruction of the quality of the Army. It is the outcome that slave labor will bring that I oppose. I would never have chosen to be a sergeant in a conscript Army and be little more than an overseer of indentured servants.

Anyway, the distinction I drew really has nothing to do with the actual effects of conscription on a military. Eric’s 100% right when he says that the Sergeants would be the ones who had to deal with training a glut of conscripts.

In fact, NCOs are the backbone of any good army. But that’s a post for a different day.

As far as Reagan goes, my wife, my mother-in-law, my mother and my step-mother are huge fans of Reagan and really don’t like either Bush. More to the point, all of them detested Carter. I don’t think it’s a style issue, but usually when someone says it’s a “style” thing, it means that ideas won that they didn’t necessarily like. So, I’m going by the evidence I have, which is that it’s not just men that loved Reagan. That said, you made my point, thanks. Carter had the pedigree, Reagan had the ideas. Reagan won, Carter lost.

Finally, while I don’t find your comment sexist (obviously some people will appeal more to one gender than the other), it does feel like an attempt to lessen Reagan in many ways. The truth is that without him being there, we would have had the wrong man in the right place and the malaise, stagflation, and big government of the 70′s would have continued.

Last, but certainly not least, conscription is simply an awful thing to do to someone, a bare step above slavery. It’s one of the absolute worst things that you can do to a human. We fought a war with Britain in 1812, in part, because they were conscripting our citizens.

Eric,
Since those who are be fit to serve, are fewer in our society. Why should society go to hell just because of them?

Reagan was in the right place at the right time. I am going to be sexist here, I think men just loved Reagan’s style.

I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but every member of the military swears an oath, first and foremost, to the Constitution of the United States. Yes, they also, as part of that oath, swear to obey the lawful orders of their superiors, but their highest calling is to support and defend the Constitution. It might not sound like much, but most members of the military take that oath quite seriously.

Something else to consider is that while the U.S. has had conscription off and on from the Civil War until the end of Vietnam, the military’s officer corps has been, at the higher levels at least, completely professional since the Civil War until now. During that time, there’s only been one instance real instance where civilian control of the military was in jeopardy: the MacArthur-Truman showdown in 1951.

In approximately 150 years of a professional officer corps, we’ve only had one instance where civilian control of the military was threatened, and it was dealt with very quickly and very appropriately by the civilian government, without an outcry from the military.

The fact that soldiers receive benefits for service does not make them mercenaries, anymore than mercenaries loyal to their payor are soldiers. I don’t find those terms particularly good or bad, in and of themselves. I look at how they are used, though, and go with that. I’m one of the few people commenting on this thread who can criticize Murtha and Webb based on your perspective. I have “an impressive military record” too, so I guess that makes me an expert commentator.

I rather object to the idea, actually, that you can’t show someone’s ideas are wrong unless you have the appropriate pedigree. This is part of the “chickenhawk” argument made by the antiwar crowd, that only people who have served or lost children in the war or what have you can make moral judgments. Anyone with a well thought out position can, and should, criticize Murtha and Webb on military matters, regardless of military service. And I don’t think we get the last election because of that. We listen to good ideas, not pedigrees. Reagan (never served) and Carter (naval officer) are good examples of that. Carter had a political and military pedigree that far outweighed Reagan’s, but Reagan won the meme war. What brought about this election was that the GOP lost the war of ideas. That is the first time since 1980, actually, that the Democrats have been in the driver’s seat, idea wise. And they are pissing it away with no real ideas, just being the anti-GOP crowd.

I assume, when you say “our party”, you mean the one you belong to? I’m not a Republican. Haven’t been since about 1988, give or take. I will agree that the national leadership of the GOP is corrupt, though.

The loyalty inherent in military service is a little bit foreign to me, so I am not qualified to comment on it with any authority. But it is extraordinarily creepy to me, a person who admittedly doesn’t understand it.

I still think the nature of our military needs open debate, Identification of the concepts and repudiation of vicious rhetoric from both sides.

And until our party can fix the corruption within it, we don’t own the moral high ground.

Anyone who critisizes Webb or Murtha over military matters had better have a pretty darn impressive military record. Otherwise, we get the last election.

The loyalty inherent in military service is a little bit foreign to me so I am not necessarily qualified to comment on it with any authority but it is extraordinarily creepy to me, a person who admittedly doesn’t understand it.

I’ll admit, I exaggerated a bit. The actual figures are over 90% of the military has consistently attained at least a high school diploma, compared to 75% or so of the overall population of the country. The 98% figure came from specific data on the Air Force.