Exposing Right-Wing Treason
Debunking Conservative Lies About the Military
The recent nomination of Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and former Army National Guard officer, for the position of Secretary of Defense by President-elect Donald Trump has reignited discussions about the relationship between conservative policies and the military.
This nomination, fraught with controversy, serves as a timely case study to examine the broader historical context of conservative approaches to military affairs and veteran support.
This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of this complex relationship, challenging common misconceptions and offering a nuanced perspective on the interplay between political ideologies and military policies.
Pete Hegseth's Nomination: A Microcosm of Conservative Military Policy
Pete Hegseth's nomination for Secretary of Defense exemplifies many of the tensions and contradictions in conservative military policy.
Hegseth, known for his conservative views and support for Trump's "America First" policies, faces significant challenges in his confirmation process.
These challenges stem from several factors:
Allegations of Misconduct: Hegseth faces accusations of sexual misconduct and financial mismanagement during his tenure at veterans' organizations. These allegations have raised concerns about his character and judgment, crucial qualities for the leader of the Department of Defense.
Lack of Senior Military Experience: Critics argue that Hegseth's background as a television host and his military service as an Army National Guard officer does not provide the high-level experience typically expected for the Secretary of Defense role.
Controversial Views: Hegseth's stance against diversity and inclusion initiatives in the military has drawn criticism, particularly in light of ongoing efforts to create a more inclusive military environment.
This nomination controversy serves as a starting point to examine the broader historical context of conservative policies affecting the military and veterans.
New! Paid subscribers get monthly Audio/Video Books starting in January along with the weekly eBooks they already enjoy.
Historical Context: Conservative Policies and the Military
The relationship between conservative policies and military affairs has been complex and often contradictory throughout American history.
Several key historical events illustrate this complexity:
Revolutionary War Era
During the American Revolution, General George Washington faced significant challenges in securing resources for his troops.
Conservative politicians, advocating for "states' rights," often overruled Washington's pleas for clothing, food, and equipment.
This resulted in the deaths of over 2,500 troops due to disease, exposure, and starvation during the winter of 1777-1778 at Valley Forge. This early example highlights a recurring theme of tension between military needs and conservative political ideologies.
World War I and the Interwar Period
The aftermath of World War I saw continued conflicts between conservative policies and veteran support.
Republican presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge attempted to block the Veterans Bonus Bill, which promised cash benefits to WWI veterans.
This resistance to veteran support culminated in the Bonus Army incident of 1932, where Republican President Herbert Hoover ordered the violent dispersal of protesting veterans, resulting in injuries and deaths.
General Douglas MacArthur, the then-Army Chief of Staff, led an infantry and cavalry assault with fixed bayonets and the support of six tanks.
Hundreds of veterans and family members were injured, two veterans were killed, and more than one thousand people were gassed — including ambulance workers, police, reporters, and local residents. Two infants at the camp also died as a result of the gas.
Notably, a year later, when confronted with a similar demonstration, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt sent his wife Eleanor to greet them with coffee and cake, even joining the vets in a sing-along.
“Hoover sent the Army; Roosevelt sent his wife,” said one vet.
Post-World War II Era
The pattern of conservative resistance to veteran benefits continued after World War II.
In 1959, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower rejected a proposed extension of the G.I. Bill for veterans based on the recommendation of a commission he appointed to study the issue.
That panel concluded that in times of war, military service “is an obligation of citizenship and should not be considered inherently a basis of future Government benefits.”
This stance contrasted sharply with the popular G.I. Bill of Rights, signed by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944, which provided unprecedented educational and housing benefits to veterans.
Vietnam War and Beyond
The Vietnam War era saw further complications in the conservative approach to military affairs.
Republican President Richard Nixon's secret communications with North Vietnam, aimed at prolonging the war for political gain, resulted in thousands of additional American and Vietnamese casualties.
Subsequent Republican administrations faced their own military challenges, from the ill-fated intervention in Lebanon under Ronald Reagan to the controversial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under George W. Bush.
Comparing Conservative and Democratic Military Policies
While conservative policies have often been characterized by resistance to veteran benefits and questionable military engagements, Democratic administrations have generally pursued a different approach:
Veteran Support Legislation: Democratic administrations have been responsible for significant veteran support legislation, including the G.I. Bill of Rights (1944), the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act (1966), and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (2010).
Military Spending: Contrary to popular belief, military spending has steadily increased under Democratic administrations since 1997. This challenges the notion of "massive defense cuts" often attributed to Democratic policies.
Military Engagements: While both parties have engaged in military conflicts, Democratic administrations have generally shown more restraint and emphasis on international cooperation in their approach to military interventions.
Current Conservative Military Policies and Their Impact
The Hegseth nomination highlights several current conservative policy priorities that could significantly impact the military:
Diversity and Inclusion: Hegseth's opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the military reflects a broader conservative push against such programs.
LGBTQ+ Rights: Conservative policies have sought to restrict transgender individuals' service and healthcare access in the military, reversing previous inclusive policies.
Abortion Policy: Recent conservative policies have impacted military promotions and healthcare access related to reproductive rights.
The Future of U.S. Military Policy
As the Hegseth nomination controversy unfolds, it raises crucial questions about the future direction of U.S. military policy:
Leadership Qualifications: The debate surrounding Hegseth's qualifications highlights the ongoing discussion about the necessary experience and character for top military leadership positions.
Balancing Tradition and Progress: The military must maintain its traditions while adapting to changing societal norms and expectations.
Political Influence: The nomination process underscores the significant impact of political appointments on military policy and culture.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding Pete Hegseth's nomination for Secretary of Defense serves as a microcosm of the complex and often contradictory relationship between conservative policies and the military.
Throughout American history, this relationship has been characterized by tensions between ideological positions and practical military needs.
As the nation continues to grapple with these issues, it is crucial for citizens to engage in informed discourse about military policies, veteran support, and the qualifications necessary for military leadership.
By critically examining this history, we can better understand the nuances of military policy and work towards a future in which support for our armed forces transcends political divides.
The ongoing debate surrounding Hegseth's nomination provides an opportunity for renewed public engagement with these vital issues, potentially shaping the future of U.S. military policy for years to come.
Enjoying the insights?
Help keep the content flowing—subscribe for free or become a paid supporter of independent journalism and receive exclusive weekly eBooks and monthly Audio/Video Books!