Chance Litton

I am troubled.  I have been a member of the Campaign for Liberty for almost two years now.  During the 2008 presidential campaign I came across a little book called The Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul and had a transformational experience which you can read about here.  Since that time, I have continued to read and study the principles of American liberty as established by the nation’s founding fathers in that precious document, the Constitution of the United States of America.  I have contributed time and money to spreading the message of liberty.  I believe in individualism, free markets and non-interventionism.  And, I am an officer in the United States Navy.  I do not see a contradiction between the two.  However, some in the C4L obviously do.  Of late, I have seen several promoted articles that not only criticize our nation’s foreign and military policies (a firm plank in our platform), but go on to personally and vindictively defame the members of the armed forces with offensive and divisive labels such as coward, murderer, fascist, incompetent and dishonorable.  You can read examples of such emotional venting here and here.  Of course, our movement, anti-establishment as it is, attracts its fair share of “fringe” elements, and I would be content to attribute these vitriolic rants to a vocal minority except that they are often promoted by established leaders such as Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.  I respect the opinions of these men and I am troubled that they have such a low opinion of me.  That being said, I will briefly defend my chosen profession to them, and then, more importantly, I will attempt to convince them that endorsing these divisive opinions are destructive to our cause.

The military profession has long been viewed as an honorable one, often regardless of cause. Even the military castes of ancient and feudal societies, who enforced the brutal and oppressive regimes of their time, were and continue to be respected for values of courage, loyalty, prowess and sacrifice.  George Washington himself served as a military officer under unapologetically imperialist British generals.  Today, provided our advanced understanding of human rights and liberty culminating from 1000 years of struggle, thought and experimentation, we insist that our military professionals also strive to be just.  The United States Congress, in an unusually wise move, tried to instill this value of justice by requiring all military officers to swear an oath not to a person or an institution, but to the law of the land - the Constitution.  I guarantee you that every young officer entering the service takes this oath to heart and few  would willfully violate it.  These are the young people in our society that still believe in words like honor and patriotism.  Unfortunately, just like the vast majority of our nation’s population, they are susceptible to the twisted logic and legal reinterpretations that have assaulted our Constitution over the last 100 years.

I am fairly certain that a C4L audience does not object to military service from a pacifist point of view.  I think most of us can agree that some things are worth fighting for - namely, to protect our homes, families and liberty.  However, many C4L members have expressed an opinion that a militia or reserve style military would be a safer way to defend the nation, thereby removing a tempting tool of imperial power from our leaders’ grasps.  While I recognize the value of this argument, the role of technology and technical expertise in modern warfare is unquestionably paramount, and a standing military to maintain such capacity is, in my opinion, necessary for a nation that hopes to remain free.  For example, a fleet of modern submarines capable of defending sea lanes and attacking invading fleets could not be built and manned upon the emergence of a threat without first maintaining the industrial capacity and professional knowledge base to do so.

Based on the emotionally charged rhetoric of the anti-military crowd, I do not expect to change their opinion of my profession.  Likewise, I have invested the last decade of my life in developing the skills necessary to command a submarine at sea and I am not likely to sacrifice that opportunity or the economic well-being of my family unless I am asked to do something I specifically deem antithetical to my principles.  So, rather than debate the merits of military service, I would ask C4L members to ask whether a campaign to discredit said service is in the interest of our movement.  I see two dangers incurred by endorsing these offensive rants.

First, like all emotionally charged and divisive rhetoric, you are excluding large portions of the population from accepting our ideas.  In the link at the beginning of this article, Stephen Greenhut finds the intensely negative reactions of Republicans on RedCounty.com to his provocative statements “funny.”  I find them sad.  Here is a group of people of whom at least some would probably be susceptible to our true conservative philosophy and have now been goaded into permanently associating the names libertarian and Ron Paul with values that they simply cannot accept.  What was the purpose here?  Mr. Greenhut’s amusement?  People who have lost friends or family in a warzone are largely unable to accept that their loved ones were cowards, murderers and warmongers.  People in the military, again a group of people highly inclined to accept constitutionalism, free market ideals and the philosophy of individual liberty, will find it very difficult to listen to people who introduce themselves with personal attacks.  Americans at large are not likely to suddenly strip off their yellow ribbon car magnets and find defamation of their sons and daughters in military service acceptable.  If the Campaign for Liberty is meant to be a forum for angry people to gain emotional succor by venting their feelings and relishing in their anti-establishment isolation, then I must reconsider my membership.  If instead, we hope to change the shameful face of modern American politics, rebuild faith in the Constitution and return our government to the limited scope its founders envisioned we should stick to the message.   And that message has been defined for us by Dr. Paul.  In his manifesto, he has distilled libertarian values into a unifying message that will resonate with most Americans.  For members that hold dear additional causes and grievances, Dr. Paul addressed that as well.  If we can bring about constitutional reform the other problems will solve themselves.  Non-interventionism and reduced operating budgets would bring our military back home and return it to the duties of guarding our shores vice patrolling a global empire.

Secondly, I must ask if you have considered the consequences of alienating the liberty movement from the military?  If you discourage young men and women of principle from joining the service and convince those who have already done so to get out, who remains?  Statists, imperialists and careerists is your answer.  Last year I was a student in a course on joint staff work.  Officers of all the branches sat around a table, learned about joint capabilities and how to work in a staff, and discussed all manner of issues relating to our profession.  The capstone project was to plan, as a commander’s staff, a military response to a regional crisis.  The instructor briefed us on the fictional scenario.  A small island nation was overthrown in a military coup and was invading its democratic neighbor.  The US was going to fulfill its role of world policeman and set things “right.”  When he asked if anyone had any questions, I asked, “When did Congress declare war?” which was met with puzzled faces.  “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and that document gives the authority to invade other countries to the Congress.  When did we declare war?”  For the rest of the hour we debated and discussed the legal merits of the War Powers Act and our responsibilities as military officers.  By the end of class, several students were in agreement with me and most were considering questions they had never had occasion to ask themselves.  One joined the C4L a few days later.  One day, one of those men or women might have stars on their shoulders and demand answers to those questions at a much higher level.  Would you like to recruit these people to our cause by appealing to their reason and natural patriotism, or would you rather salve your anger by calling them cowards and fascists and surrender the most heavily armed sector of our society to the statists?

So the questions I pose for feedback from C4L members are:

Is there room for military professionals in the Campaign for Liberty and Libertarian movement?

Do you agree that it is destructive for our informal leaders to endorse off-message opinions that seek to alienate whole sectors of the population?