In “Bush’s Martyrs,” an article in the British magazine New Statesman, March 1, 2004 (http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1487), American political commentator Michael Lind asserts that John Kerry’s record as a Vietnam veteran might not actually make him more popular than Bush among the military:
Lind is one of my favorite political analysts, and I have seen him use this analysis of American regional subcultures several times, and I have never seen anyone contradict him on this point – but I have never seen anyone else make use of it either.
Is Lind placing too much importance on the living legacy of the pre-Revolutionary “hearthland cultures” of different American regions? Or is he right on the money? Are the South and Southwest more violent and militaristic than the rest of America? And if so . . . is there anything we can do about that?
Probibly, but the Army would become more southern and western anyways do to the fact that those regions have experienced much faster population growth in the last 30 years.
It does mean that the North is in for a serious ass-whooping, come the next Civil War. Ayup, ah bettah stahrt to work on mah southern accent…Where are my Foghorn Leghorn/Bug Bunny tapes?
They may win if they avoid North Dakota. We have Concealed Carry, a shitload of guns per capita (though lowest per capita murders, take that gun control nuts), 2 major Air Force Bases, the highest ranked aviation University in the world (UND) so we can get students to fly them if we have to take out the gov’t (southern) if needed, and most important even if the South were to get this far, we’d hang out in our vast land and wait for winter to drive them out. There is a reason that over a century ago we adopted an unofficial motto of “40 Below Keeps Out the Riff-Raff”.
Of course, keep in mind that outside the Twin Cities and Madison, the Upper Midwest and Plains states are gonna be a challenge.
I would say socio-economic status also has a large part to do with it. To the poor, the military probably offers one of the better chances to escape the cycle of poverty.
In my experience, this is definitely true. I live very close to Little Rock Airforce Base, and many of my good friends are either members or have family that are. To them, the military is considered less a civic duty than a good, steady paycheck with excellent benefits for families (especially considering the general lack of a job market).
But that’s just my experience in Arkansas. I’d be interested in seeing more cites on the matter.
The Economist had an article last year about the disparages between the number of Southerners and the number of Northerners in the Military. The conservative areas certainly have more people within the military… how much is cultural and how much is due to economic reasons is anyone’s guess… but both factors are strong reasons.
I think Lind’s analysis is dead on. The South is much more militaristic.
There are a few more factors at work that he missed, though:
The South has a disproportionate number of military bases. This is a legacy of the era when Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress, and Southern Senators tended to hold onto their seats forever (…and thus had seniority and leadership positions in the Senate and House).
The South was “frontier” much longer than the Northeast. In the South settlers faced the possibility of attack or raids by (understandably) hostile Indians right on up through the 1820’s. That meant that the “militia” in the South (which comprised all fighting-age men) was much more than theoretical. The militias were frequently called into action and were expected to be prepared for it. Not surprising, then, that a culture which values military valor thrived here. Recall that the South in general, and Tennessee in particular, produced droves of volunteers for Texas in its war for independence. That segued into the Mexican War under James K. Polk, when, again, the South produced droves of volunteers. The next generation saw the Civil War, and by this time, the Southern romanticization of military valor was etched in stone.
(As mentioned by ShalmanesePoverty in the South, especially the rural South, has played a factor in breeding a military culture. For generations, the military has been one of the few escape routes from poverty for those born in the rural or small-town South. That fact reinforced the pre-existing inclination towards militarism.
So yeah, both economic and cultural factors are at work.
That matches what I’ve seen in Indiana and New York. Another thing I’ve seen is that we are starting to get “military bloodlines” in this country–not just the old-fashioned “military families” that produce officers generation after generation, either. Instead, this seems to be starting to be the case for enlisted grades, as well. In general, it’s probably originally for economic reasons, but it can develop a distinct subculture that will then re-enforce for social reasons.
I shudder to think that we could end up with an equivalent to the Jannissaries–a military drawn from a distinct element of society, feeling no connection nor obligation to the country in general.
And I have to disagree with your reasons for the Militia giving way to “etched in stone military valor” thing.
The Northern Militias were far from Theoretical too…and the Notherners were just as prone to attack.
The reason the South is more “militaristic” is they are more communal.
You can always stop to talk to a southernor.
Northerners are in too much of a hurry, they start a job at some fast food resturant by the time they are 14, they don’t have time to join the Military.
The south? The work force is far less intense, the competition is far less involved, the emphasis on higher education is far less existant, indeed the need for higher education in the South is far less necessary.
These conditions are similar but less so in the West.
That is my theories on this, I think they are more valid than the Militia history of the South.
First, Janissaries were slave soldiers. We have no conscription. Nobody is forced to be a soldier, so the “Janissary” quote is out of its correct context & therefore meaningless. If you can’t quote history accurately, do not talk out of your lower intestinal opening, hmm? :rolleyes:
Secondly, as somebody living in the South, I can see a great deal more support here for the troops. Tennessee has its own State-funded Officiers Academy, & while it isn’t as famous as the Citade, we never considered cutting it from the budget during our recent fiscal crisis.
Huge [ol]
[li]It is not a new phenomina–been that way for around 175 years or so.[/li][li] Most societies draw their enlisted personnel from the poor. For most of America’s existance, this has been true of us, too. So what?[/li][li]“Supporting the troops” does not necessarily mean “mindless support of foreign adventurism”. The locals think for themselves, & if a particular campaign seems witless to them, they say so.[/li][/ol]
The era that began with the New Deal and probably ended with the retirement of Sam Nunn (Senator from Georgia and chairman of the Armed Services Committee).
In the Midwest, perhaps, but not the Northeast. (And if you look at Lind’s article, he is comparing the South with the Northeast).
When was the last time a Northeastern militia (in the original sense of the word)was called into service? Be specific. My guess would be the War of 1812, if then.
(For that matter, when was a Midwestern militia called into service? I honestly don’t know the answer to this, but I am curious.)
Pre Civil War (because I’m assuming you’re not counting those callups), probably the Black Hawk War of 1832, where the Sauk and Fox Indians tried to reclaim land in Illinois and Wisconsin. The Illinois millitia was called up to put him down. There might have been later militia actions, but that’s the latest I can think of off the top of my head.
But I think part of the reason that the Southern militias tended to be better trained and prepared wasn’t because of Indian activity (although that was certainly a factor on the Southern frontier), but because of fears of slave revolt. So, South Carolina in 1860 had a fairly good militia, for example, even though they didn’t really have to worry about indian attack.
It occurs to me that there are parallels between the militaristic South and militant Islam. In both cases there’s a sense of resentment at having been surpassed by a region that is perceived to be wealthier and more culturally sophistiated, yet decadent. So they immerse themselves in a regimented, traditional lifestyle to challenge themselves, associate with past glory, and serve a “higher calling” in order to reclaim a sense of moral superiority.
You’ll also find some remarkable parallels between the post-Civil War South and post-WWI Germany.
I think you hit it right on the head by questioning if Lind were placing too much importance on the legacy of the prerevolutionary “hearthland cultures”. Where did the “Scots-Irish hillbillies” come from after all? They came from the North and they weren’t just Ulster Scots but also Catholic Irish, Germans, regular Scots ( particularly after the '45 ), Welsh, English, Huguenots, Swedes, and Swiss. They came not west from the Southern coast but south along the Great Valley from the backwoods of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, often after just a brief stay. They pushed not just south but also west over the Alleghenies into what today is western PA, Ohio, and beyond. Then there is religion. They came Catholic and Protestant, New Light and Old, with the various pietistic faiths thrown in for good measure. It’s hard to argue that the difference comes from differing backwoods cultures since they were the same ( or at least the same bewildering mix of religious and cultural groups. )
I’m too lazy to read the original article. Even if its assumptions as stated in the OP are correct, how does it make a connection with Kerry’s popularity among the military?
Because Kerry is veteran of the Vietnam War, but also a veteran of the anti-Vietnam War protest movement; and because he opposed every American foreign military adventure from Grenada to the Gulf War; and because, although he voted to authorize the Iraq War, he criticized it afterwards. All this, Lind argues, will make him unpalatable to the Southern militarists who now predominate in our all-volunteer military forces.
And(from the same article), “To make matters worse, in the two and a half years since al-Qaeda attacked the US, no leading Democrat has come up with a convincing, detailed military strategy as an alternative to Bush’s. Democratic calls for more ‘multilateralism’ are easily caricatured by Republicans as the claim that foreign countries should be given a veto over America’s national defence.”
Ummm…except for the fact that the South has been politically dominant in US politics throughout the 20th & into the 21st Centuries. Given that Southern politicians are basically calling the shots, you analogy breaks down.
Poverty in the South, especially the rural South, has played a factor in breeding a military culture. For generations, the military has been one of the few escape routes from poverty for those born in the rural or small-town South. That fact reinforced the pre-existing inclination towards militarism.