Anyone else alarmed by Clark's "Voluntary Civilian Guard" project?

[mkregel]

Just for the record, so far I have liked Clark, tho I favor Dean. Either one wins I'm a happy man. This was never intended to be a Clark-bashing thread and I hope he will rise up and lead us out of this Bush nightmare.

BUT...I was watching CSPAN this weekend and they showed a speech where Clark talked about a Voluntary Civilian Guard project - - and my first reaction was do we really want the US to be more militarized?

Especially since the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated....this just seems like such a control the masses, militaristic idea.

It reminded me of how authoritarian societies like to have their political police on the street level...spying on you and making sure you're sufficiently patriotic (Moussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao...all of them had these kinds of programs.)

Am I the only one alarmed?

[ixion]

1. no, you're not the only one...

I considered Clark for a time, but ultimately, his military background leaves me cold. I'm still pulling for Dean, although if I had my druthers, I'd vote for Kunicich.

[Wickerman]

2. over a hundred posts on this last week

I think it was last week. And I'm pretty sure it was 100. Anyway, debate was pretty spirited. Might search the archives if you are interested.

[Flow]

3. Voluntary Civilian Guard

I saw the same speech. Hmmnn, I see what you mean. I didn't get that feeling. I thought he was imagining a national Peace Corps program. However, if it was in any way military-based it would be a program that would have to be thown out the door.

[newyawker99]

48. Hi Flow!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[CWebster]

4. You betcha

the mindset of the whole thing makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.

[Renew Deal]

6. So don't volunteer

It is that simple.

[JasonBerry]

18. Not quite that "simple"....

I, too, am disturbed by this idea. However, am I surprised that Wesley Clark would come up with such a proposal? Not in the slightest. I think the comments in this thread pretty much say it all. I did want to make a point on this "So don't volunteer, it is that simple," post above. We are ALL taxpayers. This program would be paid for by taxpayers. We have every right - and duty - to oppose the idea if we are philosophically opposed. We shouldn't just wait until Clark is elected, allow the enactment of the program and then just "not volunteer." It is the idea of the program itself - not any one individuals participation in it.

[KittyWampus]

22. This Program Would Benefit ALL TAXPAYERS

Potentially, as they would be responding to National Crises.

Have you ever heard of Peace Crops or Americacorp? Are you philosophically opposed to those?

Suppose I am philosophically opposed to having my tax dollars going towards a Fire Department or Pollice Force?

Basically, this post is a prime example of the twisted rational used to discredit Clark.

And just out of curiosity, what is your take on Kerry's idea of National Service?

[JasonBerry]

26. Hello?

I was responding to a very specific post. Bleachers said that if one opposed this idea than "Just don't volunteer. It's that simple." My point was that NO, it's not, "that simple." As taxpayers, if we oppose ANY expenditure and/or action of government, at any level, we should OPPOSE THE IDEA, not just react to the consequences (not volunteering for a new program). That's called citizen participation in a *real* way. Whether you agree, or disagree, with the Clark proposal, surely nobody would suggest that those who don't like the idea just sit down and be quiet?

edit: spelling error

[KittyWampus]

28. Do You Oppose Americorp or Peacecorp?

???

Would you object to their helping out if your home and neighborhood were wiped out from a hurricane, flood, earthquake or tornado?

[JasonBerry]

32. Still don't get it?

Do you still not understand that whether or not I support the program is beside the point? Read what started this little sub-thread.

Bleachers:

"Just don't volunteer, it's that simple."

I have tried to say why it is NOT that simple and you are trying to get me off on the program itself. I responded specifically to Bleacher's post because I think anybody who opposes ANY new program should stand up and be counted. NOT just "not participate," when and if it becomes law.

And by the way, yes, I do support the Peace Corps. This issue is NOT the Peace Corps. The issue is a new program, as proposed by Wesley Clark. And, again, those who do not support the program proposal shouldn't just wait until it is law and "not volunteer" - they should oppose it.

[Eloriel]

29. So expand (and FUND!) the existing programs

Absolutely no need to create a new bureaucracy. None.

Except, of course, if you need something militaristic and nationalistic to appeal to certain types of voters (aka: pandering).

I think it's disgusting, and frankly it doesn't matter to me WHAT the program consists of, the very facts that there are others which aren't getting adequately funded or promoted, and the mere fact of the name he chose are complete and total turnoffs to me.

And while I'm at it, I am completely and utterly opposed to John Kerry's high school indentured servitude idea too.

Eloriel

[KittyWampus]

30. Redundancy Is Inefficient And Wasteful

Simple economics really.

When you duplicate bureaucracies and databases it is hard to organize and respond in times of crises.

Also, that you see this as 'Militaristic and Nationalistic' speaks to your own bias and prejudice more than anything else.

[JasonBerry]

33. Oh, Please

You tell eloriel, "that you see this as 'Militaristic and Nationalistic' speaks to your own bias and prejudice more than anything else." And, YOUR SUPPORT speaks to YOUR own bias and prejudices. We CAN still oppose the good general's ideas in the primary, can't we? Brother....

[KittyWampus]

35. Eloriel Uses The Terms Nationalistic And Militaristic

And they have NOTHING to do with Clark's proporsal!

That is a FACT!

That the original poster of this thread decides to call Clark's proposal "Alarming" and links it to street police, spying and Hitler just helps prove my point.

The attempted characterizations on this thread say more about the posters than Clark's actual proposal.

I LISTENED to the acutal proposal...

Eloriel "Except, of course, if you need something militaristic and nationalistic to appeal to certain types of voters (aka: pandering)."

Clark IS talking about Patriotism which refers to the COMMON GOOD! That is entirely different than Jinoism or Nationalism or Militarism.

[Pastiche423]

37. Eloriel, what you've said

makes too, too much sense.

In the aftermath of 9/11, our (the country's) local police, firemen and EMTs have had their hours and in many cases their jobs cut. In addition, the Homeland Security dept is grossly underfunded.

It makes absolutely no fiscal sense to create another service, for the lack of a better word, to direct funds away from services already in place.

"Voluntary" does not mean it won't cost taxpayers. It will cost and in more ways than one.

I am against it.

[dolstein]

5. I assume you want to abolish the peace corp as well?

After all, that has all the hallmarks of a fascist program -- it's voluntary, it attracts people who want to give something back to society. Perfectly dreadful if you ask me.

When JFK said "as not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," he was obviously appealing the latent fascist instincts of the American public.

[CWebster]

7. lets just say

kucinich has a better version of the peace idea.

[mkregel]

12. You must have missed my point completely

Especially since I actually served in the Peace Corps myself (Thailand, 92-95)

I just mentioned that this speech alarmed me. Perhaps its nothing, and just a domestic peace corps - or an attempt to revive the AmeriCorps (which, if you've beeen paying attention - Ashcroft tried to turn into a civilian spying service)

But fascism needs it's legs on the street in order to achieve it's aims, that's all.

And to be honest - It's not Clark's application of the brigade that alarms me. Chances are, we will have a Republican president again. And chances are, that person will not use this brigade in the most moral way. Republicans have a habit of turning good programs into ones that benefit them in insidious ways.

[dolstein]

40. Fine, then let's never attempt anything worthwhile

for fear that some later Republican adminstration will come in and hi-jack the programs for a nefarious purpose.

[mkregel]

46. Again...you missed my point

I am not against this program per se. I think it has a lot of hope and promise, but it can also be dangerous and harmful.

Take Americorps. Great program, Bill Clinton's first pet project and had very noble goals. Peace Corps in the US. Then comes Bush and Ashcroft and they rewrite it;s charter so they can make up the Civilan Spying Corps.

Clark is going to need to repackage this if he expects to sell it, thats for sure. Right now, the way he's describing it makes a lot of people nervous.

He is also going to have to build in safeguards to keep it from becoming something different from the proposed outline. Don't think for a minute this can't happen. When I was in the Peace Corps, the word on the street was that every group had one company member (read: CIA). I'm sure that's not what JFK had in mind when he asked not what your country can do for you....

[Capn Sunshine]

8. This sounds like put M-16s in the Peace Corps hands

and have 'em patrol Amurrca, 'specially those borders where we might get a first wave offensive of the brown scourge, agin our precious bodily fluids...

[OKNancy]

10. Now you are just making stuff up

there is no military aspect to it.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

34. I've alerted on your post

because of the sexist graphic. Sexism is against DU rules. (Of course, there's an awful lot of sexism here that goes unaddressed if not gleefully suppported, so I never know what will and will not be dealt with by mods.)

I'm wondering why on earth you think such an illustration is in the least bit appropriate for DU, and whether or not you remember reading that sexism is, indeed, against DU rules every bit as much as racism, homophobia, etc. are.

I'm also wondering why other DUers don't alert on this kind of shit, and don't seem equally troubled by it as I? Shame on all of you who let this go without hitting Alert.

Eloriel

[KittyWampus]

42. I Alerted On This Whole Thread

Original Poster uses word "Alarmed" in title as if there must be something horrible in the concept.

Poster also doesn't talk about what is actually IN Clark's Proposal

Poster goes on to mention authoritarian states, street police, spying and Hitler... and ends post with being 'alarmed'

Apparently, there is nothing inflammatory about all that...

[rman]

55. Apparently you are one of few who thinks it is inflammatory.

-

[Speck Tater]

11. The simple reason for the civilian militia is...

... Clark knows how to lead an army, but not how to lead civilians. Solution, turn civilians into an army so he'll know how to lead us.

[Richardo]

13. Oh brother.

:eyes:

[Speck Tater]

15. In 40 years of working for a living...

... I've had two bosses who were retired military officers. They both had a strong tendancy to frame every issue in military terms and look for solutions within the military paradigm. It felt very much as if their way of managing their department was to mold the department into a more military-like structure. I don't think the notion that Clark might (perhaps unconsciously) do the same to the executive branch is that far fetched.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

17. I'm sorry, but that was a hilarious comment.

So silly that it made me literally laugh out loud.

"Solution, turn civilians into an army so he'll know how to lead us"....hahahahhaa. As Donald Rumsfeld would say, "my goodness!".

[KittyWampus]

19. The Word Militia Has NO APPLICATION HERE

You are totally off base.

[janekat]

24. ROTFLMAO!

You are vewy silly!!

[Clark Can WIN]

52. I always thought the military

was composed of humans, no?:crazy:

[Demobrat]

14. I don't like it at all.

That idea in combination with Clark's involvement with a company that collects, compiles and sells information on citizens leaves me totally cold. That's one marketing list that I would not want anyone I cared about to be on, thanks.

[IranianDemocrat]

16. It's not a military program.

It's basically a first reponder/ peace corps type of program.

[Padraig18]

20. Ummm

So none of you folks belong to volunteer fire departments, or things of that sort?

In short, no, it doesn't bother me more than #14 on my list of things to truly give a damn about, but it *does* bother me more than #16... :eyes:

[Donna Zen]

21. Civilian Volunteers

1) Increase funding to Peace Corp

2) Double America Corp funding

3) Establish a new program of reserve volunteer for NON military needs...NON military is very important to understanding this. The participants would volunteer their skills to help in emergencies. IOW, they could be asked to help first responders...and if they didn't want to help...they can say no. They could be asked to vulunteer to help NGO's and government agencies overseas (example: an earthquake). Again, if they don't want to go, they can say no.

Participants would get leave from their jobs with a stipend and health insurance.

Objects:1) to offer an avenue for average citizens to volunteer to give their time and services on a short term basis 2) to change the world's current view of the ugly American 3) to redefine the meaning of "patriotism" which is currently connotated as repub, flagwaving, and christian redneck.

Did anyone catch Laura Ingram's slur on Crossfire yesterday? She said Dems can't be patriots. Nuff said.

[janekat]

23. They do things like cleaning beaches, donating blood, helping the needy

It didn't say anything about spying on your neighbor - LOL! Sounds pretty harmless to me...
http://americansforclark.com/press/release/024/

Clark Corps members across the country are answering General Wesley Clark's call to public service this Saturday. As part of the National Day of Service, people are serving their communities by cleaning up beaches and parks, donating blood, and collecting canned goods for the needy.

"The day of service is about giving back to your community," said Susan Altrui, national volunteer coordinator.

[KittyWampus]

25. Could You Be More Hysterical? There's NOTHING Militaristic About This

"It reminded me of how authoritarian societies like to have their political police on the street level...spying on you and making sure you're sufficiently patriotic (Moussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao...all of them had these kinds of programs."

Honestly, that is such a far-fetched statement to make in regards to what Clark said. He is talking about an extension of Americorp... a successful program started by Clinton which is almost moribund due to underfunding.

Apparently you didn't read any FACTS about Clark's proposal. Are you intentionally TRYING to be ALARMIST (your words)?

Clark is helping to redefine the concept of Patriotism to mean service and dedication to the Common Good. To differentiate Patriotism from the Far Right's Jingoism and Nationalism. Perhaps you were sleeping through all that though.

[Eloriel]

36. The name alone is militaristic

It can only go downhill from there IMO.

Eloriel

[KittyWampus]

39. Please Expound On How The Name Is Militaristic?

PLEASE!

Guard (As singular noun)- Body of men stationed to protect.

Militaristic- Relating to War, Soldiers or Army

Again, your characterizations speak more of your own bias and antipathy than anything else.

[wyldwolf]

27. Again... and again... and again.... no!

[gulliver]

31. No. It's brilliant.

The New American Patriotism Clark is talking about seems like authentic patriotism (as opposed to the Bushist type). So, this is a direct assault by Clark on the Republican usurpation of American patriotism. In that respect, it is like Dean's "take back the flag" approach.

But functionally, Clark's NAP is about having a reserve of more than just military capability. For example, if there were a civilian reserve maybe we would not have to pay through the nose for the services of the Halliburtons and Bechtels of the world.

It is similar to the Peace Corps and Americorps. And with Bush's recent backstabbing of the Americorps program, Clark's NAP plays on yet another Bush weakness.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

41. not alarmed, but it's a bad idea just like Kerry's national service

We really don't need to be proposing large scale federal volunteer projects right now.

[cmd]

43. I have already volunteered

I am doing my public service by working for a few hours each week at our county art center. I may be stuffing envelopes, sweeping the floor or washing windows. I won't be carrying a gun. Wes Clark is asking up to do some public service, not create a new army. Get real.

[Larkspur]

44. We have a National Guard that is already trained in handling crisises

and we have police and fire departments. A civilian guard is redundant and not cost effective.

Fund the police, fire, and EMT's along with the Coast and National Guard and we won't need a civilian guard.

[Padraig18]

45. You obviously don't live in rural America, or in a poor community

We have volunteer everything here--- fire dept's, ambulances, parade committees, village-wide cleanups, auxilliary cops, etc..

You must think every place in america is MADE of money!

[Larkspur]

54. I do live in a rural area

and we do have a volunteer fire department and EMT's, but out police are paid for by the state.

Clark's program is redundant.

[mkregel]

47. That's another thing that disturbed me a little

The National Guard is supposed to be a first responder....only we sent all of them off to Iraq. Now we have none. Is the plan to keep them in Iraq, necessitating the Civilian Guard, or is the plan to bring them home?

Again - I'm not against this program, per se. I'm just asking questions. We should ALL be asking questions. Especially right now (while we still can).

[mot78]

49. I support his plan

It's not a facist takeover like may anti-military DUers say it is. People simply enroll in a program to defend the homefront. Besides, who's going to protect this country if the regular Army AND the National Guard are deployed. Otherwise we'll have toe reinstitute the draft.

[LTR]

50. Remember, this would be 'voluntary'

It is not really military in nature. Looks like a sort of domestic peace corps.

How does this differ from FDR's works programs, or Clinton's Job Corps?

Just because it has a General's name on it...

[Clark Can WIN]

51. Uhm........ it's not militarized, it's ORGANIZED

I for one felt really helpless after 9/11 and have felt equally helpless after many other tragedies as well. This is a structure of VOLUNTEERS that are organized according to their abilities, regions and talents that would form a group of people who have already identified themselves as ready and willing to provide assitance in times of need. These volunteers would not be preforming military type duties so it is by logic NOT A FORM OF OR EXTENTION of the military.

Control of the masses? If there's a tornado in a community 300 miles from my house and I am sent there (because I volunteered to) to do photo-documentary work for insurance and historical purposes without fear of losing my job here at home how is that "control of the masses".

Who said anything about anybody "spying" on you? Where the hell do you get that from? It seems grossly irrisponsible to throw that out there if you don't have something to back it up with.

[Pastiche423]

53. "Who said anything about anybody "spying" on you? "

Spying = Acxiom = clark

Not hard to make a connection.