|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
In the United States, there's a large and growing problem of elites not serving in the military and, at the same time, the military becoming an institution dominated by the lower middle classes and by families who have a tradition of service. Although America has lower social mobility and lots of hereditary wealth, in Britain, they have a real royal family. But Britain's royals have a long tradition of military service. Prince Andrew, Charles' brother, served as helicopters pilot in the Falklands. And Prince Harry, brother of Prince William and third-in-line to the throne, is serving in the British Army.
Even though he's a royal, he's just a normal soldier and for the past ten weeks, he's been serving in Afghanistan. But we didn't hear about until a few days ago, when the Drudge Report broke the story. It turned out the British government got all the major media outlets in a room and requested that they not report that Harry was in Afghanistan, so he wouldn't endanger his fellow soldiers. The embargo was broken and now Harry is probably going to the Persian Gulf. But was it a good idea for the media to essentially be the lapdogs of the press? I think so.
That's because it's important for elites to serve in the military, especially royals who virtually suck off the fat of the land and get their status, wealth and prestige entirely by virtue of their ancestors generations ago seizign power. Sure, I oppose the mandatory military or community service for regular 18 year olds, but royal children should be in the shit as much as possible. Sure it would have been nice to see William on the front lines a la Henry IV, but getting the modern-day Prince Hal to serve should be commended.
And so I must say that the British press did something truly patriotic by not reporting on Harry’s service for ten whole weeks. This allowed him to serve without endangering his fellow soldiers. It’s not like there’s some compelling reason why the public has to know that Prince Harry is serving while he’s still doing it. And since the info is out now, we can get all the pictures and interviews we want.
It sure looks dangerous, from a liberal, freedom of the press angle, to see journalistic organizations deliberating not reporting something because the government wants them to. But this Prince Harry situation isn’t going to push us down the slippery slope, and if it does, we’re already too far down it anyway. So, bravo British press!
!
Assuming we live in a country where military service is voluntary, I don't see this as a 'problem', per se. If they don't want to serve in the military, no reason why they should. Do elites make such better soldiers, or something? If the issue is "elites lead us into war but don't sacrifice for it"...
1. Aren't the majority of elites, statistically speaking, democrats and thus likely against the war?
2. In a democratic society, doesn't the ultimate burden for the war fall on the people who elected those politicians?
3. If elites need to be sacrificing more, any great reason not to handle that via the marginal tax rates? It's rather gruesome to think there's an element of demanding 'blood sacrifice' in this.
4. Given the age differences involved between the elites who actually hold sway over national policy and the age range for military recruiting, wouldn't it be the sons and daughters of elites, rather than elites themselves, that would be serving? Doesn't the implicit demand for people to 'send their sons and daughters' make you a bit uneasy? Isn't one of the best things about our current arrangement the fact that we don't "send our sons and daughters", they volunteer and send themselves?
""Although America has lower social mobility and lots of hereditary wealth, in Britain, they have a real royal family""
Social mobility is lower in Britain than America? I suppose it's possible, but I'd like to see some stats on this (preferably two sets of stats, one adjusted for those born into a married two-parent household, one not).
""Even though he's a royal, he's just a normal soldier and for the past ten weeks, he's been serving in Afghanistan.""
Once we get past the cutesies, no, he's not. It costs an incredible amount of money to handle all the contingency planning related to him, money that could be better spent on other things.
""But was it a good idea for the media to essentially be the lapdogs of the press? I think so.""
The real question is why on earth ordinary Britons should consider the maintenance of any sort of royal family to be worth their tax dollars?
I'll respect the British people, as a whole, a lot more once I see real popular support for the anti-royalist cause.
""That's because it's important for elites to serve in the military, especially royals who virtually suck off the fat of the land and get their status, wealth and prestige entirely by virtue of their ancestors generations ago seizign power. Sure, I oppose the mandatory military or community service for regular 18 year olds, but royal children should be in the shit as much as possible. Sure it would have been nice to see William on the front lines a la Henry IV, but getting the modern-day Prince Hal to serve should be commended. ""
This is pure emoting. You're not giving any reasons why this is (or should be) so.
This situation could have been dangerous to the Royal Family, and their soldiers orignial reason for going Afghanistan. I know different media outlets need to publish articles/record videos, but if it means endangering others, then we have to find a better way.