Over the past few years, there have been a number of stories about how relaxed military recruitment standards have resulted in members of white supremacist groups infiltrating the armed forces. The Defense Authorization Act moving through Congress contains a provision that "bars enlistment of anyone who has been an active participant in an extremist group."
At National Review, this is a bad thing. Mark Krikorian derides the provision as a "litmus test":
Obviously, the military already excludes dangerous radicals of various sorts through regulation, and should continue to do so, but the point of the bill is to remove discretion by cementing it in legislation and also to delegitimize non-preferred political views (like the DHS report on us dangerous extremists).
So a provision that is meant to stem the rather embarrassing flow of right-wing extremists into the armed forces bother Krikorian because ... he imagines himself to be one of them. Likewise, Krikorian's colleague at National Review, Anthony Dick concurs, speculating that the provision is a violation of the First Amendment:
Even if open bigotry is disruptive within the military ranks, it's doubtful that this concern would apply so broadly — to former members of borderline discriminatory groups, for example. So the ban is probably too sweeping.The ban doesn't include "borderline" discriminatory groups. You can take a look for yourself -- it explicitly bans people associated with groups that "espouse or engage in acts of violence." Not only that, but all that is required to prevent a discharge is for the individual's commanding officer to vouch that they've "renounced" their beliefs. Personally, I think the U.S. has an interest in preventing extremists from acquiring military training.
To the extent there's something to worry about in the ban, it's that it allows the attorney general to arbitrarily decide what is a "violent hate group." But neither Krikorian nor Dick focus on that specifically: They're simply concerned that a ban on "extremist violent groups" will extend to run-of-the-mill conservatives, which tells us more about them than it does the ban itself. Unlike the government surveillance of peaceful protest groups -- which conservatives support as long as it's not aimed at them -- there's no evidence of that happening. There's not even a compelling argument for why preventing conservatives from serving would be in anyone's interest (other than a general assumption of liberal malice), let alone in the interest of an administration that is considering raising troop levels in Afghanistan. The military can hardly afford to be so picky.
For these two, being a former member of a hate group can't possibly be as harmful to the unit cohesion of the armed forces as say, LGBTs who want to serve their country. In National Review's world, the latter should be kept out of the military, while the former should be welcome.
-- A. Serwer
