Uploaded by Elmer Yang

2ac v boyd clark quarters

1) Poc in military
2) Edu inequality
3) Militarism in society
TWe meet- by abolishing the jrotc we abolish the curriculum associated with it.
Counter-interpretation: “Education” includes administrative policies
surrounding schools
Macmillan ‘9 Macmillan Dictionary – 2009-17 http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/education
Education: the activity of educating people in schools, colleges, and universities, and all the
policies and arrangements concerning this.
Prefer our interp
Best for aff and neg ground
Lit checks- they literally card dump on the dA they lose no ground
We meet- when we start to get militarism out of society it helps people make
decisions better because they aren’t obstructed by aggressive militarism
Counter-interpretation – “Regulation” are standards that influence
Orbach 12 – Barak Orbach, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona College of Law,
“What Is Regulation?”, Yale Journal on Regulation, http://yalejreg.com/what-is-regulation/
The legal concept of “regulation” is often perceived as control or constraint. For example,
the definitive legal dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, defines “regulation” as “the act or
process of controlling by rule or restriction.”11 Similarly, The Oxford English Dictionary
defines “regulation” as “the action or fact of regulating,” and “to regulate” as “to control,
govern, or direct.”12 To many people, “control” connotes “restrictions,” although control
may have other meanings.
Regulation often imposes no restrictions, but enables, facilitates, or adjusts activities, with
no restrictions. Examples of such regulations include the supply of roads, health and
emergency services, public education and public libraries, welfare benefits, reliefs to
victims of natural disasters and bailouts to failed institutions. Such services directly
influence (or “adjust”) conduct of individuals and firms. In the abstract, all government
actions supposedly influence conduct of individuals and firms, but not necessarily
directly. For example, activities related to national defense and foreign policy tend to have
only indirect influence on conduct of individuals and firms.13
Cross apply voters above
Heg DA
The affirmative is a prior question to the DA. We must first interrogate
questions of militarism before we even begin to analyze hegemony and war.
The entirety of the 1AC functions as a turn to the impacts of the DA. Their
representations of war create justifications of endless oppression. The case
outweighs becase we must evaluate oppression impacts first.
Don’t prioritize large scale spectacles of violence—everyday acts of
dehumanization produce a will to violence that makes large scale conflicts
Kappeler 1995 [Susanne. Former lecturer in English at the University of East
Anglia and an Associate Professor at the School of Humanities and Social
Sciences. The Will to Violence: The Politics of Personal Behavior. Polity Press.
ISBN 0 7456 130555. Pg. at bottom]
A decision to violate is not necessarily synonymous with a decision to be ‘bad’ or to commit an injustice. Rather, we
have at
our disposal structures of thought and argumentation which make such a decision appear
rational, justified or even necessary. These structures of thought are deeply rooted in our everyday thinking: they
are part of the dominant ideology. We use them in our daily decisions for action - actions which are not
necessarily acts of bodily injury and murder, of arson and larceny, and which do not necessarily
unleash a major war, but which none the less are acts of violence: violation of the rights and
integrity of other people, violation of their dignity and personhood, suppression of their
freedom of choice and their selfdetermination, acts of objectification and of exploitation at
every conceivable level — in other words, war, on a small scale and against our nearest if not our dearest.
What is remarkable is that this everyday behaviour, in so far as it does not fall within the competence of criminal law, is hardly the
subject of a serious theoretical discussion.4 Neither does it attract explicit legitimation; rather, the
violence of everyday
behaviour draws its legitimacy from the ubiquity of such behaviour in our society and the social
consensus about its relative ‘harmlessness’ compared with other, that is, recognized forms of
violence. That is to say, everyday behaviour takes its orientation from the tradition of social practice,
reproducing itself through recourse to the status quo. It is so naturalized, in fact, that it is not violent action
which attracts attention, but any resistance to it: leaving a violent relationship or situations of violence, resisting bullying, pressure
and blackmail, refusing to fight back. Even a discourse on ethics which we might expect to address this issue increasingly addresses
problems of a collective social responsibility — leading indeed to enlightened guidelines for social policy, yet leaving the question of
personal responsibility unanswered. For an analysis of collective social responsibility tends not to differentiate between the
respective responsibility of the members of that collective according to their diverse situations. Yet the single person has to act, has
to decide how to act, even if this does not cause a war or change the world at one stroke. It is these decisions for action within the
range of competence of persons which are the topic of this book. This does not mean that I deem the obvious and systematic forms
of violence - from the violence of men against women and children, the racist violence of whites against Black people and people of
the Third World, to the violence of the state and its military forces, or violence against animals and nature (which is hardly even
discussed in the context of violence) — a less urgent problem than individual behaviour. Rather, the
obvious importance
and magnitude of ‘social’ problems of violence cannot be the pretext for considering apparently
‘lesser’ or more ‘harmless’ forms of ‘personal’ violence (our own) a matter for postponement until
the major problems have been solved. Violence cannot be measured as larger or smaller, more or
less, even if the consequences of violence differ enormously. The consequences differ, however, neither in their measurable size as
‘damage’ nor in the size or measure of the violence which caused them, but in terms of the means used on the one hand, and in
their specificity, uniqueness and incomparability as experience on the other. Violence
as the structure of action is
neither greater nor lesser: it either is or is not violence. Moreover, personal behaviour is no alternative to ‘political’ action;
there is no question of either/or. My concern, on the contrary, is the connection between these recognized forms
of violence and the forms of everyday behaviour which we consider ‘normal’ but which betray our
own will to violence — the connection, in other words, between our own actions and those acts of violence which are
normally the focus of our political critiques. Precisely because there is no choice between dedicating oneself either to ‘political
issues’ or to ‘personal behaviour’, the question of the politics of personal behaviour has (also) to be moved into the centre of our
politics and our critique. Violence — what we usually recognize as such — is
no exception to the rules, no
deviation from the normal and nothing out of the ordinary, in a society in which exploitation and
oppression are the norm, the ordinary and the rule. It is no misbehaviour of a minority amid good behaviour by the
majority, nor the deeds of inhuman monsters amid humane humans, in a society in which there is no equality, in which people
divide others according to race, class, sex and many other factors in order to rule, exploit, use, objectify, enslave, sell, torture and kill
them, in which millions of animals are tortured, genetically manipulated, enslaved and slaughtered daily for ‘harmless’ consumption
by humans. It is no error of judgement, no moral lapse and no transgression against the customs of a culture which is thoroughly
steeped in the values of profit and desire, of self-realization, expansion and progress. Violence
as we usually perceive it
is ‘simply’ a specific — and to us still visible — form of violence, the consistent and logical application of
the principles of our culture and everyday life. War does not suddenly break out in a peaceful
society; sexual violence is not the disturbance of otherwise equal gender relations. Racist attacks do
not shoot like lightning out of a non-racist sky, and the sexual exploitation of children is no solitary problem in a world otherwise just
to children. The
violence of our most commonsense everyday thinking, and especially our personal
will to violence, constitute the conceptual preparation, the ideological armament and the
intellectual mobilization which make the ‘outbreak’ of war, of sexual violence, of racist attacks,
of murder and destruction possible at all.
United States hegemony is declining now – trump proves
Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar, Yale University, 16
[Immanuel, June 1 2016, Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Increasingly Unstable United States,”
http://iwallerstein.com/the-increasingly-unstable-united-states/, July 3 2017, BM @ GDI]
We are used to thinking of instability in states as being located primarily in the global South. It is
about those regions that pundits and politicians in the global North speak of “failed states” in
which there are “civil wars.” Life is very uncertain for the inhabitants of these regions. There is
massive displacement of populations and efforts to flee these regions to “safer” parts of the
world. These safer parts are supposed to have more jobs and higher standards of living.
In particular, the United States has been seen as the migratory goal of a very large percentage of
the world’s population. This was once largely true. In the period that ran roughly from 1945 to
1970, the United States was the hegemonic power in the world-system in which life was indeed
better economically and socially for its inhabitants.
And while the frontiers for immigrants were not exactly open, those migrants who managed to
arrive in one way or another were by and large content with what they regarded as their good
fortune. And others from the countries of origin of the successful immigrants kept trying to
follow in their footsteps. In this period, there was very little emigration from the United States
other than on a temporary basis to take very well-paying employment as economic, political, or
military mercenaries.
This golden era of U.S. dominance of the world-system began to come undone circa 1970 and
has been unraveling ever since, and increasingly. What are the signs of this? There are many,
some of them within the United States itself and some of them in changing attitudes of the rest
of the world towards the United States.
In the United States, we are now living through a presidential campaign that almost everyone
speaks of as unusual and transformational. There are a very large number of voters who have
been mobilizing against the “Establishment,” many of them entering the voting process for the
first time. In the Republican primary process, Donald J. Trump has built his search for the
nomination precisely on riding the wave of such discontent, indeed by fanning the discontent.
He seems to have succeeded, despite all the efforts of what might be thought of as “traditional”
In the Democratic Party, the story is similar but not identical. A previously obscure Senator,
Bernie Sanders, has been able to ride a discontent verbalized on a more left-wing rhetoric and,
as of June 2016, has been conducting a very impressive campaign against the one-time
supposedly unchallengeable candidature of Hillary Clinton. While it doesn’t seem he will get the
nomination, he has forced Clinton (and the Democratic Party) much further left than seemed
possible a few short months ago. And Sanders did this without ever having stood for election
before as a Democrat.
But, you may think, all this will calm down, once the presidential election is decided, and
“normal” centrist political judgments will prevail again. There are many who predict this. But
what then will be the reaction of those who very vocally supported their candidates precisely
because they were not advocating “normal” centrist policies? What if they are disillusioned with
their current champions?
We need to look at another of the changes in the United States. The New York Times ran a long
front-page article on May 23 about gun violence, which it called “unending but unheard.” The
article was not about the well-reported massive gun shootings that we call massacres and that
are considered shocking. Instead, the article pursues shootings that the police tend to call
“incidents” and never get into newspapers. It describes one such incident in detail, and calls it “a
snapshot of a different source of mass violence – one that erupts with such anesthetic regularity
that it is rendered almost invisible, except to the mostly black victims, survivors and attackers.”
And the numbers are going up.
As these “unending but unheard” deaths by violence go up, the possibility that they may go
beyond the confines of Black ghettos to non-Black zones in which many of the disillusioned are
located is not so far-fetched. After all, the disillusioned are right about one thing. Life in the
United States is not as good as it once was. Trump has used as his slogan “make America great
again.” The “again” refers to the golden era. And Sanders also seems to refer to a previously
golden era in which jobs were not exported to the global South. Even Clinton now seems to look
back at something lost.
And that is not to forget an even fiercer sort of violence – that propagated by a still very small
band of deeply anti-state militias, who call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom
(CCF). They are the ones that have been defying the government’s closure of some land for their
cattle or indeed for their usage. The CCF people say the government has no rights and is acting
The problem is that both the federal and local governments are unsure what to do. They
“negotiate” for fear that asserting their authority will not be popular. But when the negotiations
fail, the government finally uses its force. This more extreme version of action may soon spread.
It is not a question of moving to the right but of moving towards more violent protest, towards a
civil war.
All this time, the United States has been truly losing its authority in the rest of the world. It is
indeed no longer hegemonic. The protestors and their candidates have been noting this but
consider it reversible, which it is not. The United States is now considered a weak and unsure
global partner.
This is not merely the view of states that have strongly opposed U.S. policies in the past, such as
Russia, China, and Iran. It has now become true of presumably close allies, such as Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Great Britain, and Canada. On a worldwide scale, the feeling about the “reliability” of the
U.S. in the geopolitical arena has moved from nearly 100% during the golden era to somewhere
far, far lower. And it increases daily.
As it becomes less “safe” to live in the United States, look for a steady increase in emigration. It
is not that other parts of the world are safe – just safer. It is not that the standard of living
elsewhere is so high, but it has now become higher in many parts of the global North.
Not everyone can emigrate of course. There is a question of cost and a question of accessibility
to other countries. Undoubtedly, the first group that may increase their emigration will be the
most privileged sectors. But, as this comes to be noticed, the angers of the more middle-class
“disillusioned” will grow. And growing, their reactions may take a more violent turn. And this
more violent turn will feed back onto itself, increasing the angers.
Can nothing alleviate the attitudes about the transformation of the United States? If we were to
stop trying to make America great again and start trying to make the world a better place for
everyone, we could be part of the movement for “another world.” Changing the whole world
would in fact transform the United States, but only if we stop longing to go back to a golden era,
which was not so golden for most of the world.
Even if hegemony is high or if preventing the plan helps heg, Trumps form of
hegemony is uniquely bad and massively increases tensions and causes the
same conflicts they describe.
Karlin, editor at truthout news site and quotes Pat elder Director of the
National Coalition to Protect Student Privacy, 3-1-2017
[Mark, 3-1-2017, Buzzflash,"Trump's Proposed Military Budget Increase Means More Recruits as
Fodder", http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/trump-s-proposed-military-budgetincrease-means-more-recruits-as-fodder, accessed 6-28-17, DTG]
Trump's proposed $54 billion dollar increase to an already bloated military budget (of approximately $550 billion
dollars currently) will have winners and losers. The primary winners will be the entrenched military infrastructure and
defense contractors, who will benefit from the windfall of additional expenditures. In addition, the conservative and
neoliberal promoters of US hegemony -- with the nation's military serving as global police
enforcing US political and economic power -- will see their goal strengthened if the billions in extra
budgetary funding is granted. ¶ Among the losers will be those in the US who will be the victims of reduced government safety net
programs and foreign aid, which would be cut to pay for the extra military spending. Furthermore, one can predict that the
additional military outlay will result in more people dying throughout the world as a result of an increase in US
military power. This could happen in ongoing wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, or in the vaguely defined "war
on terror," as well as in multiple other "low-intensity conflicts" throughout the world. ¶ It should not be
overlooked that an expanded military will inevitably lead to increased military activity and the resultant deaths and injuries of more
military recruits in an age of an all-volunteer army. The
dependence of the armed forces on military recruiting
to create a sufficient fighting force was emphasized in a recent Truthout Progressive Pick book by Pat Elder,
Military Recruiting in the United States. ¶ As Elder told Truthout in an interview posted on February 19,¶ It's a coerced, recruited
Army as much as it is a volunteer Army. ¶ American military
recruiting is a despicable, psychological pursuit that
pits carefully selected and highly trained soldiers against vulnerable children. The American Public Health Association,
(APHA) calls for the cessation of military recruiting in the nation's schools, claiming recruiters engage in aggressive behaviors to gain
a child's confidence and trust. They say recruiters are exceptionally charming while failing to honor clear boundaries. It is despicable
public policy, and it's time to end it. ¶ Nearly 40 percent of all Army enlistees never complete their first term. Imagine the torment.¶
Recruiters are child predators. They have monthly quotas, and they're signing up kids who have no business joining the
military. Kids with anxiety disorders, ADHD and severe learning disabilities are being coerced to sign up. They're crushed and
spit out as broken souls in a few months by a malicious system. ¶ Elder's book details how military recruiters
lure individuals into joining the armed forces through false promises and, as far as young people, infiltration of schools.
Deception, Elder argues, is a necessary tool for recruiters to meet their quotas, which no doubt will
become higher if Trump's $54 billion-dollar increase is approved in a final budget.
Fear of hegemonic decline results in endless cycles of antagonistic violence
Lifton Visiting Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School 3
[Robert Jay, Superpower Syndrome: America’s Apocalyptic Confrontation with the World, page pg 174178]
The world's only superpower is haunted by a fear of weakness. From psychiatric experience with individuals, we
know that underneath expressions of megalomania and claims to omnipotence there tend to be profound
feelings of powerlessness and emptiness. Feelings on that order may affect our leaders' projections of
world control. These could take the form of fear of the political fragmentation of our society, with
accompanying death anxiety related not just to 9/11 but to the potential collapse of the superpower
entity itself. Underneath our leaders' arrogant certainties concerning the world, there may lie profound
doubts about our own social and national integration, about America's control of itself. Fear of being out
of control can lead to the most aggressive efforts at total control of everyone else. Helping to overcome such
fear is the claim to transcendent American virtue, to providing beneficent and liberating service to the world. That sense of a mission
both altruistic and sacred can generate a surge of power that, in turn, suppresses feelings of powerlessness and weakness. Fear of
weakness is, of course, bound up with related feelings of vulnerability, with a superpower's sense of being a very visible target, and
with its unrealizable requirement of omnipotence. The world's only superpower has become a target not just
because it is so dominant but because its recent policies and attitudes, emerging from superpower
syndrome, have antagonized just about everyone. Its unrealizable omnipotence has caused its leaders to
embark on an aggressive quest for absolute security via domination, which is another form of
entrapment in infinity.Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, coming out in support of the Bush administration, made a
case for invading Iraq based on a principle of "ultimate national security." But as the political scientist David C. Hendrickson pointed
out at the time, Kissinger seemed to have forgotten his own earlier criticism of the "absolute security" sought by revolutionary
powers, noting then that "the desire of one power for absolute security means absolute insecurity for all the others." In this sense
and in the way that the present administration has sought to overthrow world diplomatic procedures and
restraints on war-making, the United States has certainly become a "revolutionary power" in pursuit of
absolute security and absolute invulnerability. But the fear of weakness will not go away.
Endless cycles of antagonistic violence and fearful depictions of war will cause
an apocalyptic extinction
Lifton Visiting Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School 3
[Robert Jay, Superpower Syndrome: America’s Apocalyptic Confrontation with the World, page 27-29]
But the phenomenon has hardly disappeared from our world. The hubris of “forcing the end” periodically expresses itself in militant apocalyptic
movements. It may be at the heart of any grandiose claim to the ownership of death. All this is part of the universal human struggle with death and the
continuity of life. Hence, the grandiose killing project of forcing the end is all too much part of the human psychological repertoire. Throughout most of
history, apocalyptic sects rarely have moved from dreaming of or prayed for the end of time to forcing that end. Part of the reason was that the human
means to force such an end did not seem to be at hand. But in
our time, the means to force the end have caught up with
apocalyptic dreams. Now those dreams are being married to apocalyptic weaponry (or at least the
and the idea of acting immediately to force the end is increasingly taking hold in
apocalyptic movements. A compelling theology—or in secular terms, theory—with a world-ending narrative
has been required to activate this human potential. That theology must forcefully divide the world into
good and evil, and prescribe the necessary world destruction and renewal, all the while infusing believers
with powerful currents of revitalization. All religions can provide such stories of cosmic redemption, but the Christian Armageddon
vision of obtaining it),
narrative has had particular appeal—and not just in Christian hands—in its concreteness and simplicity, in its high-action rendering of death-and-rebirth
mythology. Even secular movements like the Nazis have followed a version of the Armageddon script. Hitler’s
followers sought to destroy much of what they saw as a racially polluted world by means of a vast biological purification program. Despite being
Nazis came to empitomize the apocalyptic principle of killing to heal, of destroying vast numbers of
human beings as therapy for the world.
murderously anti-Jewish and significantly anti-Christian as well, the Nazis drew upon what was most apocalyptic in both of those traditions.
Only we access the root cause – war is an eruption of everyday militarism not a
separate occurrence
Cuomo, University of Georgia, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies,
[Chris, Autumn 1996, Hypatia, “War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of
Everyday Violence”, Volume: 11, Number 4, Pages 32-33, AZG]
I propose that the constancy of militarism and its effects on social reality be reintroduced as a
crucial locus of contemporary feminist attentions, and that feminists emphasize how wars are
eruptions and manifestations of omnipresent militarism that is a product and tool of multiply
oppressive, corporate, technocratic states.2 Feminists should be particularly interested in
making this shift because it better allows consideration of the effects of war and militarism on
women, subjugated peoples, and environments. While giving attention to the constancy of
militarism in contemporary life we need not neglect the importance of addressing the specific
qualities of direct, large-scale, declared military conflicts. But the dramatic nature of declared,
large-scale conflicts should not obfuscate the ways in which military violence pervades most
societies in increasingly technologically sophisticated ways and the significance of military
institutions and everyday practices in shaping reality. Philosophical dis- cussions that focus only
on the ethics of declaring and fighting wars miss these connections, and also miss the ways in
which even declared military conflicts are often experienced as omnipresent horrors. These
approaches also leave unquestioned tendencies to suspend or distort moral judgement in the
face of what appears to be the inevitability of war and militarism.
All of their claims about how heg solves various forms of oppression is just the
state masking oppression with heg so they can continue to expand.
The entire case is a DA to the CP