Trump-Loving Republican Proposes & Struggles To Stop Diversity In The Military


Even though a lot of Congressional activity has effectively wound down around the time of this week’s July 4 holiday, some proposed pieces of legislative action have still been introduced… including a bizarre proposal from Florida GOP Rep. Greg Steube demanding the prioritization of what the measure calls a “warrior ethos” in the handling of the U.S. military.

It is an entirely sham argument to insist the military has somehow strayed from that approach, however oddly characterized. What do these Republicans want people to think the military is doing now? Replacing guns with flowers? Obviously not.

And yet, GOP rhetoric that insists there’s been some kind of emasculating effect seen in the military — or whatever — kind of even plays into hopes from foreign adversaries to the United States who’d want to cultivate what’s at least the idea that they’re superior on technological and military grounds. Remember when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) reacted with such glowing approval on Twitter to some footage that was evidently recruiting material for the Russian military? The interests who these Republicans are implicitly or explicitly elevating in place of the U.S. are obvious.

Steube’s proposed resolution, which has no cosponsors, demands what’s essentially a rollback of personnel practices in the military that in any way prioritize diversity, though such could in a very practical sense assist with the accomplishment of military objectives through ensuring many different perspectives are represented.

After listing a bunch of grievances, the Steube proposal says the House “prohibits the use of such “woke” social engineering and experimentation practices, which are eroding military effectiveness, and to mandate a return to a merit-based system for military force development and composition.” Besides the dubious grammar, the lack of a definition for what “woke” even means in this context makes it difficult to anticipate this ever being implemented. You can’t just put quotation marks around a word and get away with not defining it in law, Greg!