Famous economist / philosopher reviews "Red Dawn"

[lester1/2jr]

Murray Rothbard was one of the founders of libertarianism.  His strain of this philosophy is often seen as the most radical and is closely associated with the anti-inflationary laissez faire economics of  the "Austrian School".

Red Dawn
by Murray N. Rothbard


         

This review originally appeared in the Libertarian Forum, July-August 1984.

Red Dawn, directed by John Milius.

It's not only the Supreme Court that follows the election returns. Hollywood, too, does its bit, and movie theatres have been increasingly filled with right-wingy patriotism, like the rest of the media this endless summer. I went to see Red Dawn expecting a bout of anti-Soviet warmongering, but instead was pleasantly surprised. This is hardly a great picture, and is indeed flawed. But Red Dawn is an enjoyable teen-age saga, and, apart from right-wingy pro-NATO credits at the beginning of the film, it is not so much pro-war as it is anti-State. The warfare it celebrates is not interstate strife, but guerrilla conflict that the great radical libertarian military analyst, General Charles Lee, labeled "people's war" two centuries before Mao and Che.

The beginning of the picture is exciting, if idiotic. Cuban, Nicaraguan, Mexican and other Commie Hispanic troops, headed by Soviet advisors, parachute into and successfully conquer the entire prairie Mid West, from the Rockies to the Mississippi. In the opening sequence, the Red paratroops swiftly invade and, for some reason, annihilate a high school in the mythical town of "Culver City," Colorado, presumably somewhere in the East Slope foothills of the Rockies. In a neat touch, gun control has made it easy for the Commie occupiers to round up all the registered guns in the area. But a half-dozen high school kids escape and set up a guerrilla camp in the Rockies. Jed, the older leader and a former school quarterback, whips the other reluctant lads into shape, and soon the tiny guerrilla band, using light arms, mobile tactics, and superior knowledge of the terrain, strike terror into the Red occupying forces while brandishing the rallying name of "Wolverines." There are some revoltingly macho touches at the beginning, especially when one of the young lads receives his mystical baptism into the guerrilla rites by drinking the blood of his first kill – fortunately a deer rather than a Commie. These touches subside after a while, although they are hardly softened by the appearance of two young lady guerrillas who are fierce and androgynous enough to pose for a Viet Cong or Algerian guerrilla poster.

One of the best parts of the picture is the graphic portrayal of how the Red response to the Wolverines runs the gamut of the U. S. counter-revolutionary responses to the Vietnamese. That is, at first the Russian commander decides to hole up in the cities and military bases, into the "safe zones," whereupon the Wolverines boldly demonstrate that in guerrilla war there are no safe zones, and that the "front is everywhere." At that point, another crackerjack Russian commander takes over, and replicates the "search and destroy" counter-guerrilla response of the Green Berets. This is more punishing, but still does not succeed.

One big problem with the picture is that there is no sense that successful guerrilla war feeds on itself; in real life the ranks of the guerrillas would start to swell, and this would defeat the search-and-destroy concept. In Red Dawn, on the other hand, there are only the same half-dozen teenagers, and the inevitable attrition makes the struggle seem hopeless when it need not be.

Another problem is that there is no character development through action, so that, except for the leader, all the high school kids seem indistinguishable. As a result, there is no impulse to mourn as each one falls by the wayside.

But whatever flaws the movie has are redeemed by one glorious – and profoundly libertarian – moment. The Nicaraguan-Cuban insurgent leader is increasingly unhappy acting as a State occupying force. He tells the implacable Russian commander: "Once I was an insurgent. Now I'm a policeman" – the last word spoken with profound contempt. He writes his wife: "What am I doing in this cold and lonely spot, so far away from home?" So that, in the climax of the film, as one people's war guerrilla to another, he saves the hero, Jed, and allows him to slip out of the Russian net. Ideology, left and right, gets swallowed up in hands-across-the-sea of people's guerrillas against their respective States.

In all war pictures there is the annoying pacifist nudge, griping about "how do we differ from them," since both are shooting and killing. (The LeFevre-Smith motif.) Jed's answer is satisfactory enough, even though lacking profound argumentation: "Because we live here!"

Another fine touch is that the evil informer who almost does the Wolverines in is, naturally, the son of the town Mayor, who is identified by friend and foe alike as "the politician." The Mayor, who directs the betrayal, cringes fawningly if despairingly in carrying out the orders of the occupation force.

All in all worth seeing – exciting as well as libertarian.

link

[Inyarear]

Yes, I've seen this review before. I believe there's a revised version of it now that came out when the DVD of Red Dawn got released, but I'm not sure. I quibble with two points of it:

1) It is distinctly possible that the ranks of these high school guerrillas would not swell, considering that these are soft-living American teens without much experience dealing with the hardships and logistics of war; they were all struggling merely to survive, and recruiting more fighters would have strained their already limited resources. The life-long-war veteran, fanatical, hard-bitten Viet Cong these kids were not. It's also highly unlikely the Soviets would have faced very much opposition at home as we did in Vietnam, their usual response to non-state-approved demonstrations of any sort being something like China's at Tianamen Square. Realistically, driving invading Soviets out of America as the Wolverines in this movie could easily take decades.

2) Rothbard neglects to note that at one point (the part that in fact prompts someone to ask what sets the Wolverines apart from the Soviet invaders morally), their leader tortures a Russian troop they've captured, ignoring his rather hypocritical (but still theoretically legitimate) protests about how this kind of treatment is forbidden by the Geneva Convention and saying "Never heard of it!" in reply. If libertarians in general are opposed to torture for any reason, they're not going to find that part of the film to their liking.

He's right about the jab at gun control, though; also about the jab at politicians. More than being either pro-war or anti-state, on the other hand, I think the message is mainly pro-gun-rights and anti-appeasement. Still, I've got to admire any film that could have those well-known conservative stalwarts (ha!) Patrick Swayze and Martin Sheen playing out an unabashedly conservative "head for the hills" scenario.

Incidentally, shouldn't this post be in our forum's Movie Reviews section?

[lester1/2jr]

well, it was the soviets who were anti appeasement.  they were "liberating" culver city from the corrupt, debauched capitalists.  In their minds.

and I don't know that it matters what libertarians feel about the geneva conventions.  the point is insurgencys will adopt these tactics rightly or wrongly.  it's a good reason not to be on enemy turf at all

[ghouck]

1) It is distinctly possible that the ranks of these high school guerrillas would not swell, considering that these are soft-living American teens without much experience dealing with the hardships and logistics of war; they were all struggling merely to survive, and recruiting more fighters would have strained their already limited resources.

I agree with you on all your points, but judging by the people I have met (and keep in mind, I live in Alaska, where we have something like 4 guns for every person), we would see another phenomenon: Large numbers of people (Likely the people we DON'T want there), rushing to join the fight. Watch the movie "Mars Attacks" if you need an idea of who I am speaking of. Maybe it's because of the separatist mentality of many non-indigenous Alaskan citizens, but I've seen WAY too many people that are LOOKING for something like this to be a part of. Heck, I see a guy around town that has belts of ammo draped across the passenger seat of his car because he swears "The Guatemalans" are out to. .  do . . something. . not sure what. The film completely left out the loonies that are just waiting for something like this, and would come out of the woodwork. .

Anyways, not exactly on-topic, , but WTF. . 

[lester1/2jr]

well, if it were set in say...oh i don't know,  IRAQ,  I think you'd find an awful lot of volunteers for such an insurgency as well.  People who were just waiting for something like it!!

[HarlotBug3]

This one is on the list, though the propaganda aspect will probably be as entertaining as cheap special effects. As we near the end of the Bush years I become more interested in what was influenced by/produced by the Regan years.

Libertarians are great fun; anarchists who bathe and accumulate, like whores who work out of fancy brothels instead of alleyways.

Communists are great fun, too; literate individuals who can't seem to get it right when they team up.

Propaganda changes no one's perception, only what they might do with it. Thank goodness popcorn's cheap...to make.

[Inyarear]

It probably depends on where you are. Now these kids, if I remember it right, were supposedly living somewhere in Colorado. Here in the foothills of North Carolina, where I live, there wouldn't be much heading for the hills because everyone's already here. I imagine people would be polishing their shootin' irons and unpacking all the ammunition from the root cellar, though. Up in Alaska, well, who knows? The Russians are probably still kicking themselves over selling us the gold-rich oil-soaked Alaskan tundra dirt cheap, but it's difficult to see what strategic purpose taking over that part of the USA would serve. They might be sitting there waiting for the invasion that never comes.

As a matter of fact, virtually every terrorist in the Middle East who could procure an AK-47 and pack it up with his prayer rug did go to Iraq, though (those who weren't already in Afghanistan, that is). Comedic journalist P.J. O'Rourke also mentioned in his account of the first Gulf War that there were squads of heavily armed teen Kuwaitis roaming around looking for invading Iraqis and their collaborators to kill (and possibly the algebra teacher who gave them one too many pop quizzes). Nobody there in the Middle East fantasizes about heading for the hills, though, since they've already lived through the real thing.

If propaganda doesn't change anyone's perceptions, I'd have to ask why advertising keeps working so well. Of course propaganda changes perceptions; it's just less effective than it used to be because it has more competition these days from the general "noise" of our media-saturated culture. It still manages to sell a lot of cheap gadgets and dubious political programs for all that.

By the way, I think it's best to chill the heated political rhetoric a bit; somehow, I don't think any libertarian types who might be on here will take too kindly to being compared to hookers, even the high-priced ones.

[lester1/2jr]

I'm a libertarian / anarchist and it's cool as i didn't even understand what he meant.



Also, for what it's worth Milius is or was a big supporter of the Iraq war.    Which confirms my suspicion that more thought went in to rothbards column than the script.