The meme SPQR is talking about is the often-repeated phrase "chickenhawk" tossed at war supporters who haven't served in the military, or (since G.W. Bush is a veteran, and therefore passes the test) haven't served in combat. Yes, it is a meme, but Rusty isn't legitimizing it. In fact, quite the opposite.
1. That everyone who hasn't been in combat is assumed to be a coward; and
2. That, therefore, only those who have been in combat can legitimately support the war.
And it isn't lost on these folks that combat veterans are vastly outnumbered by assumed cowards in our society, which guarantees the result they seek.
So, the bottom line is that Rusty's project has merit, because intuitively its premise is that veterans have more moral weight in the debate, reflecting greater moral authority. And if that's the criterion, then our side almost certainly wins.
The thing that's fraudulent about the "chickenhawk" concept, is that it disenfranchises only the opposition, based not on some uniform criterion, but on their prospective vote.
Which, of course, is not only dumb but immoral.
1
I followed an argument on a blog last year whereby one person called the other a chickenhawk. The recipient of the insult said he had indeed served in the military. The insulter got snippy and said, "What were you? A pot scrubber?" the other fellow said (I'll paraphrase because I can't find the actual words again), "Actually, I was a bomb technician. And before you have anymore inane questions or comments, yes, my time was mostly spent bored to tears punctuated occasionally with moments of sheer terror. And I had as much respect for the guys who washed dishes, typed reports and mopped floors. They all had a purpose and deserve respect." The insulting party never returned. If he had any character at all, he would have apologized.
THAT TOO is why Rusty's project has merit. Idiots like that guy.
Posted by: Oyster at August 19, 2005 06:52 AM (YudAC)
2
Has everyone forgotten that use to be in war everyone did what they could? Thats how you win. Americans out there right now are totally ignoring this. Should we loose they are as much or more responsable then even the opposition to the war. I may not have served but to ignore it would shirking my duty as an American citizen. If all you do is send a Private some cookies you are helping.
Posted by: Howie at August 19, 2005 09:02 AM (D3+20)
3
Yeah, I saw Starship Troopers the other night too, and couldn't help thinking of the enigmatic connection between Heinlein's fictionalized attitudes and modern resistance to the GWOT and Iraq. You'll never hear anyone in the Bush admin utter anything like Doogie Howser's line, "I send thousands of people just like you to their deaths every day; I'm sorry if that sounds harsh to you. But listen, boys and girls, we're in it for the species. It's simple numbers - they have more."
But the main problem I have is one of the premises in the Chickenhawk discourse, that military/combat experience gives one
moral authority. Morality is concerned with what is right, what is good, and what is virtuous, and, according to the
American Heritage Dictionary, is "based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
I believe people, deceptively or otherwise, are substituting the use of "moral" for "empirical," meaning "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis;" or "Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws" or "Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine." The problem with this is that one person's empirical observations prove useful only in terms of what they themselves can replicate, such as how to behave in combat, but not in terms of applying this to a larger, unrelated sphere, such as strategy. Even a greater sampling of soldiers will only yield information on how to soldier, not how to strategize a war.
So whatever the anti-chickenhawks call themselves, they have no more authority on the war in Iraq to claim, moral or otherwise, than any other informed observer, unless you change the argument entirely. I therefore find Rusty's correlation between service, bias and opinion to be very interesting.
Posted by: tee bee at August 19, 2005 09:55 AM (q1JHF)
4
This certainly extends Markos's expertise from the military to foreign policy. He was almost in a war and, now we come to learn, that Markos almost worked at the State department.
{Jerome} Armstrong: Markos started reading MyDD in 2001, and was one of the first people to write comments on my postings. He emailed me to tell me he was starting his own blog, Fishy Shark in 2002, which I linked to. Later, he started DailyKos.
We started e-mailing back and forth, and
he {Kos}told me near the end of that year (2002) that he was going to stop blogging because he was about to start working for the State department.
I was already talking to the Dean folks and Trippi was asking me to build a blog and other stuff. I knew Markos had a strong computer background, and so I invited him up to Portland where I was living, and so we gelled in a day or two.
cite
This sort of parallels the story of Fidel Castro, then aspiring baseball pitcher, not getting called up by the Yankees back in the 50s. Had Markos gone to work at the State Department, had DailyKos not gone through its growth and had the influence that it did -- who knows what would have happened?
My guess: President Kerry.
~ and ~
not to mention now the State Department has lost out on that clear-headed pragmatic world view that Markos "You know the Quote" Moulitsas brings to the table.
Thanks, Kos!!
Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 19, 2005 10:02 AM (EgPEq)
5
Chickenhawkalotaatalk - Paul Wolfowitz and his assgang are getting whupped outta dodge! NEOCON FOOLS ARE LOSERS!!!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 19, 2005 10:04 AM (90EsJ)
6
Logic has entered; let the screaming on the left commence. Downs, you're practically ahead of schedule here, and somewhat short on the usual vitriol.
Posted by: tee bee at August 19, 2005 10:11 AM (q1JHF)
7
Fidel Castro and Marcos "screw em" Kos. Wow! I'll bet Fidel channeled his personality to Kos and now we see what a Fidel blog would look like.
Now there's something that has to make DSM happy.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 19, 2005 10:27 AM (DDXXI)
8
teebee:
But the main problem I have is one of the premises in the Chickenhawk discourse, that military/combat experience gives one moral authority. Morality is concerned with what is right, what is good, and what is virtuous, and, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
Actually, I think the term "moral authority" is misleading, because it simply means that the person who has it also has a low probability of being hypocritical in terms of physical courage. I have no problem with that, but it's different from "moral clarity," which has a great deal more to do with morality, justice, and even validity. There's also experiencial and expert authority.
I agree that everyone ought to be paying some price for this war, and it's ironic that one reason it has become unpopular is precisely because the costs are borne so narrowly. We aren't yet invested in it, as a nation.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 19, 2005 10:49 AM (0sVKo)
9
fwiw - I think it's reasonable to ask "If you support the War, what have you done in support of this war?" Some non-enlist, train, deploy to Iraq options would include:
* donate blood - You've had 12 opportunities to donate blood since the war started, how many times have you actually donated blood?
* donate time/money - Have you donated time or money to a charitable cause for either the troops or the families of the troops.
There doesn't have to be a specific level reached for either dollars or blood, but people who just bang away on a keyboard on either side might consider doing either of the above.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 19, 2005 11:54 AM (EgPEq)
10
What is this National Guard-thingie Bush was in? Some "you guys stay home and protect the women"-unit?
Posted by: A Finn at August 19, 2005 11:59 AM (lGolT)
11
Finn, I'm guessing GW could have been in the Marines and it wouldn't have been valid in your eyes - his privileged background provides the obscuring lens for any of his accomplishments to certain dog-in-the-manger types, and the permanently politically opposed, such as Democrats and liberals. And, by the standards of the chickenhawk argument, you'd have had to serve in order to criticize. Maybe you have.
Dem, I wonder if the whole notion of "authority" isn't another linguistic red herring. When words have their meanings twisted and facts such as pre-war intelligence are regularly discounted by one side, it's difficult to have much faith in managing a reasonable discussion. Such chicanery is typical of people who will use any means to get what they want.
You mentioned on my post that there was a use of the term, moral authority. Is this among historians? I'm liberal arts, so I have some history along with the social sciences and lit. In my academic and personal reading, I've never come across it. Thanks.
Posted by: tee bee at August 19, 2005 05:54 PM (q1JHF)
12
Bumper Sticker,
I have tried to donate every chance I can,
but unfortunately for me, I was in Germany in
1982 for more than 6 months. (Mad cow disease.)
I go in everytime, and I am denied. But I am told
to come back next time because they "might"
have a test to tell if I have MCD. MOOOOOOOOOO.
I have also donated several tins of cookies,
and crayons.
Posted by: Butch at August 22, 2005 03:49 PM (Gqhi9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
