"Ventriloquizing the Dead"
James Joyner points to a critical article about the Sheehan phenomenon by
Christopher Hitchens. In the article he coins an astonishingly powerful concept describing what Sheehan and others on the Left (and some on the Right) are attempting to do: "ventrilquizing the dead." I slightly disagree with The Hitch's point that Cindy has no more moral authority than anyone else, however. I don't think it outrageous to claim that Cindy Sheehan does have some moral authority that I, for instance, lack. But it seems to me that if there's such a thing as "moral standing" to comment on a war, it resides a great deal more with those who are actually serving, and especially those soldiers who have also lost friends and comrades in the fight. And it does make sense that those who pay the costs have greater moral authority that those of us who are shielded from sacrifice (by an administration that for some inexplicable reason refuses to ask very much of its citizenry). Let's be realistic.
But Cindy's moral authority hardly cancels that of everyone else, especially those with similar or greater authority, who disagree with her. Nor does it constitute "expertise," as many on the Left insist. Her expertise is singularly, even spectacularly, unimpressive. In that sense The Hitch has vastly greater authority than Cindy. And someone like Michael Yon has both moral and expert authority, as well as that special form of "expert" authority that comes directly from being on the scene: experiencial. Neither of which means that you can't disagree, but you do have a steeper hill to climb, let's face it.
Finally, there is a sense in which we probably should eschew the opinions of mothers, especially those who would almost certainly feel compelled to prevent their children from maturing into adulthood if they could manage to arrest their development. Ancient societies recognized, in ritual and institution, this wise limitation on motherhood when they separated boys from mothers as they entered puberty, and compelled them to undergo an intense initiation into manhood. Young men who failed to make this transition were simply not trusted around children.
It is extremely misguided, especially for a society at war, to institutionalize the extension of childhood beyond puberty, and even to seek to instill childish sentiments in its responsible and authoritative adults. This is the primary problem I have with Cindy Sheehan, and those who exploit her.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia)
Posted by: Demosophist at
01:27 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.
1
And it does make sense that those who pay the costs have greater moral authority that those of us who are shielded from sacrific
To some extent, though, as you note later, there are degrees of moral authority even among those who make the sacrifice. And I'd argue that in this matter, Casey Sheehan had much greater moral authority than his mother can justly claim for herself.
Furthermore, beyond moral authority and expert authority, there's representative authority. and that is the authority which Cindy Sheehan is trying to usurp and to which she has the least valid claim. Just because you have made X amount of sacrifice and thus have X amount of moral authority does not mean you necessarily speak for all those whose sacrifice put them in a similar place of authority.
Posted by: Brian B at August 16, 2005 01:47 PM (CouWh)
2
Your last two paragraphs were something I hadn't thought about, but you're right.
Posted by: Oyster at August 16, 2005 02:15 PM (fl6E1)
3
My son joined the Marine Corps. He did it. Not Bush. No one twisted his arm and he damn sure didn't need a job. He joined out of tradition and he was sure war was coming. He joined to serve the country that has been so good to us. And maybe a bit of macho. If there was going to be action he wanted in on it. I didn't think he would stay as long has he has. A career was never the original intent. I joined the Marine Corps in 1962. Before the draft. The reason. It was obvious we going to war in the near future. Communism had to be contained. The same as Islamofacism has to be contained.
If he is wounded or worst the blame does not fall on George Bush any more than the dead and wounded in WW2 was Roosevelt's fault.
All this bullshit of faulting our elected President is nothing but a cowardly reaction carried over from some sorry losers in the electrion. I sincerely hope that those that condemn America and our military will be brought to trial when this is over.
From the start our boys have had to fight the religious muslim nutsos and their anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-military friends here. One is as bad as the other. Aid and comfort should be applied, as that is exactly what they are doing with their anti-Amrican retoric.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 10:19 PM (CBNGy)
4
greyrooster:
Thanks for your service, and I'm incredibly grateful to your son for seeing this through even though about half the population hasn't a clue about what's actually going on.
All this bullshit of faulting our elected President is nothing but a cowardly reaction carried over from some sorry losers in the electrion.
It's just childishness, isn't it? I mean, they aren't thinking about consequences at all. It's just that the whole thing makes them feel bad so they want it to go away, and they're tantruming. They're demanding that whatever makes them uncomfortable just go away. The trick is that we simply can't alow that sentiment to gain momentum. The thing to do about it, is what we've done in Iraq. This goes beyond what was done in Vietnam, because we know we can't
contain this enemy. We didn't sit around passively and allow the wave of Islamofascism to build; we started a counter-wave to cancel it. (That "nation-building thing.")
And that's also the way we have to handle this "adult child movement" that just wants everything to go away, so they can feel good. We need a wave of maturity, and a vision of a future that's absent all these totalitarian myths. And we need to get people employed in it, and contributing to it, and sacrificing for it, all over the world. We're not fighting to contain these movements, or even to destroy them for the sake of the status quo. We're fighting to completely fill the void with something else. And when we're doing it, there just won't be any room for all of this childish tantrum stuff.
I sincerely hope that those that condemn America and our military will be brought to trial when this is over.
Well, history says it's unlikely. Sometimes we prosecute people for sedition and treason during wartime, but provided whe haven't actually put them to death they're usually pardoned once peace is declared. And the number of people we've actually killed for treason can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 17, 2005 12:20 AM (zzime)
5
What pisses me off so much is that the truth is that 95% of the population of Iraqi is now pro America. The kids cheer, yelling, America, America when my sons Marines go down the street. Grown men plead for them to stay at night when the robbers and terrorists come out.
I have a question for everyone because I can't figure it out.
Just what good does it do the terrorists/insurgents to bomb a bus station and a hospital? How do they intend to win the hearts of the Iraqi people by blowing their children up. It's crazy. I can't see where they can possibly gain by killing innocents. They are killing their own. Makes no sense. Someone help me out here.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 17, 2005 06:27 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
24kb generated in CPU 0.0581, elapsed 0.1663 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1593 seconds, 254 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
