Romney's Sons on the Front Lines of the GWoT?
You know the story.
1. I've never been able to figure out whether it's fair to criticize someone for supporting the war but not signing up. I support lots of policies but not participating directly in implementing them. I support getting criminals off the streets, but I'm not a cop, I support helping the poor in Africa, but I'm not working in Niger, I support repairing the infrastructure, but I'm not filling potholes.
On the other hand, as someone here noted, manpower is a significant problem in Iraq. So, with so few people being spread so thin and forced to do more than their fair share of time other there, it seems a tad hypocritical to support the effort but not help out in this case. Also, ya know, talk is cheap...
2. OTOH...what Romney said is pretty off-putting, but I'm not sure why. It was rhetorically pretty inept, of course, but I don't care about that.
Something about...I dunno...making the difference between rich and poor so poignant. The poor serve their country by getting their legs blown off...the rich serve their country by helping their fathers get elected president... Something like that. Doesn't help that it was a Republican who said it...
I'm not sure this is really such a terrible thing to say, but I'll admit that hearing it left a rather bad taste in my mouth...or sound in my ears...or whatever.
Not the kind of thing to write a person off completely for, though. Could be a fairly minor slip of the brain...or it could be indicative of the way the guy really thinks about the world. Only time will tell.
You know the story.
1. I've never been able to figure out whether it's fair to criticize someone for supporting the war but not signing up. I support lots of policies but not participating directly in implementing them. I support getting criminals off the streets, but I'm not a cop, I support helping the poor in Africa, but I'm not working in Niger, I support repairing the infrastructure, but I'm not filling potholes.
On the other hand, as someone here noted, manpower is a significant problem in Iraq. So, with so few people being spread so thin and forced to do more than their fair share of time other there, it seems a tad hypocritical to support the effort but not help out in this case. Also, ya know, talk is cheap...
2. OTOH...what Romney said is pretty off-putting, but I'm not sure why. It was rhetorically pretty inept, of course, but I don't care about that.
Something about...I dunno...making the difference between rich and poor so poignant. The poor serve their country by getting their legs blown off...the rich serve their country by helping their fathers get elected president... Something like that. Doesn't help that it was a Republican who said it...
I'm not sure this is really such a terrible thing to say, but I'll admit that hearing it left a rather bad taste in my mouth...or sound in my ears...or whatever.
Not the kind of thing to write a person off completely for, though. Could be a fairly minor slip of the brain...or it could be indicative of the way the guy really thinks about the world. Only time will tell.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:46 AM
5 Comments:
What bothers me about it - and others may feel the same way - is that this plays up the way Romney's using his kids as appendages to his campaign.
Obviously kids supporting their parents for political office isn't new, but the degree and uniformity to which this seems to be the case with Romney seems new - I've now seen several stories about how his sons officially blog for the campaign, go to campaign rallies, and otherwise actively campaign for their dad as a full-time job... there's even a fairly weird campaign video where Romney's family is assembled for an "informal" family meeting (complete with video camera!) where they're trying to decide if Romney should run or not. (One of TNR's blogs posted it, I think.)
So the idea that them doing this stuff is the same as actual military service is repulsive in two ways - the first in that it's offensive to those who actually have served, and the second in that it reemphasizes that Romney's whole family seems to be operating in weird unison to get this guy elected. (Which, in turn, brings up Romney's own keenness for the job, including flip-flopping on liberal/conservative issues, depending on the audience.)
I've never been able to figure out whether it's fair to criticize someone for supporting the war but not signing up. I support lots of policies but not participating directly in implementing them. I support getting criminals off the streets, but I'm not a cop, I support helping the poor in Africa, but I'm not working in Niger, I support repairing the infrastructure, but I'm not filling potholes.
War is not the normal state of affairs, unlike WS’s examples above. The presumption is that when a long war is necessary, one fights and then goes back to one’s “normal” life.
On the other hand, as someone here noted, manpower is a significant problem in Iraq. So, with so few people being spread so thin and forced to do more than their fair share of time other there, it seems a tad hypocritical to support the effort but not help out in this case. Also, ya know, talk is cheap...
Let us consider a hypothetical war supporter who, although qualified to enlist, refuses to do so. Let us call him “CH”.
CH believes that there exists a threat to our nation is so grave as to justify war. The war comes, and (after a while) it is clear that we need more soldiers in our Army. CH cannot deny that our army may fail because it lacks qualified soldiers, but -- although qualified -- CH refuses serve.
In other words, CH considers defeat unacceptable as long as others are at risk, but as soon as CH might be put at risk, he finds defeat to be acceptable after all.
In my book, CH is far more than a “tad” hypocritical. If “victory” is not worth risking CH’s life, why is it worth risking anyone else’s?
WS, does this help you figure out whether it's fair to criticize someone for supporting the war but not signing up? If you find the question still open, how can you justify CH’s position?
The problem, Jim, is that there are really 3 potential responses I can see for a candidate in Romney's position. They are:
1) That the war is worth the lives of others, but not those of your sons.
2) That the war effort will benefit from your sons helping you be elected more than it will benefit from them joining the military.
3) That the war is not really worthwhile.
I think 2 is ludicrous given the circumstances. However, if Romney was someone who really would turn the war around and had the best shot of being elected out of any of the candidates, I might agree with him. The problem is, he has a very low chance of being elected and almost zero chance of turning the war around.
So.. I find 2 to be unjustifiable despite the fact it's getting him past the lame exucse for a press we have in this country. He probably believes 1, further defined with something along the lines of what Winston said about poor people serving by having their bodies blown into pieces and rich people serving by helping their politician dads get elected into office.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everyone who supports a war effort must join the army - just like everyone who supports getting criminals off the street shouldn't join the police. However, I do think it's the moral duty of everyone who believes in a cause to step up and support it when necessary. Anyone who thinks the war needs to be fought should be joining the army right now if at all able. They need troops badly. If you think it needs to be done and you're able but not doing it, you are one hell of a hypocrite, asshole, or both.
Mystic's point #2 is, of course, what Romney put forward. It is ludicrous, as noted. There is no rational basis for believing that Romney could "turn the war around" as president.
But WS's original statement was that he couldn't decided if it was fair to criticize war supporters whop don't sign up, even when there is a clear need for more people in uniform.
My hope is that boiling this position down to its essence:
"CH considers defeat unacceptable as long as others are at risk, but as soon as CH might be put at risk, he finds defeat to be acceptable after all"
might help WS decide.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home