From students Adam Jack Gomolin and Alex Halpern Levy, age 21 and 19 respectively, another sign of what today's Republican hostility toward homosexuality is sowing for the party tomorrow. Money quote:
The Republican Party has two options. First, if it continues with its present policies, it will watch its base crumble as elderly social conservatives are slowly replaced in the electorate by young social progressives. Second, a bold (and perhaps unlikely) move: the Republican Party can return to its small government roots. It can take gay marriage off the national agenda and allow individual states to legislate as they see fit. It can decide that the role of the government is not to tell people how to live their lives, and that the government that governs best dictates least. In this, the GOP must balance the base it has with the base it stands to gain.
These guys add up to six years less than my age. They're the future the GOP is mortgaging.
37 Comments for “Tomorrow’s Electorate Speaks.”
posted by Bobby on
” elderly social conservatives are slowly replaced in the electorate by young social progressives”
—Are you kidding me? There’s plenty of young social conservatives and independents who are completely un-progressive. We are politically incorrect, we watch South Park, love Ann Coulter, hate Michael Moore, we support strong borders, we want lower taxes, we support hunting and oppose the animal rights movement, we don’t support partial-birth abortion and we love America and are not afraid to say it.
Adam and Alex need to open their eyes. Progressives will NEVER vote republican, and frankly, we don’t need them. The Democratic party can have them, that is, if they don’t vote for the Green Party or something like that.
The last thing this country needs is two equally leftwing parties.
I love the republican party. The gay thing is secondary.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Bobby, don’t ever suggest that liberals and progressives don’t love our county just as much as conservatives. I know too many Americans who put blood on the ground for this country to tolerate that bullshit from you or anyone else.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Small government roots?”
Would that be Roosevelt’s national parks system? Or Nixon’s planned national social health care system? Perhaps Reagan’s budget deficits? Or George W. Bush’s doubling of federal employment?
I hope they don’t go looking to plant those roots, they’ll have a hard time finding them!
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
My issue with the Republican party is their insistence on simplistic yes/no, either/or answers. To get my vote a politician must demonstrate that they understand, are capable of understanding, the issues and are able to seek a balance of interests.
Hunters have and interest in conservation. Pro-choice advocates want to reduce the number of abortions. Our taxes support the interests of our social contract.
So far, there isn\\’t a Republican (in my area) that understands the concept of balance.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Katana: “So far, there isn’t a Republican (in my area) that understands the concept of balance.”
In my area, local Republicans are quite balanced on most issues that are of local (township and county) concern — issues like trying to balance growth with preservation of agricultural land and natural resource areas, watershed and environmental preservation, wildlife management, and so on. Democrats are too.
It makes sense, because most those issues directly impact folks in our rural county. It is not theory; it is what happens down the road.
At the state and national level, it is a different story, of course. It is pretty bleak.
The thing that I notice, in terms of yes/no thinking, is how cartoonish “conservatives” tend to be. I lost my temper at Bobby last night, but the mantras like “… we love America and are not afraid to say it …” is pretty standard townhall.com fodder, as are other cartoon images, like “conservatives are hunters, liberals are animal rights advocates” and all the rest of the black/white dreck Bobby alludes to in his post.
Do you suppose that the folks that are passing themselves off as conservatives these days actually think that simplisticly?
I wouldn not have thought so, but the more I listen to and read what Ann Coulter, Maggie Gallagher, Cal Thomas and folks like them have to say, I am beginning to wonder. If so, it is dismaying. Whatever happened to the days when conservatives were a thoughtful voice?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Whatever happened to the days when conservatives were a thoughtful voice?””””
The religious right and angry young right wingers AND grumpy rural wingers, both with a chip on their shoulder.
It’s not so much, or only that the more politically extreme elements have taken over the party, but also that the more loud, crude, unrefined elements have taken over it. The people in charge are inarticulate rude loudmouths.
People can be, an are, extreme right wingers while still maintaining somewhat of a semblance of being reasonable and calm. But the O’Reilys, Hannitys, Coulters, etc.’s are intentionally the opposite. Their schtick is constant, loud, outrage, and their listeners LIKE being whipped in to a fervor and LIKE being angry. It makes them feel self righteous and justified in their stance. Knowing they oppose all the evils and ills of the world so voiciferously and uncompromisingly makes them feel validated as people when they feel like nothing.
The populist, grassroots grouching over all sorts of meaningless nonsense has become the heart and soul of the GOP. Just look at that one anti-dean ad in 2004, where dean was told to take his “volvo driving, sushi eating, tatooed freakshow’ away from their bucolic paradise.
Are people really THAT angry over other people eating sushi and thai food and driving hybrids?
I mean, look at that south park episode about hybrids, where they whine and bitch about the cars producing ‘smug’ instead of smog. All jokes aside, whats more important? Keeping the planet habitable, or making sure that upper class liberals driving habits don’t make the red electorate feel bad?
I think much of the problem comes from the right wing being overrun with people who have their priorities misplaced. Horribly misplaced. Whining over foreign food, green cars, high fashion, whats on tv, etc. “culture” issues have become of paramount importance to the red electorate, which is bad for politics and America, since most of those issues concern things that the government has no business getting involved with anyway.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
By the way, I agree that the “faggot, faggot” tactic is turning off younger people in droves.
I wear a “Ask me why I’m voting NO! on the Amendment” button, and I rarely go through a day when a half dozen younger folks don’t comment favorably about it. Ben Stewart, the county Democrat chair, tells me that a lot of younger people came by the Democrat booth at the County Fair to get literature and many signed up.
I think that the Republicans are buying votes at the expense of their own future, at least in Sauk County.
The Democrats, of course, have to develop a pair of balls to capitalize on it.
It isn’t just a matter of ideology, though — it is not a conservative/liberal split. Barry Goldwater was a gay rights advocate before the term was coined, and Senator Feingold is flat out in favor of same-sex marriage. The two of them are on opposite poles, otherwise.
It is a great irony — and sad, really — that Republicans should be leading the charge on equality for gays and lesbians, rather than digging in their heels and fighting them. If Republicans still believed in conservative principles, gays and lesbians would be flocking to the party, instead of running the other way. And GLBT Republicans could be standing proud, instead of wimpering that “the gay thing is secondary” while hand social conservatives the knife used to slash their throats.
posted by Bobby on
“Tom Scharbach | July 24, 2006, 10:21pm | #
Bobby, don’t ever suggest that liberals and progressives don’t love our county just as much as conservatives. I know too many Americans who put blood on the ground for this country to tolerate that bullshit from you or anyone else.”
—-Tom, liberals and progressives aren’t flag-wavers, they use terms like “global village” and “global community” and “international law” because they’re simply not nationalists. They consider themselves to be citizens of the world.
Liberals and progressives hate patriotic Americans who wave the flag. They invented the term “flag-wavers” for them.
Your leftwing friends BLAME America for 9/11!
I’ve met people from the military, they’re definetely not liberals or progressives. Why? Because liberals and progressives don’t want to be in an environment where you can use guns and bombs to defeat an enemy.
While liberals and progressives say statements like “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Conservatives and independents don’t make such horrid judgements.
Remember your history, Tom. Even during Vietnam, the liberals and progressives spat on US soldiers and called them “baby killers.”
That’s why 70% to 80% of the military votes republican.
More proof? It’s liberals and progressives that made Jane Fonda a millionare. It’s conservatives that still refer to her as Hanoi Jane.
George Orwell was right, “whoever controls the present, controls the past, whoever controls the past, controls the future.” That’s why liberals and progresives are trying to rewrite history.
Patriotic Americans? Please, the day Bush got re-elected millions of liberals and progressives visited canadian immigration websites. Don’t tell me these people love America. They are self-hating Americans who would rather be europeans or canadians.
I love it when they travel abroad and say “oh, the people are so happy here, unlike home.” Maybe they should join the peacecorps and get some real perspectives. 3 years of living in a mosquitoe infested shack can turn any spoiled liberal into a nice conservative/independent.
And don’t deny you haven’t met liberals and progressives who think that way.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Even during Vietnam, the liberals and progressives spat on US soldiers and called them “baby killers.”
A perfect example of the speaking-without-thinking dynamic that Kittnboi hit on earlier.
Just who started the Vietnam War? LBJ. And LBJ was. . . (hint: not conservative).
As for “the liberals and progressives,” most of the ones who are in mainstream politics today were in diapers, in the womb, or in their parents’ imagination when that conflict was going on. I’ll bet you Bobby wasn’t even alive — but it doesn’t stop him from promoting that cartoonish, twisted-faced, screaming, angry, righteous crusade schtick which conservatism has been reduced to.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
By the way, what were the current crop of Republican leaders doing during the Vietnam? Certainly not “supporting the troops.”
Dick Cheney “had other priorities.”
George W. Bush went into the National Guard and went AWOL in order to avoid fighting there.
In fact, none of the prominent GOP leadership saw a lick of service in the conflict anywhere near the “four inch shore.”
I don’t believe in the draft, but then again, I’m not a militaristic Republican chicken hawk demanding other people’s kids die over my righteous crusade — yet who had “other priorities” when it was my turn to die for others’ crusades. There’s just no substance, no “there” there, in the Republican Party of today.
It’s truly absurd to watch — divorcee politicians lecturing people on the sanctity of marriage (while simultaneously trying to challenge spousal and child support payment rulings); married GOP luminaries shouting that marriage is all about procreation (while living for decades in childless marriages); morons screaming and pounding tearfully on podiums talking about freedom and the Constitution (while declaring that the Constitutional rights of unpopular minorities should be subject to a simple popular vote); Republican gasbags talking about small government (while spending like drunken sailors, pushing the deficit and federal debt ceiling to record levels, almost doubling federal employment, and launching a broad domestic surveillance program which spies on everyone who makes a phone call); Presidential candidates campaigning as Jesus-freaks (but who doesn’t attend church on a regular basis); and on and on.
Fortunately, I have it on good authority that we Libertarians will have a presidential candidate the next election cycle who will point out this absurd parody, and there’s nothing the GOPers hate more than being laughed at. I cannot wait!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Bobby: “Tom, liberals and progressives aren’t flag-wavers, they use terms like “global village” and “global community” and “international law” because they’re simply not nationalists. They consider themselves to be citizens of the world. Liberals and progressives hate patriotic Americans who wave the flag. They invented the term “flag-wavers” for them. ”
Bobby, we live on two different planets.
You equate patriotism (love of and devotion to country) with a nationalist political stance aligned to a particular political posture, and I equate patriotism with service and sacrifice.
You are welcome to go ahead and trash “liberals and progressives” who served our country by putting their lives on the line for it. My view is that their service speaks for itself. So does your trash-talk.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL: “I don’t believe in the draft … ”
I favor a draft, with no exceptions or exemptions other medical unfitness, for the simple reason that I think that the benefits and risks of citizenship should be shared by all citizens on an equal footing.
posted by Andrew on
Draft = slavery. There is absolutely no other way to look at it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the benefits and risks of citizenship
Most of what is characterized as a “benefit” of citizenship is a common right which was restricted over time. Most of what is characterized as a “risk” is the outgrowth of irresponsible politicians.
A draft is indeed slavery. If a draft is needed, the conflict is not just. If the conflict is just, a draft is NEVER needed — people are always ready to defend themselves and their property in a legitimate conflict of self-defense.
posted by kittynboi on
Time to give bobby another spanking.
“”””Tom, liberals and progressives aren’t flag-wavers, they use terms like “global village” and “global community” and “international law” because they’re simply not nationalists. They consider themselves to be citizens of the world.””””
You would call me a liberal, but I’m neither a nationalist NOR a citizen of the world. I hate the world at large, most of it, especially the third world. I’m not a citizen of any nation or tribal group. As always, I’m on only one side. My own.
“”””I’ve met people from the military, they’re definetely not liberals or progressives. Why? Because liberals and progressives don’t want to be in an environment where you can use guns and bombs to defeat an enemy.””””
i don’t care for violence, but I do like guns, at least for the design and engineering and craftspersonship for them.
“”””Maybe they should join the peacecorps and get some real perspectives. 3 years of living in a mosquitoe infested shack can turn any spoiled liberal into a nice conservative/independent.””””
I’ve thought of doing that just to have something to do.
Bobby, you should become a TV psychic, since you seem to think you can read the minds of liberals. Although you can’t do it very well, which would make you as effective as all the other psychics out there.
posted by Faux-Bobby on
Maybe they should join the peacecorps and get some real perspectives
The peace corp? THE PEACE CORPS?
THAT’S A SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION WHICH RECRUITS OUR CHILDREN INTO A LIFE OF BRAINWASHED LIBERALISM STARTED BY THAT COMMUNIST LOVER KENNEDY!!!
You America-hating leftist third columnist!!!!
posted by Bobby on
Earth to Faux-Bobby.
Kennedy was a moderate.
Kittynboi, we all use stereotypes to make a point. I have a friend who’s pro-life, pro-raves and pro-drugs. Another friend is a liberal pro-lifer animal rights activist. Frankly, you’re an enigma, I do not know you nor do I understand your politics.
Sure, not everyone can be put into a box. But since liberals decided to steal the term “progressive” and use it solely to describe themselves. I will use their same tactics as well.
Tom, the draft is an insult in a democracy. It’s fascism, pure and simple. A military of volunteers works a lot better than a military of draftees. Besides, the draft would be sexist because women would not get drafted.
Why should men die while the girls get manicures?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Frankly, you’re an enigma, I do not know you nor do I understand your politics.””””
I suppose that not many people do. It’s far from intentional.
I approach it one issue at a time. I determine my stance based on the facts as best I can discern them, regardless of all else, or at least that’s what I try to do.
I make an effort to ignore party lines and the like in this process.
I don’t identify myself with groups as readily as you do, and even if I participate in a group I never think of myself as one of them, even if I try.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“A draft is indeed slavery. If a draft is needed, the conflict is not just. If the conflict is just, a draft is NEVER needed — people are always ready to defend themselves and their property in a legitimate conflict of self-defense.”
NEL, you are assuming a frictionless market for the military. I don’t think that the market is frictionless. In any war, just or not, in which a person’s own family and own home are not directly at risk, a significant number of those who agree with the aims of the war will have “other priorities” and will choose them over service.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“While liberals and progressives say statements like ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ Conservatives and independents don’t make such horrid judgements.”
Why? Are they afraid of the truth?
“I love it when they travel abroad and say “oh, the people are so happy here, unlike home.”
The fact is that people who think, and say, that the United States is the greatest country in the world usually haven not travelled much.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Bobby or Faux Bobby: “A military of volunteers works a lot better than a military of draftees.”
Most studies of the military don’t support that idea. Both types of forces — all volunteer and volunteer/draft — have advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses. Neither is clearly better than the other in terms of military effectiveness. Ask Israel, which has universal military service. The Israelis seem to fight rather well, even though the volunteer, professional cadre is small relative to the overall size of the military.
Bobby or Faux Bobby: “Besides, the draft would be sexist because women would not get drafted.”
Why wouldn’t women get drafted? I favor a draft with no exceptions or exemptions other that for medical unfitness. Women have served in the military, on a more-or-less equal footing with men, for a few decades now, and women seem to be as good at soldiering as men. I’d draft women on the same basis of men.
Are you suggesting that women are unfit to serve? I hope not. On what other grounds would you propose to exempt them, if notunfitness?
Bobby or Faux Bobby: “Why should men die while the girls get manicures?”
Why, indeed? You are the one who seems to think that women should be exempt, not I. So tell me.
posted by Andrew on
“I don’t think that the market is frictionless. In any war, just or not, in which a person’s own family and own home are not directly at risk, a significant number of those who agree with the aims of the war will have ‘other priorities’ and will choose them over service.”
So that means it should be the government’s right to force me into servitude to defend the homes of other people I don’t know or care about, at risk to my OWN LIFE??? I’m not asking them to do it for me, and I would appreciate not being enslaved to do it for them, thanks.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Andrew: “So that means it should be the government’s right to force me into servitude to defend the homes of other people I don’t know or care about, at risk to my OWN LIFE??? ”
Yes, Andrew, that exactly is what the draft and military service is all about.
The government has the right to draft citizens for the military, if it elects to do so. The government exercised the power in most of our major wars, and will again, when needed in the future. Count on it.
The military doesn’t decide when and for what purpose it will be deployed. The military does the bidding of the civilian government.
And yes, that means that if you are in service, you might end up putting your OWN LIFE at risk in a war you don’t give a shit about, or a war which you think is wrongheaded. That’s the nature of military service.
“I’m not asking them to do it for me, and I would appreciate not being enslaved to do it for them, thanks.”
Individual soldiers don’t get to pick their wars, Andrew, except to the extent that they vote in elections. Why should individual civilians? You vote, I assume. That’s where you get to decide.
The question, and sole question, posed by a draft of the type I favor is whether all citizens should stand at equal risk in our nation’s military actions, or whether a few citizens, motivated by patriotism, economic necessity or boredom, should bear that risk for us.
It seems to me, as I said at the beginning, that all citizens should stand at equal risk.
The discussion in that thread has confirmed that for me.
The draft ended shortly after Vietnam. Since then, we have come to believe that we can have costless wars, that is, wars in which folks in the higher economic strata are not put at risk, personally.
I thihk we can see, from this thread, where that has led us — among other places, to a place where talking the talk about patriotism has become a substitute for walking the walk.
I think that it would have a salutory effect on this country to change that.
posted by Bobby on
Tom, I support women in the military, in combat positions and all that. But many people don’t. This society worships women and hates men, so the idea of women dying in combat is horrid to them. In fact, it’s liberals that use “tetosterone” as a negative.
“that the United States is the greatest country in the world usually haven not travelled much.”
—I was born and lived in Venezuela for 20 years. And I still say America is the greatest country in the world. I’ve also been to 25 other countries.
“Ask Israel, which has universal military service. ”
—Israel has a different culture. America is too divided into different factions. Besides, if the draft was so effective, why did so many US soldiers smoked pot and did hard drugs during Vietnam?
“motivated by patriotism, economic necessity or boredom, should bear that risk for us.”
—Yes they should, because they’re doing it with our money, that means they work for us. Besides, drafts are too expensive, I don’t want the government to raise taxes to pay for all the new draftees.
America is a wonderful country, let’s keep it that way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Bobby, you seem to be answering comments from about three people at once. Let me respond to two comments that seem to be in response to things I wrote:
Bobby: “Israel has a different culture. America is too divided into different factions.”
If you want factions, go to Israel. The country has about 25 political parties, 19 of which are large enough to have seats in the Knesset. Israel has hawks, doves and every shading in between. The county is a political disaster.
The two things that every understands, though, are (1) everyone serves, trained on active duty, and then in the ready reserve; and (2) reservists get called up whenever Israel’s rather small standing military has to go into serious action.
Israel, whatever else anyone might have to say about it, is a good example of a country well served by a citizen-soldier military.
Bobby: “Besides, if the draft was so effective, why did so many US soldiers smoked pot and did hard drugs during Vietnam?”
In the 1960’s, Bobby, most young people did pot, soldiers as well as civilian. I did and so did most people I knew. It was a lot better than half-warm beer, which was the alternative. The officers turned a blind eye. Most of them were young, too.
Hard drug use wasn’t all that common in Vietnam. That was more a homefront issue.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
you are assuming a frictionless market for the military. I don’t think that the market is frictionless.
I don’t know what a “frictionless” market is. I do know what involuntary “service” is — it’s slavery.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Drew: “I don’t know what a “frictionless” market is.”
A frictionless market is a model in which behavior is predicted on the basis of a single factor — in the case you posited, the behavior is whether people will volunteer to fight and the factor is whether or not a war is “just” — without taking into account the impact of other, often unrelated factors that impact the behavior — in the case I posited, “other priorities”.
Predictions based on a frictionless model are almost always inaccurate.
I think that the idea that a “just” war would find its own volunteers in sufficient number is inaccurate.
I think that all you have to do is look at the history of American inolvement in World War II to.make that clear. WWII was a war which the vast majority of the population considered “just”, had broad popular support with considerable peer pressure to “join up”, and yet the government depended on a draft to meet manpower needs.
Folks just don’t like to put their own skins on the line. That’s natural, and sa sign of sanity, in my view. Most would much rather have other people fight for them than do it themselves, and “other priorities” suddenly loom very large when the fighting starts. I don’t think that it makes much difference whether or not the war is “just”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Drew: “I do know what involuntary “service” is — it’s slavery.”
A draft is involuntary servitude for a term of years at the command of the government. No question.
The question is not what a draft is — everyone knows what a draft is — but whether military service is an obligation of citizenship that can be commanded by our government under our constitution.
The answer has been, under the court cases examining the question, answered in the affirmative.
All folks who don’t like that have to do is amend the constitution.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A correction, and apology. I quoted “Drew” in the two comments above. Obviously, the comments I quoted were from “Northeast Libertarian”. I’d been discussing other comments with Drew, and simply didn’t make the switch in my head.
posted by Bobby on
No Tom, we don’t need to amend the constitution. We can just elect politicians who will vote our way, and if they betray us, we can elect other people.
The GOP knows most Americans are against the draft. That’s why “majority rules” is such an important concept. We don’t want a minority of people imposing rules on the majority.
I don’t know your politics, but I don’t see myself as a servant of the government. It’s the government that is a servant of the people.
And even if there is a constitutional right to draft people, there’s also an expectation to declare war. Lately, both democrats and republicans love invading countries without even declaring war. This nonsense has to stop.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I think that all you have to do is look at the history of American inolvement in World War II to.make that clear. WWII was a war which the vast majority of the population considered “just”, had broad popular support with considerable peer pressure to “join up”, and yet the government depended on a draft to meet manpower needs.
The government didn’t depend upon the draft to meet manpower needs. In fact, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the military ended up turning away millions of young men and telling them to come back after they were drafted, as they had too many volunteers.
A draft existed during WW II, undoubtedly. One wasn’t necessary, however, and it could be argued that the existence of said draft actually harmed the war effort by sending people eager to fight away and putting in indentured slaves in their places.
The question is not what a draft is — everyone knows what a draft is — but whether military service is an obligation of citizenship that can be commanded by our government under our constitution.
That’s a practical political question, not a question of principal or morality.
The answer has been, under the court cases examining the question, answered in the affirmative.
All folks who don’t like that have to do is amend the constitution.
You could make the same arguments about black slavery in the South, or a woman’s right to vote, or indeed about gay marriage. Courts make bad or inappropriate rulings all the time.
The idea that “citizenship” is something that one should be “grateful” for and a status which creates an “obligation to the state” is a statist notion which dates from the European monarchy (and contemporary left-wing thought which views the state as the embodiment of the people).
It’s not at all an American view or a view which has basis in the American founding. The founders rejected the notion that governments had, by default, the right to demand “obligations” in exchange for citizenship and even viewed it as the right of individuals to dissolve or change government as they see fit.
The notion of “national service as a demand the state places upon its citizens in exchange for the benefits of citizenship” is a creation of the British empire, Leninist Russia and modern socialist thought more than American revolutionary ideology.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
even if there is a constitutional right to draft people, there’s also an expectation to declare war. Lately, both democrats and republicans love invading countries without even declaring war. This nonsense has to stop.
Good God, I agree with Bobby on two consecutive sentences! I feel dizzy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that I’m going to take a break from the draft thread and spend some time thinking and reading.
I’ve been building some furniture this morning, and mulling over what’s been said in the draft thread during the past few days, and what it might mean.
I grew up, in a rural area, surrounded by veterans of World War II, imbued with the ideas that military service was an obligation of citizenship, that all citizens should bear that burden on an equal footing, and that military service was a sacrifice of citizenship. Although my post-military work took me all over the US and Canada, my heart and mind stayed, for the most part, in rural Wisconsin.
And in this area, the ideas I grew up with remain intact, for the most part. A high percentage of men and women from this area serve in the military, either on active duty, the reserves, or the guard. Our guard units have been deployed, some several times, in Iraq. Almost all public events — concerts, high school athletic games, even the cow chip throwing contest — begin with mention of the local men and women who are serving in Iraq, honoring them for their service.
I live in a world in which the ideas I grew up with are the ideas I hear around me, in short.
Suddenly, on this thread, I’ve been confronted with a completely different view of things. Our military is described as “hired”, the idea that a man or woman should serve in a conflict that he or she didn’t personally agree with is treated as incredulous, and a draft is described as “slavery”. I’m stunned.
I think that it is time for me to read and reflect before I speak further. If what I have been hearing on this thread is an indication of the prevailing attitudes in our country, attitudes about the relationship of citizenship to military service have undergone a sea change.
posted by kittynboi on
I’ve always said that I’ll shoot my own kneecaps off before I get drafted.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Our military is described as “hired”, the idea that a man or woman should serve in a conflict that he or she didn’t personally agree with is treated as incredulous, and a draft is described as “slavery”.
Welcome to modern American thought — real freedom, real liberty, and real personal responsibility.
There’s no such thing as “serving in a conflict one personally disagrees with.” There is such as thing as “being forced at the point of a gun or butt of a truncheon to fight in an illegitimate war,” however. Such things were done in the 1950s through the 1970s in Korea and Vietnam. Much as the people who were forced into fighting were betrayed, lied to, and used up, they weren’t doing anything resembling “service” — they were just shooting at the people who the big guys in charge ordered them to.
_Almost all public events — concerts, high school athletic games, even the cow chip throwing contest — begin with mention of the local men and women who are serving in Iraq, honoring them for their service_
Oh, I come from a similar area, and such cheap and tawdry “patriotism” makes me want to puke. If people really cared about those men and women, they’d be working hard to ensure they weren’t sent to Iraq to die in some quagmire in the first place. Instead, they’re shipped off to get maimed, psychologically scarred, or killed, and they’ll be “honored” with some dusty bronze plaque in a high-school auditorium for their “service” to. . . well, whoever made the decision to send them off to die for the meaningless cause du jour.
The real purpose, the real depth of American citizenship is to live — to enjoy live, to explore its opportunities, to breathe free and express oneself and unroll one’s total potential as a free spirit. . . not to “serve” some military-industrial political cause which will be dead and buried not long after you are when your young life is extinguished thousands of miles from home in a senseless conflict built on lies, deceit and money.
posted by Bobby on
” If people really cared about those men and women, they’d be working hard to ensure they weren’t sent to Iraq to die in some quagmire in the first place.”
—Sorry NL, but if they didn’t want to go to Iraq, they shoudln’t have joined the military. This is like being a firefighter who’s afraid of fires. Makes no sense.
Also, war is the way they get promoted, so many of them are eager to go to war, inspite of the risks.
And, a lot of them are proud to serve their country, proud of what they’re doing in Iraq. You may not agree with them, but that’s how they feel.
If not, the military woudln’t have such high re-enlisting records. That was the case of Casey Sheehan, he had re-enlisted thrice during the Iraq conflict.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
if they didn’t want to go to Iraq, they shoudln’t have joined the military
If the people wringing their hands about their safety really cared about them, they wouldn’t have voted to send them to Iraq in the first place.
The whole fake “concern for the troops” thing is alternately amusing and disgusting. The people feigning “concern” don’t really give two shits about the troops’ safety — if they did, they wouldn’t have allowed them to be sent to Iraq under false pretenses in the first place and would be demanding the president be impeached for perjuring himself in front of Congress.