Leaving aside the brouhaha over whether Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is in the closet-and the Obama administration's contention that even to ask is a "slur"-there is a bigger gay-related issue with the nominee. As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan barred military recruitment on campus because the military discriminates against gay people. She reversed herself when it looked like mega-endowment-rich Harvard Law would otherwise lose funds that the government takes from Joe Taxpayer and gives to the elite university.
As former New Republic editor Peter Beinart, himself a liberal, writes at The Daily Beast:
The United States military is not Procter and Gamble. It is not just another employer. It is the institution whose members risk their lives to protect the country. You can disagree with the policies of the American military; you can even hate them, but you can't alienate yourself from the institution without in a certain sense alienating yourself from the country. Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag. It's more than a statement of criticism; it's a statement of national estrangement.
At the conservative National Review, Ed Whelan blogs:
It's also worth emphasizing that what Kagan mischaracterized as the "military's policy" is in fact the Clinton administration's implementation of a provision of the defense-appropriations law that a Democratic-controlled Congress enacted in 1993 (with Clinton's signature). Instead of taking potshots at military recruiters who were merely complying with the law, did Kagan ever exclude from campus any of the politicians responsible for the law? Of course not. Indeed, whatever moral opposition Kagan had to the law when it was adopted didn't deter her from seeking and obtaining employment in the Clinton White House. Nor will it keep her from palling around with the many senators who voted for it, such as Vice President Biden.
Let's be clear: I abhor "don't ask, don't tell" as much as Elena Kagan. But something is very wrong about Harvard faculty and students taking the view, during a time of war, that the military's gay ban means that they need not consider serving in the armed force.
Working to keep the military from recruiting Harvard's "best and the brightest"-the soon-to-be power elite-was never the way to oppose the congressionally imposed military gay ban. But it sure gave Harvard elitists the perfect excuse for leaving the fighting, and the dying, to those with calloused hands.
More on Kagan. Politico reports that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is complaining about a Wall Street Journal photo showing Kagan playing softball, whining it implies she's a lesbian (sadly, I'm not making this up). Chris Barron of the conservative gay group GOProud comments to Politico, "I fully expect the White House to push back and claim Kagan never played softball and that it's a smear to insinuate she did."
60 Comments for “Kagan’s Military Problem, and Ours”
posted by Bobby on
Today Nightline said her nomination was historic yet failed to explain why it was historic. Is she a lesbian? They did not say. What I do know is that the way she treated the military was shameful and DADT is not a valid excuse. The military bans blind people, deaf people, amputees, fat people, old people, and all kinds of people, should those groups also demand that the military not recruit on campus?
I don’t like Kagan, banning the military is unpatriotic, the woman should be ashamed of herself. Other than that, she has no experience as a judge, she’s too young, we could get stuck with her for decades.
posted by Jorge on
I think the real problem is the suspicion that the DADT policy was just a convenient excuse to justify a reflexive leftist hatred of and distain toward the military, especially during the Iraq War.
I would tend to respect the ban. However, it was a political failure. Any good that came out of it is invisible and meaningless. It’s moved us closer to becoming a nation that cherishes social conflict and away from one that values diversity and the exchange of ideas.
posted by Jorge on
Other than that, she has no experience as a judge, she’s too young, we could get stuck with her for decades.
Ideologically I think I like Elena Kagan a little, but I don’t want to support her because her profile reminds me too much of Harriet Miers’. We all know what happened to her.
posted by Tom on
Military recruitment on campus has been an issue on other campuses as well, including a couple in Wisconsin. As for college kids wanting to sit safe while others serve, that’s nothing new, either, unfortunately.
As far as I am concerned, each is yet another reason to favor a form of universal military service. It has always seemed to me that both the benefits and the responsibilities of citizens should be borne equally by all citizens.
posted by Tom on
Well, let’s not leave aside the social conservative tail that is likely to animate the Republican dog on the nomination:
American Family Association blog: “It’s time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans. The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?”
Americans for Truth is demanding that Kagan answer the question: “Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual”
Focus on the Family: “We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior â be it heterosexual or homosexual â certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”
I’m not going to spend my day chasing down quotes, and I don’t think that the flat out opposition of social conservatives to Kagan is a reason to support her nomination.
But I will make this observation: Any Republican Senator who votes for her confirmation thinks he or she is in a very, very safe seat.
posted by Tom on
Yeah, the social conservatives borked her because she wasn’t a true blue red meat social conservative.
posted by Bobby on
“As far as I am concerned, each is yet another reason to favor a form of universal military service. It has always seemed to me that both the benefits and the responsibilities of citizens should be borne equally by all citizens.”
—You mean a draft? That’s horrible, why do you want to corrupt our military with progressives and hippies? These people don’t want to be there, they will only corrupt the institution from within. Remember Vietnam? Remember them smoking pot and getting drunk? You want these people there? During WW1 there was a problem of soldiers not shooting their guns or not aiming at the enemy, they actually feared killing people. In our all volunteer military we’ve had problems with a few traitors who thought the Iraq war was illegal and deserted their units, went AWOL, went to Canada for asylum. And this was is an all volunteer military, imagine if we drafted people~!
No, the military is a career, just like joining the FBI, CIA, etc. Read the slogan from the Marines, “the few, the proud, the brave” or something like that, the whole point is that joining the military is becoming part of a very special fraternity where very few people are allowed in. Their strict physical and psychological requirements, their extreme training, the monetary cost of turning a man into a soldier and equipping him properly is not a right but a privilege for very few people that are worthy of the honor.
The military needs to remain a clique for it to remain attractive. Our only duty as civilians is to support them in every way we can, so if they want to come to our school or company to recruit, we should welcome them with open arms. But like the fire department, police department, and other government entities, nobody should be drafted into service.
Really Tom, you’re sounding like Obama when you talk about universal service, don’t be like him. That “community organizer” actually wanted to make volunteering mandatory, which is such an oxymoron since volunteering can never be mandatory, otherwise it’s not volunteering!
The military should only be open for the best of the best. It’s just like the Green Berets, do you really think they let anyone in? Just getting accepted as a candidate for their hellish basic training is an honor in itself. That’s how you build a strong army, you invite the best people in instead of drafting the worthless.
posted by Debrah on
Miller has devised a terrific post and highlighted a key issue that will present one of the most formidable hurdles ahead of Kagan.
There’s much to like about Kagan on the surface. She reminds me of my very strict, yet caring and effective, third-grade teacher I had so long ago.
Mrs. Rainey was a sweet, portly woman with an uncompromising set of values…….which she showered on her impressionable pupils daily.
I was her pet I think because I’d already developed the supremely useful talent of being able to exhibit just the right facial expressions…….
………giving teachers a most welcome impression that they were fascinating speakers and that I was hanging on their every word. LOL!
Thoughts of that third-grade teacher surface every time I see Elena Kagan.
But who is Kagan?
A sweet, sensitive woman interested in the fundamental rights, fairness, and equal representation of all Americans?
Or a giddy member of the so-called “power elite” who grew up on NY’s Upper West Side—a steaming leftist mecca—with a stealth agenda?
Little is really known about her at this point……which is why some have even resorted to conjuring The Ghost of Mrs. Kagan.
posted by Jimmy on
They should have allowed military recruiters on Hahvard’s, and every other, campus in the nation. But, what the schools can do is place the recruiters’ booth right next the Young Republicans’ booth at every opportunity. It would give those entitled little snot noses an opportunity to reflect on what patriotism really means and is service to one’s country worth the sacrifice of privilege and social status.
The military is, for the most part, a blue-collar way of life.
After all, these kids, like the young Darth Cheney, have other priorities, don’t they?
Tom’s thoughts on national service are interesting.
Once the military becomes more about career, rather that service to nation, then the careerist simply becomes a government employee.
Many past justices where not judges – the proliferation of judges is a modern phenomena.
posted by Tom on
Well, Obama or no Obama, universal military service is a good idea. It seems to me that every citizen should bear an equal responsibility for national defense. It is, as far as I am concerned, part of the idea of “equal treatment under the law”.
Nothing in the idea of universal military service is at odds with giving the military the right to pick those it deems best eligible for service, depending on its needs. It simply means the every citizen bears an equal responsibility for service.
The all-volunteer military has not served us well, in my opinion, for several reasons:
(1) the less educated serve disproportionately;
(2) the rural and the less affluent serve disproportionately;
(3) the military has lowered its recruitment standards in order to meet quotas;
(4) the cost of the military recruitment and retention is high; and
(5) the military has become increasingly dependent on non-military personnel.
All of that is sufficient reason to move back to universal military service, in my view.
But the ultimate reason is this: After roughly 35 years of an all-volunteer military, too many Americans no longer see military service as their personal responsibility. It has become increasingly common for Americans to think of military service as a form of employment for Americans without anything better to do.
posted by RevJDSpears on
Oh dear, Mr. Miller has stepped of into the deep end!
“Working to keep the military from recruiting Harvard’s “best and the brightest”âthe soon-to-be power eliteâwas never the way to oppose the congressionally imposed military gay ban. But it sure gave Harvard elitists the perfect excuse for leaving the fighting, and the dying, to those with calloused hands.”
It is always interesting to watch how some people will posit an extreme to justify rejection. The Far Right does it, the Far Left does it, and apparently so does Mr. Miller! No, standing on the side of justice is not the same as rejecting military service.
DADT is an injustice, as was the Dred Scot laws in their day, that must be rectified. Kagan merely made a principled stand and for that she is vilified. But cause of that she should be confirmed to the Supreme Court!
posted by SStocky on
The campus bans on military recruiters became a widespread litmus test of political correctness among faculties and administrations. The use of DADT as a rationale was merely a charade to mask their anti-military views. Once again the left uses GLBTs for its political purposes without ever doing anything significant for us and to downplay what they have done to us like DADT and DOMA.
posted by Debrah on
On a semi-related topic, this one from Newsweek by Ramin Setoodeh and also covered here has created quite a stir.
This topic is often avoided and when it is discussed, as to whether or not Elena Kagan is a lesbian…….
…….the “progressives” handle it in most amusing ways like how the Obama administration responded recently. The question becomes a “slur”. LIS!
Those ways reveal their true opinions.
For what it’s worth, I am not a fan of Sean Hays……simply because I do not find him a compelling talent.
A most provocative question, IMO:
“If an actor of the stature of George Clooney came out of the closet tomorrow, would we still accept him as a heterosexual leading man? It’s hard to say. Or maybe not. Doesn’t it mean something that no openly gay actor like that exists?”
posted by Bobby on
“Well, Obama or no Obama, universal military service is a good idea. It seems to me that every citizen should bear an equal responsibility for national defense. It is, as far as I am concerned, part of the idea of “equal treatment under the law”.”
—That’s not equal treatment, that’s coercion. Imagine if there was a flood and the National Guard took people out of their homes and forced them to help them fight the flood? That’s what you’re basically asking. Besides, our country cannot afford a draft, military salaries and benefits are too high to include everyone.
“Nothing in the idea of universal military service is at odds with giving the military the right to pick those it deems best eligible for service, depending on its needs. It simply means the every citizen bears an equal responsibility for service.”
—Read “American Gulag,” during Vietnam they picked obese men, psychologically unstable men, and other types of guys that had to undergo extra basic training. It was traumatic, my father even heard of people who amputated fingers just to avoid the draft. This isn’t Israel, we have a population of 300 million, we don’t need all of them to serve, we don’t even need 10% of them to serve.
(1) the less educated serve disproportionately;
—So what? See, you’re confusing social justice with equal justice, in a free country that’s irrelevant. The ones who want to serve do, and the ones who don’t stay away. Baskeball has too many blacks, should we fire some of them and replace them with whites? That would be crazy. And by the way, what about all those people who get a free college education at West Point? Those people get an education and then serve. Besides, the military itself gives you an education, you can come out of the military and become a private pilot, police officer, human resource manager, aviation mechanic and hundreds of other professions. They even get preferential treatment since companies love hiring ex-military people because they are better workers than civilians, they have more discipline.
(2) the rural and the less affluent serve disproportionately;
—So what? That’s the whole point, the military allows the rural and less affluent to reach a higher status in life. The rich already have status, very few of them stay in the military for long. Besides, some of the rich are spoiled, maybe basic training could change Paris Hilton, but ultimately she might be a hindrance rather than an asset.
(3) the military has lowered its recruitment standards in order to meet quotas;
—What’s wrong with that? Don’t you want to give people a chance? Don’t you think someone who has committed a minor crime or been caught with drugs deserves to prove his worth? The military knows what they’re doing. I’d rather have a gangster in the marines than a spoiled rich kid with a sense of entitlement.
(4) the cost of the military recruitment and retention is high; and
—We can afford it. A volunteer will always perform better than a draftee.
(5) the military has become increasingly dependent on non-military personnel.
—You want our boys cleaning toilets? That’s not only degrading but it keeps valuable personnel away from positions of importance.
“But the ultimate reason is this: After roughly 35 years of an all-volunteer military, too many Americans no longer see military service as their personal responsibility.”
—So what’s wrong with that? Again, you’re thinking as a collectivist instead of an individualist. We cannot afford to be Greece (25% of the population there works for the government). If you bring back the draft you’re going to make the military less attractive to those who want to serve, you’re also going to increase military expenditures through the roof since new barracks and training centers will have to be built. A draft would undermine unit cohesion, it would mix people who don’t want to be there with those who do. Besides, do you know any effective company that drafts people? Can you imagine Google forcing engineers to work there?
In a way, the military is like a company, their product is war, their personnel need to be willing to fight those wars. Besides, slavery was abolished in this country and a draft would represent a form of involuntary servitude. In fact, slavery itself wasn’t so easy, white plantation owners often lived in fear of slave rebellions, so an army of slaves could result not only in troops that disrupt morale but in possible traitors that sell information to the enemy. Seriously, if the draft was a good idea our generals would be begging for it.
“It has become increasingly common for Americans to think of military service as a form of employment for Americans without anything better to do.”
—No, it’s liberals who view it that way because they can’t imagine being in the military, so they must find excuses that make sense to them. The military is for patriots, adventurers, people who dream of glory, heroism, people who don’t want a traditional 9 to 6 job. It attracts the poor because living in a ship is probably more exciting than working on a farm or factory.
posted by BobN on
Misinformation, disinformation and out-right hackery.
The military was not banned from campus. They were on campus under the auspices of the veteran’s group and were not allowed to use the facilities and services of the campus recruitment office because of a long-standing non-discrimination policy at Harvard. The “hardship” of the arrangement was minimal and never stopped any interested Harvard Law grads from considering military careers and signing up.
Miller knows this. Hack.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
Nice try on the amelioration front.
Valerie Jarrett was on MSNBC early this morning trying the same thing.
It’s all rather like the paper shuffling that lawyers do.
They think if they can toss a strategic page into a convenient basket at a strategic time, it will buttress their obfuscations at any given time and place of argument.
Kagan is a Leftist.
She is grandly assisted by the fact that her paper trail is virtually non-existent.
She will bob (no pun intended) and weave, and will, ultimately, be confirmed.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, for the most part, except for the entire freakin’ Officers corps. And booths set up at Harvard Law, or at any college, are all about recruiting officers.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I agree with Stephen Miller on this. As to Harvard’s anti-discrimination policy, the U.S. military is not in the same category as a commercial firm. It defends our country. Too many on the left think that boycotts and threats are the solution to every problem. A much better approach to the injustice of DADT would be to invoke the black soldiers of the Civil War era Massachusetts 54th Infantry Regiment, who fought for their country at a time when their own rights were not recognized. Instead of either discouraging gay men and lesbians from serving, or hampering military recruitment efforts, we should emphasize the many who do serve, who are eager to continue serving, but who must do so in silence. That would go a lot farther in persuading people.
In the comments, Jorge wrote, “I don’t want to support her because her profile reminds me too much of Harriet Miers’.”
That is quite wrong. Miers had very little in the way of qualifications. Kagan is a former dean of one of the nation’s leading law schools, and is Solicitor General of the United States, a position commonly referred to as the “Tenth Justice.”
If, as Debrah wrote, the Harvard military recruitment ban is “one of the most formidable hurdles ahead of Kagan,” she should be in good shape. Yes, the issue will come up, but the notion that it is a formidable hurdle sounds like hyperventilating. If that’s all the opposition has on her, no filibuster will hold. She was tested last year at her confirmation hearings for Solicitor General. Let’s say you think the military recruitment issue SHOULD sink her (which I don’t, although I think the Harvard policy was wrong both on its merits and as a strategy for defeating DADT). Thinking it should sink her and thinking it will sink her are two different things. The lack of judicial experience will not sink her either, because all she has to say is “William H. Rehnquist.” Mitch McConnell’s phony reasons for opposing her will change nobody’s mind, and if all Democratic senators vote to confirm, Obama needs only one Republican member to prevent a filibuster.
posted by Debrah on
Is Andrew Sullivan Kicking Off A Media Frenzy Over Kagan’s Sexuality?
This self-serving, over-hyped, issues-vacillating media whore will do whatever it takes to keep the kitchen warm for his daily dishes.
posted by Tom on
I’m not surprised in these times to hear the military described as “a company [whose] product is war” and the draft described as a form of “slavery”, but your attitude demonstrates, to my mind, exactly “What’s wrong with that …” The critical problem with an all-volunteer military is that it has, over the last few decades, divorced the obligations of citizenship from the benefits of citizenship. Americans feel free to reap the rewards of citizenship without feeling any obligation to share in the risks. That, it seems to me, is a erosion of our understanding of citizenship.
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. I’ll grant you that I’m old-fashioned.
And in this rural 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 and Afghanistan. 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 military service is still seen as an obligation of citizenship, and honored as such, in short.
The question, and sole question, posed by universal military service (perhaps, more accurately, universal military obligation) is whether all citizens should stand at equal risk in our nation’s wars and military actions, or whether a few citizens, motivated by patriotism, economic necessity, culture or boredom, should bear that risk for us.
posted by BobN on
When bringing up the facts surrounding an issue becomes “amelioration”, we’re way past analysis and deeply into posturing.
Clarity and understanding as “obfuscation”? Debrah, I’m disappointed.
posted by BobN on
I’m perplexed by these statements about the special nature of the military and how an exception should be made for it.
Isn’t that precisely what happened at Harvard? The military was allowed — indeed encouraged — to recruit at Harvard, just under the auspices of a different “host”. The only alternatives would have been an explicit exemption in the non-discrimination policy or completely eliminating sexual orientation from the non-discrimination policy.
Is that what Miller and his followers would have wanted? Focus on the Family and the AFA recruiting the nation’s “best and brightest” with a big “No Gays Need Apply” sign at their booths? Really? You want that at the nation’s top schools? If you want that sort of climate, go to Regent University.
(I wonder… when DADT is repealed, will Regent encourage them to recruit “true believers” into a gay-friendly organization? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Only after the passage of the Solomon Amendment in 1996 — prior to which, Harvard had completely banned military recruiters from campus for a number of years (since 1979). The threat of totally losing millions of dollars in federal funds forced Harvard to be a little more accommodating, and the school devised the compromise of allowing recruiters on campus under the sponsorship of a student group, rather than through the campus “Office of Career Services” (OCS).
After 9/11, Harvard faced pressure to let military recruiters use the resources of the OCS — and Harvard Law School complied with this.
When Kagan was Dean, she supported an effort to let Harvard (and other schools) revert to the “compromise” position that had existed after the passage of the Solomon Amendment and prior to 9/11. But in Kagan’s defense, she did NOT advocate the total exclusion of military recruiters from campus facilities, as had been the policy from 1979-1996.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Quick summary of Harvard’s uneasy relationship with military recruiters, and Kagan’s stance as Dean, at Slate.com.
posted by BobN on
Anyone interested in the real timeline should start at “The Solomon Amendment” at this link:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/
And congrats, Throbert, for dragging 9/11 into the fray, as though it had anything to do with it.
In the aftermath of 9/11, I had a ham sandwich for lunch today.
Neat trick! I’ll have to use it sometime.
posted by Debrah on
Does anyone ever wonder why a gay man isn’t nominated for such a position by this illustriously “progressive” president?
Does anyone ever wonder?
posted by Guest42 on
Because clearly any student that *wanted* to serve couldn’t walk a few blocks to a recruitment office.
posted by Mark on
“It defends our country.”
The broken record of thoose defending the regime. The American military generally defends the interests of the ruling elite and their plans to control the entire planet.
Kindly tell me what killing hundreds of thousands of people in Viet Nam and Iraq had to do with “defense.” Oh, Ho Chi Mihn and Saddam Hussein were about to destroy the American way of life, I forgot.
posted by Mark on
“Because clearly any student that *wanted* to serve couldn’t walk a few blocks to a recruitment office.”
Yes, the horror of it!
posted by Mark on
The poor military, thwarted for a few months in their plans to set up a booth at Harvard.
But truth , justice and the American way won out as Kagan, faced with a cutoff of Federal loot, had to relent. What an inspiring tale.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Try reading your own fucking link before getting snide, BobN.
Is it your contention that the DoD ruling in 2002 had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11?
posted by Jimmy on
“Does anyone ever wonder why a gay man isn’t nominated for such a position by this illustriously “progressive” president?”
Well, he’s not done yet. But, I have stated that Obama the president is not as progressive or leftist as some have characterized him
posted by Jorge on
In the comments, Jorge wrote, “I don’t want to support her because her profile reminds me too much of Harriet Miers’.”
–That is quite wrong.
Excuse me, you’re not in my head, so MYOB. If you ask me why I think the way I do, I may deign to answer you.
Well, let’s not leave aside the social conservative tail that is likely to animate the Republican dog on the nomination:….
So there IS reporting on it. Or at least gossip. So the AP’s coverage *is* slanted toward not mentioning something they know.
posted by Throbert McGee on
One thing I was mistaken about in my 4:13pm post, however, is that HLS apparently modified or clarified its 1979 policy excluding military recruiters (and allowing them to work through a student group of military veterans) some years before the passage of the Solomon act in 1996 — thus, HLS was not forced by Solomon to provide some accommodation for recruiters.
And in any case, I think the key point is that Kagan appeared to favor a rational compromise whereby Harvard Law could register a pro forma protest against DADT (without jeopardizing Harvard’s access to gummint money) by inconveniencing military recruiters in an extremely minor way; while the military would still be welcome to recruit at HLS using school facilities, though they would be denied access to certain resources provided by the Career Office.
If conservatives want to argue that Kagan is ill-informed on military readiness issues and supports the repeal of DADT for superficial liberal reasons because the word “discrimination” sounds bad, they’re free to do so. But I don’t think it’s reasonable, given the facts, to call Kagan an anti-military radical.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And by the way, it was very gracious for Mark to provide us an example of what anti-military radicals actually sound like, just so that there’s no confusion! Kagan does not say shit like The American military generally defends the interests of the ruling elite and their plans to control the entire planet, because although she’s liberal, she’s neither a leftist radical nor an airhead poseur waving his Officially Certified Member of the Intelligentsia card by parroting actual leftist radicals. (I’m not sure which category Mark falls into.)
posted by Bobby on
“The critical problem with an all-volunteer military is that it has, over the last few decades, divorced the obligations of citizenship from the benefits of citizenship. Americans feel free to reap the rewards of citizenship without feeling any obligation to share in the risks. That, it seems to me, is a erosion of our understanding of citizenship.”
—You’re talking like a collectivist, that’s not the country our founding fathers created. This is a “do your own thing” kind of country. Want to go to Alaska to look for gold? Go ahead. Want to homeschool your kids? After you, sir. Citizenship is about following the law, paying your taxes, going to work and supporting those who want to serve. Citizenship is not drafting people who don’t want to fight in wars they don’t agree with.
“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.”
—They thought it was an obligation for themselves, not for others. They joined because they wanted to join, nobody forced them.
“Our guard units have been deployed, some several times, in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
—That’s the price of being in the military. A fireman doesn’t fight the fires he likes and cops don’t patrol the streets when they feel like it. The National Guard is expected to follow orders and support the military when called to do so.
“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.”
—We honor them because they’re volunteers, because they have CHOSEN to put themselves in harms way, because they’re courageous. Their example inspires others to join the military, forcing people to join would undermine that.
“The question, and sole question, posed by universal military service (perhaps, more accurately, universal military obligation) is whether all citizens should stand at equal risk in our nation’s wars and military actions, or whether a few citizens, motivated by patriotism, economic necessity, culture or boredom, should bear that risk for us.”
—A few citizens should do that because the rest of us have to go to work and pay taxes to fund the war effort. Seriously, don’t you remember how the draft almost destroyed this country during the 1960s? How it bred the hippie movement, the drug movement, how we had people escapting to Canada or getting discharged from basic training with a Section 8 which made them unhirable, almost like a non-person?
War has changed, it’s no longer about having huge armies but the best technology, the best training and the best volunteers. Look at the drones, now we can kill the enemy without flying gas-guzzlers. Armies don’t need draftees, in fact, giving the army too many soldiers is like giving the government too much money, eventually they will becoming inefficient and waste their resources. Don’t believe me? Look at D-day.
posted by Tom on
Bobby, you have an interesting perspective on military service, I’ll say that for you. For me, it doesn’t wash.
posted by Tom on
Military service has been considered an obligation of citizenship since the beginning, and conscription was, contrary to your opinion, part and parcel of “the country our founding fathers created”.
You might be interested in reading ARVER v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918), in which the constitutionality of the draft was challenged. The opinion briefly summarizes the use of the draft during the War of Independence:
“ In the Colonies before the separation from England there cannot be the slightest doubt that the right to enforce military service was unquestioned and that practical effect was given to the power in many cases. Indeed the brief of the government contains a list of Colonial Acts manifesting the power and its enforcement in more than two hundred cases. And this exact situation existed also after the separation. Under the Articles of Confederation it is true Congress had no such power, as its authority was absolutely limited to making calls upon the states for the military forces needed to create and maintain the army, each state being bound for its quota as called. But it is indisputable that the states in response to the calls made upon them met the situation when they deemed it necessary by directing enforced military service on the part of the citizens. In fact the duty of the citizen to render military service and the power to compel him against his consent to do so was expressly sanctioned by the Constitutions of at least nine of the states, an illustration being afforded by the following provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: ‘That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion toward the expense of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto.‘ Article 8 (Thorpe, American Charters, Constitutions and Organic Laws, vol. 5, pp. 3081, 3083).3 ”
To assert that the founders created a country in which military service was not an obligation of citizenship — and compulsory military service demanded as needed — is to deny our own history.
posted by Tom on
I think you are dead wrong, Bobby.
We honor them because for their service. Men and women who were drafted are every bit as entitled to our respect as those who volunteered.
I volunteered for service and served in an all-volunteer unit. I did not serve with draftees after I completed Basic and AIT. But although I did not have much contact with them, I believe that the 2 million men who were drafted into service during the Vietnam era deserve to be honored for their service. They fought, were wounded, and died right alongside the volunteers.
I believe that, too, of the 1.5 million men who were drafted during the Korean War era, and the 11 million men inducted into service during World War II. I believe that of every man and woman who ever served, volunteer or not.
I think you need to sit back and take a few deep breaths.
posted by Bobby on
Well Tom, I commend you for your service. But tell me, what happens to the fat guy who didn’t want to serve yet was drafted and called a “lardass” by his drill sergeant? What happens to the effeminate boy who was never an athlete in his life and suddenly has to share barracks with cruel jocks? Ever heard of blanket parties- those fun events in which a soldier is held with blankets while an entire platoon takes turns beating the crap out of him just because he can’t keep up? I thought that was just a scene from Full Metal Jacket, but it turns out that’s not a movie, that’s reality.
You think military service is for everyone, I think it’s only for a selected few. You think it’s nice to draft people that might have a psychological breakdown? Do we not have volunteers that have attacked their own units? Do we need more arabs in the service so we can multiply the Fort Hood incident times ten?
And what about those draftees who later on became drug addicts, homeless people, anti-war people? You think it’s right to destroy a person that way? Is it fair to send a draftee to war and have him come home as an amputee?
Rather than accentuate the positive about military service, let’s accentuate the negative. Have you ever heard of the draft riot in New York? Funny how good old Abraham Lincoln created a draft you could get out of by paying $100. Forget about your idealistic notions about the rich serving, the rich who want to serve will serve, the ones who don’t will get doctors to invent medical conditions, perhaps they will ship their sons oversees or do what Bill Clinton did thanks to that Rhodes Scholarship.
I don’t mind military recruiters going to high schools, creating video games that excite kids about serving, running expensive TV commercials. All that is acceptable, all that helps the volunteers feel that they’re special, because they’re joining something great. How do you think a draftee feels?
In America we’re supposed to have individual rights, we are not subjects of the state, it is government BY the people, they work for us, we’re not supposed to work for them, yet you want our young to be subjects of a draft.
The military is not for everyone, you should know that since you’ve served there. I am not a liberal, but when it comes to freedom I will march with hippies and anti-war peacenicks just to keep our military free from draftees.
posted by Throbert McGee on
He loses weight.
He butches up, and the “cruel jocks” don’t get away with it in the barracks like they did in high school.
On what do you base that conclusion, Bobby? Have you ever served in the military?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I agree with Bobby’s point that modern military actually functions better as an all-volunteer force. But I appreciate Tom’s points about the value of compulsory military service for building the character of men and women. Lord knows I’ve met a lot of gay men who would be totally transformed by just a two-year stint in the military.
posted by Debrah on
“…….the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is complaining about a Wall Street Journal photo showing Kagan playing softball, whining it implies she’s a lesbian (sadly, I’m not making this up). Chris Barron of the conservative gay group GOProud comments to Politico, ‘I fully expect the White House to push back and claim Kagan never played softball and that it’s a smear to insinuate she did.’ “
***********************************************
Just saw this on the news.
Once again….besides the embarrassingly desperate Andrew Sullivan…..who is trying to play up this issue?
posted by Jorge on
I didn’t know Ben Smith on the NY Daily News… come to think of it, I didn’t even know he had left.
“It clearly is an allusion to her being gay. It’s just too easy a punch line,” said Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who is now a consultant. “The question from a journalistic perspective is whether itâs a descriptive representation of who she might be as a judge. Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?”
No, but it is known that he loves basketball.
And we have plenty of pictures of Barack Obama playing basketball.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Jorge, really, this is not about you. I don’t care what is inside your head. Your comparison of Kagan to Miers is facile and wrong. The facts do not support it.
As to all the pointless speculation about whether Kagan is lesbian, well, I suppose GLAAD and their circle need something to occupy themselves (though I must say in Cathy Renna’s behalf that her media strategy surrounding the rollout of D.C.’s marriage equality law was superb). But from what I have seen, it’s all just speculation. A lot of people think they know stuff that they don’t know. A former boss of mine was thought by many people to be lesbian because she was obese, gruff, and did not care a fig about conforming to other people’s standards of feminine behavior. But she wasn’t lesbian at all. I think the Obama folks need to dial down their reactions to those speculations. But all of this is a sideshow.
posted by Tom on
The risks of military service are significant, long-lasting and pervasive. To my way of thinking, that is precisely why the risk should be borne equally by all citizens, as an obligation of citizenship.
I do not think life is fair. I know better.
I do think, however, that it is fair to have every citizen bear equal risk, just as I think that it is fair to have every citizen share equal rights.
I do not think that most men want to expose themselves to the risks of military service. I do not think that the rich are paragons of human virtue, any more than I think that the poor are paragons of human virtue. I know that a significant number of men will try to wiggle out; that has always been the case, and always will be. Some, as you noted in an earlier comment (“… my father even heard of people who amputated fingers just to avoid the draft …”) will go to extreme measures to avoid service. Sending others into danger while staying home, safe and warm, while mouthing self-serving justifications about how “I’ve got other more important things to do …” is human nature.
But that is, in a real sense, what is happening now under the all-volunteer military. Listen to yourself: “Citizenship is about following the law, paying your taxes, going to work and supporting those who want to serve.” We are paying other citizens to bear the risks of citizenship.
Take a look at two posters as background to what I am going to say: Attitude and Airborne Agenda. Both capture something essential about the espirit of Airborne service.
The military builds espirit into soldiers. It is very good at it. Military service is special, whether a person volunteered or was drafted, and almost all soldiers come to understand that during the course of service. Almost all veterans are quietly proud of that they served, and rightly so.
Our is also a government OF the people. When the risks of citizenship cease to be a shared by all on an equal footing, we lose something of that truth. I think we have moved down that road in recent years, farther than I think is good for us, and I think that your statement is symptomatic.
I have a bookmark sitting next to my computer sent to me by the DAV, a veterans’ group I belong to, that says “Freedom is not Free”. I believe that, Bobby. I don’t think that we can purchase freedom by hiring others to preserve our freedom for us, either. I believe that all of us should share the burden on an equal footing.
I am typical, I think, of almost all veterans in one respect.
I know — know, not think — that I have earned the full rights of citizenship, and I do not let anyone tell me otherwise. That is not to say that that those of us who served are better than those who did not, or that we are more entitled to the rights and benefits of citizenship than they.
But it is to say that I know that I am entitled to equal treatment under the law. It is not just theory with me. It is a fact etched into my very being. People who haven’t served don’t know that in quite the same way, I suspect.
What happens when most Americans no longer know that because they have not served, because they hired other men and women to earn our freedom? That’s where I think we are headed, and I think that it is the wrong direction.
Well, I feel sorry for you. I don’t object to anti-war protesters — I was strongly opposed to the war in which I served and history, I think, has borne me out on that score — but joining anti-war protests because you don’t want to serve, rather than because you think that the war is unjust or wrongheaded, is to demean yourself.
posted by Tom on
This is the beginning of the prior post.
The obese will be screened out as physically unfit, as they are now. The “lardassess” will lose weight and get fit. You seem to be assuming that universal military obligation means that the military will take everyone. That isn’t the case; the military screens now, as it screened when there was a draft, even during WWII, when manpower needs were at their highest.
I assume that an “effeminate boy” will have to butch up a bit, and hide the nellie. But I think you are verging on the hysterical, and that your concerns are largely misplaced. Almost all men, even the effeminate ones, work out a way to serve effectively, and that would be particularly true if conscription were the rule, when all manner of men are serving. You also seem to assume that the “cruel jocks” don’t rule the barracks; that is not true. Military disciplene is very strong and usually effective.
Military disciplene does break down from time to time — the murder, assault and violent crime rates in the military are much lower than in civilian life, but violent crime does exist — and there is a limited tolerance for putting the fear of God into total fuck-ups and misfits who won’t do their job. But that doesn’t happen much, and it is usually disciplened if it turns to violence.
We do differ on that score, along two dimensions.
First, on the question of whether only “a selected few” are fit to serve. Historically, military service has been for everyone who is physically and mentally fit to serve, and that includes the vast majority of the population, not just “a selected few”. I think that should still be the case. Most men (and these days women) can adjust successfully to military life, and serve effectively. I think that the idea that only “a selected few” are fit to serve is nonsense.
Second, on the question of whether only “a selected few” should serve. I believe that the risk of military service is a risk of citizenship that should be borne equally by all citizens who are fit to serve. I believe that the risk of military service has always been understood to be an obligation of citizenship in our country. I think that the idea that the military should be “hired hands” — that we, as citizens, should be content to purchase our protection rather than personally share in the burdern — is wrongheaded and an erosion of the core meaning of citizenship.
The military will screen out the most susceptible, to the extent that it can. The others will bear the risk, and those who see combat will bear the highest risk.
Risk of psychological breakdown, during or after service, is a known risk of combat. Most men who engage in combat experience stress reactions, many of them serious and long-lasting. PTSD is common among combat veterans. Suicide rates are significanly higher than normal. A number of studies show that combat veterans don’t live as long as those who have not been in combat, and are particularly susceptible to stress-related diseases, such as hypertension, heart disease and certain cancers, in old age. We all know, or have seen, old men who still cannot talk about some experiences during World War II without breaking down. The risks of military service are significant, long-lasting and pervasive.
To my way of thinking, that is precisely why the risk should be borne equally by all citizens, as an obligation of citizenship.
A few soldiers go berserk. A very few. An all-volunteer service does not change that fact.
posted by Jerry on
“If I were gay…I’m not, not that there is anything wrong with being gay.” I don’t think any of us haven’t heard this several times or variations of it. When Obama claims that it’s a slur then how can he claim to be a supporter of the gay community. He obviously isn’t convinced that being gay is just fine. The same with Kagan. If she’s not gay, just say so, if she is just say so. If she can’t then I wouldn’t trust her on the court and I don’t think she would be a positive image for gays on the court.
posted by JOE MITCCHELL on
I cannot see invading into Kagan’s private life is going to make a difference one way or the other. We (the gay society), is always complaining that we want to have the same rights and be treated as equal citizens of the USA, but then we want to make the bedroom part of the conversation, mthis in essence is the problem, I am not interested in who sleeps with whom. I think just having the chance to have three women in the Supreme Court sitting at one time should be the focus. Sometimes don’t ask, dont’t tell makes sense. It’s really none of anyones business.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Generally speaking, I’m convinced that being a Mormon is “just fine,” but that doesn’t stop me from saying that some fundamentalist Christians used the fact of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism as a slur against him when he was pursuing the GOP nomination. It doesn’t mean I’m prejudiced against members of the LDS Church; it means I recognize that some OTHER people do have strong anti-LDS prejudices.
posted by Bobby on
“Well, I feel sorry for you. I don’t object to anti-war protesters — I was strongly opposed to the war in which I served and history, I think, has borne me out on that score — but joining anti-war protests because you don’t want to serve, rather than because you think that the war is unjust or wrongheaded, is to demean yourself.”
—You’re wrong, I would love to serve but at 5’11 and 35 years of age my weight requirement are 190 and I’m at 215. I’m also unable to run one mile under 15 minutes. Oh, and to pass basic training you have to complete a physical fitness test that demands a 2 mile run under 15 minutes (or less, depending on your age). I have read the book “Joining the Military” and have spoken to recruiters online. That book describes the basic training of each branch, the physical requirements to join, what do do before joining, what are the jobsin the army, etc, etc, etc. Next year the only branches that will be available to me are the National Guard and the Navy. I have done a lot of soul searching, read books about gays in the military like “American Gulag,” have spoken to military veterans, and have come to the conclusion that I probably don’t belong there. Why? Because I’m not good making friends, I’m not a team player, I don’t have attention to detail, and I am not a freaking jock.
Joining the military has long been a fantasy of mine, but the reality is very different. You think I’m the kind of guy that shuts up when somebody tells a gay joke? I’m sensitive, somebody offends me and I’m gonna hate that person for years, I’m the type that holds a grudge, sometimes I’m passive-aggressive, other times I get in your face and insult you. You think I’m gonna like military cadences like “F-gg-t, f-gg-t, down the street, shoot him, shoot him, ’till he retreats.” Homophobia is part of military culture
So this is not about me not wanting to serve, this is about me knowing that I’m probably not fit to serve. Maybe someday I’ll meet a live military recruiter and see what he says.
posted by BobN on
Is it your contention that the DoD ruling in 2002 had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11?
You made it sound like it was a result of 9/11. It had more to do with the GOP flexing its anti-gay muscles. If their real motivation had been national defense, they would have repealed DADT.
posted by Throbert McGee on
If you’ve never tried martial-arts training, Bobby, you should seriously consider it. Not only is it a great way to improve your overall fitness and cardiovascular endurance, but most instructors are very tolerant of out-of-shape newbies and not tolerant of arrogant jocks — the primary emphasis is on competing with yourself (that is, trying to do better than you did in last Thursday’s class session) rather than with each other, and any good dojo stresses cooperative learning and mutual support/respect among students.
posted by Throbert McGee on
This may astound you, princess, but other people’s decisions can’t always revolve around making you feel personally validated as a cocksucker.
posted by Debrah on
Gays in the military Kagan’s biggest stumbling block experts say from National Journal
posted by Debrah on
Don’t Bork Kagan from Slate
Don’t miss the insightful quote (another gross analogy) from Andrew Sullivan.
Someone caring and kind, please buy Sullivan a strap-on dildo that can be nailed to his office wall.
That way he can just back into it several times a day…….
…….and spare us his overcooked dishes.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks for the advice about martial arts, Throbert, I’ll consider it.
“Don’t miss the insightful quote (another gross analogy) from Andrew Sullivan.”
—You mean comparing being gay to being Jewish? I completely agree with Sullivan on this one. Jews don’t usually hide their religion, gays shouldn’t hide their sexuality. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh describe the attacks against The Wall Street Journal for publishing a picture of Kagan playing softball, I could not believe my ears when Rush said “What’s wrong with being gay?” and then proceeded to lecture the democrats of how they are the pro-gay party and how they’re making a big deal about nothing. Rush seems a lot more interested in Kagan’s liberal background than in her sexuality.
On this conservative thread the only argument has been whether Kagan’s sexuality will lead her to legalize same-sex marriage.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32538379&postID=8736936768386850586
It’s obvious that Kagan comes from the Obama School of Politics, a philosophy where you hide who you are, pretend to be in the center, let your liberal friends in the media minimize your controversies and then govern as a radical once you get political power.
What’s also worrying about her is that she supports government censorship of the Internet, TV, radio and print as demonstrated here.
http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryJeffrey/2010/05/12/kagans_defense_of_censorship
This woman is a progressive, she is clearly dangerous.
posted by Jimmy on
Here’s an interesting take.
posted by Throbert McGee on
This is true, but Jewish/gay comparisons are a bit cliche. It would be a fresher analogy, and perhaps more current and topical, to compare being gay with being Mormon. Both groups have the option of being “closeted” in order to avoid prejudice and stereotyping, and Mitt Romney’s experience demonstrates that anti-LDS prejudice is still alive and strong in some fundamentalist Christian circles. Moreover, there was never anything even remotely close to a “Mormon Holocaust,” or Mormons being kept as slaves by non-Mormons — so the Mormon/gay analogy doesn’t have an inherently overstated quality to it.
(Historically, Mormons did face persecution at times, but the early Mormon church also gave out a lot of violent tit-for-tat, and committed a few massacres against non-Mormons.)
posted by Bobby on
“This is true, but Jewish/gay comparisons are a bit cliche. It would be a fresher analogy, and perhaps more current and topical, to compare being gay with being Mormon. Both groups have the option of being “closeted” in order to avoid prejudice and stereotyping, and Mitt Romney’s experience demonstrates that anti-LDS prejudice is still alive and strong in some fundamentalist Christian circles.”
—But Mormons are never closeted, they’re all required to be missionaries for two years of their lives. Romney has never hidden his Mormonism, of course, these people claim to be just as normal as Christians yet Christians don’t have a Book of Mormon, they don’t believe in prophet Moroni or that Jesus wants to set shop in Utah, or that drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes is evil.
The Jewish analogy is better because in the past Jewish actors used to change their names to fit in with the gentile community, like Jackie Mason, Mel Brooks, and others did.
“Moreover, there was never anything even remotely close to a “Mormon Holocaust,” or Mormons being kept as slaves by non-Mormons — so the Mormon/gay analogy doesn’t have an inherently overstated quality to it.”
—True, the only persecution they faced was on the polygamy issue, which they had to drop for Utah to be accepted into the union.
Either way, whenever the media chooses not to out a closet gay they are basically treating out sexuality as something shameful. If Kagan was married or had a boyfriend you can bet that part of her life would not be hidden, instead we have roommates claiming she dated men yet where are the men who dated Kagan then?
Frankly, I hate to use stereotypes but the woman does look like a stereotypical butch and bookish lesbian, I mean, she is kinda chubby, she plays softball, she seems married to her job… Let me put it this way, if a man approaches you and he’s wearing a bunch of tattoos and body piercings, are you gonna think he likes classical music or punk rock? Perhaps he likes both, perhaps none, but if the shoe fits, label it!