Yesterday's House floor debate over repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was revealing - you might even call it telling. I could not count the republicans who alleged that the democrats and the administration were not listening to the troops, were ignoring what the troops had to say, were, in fact, disrespecting the troops who risk their lives for us every blessed day.
I try to be expansive in discounting political rhetoric before I'll call it a lie, and there's enough selective truth here to judge these statements as misleading rather than fully false. But a more complete and accurate view is that the democrats and the administration, after having listened to the troops and to the country at large, and after having reviewed the policies of every other nation that has dealt with this issue, nearly all of which have allowed lesbians and gay men to serve openly, have decided that those who support repeal of DADT have the better argument than those who support retaining it. That may feel oppressive and dismissive to those whose position has not prevailed, but it is hardly fair to say their point of view has not been heard. We've all been heard.
In fact, the listening won't stop under this bill. It requires yet another study, though this one will be unique in that it will solicit the views, not only of heterosexual troops who can speak openly about how they feel, but also provides a mechanism where homosexual troops who are serving in silence can express their own feelings. Imagine that: asking lesbians and gay men who are forced to be in the closet how they feel about a policy that forces them to be in the closet. On this subject, while the views of heterosexuals are important, it would seem that the views of gay soldiers ought to be given some weight. The fact that they can't reveal their opinions under the current policy - because it would get them kicked out - seems to me proof enough that the policy is perversely and calculatedly designed to be self-perpetuating.
I'm pretty sure this kind of polling of the troops about their policy preferences is original, but our political branches do have the authority to demand such things if they think that's wise. They didn't need to pass DADT in the first place, but they had the ability to do so, and did. If they think they might have made a mistake, and that polling the troops is worth doing to confirm the suspicion, then polling it is.
But I'm with Nathaniel Frank in suspecting that the new study will show what the decade of existing ones shows - that our military, like the militaries of so many other nations, won't suffer as an institution by allowing lesbians and gay men to be truthful, and that it might even benefit a bit by ridding itself of a policy that, unique among military policies, demands people lie.
We'll see, today, if John McCain can keep the lie alive.
14 Comments for “End of the Lies”
posted by Tom on
If he can’t it won’t be for want of trying, I’ll wager. He seems to have taken it personally when Admiral Mullen testified in favor of repeal some months ago. I don’t know what’s behind McCain’s animosity to DADT repeal, but whatever it is, I think it is ingrained and unlikely to change.
posted by BobN on
From Goldwater to McCain. Not a proud day for Arizonans.
ingrained and unlikely to change
Oh, McCain will turn on a dime when it suits him. If he lives long enough, he’ll be one of those politicians who rewrite history and claim a leadership role in whatever is popular at the time.
posted by Tom on
McCain, at least, is no Maverick.
posted by Jimmy on
Everything McCain does from here on out is done with one person in mind, JD Hayworth. Expect him only to become more craven.
posted by Bobby on
“From Goldwater to McCain. Not a proud day for Arizonans.”
—What are you talking about? Goldwater is a hero among libertarians, even the liberals are giving him credit now. If Goldwater had become president we would have nuked North Vietnam and win the war. By the way, Goldwater didn’t need the government to force him to desegregate his stores, he did it all on his own, that was the kind of man he was. And years later he became supportive of gays in the military.
posted by jerry on
When I look at McCain’s history, I see a slacker with no interest in anything but his own comfort. Had he not had admirals as father and grandfather, he would have been washed out of the Naval Academy or had he squeaked through he would have washed out of naval aviation after the second plane, he would never have gotten shot down over Viet Nam because he would have been a civilian by then or serving as a junior officer on some rusty tin can.
If the Republicans are foolish enough to try a filibuster on the Defense Authorization Bill, I think the Democrats will be able to slaughter them. I don’t like that idea either.
posted by Leonardo Ricardo on
Bobby is right. I worked at Goldwaters Department Store in the Mid-Late Sixties as a Buyer. Robert Goldwater was still around as sort of a ¨Honorary Chairman¨ of the recently acquired Associated Dry Goods operation…my point is that the Goldwaters were wonderful, welcoming and accepting of Gay people…there was no need to hide at Goldwaters as everyone, albeit mostly Republicans, were very supportive of Gay, recently recruited from San Francisco, me.
posted by Mark F. on
Bobby,
I’m not sure what Goldwater would have done about Viet Nam as President (he later said the war was a mistake), but I find it really horrifying that you support mass murder.
But Goldwater was not racist or homophobic. (His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of concerns about freedom of association.)
posted by Bobby on
“Had he not had admirals as father and grandfather, he would have been washed out of the Naval Academy”
—Really Jerry? You think having an admiral father is going to give you special treatment during basic training? The fact that McCain served his country and was TORTURED by the Vietcong entitles the man to some respect even if you don’t agree with him.
“I’m not sure what Goldwater would have done about Viet Nam as President (he later said the war was a mistake), but I find it really horrifying that you support mass murder.”
—You know, when Harry Truman dropped the a-bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki he actually saved lives. It’s theorized that more than a million Americans would have died conquering Japan, not to mention the millions of Japanese who would have died defending their country as well. Strategic nuclear strikes could have forced the Vietcong to surrender, it could save saved lives, ours and theirs.
Isn’t it funny how when anti-war progressives become elected they tend to change their minds about war? LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam, Woodrow Wilson ran on an anti-war platform and later involved America in WW1 and jailed anti-war critics. FDR did the same after Pearl Harbor, and while I do agree with us fighting in WW2, I do not agree with the internment of war-critics, Germans and the Japanese, I do not agree with the National Recovery Act stickers or the 4 minute men that would stand on corners and shout propaganda or how both FDR and Wilson turned citizens into spies.
And now of course, Obama doesn’t think your private e-mail communications should remain private. As for Kagan, she thinks that if you’re suspected of financing terrorism, you’re not entitled to habeas corpus and the government can hold you up indefinitely, even if you’re a citizen of this country!
So in that context, exploding a few atomic wars doesn’t seem that bad.
posted by Jimmy on
Yeah, but Bobby, Japan actually attacked us.
posted by Tom on
I read BobN’s comment to mean that Goldwater, right or wrong on this issue or that, was a man of conviction, a man of principle. Goldwater had a strong conviction that the federal government should be small, fiscally responsibility and be limited in power over the lives of individuals. He stuck by that all his life.
McCain, on the other hand, changes his “convictions” to suit the political winds. He’s Bill Clinton with a chipmunk face.
posted by Bobby on
“Yeah, but Bobby, Japan actually attacked us.”
—Well, North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam, SV was our ally and we decided to defend it. Either way, if you’re gonna fight a war, you have to fight to win because if you don’t, you’re just wasting human lives.
“McCain, on the other hand, changes his “convictions” to suit the political winds. He’s Bill Clinton with a chipmunk face.”
—Yes, but I have to give him credit for admiting he was wrong on the immigration thing and I’m glad he’s supporting putting the military on the border and the new Arizona law.
posted by Tom on
It was a mistake. South Vietnam fell, eventually, and the country became unified under Communist rule. It had no long-term effect on our national interest.
You might find it interesting to look at a video all of us who served were shown in basic — “Why Vietnam?” and then ask yourself, in retrospect, whether or not the war was worth the lives of 55,000 Americans.
posted by Bobby on
“whether or not the war was worth the lives of 55,000 Americans.”
—The same could be said about the invasion of Panama, Korea and Grenada.
This is a country that likes to fight not just for her own freedoms but for the freedoms of others. Yesterday I saw a docudrama on HBO about Tony Blair pushing Bill Clinton to get involved in Kosovo by putting ground troops instead of air strikes. One of Bill Clinton’s military guys asks Blair if he’s willing to commit the same troop levels as the United States, and Blair replies no. Bill Clinton himself asks him why should he spent billions of dollars fighting a war in a country most Americans can’t find on a map.
Sometimes I wonder why do we always have to fight everybody else’s wars? Why do we have our military in South Korea when that country is rich enough to develop and fund their own military?
I think the answer is our nature. As Americans, we like being #1, we like having a strong military and inspite of the hippies, peaceniks and progressives, we like learning geography by invading and liberating countries.
The left always paints such a negative picture of our military, instead of focusing on Cindy Sheehan why don’t they focus on her son who re-enlisted twice! Why focus only on those soldiers with PTSD and not on the ones who don’t have it?
Vietnam was a tragedy because we drafted people, that’s what made the war so hateful. We forced people to fight, people who didn’t want to be there. I like the way we fight our wars now, I like Obama using drones, and I love the fact that now we have private contractors making food and cleaning toilets instead of our noble men and women in uniform.
Either way, this is a war-fighting country, our cartoons are all about war, we love Rambo, The Terminator, GI Joe, it’s part of who we are. Europeans are different, in Europe sex and porn isn’t censored while violence is. Europeans are simply spoiled, if it wasn’t for us the USSR would have invaded them after WWII.
I feel sorry for the war dead, but without war dead there can be no heroism and without heroism there’s no point in joining the military. In fact, if we were to be a peace-loving nation, then all military benefits would have to be cut, including pensions, money for college, rent subsidies, VA loans, VA hospitals, etc, etc, etc. Our soldiers earn their benefits by putting their lives on the line, without that the money we spent on the military would be wasteful.