Purple Hearts and Partisanship
I have a question to those of you here who spent a lot of time and energy in 2006 blogging in support of 6th District Democratic candidate Tammy Duckworth (and against Republican nominee Peter Roskam).
If the 2008 presidential contest comes down to Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain (the two candidates who have garnered the most endoresements within the ranks of their respective Illinois parties), how would you deal with the difference in the Senators’ veteran status?
Personally, I think the fact that Barack Obama, like Roskam, was too young to serve in Vietnam and too "old" (in the sense that he had well passed the point in life when people traditionally make a deicision to either join the military or do something else) by the time the Gulf War came around means that while McCain's service record is certainly salient evidence of his strong character, it would be unfair to explicitly use his record as a negative contrast against Obama's.
Your thoughts?
6 comments:
Believe it or not, GOP - It would be a struggle for me to choose One over the Other in such a scenario!
I like Obama and McCain with equal gusto. I Believe that both men represent what is best in public life.
That would be a Heads- I-win - Tails-I-win coin toss for me.
Has Barack Obama, as a non-veteran, robustly acted as a cheerleader for the Iraq War? Has he unequivocally supported those who launched it?
The answer to both questions, of course, is no.
Surely you can come up with a straw man built of better stuff than this, no?
jj -
You've completely missed the point. Roskam wasn't a draft-dodger or proverbial “fortunate son.” He, like Obama, was never presented with the opportunity to enlist during wartime. So his decision to pursue a civilian life and career should not negatively reflect on him, his character, or his right to support military action later in life. If you disagree, I’d love to hear your explanation.
The only straw man here is the irrelevant distinction you are trying to draw between Obama dn Roskam based on the particular position on the war each has taken.
I am the same age as both Roskam and Obama and I am a veteran. I have a 20% disability for service-related injuries from the VA. However, none of my 7 years of service was in combat, despite half of it being in the infantry.
I have several, possibly contradictory, reactions to the whole veteran question.
First, I agree with pat hickey that the whole Obama v. McCain issue is a win-win for me. I like both (McCain a little better). However, in this case, the veteran issue for me is not the decider. McCain did not enlist (or join, since he was an officer) in wartime either. He made a conscious choice that this type of public service was what he wanted to do, so he did. One can argue that "public service" as a politician is an equally valid point but my own personal prejudice against career politicians makes me doubt that very much.
However, my second reaction is on the lines of the "chicken-hawk" argument. My visceral reaction when I see a politician who has not served at all (or has served in safe jobs, e.g. George Bush, Cheney, or Dan Quayle) advocating sending troops to war is one of distaste, even if I agree with the reasons for that war. There's a visceral reaction to me that these people have avoided a service that we all should embrace (Full disclosure of sorts: I personally would support a universal service bill for every American when they graduate high school, no matter income or other considerations)
Service in the military is a valid and honorable choice, whether in peacetime or wartime. To imply, as I think I hear partisan doing above, that enlisting in wartime imbues the act with more virtue, is specious. Those who serve in peacetime are ready at all times to respond and be sent to combat. THEY are ready for war, both physically and mentally, at all times.
However, all that aside, I cannot simply use a person's veteran status as a deciding factor against them, since I know my opinion is a underwhelming minority today.
Some of my opinion above is based on personal experiences with others about my service. Some of those who were the most dismissive of my choice to serve as an infantry officer in the mid-80's (including my in-laws) now happily festoon their cars with yellow ribbons and "support the troops" with every breath.
I suppose what I am really saying is that I treat everyone's status as an individual. There is a recognition to me that I have some common ground with other veterans (combat or not) since we share experiences in the military that 90% of our fellow citizens do not.
John,
Thank you for your comments, and your service.
In response to your interpretation of my point (“enlisting in wartime imbues the act with more virtue”), you have it a bit backwards. I am saying that not enlisting during peacetime is, generally speaking, of neutral virtue. It doesn’t reflect poorly on someone’s character, and it certainly doesn’t disqualify them from being able to support military action later after they are no longer of enlistment age. As a result, I thought that the labeling of Roskam as a “chickenhawk” was pretty unfair.
I'd judge both by the issues. McCain no typical Veteran either. His service greater than most but I don't think it automatically qualifies him for Prez against Obama or anyone else.
My question for Obama would be to ask for his thoughts on the initiatives in Calif against JROTC. If he's going to run as an anti-Military candidate and if not, can he critize those driving out the ROTC programs from schools.
Post a Comment