I saw this post by Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House yesterday, and plenty of people have commented on it already, but I had a thought this morning, and I thought I'd flesh it out in a post of my own.
I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. It's a fairly long post, and it deals with, as the title says, "Redefining the Already Defined." The main thing I want to focus on, however, is the "chickenhawk" meme.
For those of you who might not be familiar with this already, over the past few years (especially since the war in Iraq began) certain lefties have employed this shabby "argument" against supporters of the war. In its most common form the argument has been that if one hasn't ever served in the military but still supports the war, one is a chickenhawk, whose pro-war views thus aren't valid. Another variant that some of these people will use, often while trolling on pro-war blogs, goes: "If you think this war is such a good idea, why don't you join up and fight?" The final, and most ridiculous version is similar to the second, in which the lefty urges a war supporter to "sign up their kids" for our all-volunteer military, which is made up of willing adults. You get the idea.
These arguments are dishonest for a number of reasons, one of the most important being that our nation has always had a tradition of civilian oversight of the military. If you were to suggest a system in which the opposite were true to the people making "chickenhawk" charges, they would recoil in horror, of course, but that just demonstrates the hollowness of their argument. As many people have pointed out, the real purpose of flinging "chickenhawk" insults at someone is to stifle debate.
Anyway, the thing that bothered me most
Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it is required to earn the “chicken hawk” label. Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A “chicken hawk” is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.
If you really think about it, which righty bloggers out there are slapping themselves on the back about the "courage" of their positions? Where are the war supporters who tout their convictions as a sign of their personal bravery, even if they haven't served in the armed forces? I think they're actually few and far between.
No, I think you're much more likely to see people on the left talking and writing about the bravery of their speech, right? These are the people who talk about speaking "truth to power", a tired cliche if there ever was one, without a hint of irony.
These are the people who count Tim Robbins as a hero, as he recounts the congratulations he's recieved from various people for his anti-war views and then complains about a "chill wind" in this country...in front of the National Press Club. Again, no trace of irony.
And how about the Dixie Chicks? They took an embarrassing remark made overseas and parlayed it into a whole new career image, of the brave dissenters whose free speech rights had been trampled by knuckle-dragging Red State troglodytes.
I could go on and on, but my main point is that I think Mr. Greenwad (Senators read his blog!) might be projecting just a little bit when he tries to redefine his political opponents to suit his own notions about their opinions.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to pat myself on the back for my support of the Iraq war. Hopefully, this time my arm won't break.
Via protein wisdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment