Note: There are four certainties in life: Gravity, death, taxes and Mr. Noonan’s response to just about anything I write. While his essay Nov. 19) illustrates my point (Nov. 19) exactly (not to mention his penchant for setting fire to bales of hay), I’ll offer a brief rebuttal before moving on to this week’s equally brief musings on the never-ending presidential election.
“He [meaning me] also appears to confuse the duty of military loyalty to government while a soldier is serving with freely flinging out opinions after he separates from the service,” writes my Fearless Editor. Unfortunately for his argument, I do not. The very point is that returning soldiers find their military service smeared and rejected because their politics turn to the anti-war side. While their politics are fair game, attacking their service as a way to discredit their politics is despicable. This applies regardless of whether veterans are pro- or anti-war. (I dislike Sen. McCain’s politics, for example, but fully respect that he served his country. The same goes for George Bush Sr.)
In writing sarcastically “He argues that [veterans] should be received warmly, regardless of their anti-government opinions in time of war, regardless of what they are preaching. I shall not invite a shivering burglar inside because it is a cold night, although a compassionate liberal might.” Does this mean that Mr. Noonan believes that veterans should only be warmly received based on what they preach as post-military service civilians? Based on his essay, it would appear so. Only pro-war politics need apply for warmth.
“Is there a more anomalous character than the volunteer soldier — volunteer soldier — who comes home, turns against the war, and then cries when sensible people criticize him for wanting to march against his government?” Mr. Noonan asks, totally missing the point. “Volunteer” refers to joining the military in the first place, not fighting in a specific war. Unless I’m mistaken, soldiers are expected to deploy when ordered to, trusting in their superiors. They don’t get to pick and choose their wars, do they? So questioning amounts to insubordination, although there is a process for soldiers to leave the service based on obtaining, for example, conscientious objector status. But when their service is done, are they not citizens like the rest of us, with as much right to support or criticize the policies of their government as they see fit? According to Mr. Noonan, the answer is no. Having served in the military precludes them from having any dissenting opinion, as evidenced by his view that “anti-war veteran” is an oxymoron. So much for freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to criticize… No one is beyond criticism, of course, but some means of criticism are more rational than others. And meanwhile, my point that we’re ignoring the wounded soldiers who need our care regrettably gets proven yet again.
No Choice but Democrats?
‘Tis a sad commentary on democracy when commentators like Nora Ephron write (www.huffingtonpost.com) things like: “It’s hard to be a Democrat, don't you think? There's no alternative, of course, but it's hard.”
And:
“It’s hard when you watch a debate and decide that in the end you're probably going to throw your vote away in the primary and vote for someone who doesn't have a chance, like Dennis Kucinich.” Meaning, of course, that the choice is between the so-called front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
Throw your vote away? Do I hear the word “electability,” that vapourous concept that sees candidates as deserving votes not based on the degree to which they represent voters’ interests, but their capacity to win elections? “I’m electable if people vote for me,” Dennis Kucinich memorably said, (www.sfgate.com). And of course, he’s right.
For all the complaining that the Republican Party has an anti-midas touch, turning everything to something far smellier and far less shinier than gold, and that Democrats are losers who can’t stand up for themselves, let alone get anything done, partisanship means sticking with the chosen team, no matter what. You’d think that people would get fed up with rearranging deck chairs on that famous ship. But no. From Ms. Ephron’s op-ed:
“Because we are torturing people and it has to stop, and it will never stop unless the Democrats make it stop. And forget about the Justice Department. No one will fix the Justice Department until there’s a new president. And he or she has got to be a Democrat. That goes without saying.”
Are We a Democracy Yet?
This is one reason why I wrote not long ago that the U.S. is not a democracy. It’s either Republican or Democrat…and if you’ve picked a pony, it’s not the best candidate but the most bankable candidate that counts. That’s not a choice, and part of the responsibility rests with folks like Ms. Ephron. If you act like there’s no choice, then there is no choice. Nader was right.
The media, of course, doesn’t help. When reading reports on the Democrats’ debates, we get a lot of Clinton this, Obama that, and a dollop of Edwards. But not much on Gov. Richardson, Sen. Biden, or good ol’ Kucinich. But the workings of the media’s bias has been analyzed elsewhere; I won’t repeat it. (This poll from AP-Yahoo! News says a lot, actually.) All I’ll say is that those fluffy debates – which I once watched but now, since I don’t have cable, have to read about – aren’t remotely as substantive as a voting record and policy statements on a website.
As it happens, even in the absence of choice, there is a choice, namely, the refusal to go along with the status quo. Don’t like politics as usual? Vote for the unusual. The whole thing got you mad? Hey, some people don’t vote as a matter of protest, however much the action might be mischaracterized as a failure to carry out one’s civic duty. I’m not recommending any particular action, since not all voters have the same interests. But it seems to me that the blasé acceptance of the status quo, as demonstrated by Nora Ephron’s fatalism, is the biggest factor influencing a monumentally important presidential election.