Several bloggers have posted their responses to Romney’s answer to an anti-war activist asking a ridiculous, illogical question (did we expect anything else?) They can be found here, here, here, and here.
As I noted in a comment on one of those blogs, the seriousness of Mitt’s answer can be gaged by the credibility of the person posing the question, in this case an anti-war activist who really isn’t interested in seeing Mitt’s son’s join the military to fight for America.
Several of these posters call Mitt and others in the Bush Administration “Chicken hawks,” in reference to the lack of military service on the part of several of the war’s supporters. Now, I understand fully that the assertion is a non-sequitur, that it is simply more evidence of Liberalism’s latent violence and illogic. But as I believe that not addressing a question because it’s not formulated according to philosophically correct formulae is itself a red-herring, I will address it briefly here.
Why is it necessary to serve or have served in the military in order to support the war on terror? Why does the Left think that it can call Republicans and Conservatives who have not served, but who support the War on Terror, “chicken-hawks?” It can be easily demonstrated that the vast majority of our Nation’s leaders in wartime never served in the military. Many of our great founding fathers did not serve in the military during the Revolutionary War, yet they fully supported it. Why are things different now?
The Left prides itself on being the “intellectual elite,” so you know this non-sequitur is not designed to affect anyone but those on the Right who may not be acquainted with the forms of logical fallacy. Liberals are hoping for one of three outcomes:
- The person targeted will be pressured into a change of position on the War.
- The person targeted will join the military under pressure from his or her fellow Conservatives and will drop out of the public light.
- The person targeted will join the military and be killed in action.
In any of these scenarios, the person targeted is no longer a political threat to the Left. That’s the primary motivation for this absurd demand on the part of these “pacifists” and anti-war activists. They want their way, and they will stoop to ridiculous measures to get it. They know they can’t win at the ballot box, despite all their cries of “Democracy,” so they resort to more disingenuous methods like anti-war activists suggesting that we increase the scope of the war by sending more soldiers into battle.
Some of these posters have attempted to paint Romney as egotistic or self-righteous because of this statement. My first response is that they put too much credence in the seriousness of the question. That is the natural and expected reaction for the Liberal, given the ideology of the person asking the question. But, let’s assume the question really is serious, and Romney’s response was equally serious. Why is it either egotistic or self-righteous to state that someone is serving our country by campaigning for a man that they believe will be an excellent President? Would these people say that about Hillary’s campaign workers? Obama’s? Edward’s? I’m guessing they wouldn’t.
15 Comments
I would readily criticize Obama, Edwards or Hillary if they were to make such a flubbed statement. Thing is, they haven’t, not in terms of (even unconsciously) equating service to their campaign with service to the U.S. military.
If you’re pointing out the flaws in broad-based criticism like “You have to be a veteran to support the war” as being unfair to proponents of the war, how are you going to contradict yourself in the very same post with a statement like “an anti-war activist asked a ridiculous, illogical question (did we expect anything else)”, which is exactly the same type of sentiment you just criticized? All war proponents are cowards :: all war opponents are illogical and ridiculous.
Glass houses, bro.
P.S. – I enjoy debating politics and harbor no enmity towards you, so if you think you got something to say, keep it coming.
What’s up with not approving a single one of my comments?
Pat,
While I understand your position, it is an idealistic position that is impossible to realistically attain. That’s precisely why we have only two major parties. We all know it is impossible for everyone to be fully represented in American politics, and so we drift to one or the other that we feel most closely represents our basic values. I am fully aware that sweeping generalizations are not fair, but such is politics–I didn’t make the rules. If I had to exclude everyone that might have a valid reason for being excluded from any generalizations I may make, I’d be here all day. You can exclude yourself if you like.
Now–to address your argument. There are many ways in which people serve their country. I strongly doubt Mitt was comparing the service his sons have rendered as being equal with that of those whose lives are on the line. I think you are reading too much into Mitt’s answer. Mitt is simply saying that his sons have chosen a different avenue of service, and he’s ok with that. The comparison of their civil service and military service was created in the context of the question, which is why I say the question was invalid. There is an underlying assumption in both the question and in your response that any service not military is inauthentic, which is unfair. Fortunately, Mitt had the grace to answer it without skewering the nice lady, which he very well could have done.
Trenton
Sorry for not approving the first two messages. I’m just trying to keep an orderly house here and they were off topic for the articles to which you joined them.
But, Pat, you haven’t addressed my concerns yet.
Where was Romney comparing the service his sons have rendered in his campaign to that of those in the military? I don’t think you can hold that position.
“… Liberalism’s latent violence and illogic…”
If the war is so important and “must be won” (irregardless of the fact that ‘victory’ may be unattainable) as Romney and the majority of the Republican Party believe, it is a legitimate question to ask why his sons are not fighting.
I don’t even know that he meant to make that comparison, and if he knew how it would come out, I’m sure he would have said things differently. Here is the full quote:
“My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.”
He added: “One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”
First part, fine; should have left it at that. It’s tacking on the campaign work at the same time he’s discussing military service that unwittingly makes him look like he’s putting the two on the same level.
Matt,
The question is illegitimate for reasons already mentioned. The woman who asked the question isn’t interested in increasing the scope of the war. She is interested only in attempting to discredit Romney. The attempt will only backfire.
Additionally, there is an underlying assumption in your argument which says that because Republicans want to come off victorious in the War on Terror, they believe everyone should be fighting, and therefore it is legitimate to ask why someone who supports the War isn’t also fighting in it. This may sound nit-picky, but that is something of a straw-man. I doubt that most Republicans feel that every available person should be fighting.
Pat, again I think you are reading too much into it. Romney’s statement does not equate his sons’ “service” with military service. In fact, Romney doesn’t mention service at all, only how his sons show their “support for our nation.” You wouldn’t say that the military is simply “showing support” for our nation by fighting.
Romney’s choice of words precisely demonstrates that he is NOT comparing what his sons are doing to what our soldiers are doing.
Nearly everything you write here is an obfuscation. A chicken hawk is not a politician who supports a war but did not serve in it. Woodrow Wilson was not a chicken hawk; he tried to keep us out of war, and went to war only as a final option. FDR was not a chicken hawk; he served his country as a politician in WWI. A chicken hawk is someone like Bush, or Cheney, who when young strains the limits of loopholes that allow students, fathers, the wealthy and the influential to get out of military service, then in later life begins unpopular wars based on false evidence that claim the lives of, mostly, poorer Americans. All while equating support for war with patriotism.
Likewise, “liberals” are not hoping for any of the three outcomes you list; the fact that you do list these foolish, violent fantasies (products of your own imaginings) as if they were fact shows what contempt you have for the liberal straw man (an ideal that does not exist in the real world). Here’s the only, sole outcome a liberal who asks such question is hoping for: the subject realizes the vast hypocrisy in enthusiastically sending poor young American (our best and brightest, and brave and worthy men and women all), saying this is for the good of the country and essential to our safety, while not for a moment considering putting his own loved ones’ lives on the line. the question is valid; its validity does not rest on the questioners’ desire to see an expansion for he war, but a desire to illuminate hypocrisy.
And liberals “know they can’t win at the ballot box”? Be serious. Yes, they can, and they do. Gore, popular vote, 2000. Democratic senate, last elections. Etc etc. This is an offhand and utterly false stab worthy of the deranged Ann Coulter, not a thoughtful writer like yourself.
Oh, and by the way, as a BA in philosophy, I can tell you that the question certainly does adhere to “philosophically correct formulae,” whatever that means. There is nothing wrong with using questioning that gets your interlocutor to expose the fallacies in his thinking. Remember a fellow named Socrates? “So, then, Crito, you admit that it is your belief that….”
Chance writes,
“A chicken hawk is someone like Bush, or Cheney, who when young strains the limits of loopholes that allow students, fathers, the wealthy and the influential to get out of military service, then in later life begins unpopular wars based on false evidence that claim the lives of, mostly, poorer Americans. All while equating support for war with patriotism.”
How does that describe Mitt Romney? Or any of his sons? The label “Chicken Hawk” was not applied to them by me.
And your claim that the military are mostly “poorer Americans” is unfounded. More later.
I didn’t make myself clear. I wasn’t calling Mitt a chicken hawk, just defining the term as I saw it. I was, I suppose, trying to speak for “liberal bloggers,” of whom I am not one, so I probably shouldn’t have said anything. My point was an issue with your definition of chicken hawk as used by your straw man “liberals.” If you’ve seen several leftists using the term to describe Mitt, I apologize. Myself, I wouldn’t call him that, knowing close to nothing about his past and, as I mention. reserving that term for the hypocritical who evade their duty while demanding others do it for them.
Like a lot of people you might call “liberals” (though I’m in favor of the death penalty and the second amendment), I oppose this war, not all wars. I would have loved to see a reaction to 9/11 that included a serious intervention into actual terrorist cells, a serious attempt to capture Osama, and a determined effort to permanently eradicate the Taliban (who are once more making noise). I’m against this war for a variety of reasons I’m sure you don’t recognize as valid, but I hope you don’t assume that opposition to one war allows someone to pigeon-hole the protester neatly into “anti-war liberal.”
Chance,
Here is one of many examples of Liberals explicitly calling Mitt a chickenhawk. For others, see the links in the original post. It seems to me that, if you’re not a liberal, you cannot really tell me what they believe a chickenhawk is. I don’t know that your definition of the term is any more or less valid than mine. At the very least you shouldn’t be reprimanding me for calling it like I see it.
I don’t think we are that ideologically separated, you and I. I support the war, especially this war because of what I truly believe will happen if we don’t fight it. If I could, I might be over there helping out. As it is, I am 4-F.
WMDs aside, George Bush knows this enemy. But he has had to wrestle with the effects of Bill Clinton’s disastrous military and security policies. GWB has had to rebuild our military/security infrastructure at the same time he is trying to use it to prosecute this war. That’s part of why it has not gone as well as it could have.
No, I don’t make the assumption that opposition to the war makes one an “anti-war liberal,” but you had better have very good, honest, reasonable thoughts behind your opposition. My very good friend is also opposed to the war for reasons I imagine are very similar to yours. I’m glad to extend a hand of fellowship to those with whom I share common ground, even if they are opposed to the war.