|
The recent dustup between Paul Hackett and John Murtha spawned a number of recent threads here on DU, and no doubt elsewhere where people are paying attention. I don't wish to discuss either man here, and more particularly, the dustup on AAR. There are still active threads where one may go if one wishes to discuss that.
What this thread *is* about are 06/midterm Democratic candidates for office at all levels of government.
Let's start with some general understandings.
** A candidate with military experience is no more or less qualified for office than anyone else.
** A candidate who runs solely on the basis of military experience probably isn't worthy of anyone's vote.
** A voter who casts a vote for a candidate solely because of that candidate's military service is a dunce.
Now let's give some consideration to the political climate in the country *today*. Many issues are of importance to voters. But the one most common concern is the War in Iraq®, and the possibility of another war with Iran. In any given demographic, this may or may not be *the* issue, but in virtually every demographic, if it isn't numero uno, it is a close second.
The antiwar 'left' is viewed by many, and has in many cases been somewhat successfully painted, as a throwback to the anti war left of the Viet Nam era. The draft card burning, 'America-hating', troop spit-uponing, long haired, free loving, hippie wackos. Facts don't get in the way of this view. Perceptions are, indeed, reality.
Former military with an antiwar view are painted as latter day John Kerrys from the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) types. Or are they? I'm far less sure this label has any effective glue on the back.
Many of the former military who are candidates seem not to be taking a hard line anti-war posture, although most seem to be pretty clear as being anti-*this*-war. And that's pretty much the widely held view in the country today.
Many on the left side of the left are, seemingly, predisposed to be wary of anyone who wore a uniform and then runs as a Democrat. Personally, I find this astounding. Many of our best liberals have been in the military. And that's not at all a new phenomenon. Two of the more famous are Kennedy and McGovern. Jimmy Carter may not be a darling of the far left, but he is who he is, is beloved, and is a former nuclear sub captain. John Kerry would be seen by very few as anything other than a diehard, dyed in the wool, no shit liberal. Al Gore, the current hero to many, was in Viet Nam. Max Cleland ... 'nuff said. The list is long and proud.
Good Democrats have NEVER failed to serve. Good Republicans .... not so much.
Each of these men had to start their political career somewhere. To say their military service defined them would be just plain wrong. They are who they are by virtue of the totality of the man. They are good, honest Democrats who happened to have also worn the uniform.
Consider this. To stand before the voters and claim to be against *this* war takes on an added dimension when one can also say "I volunteered to serve there. I know war. This war is wrong." There is an added poignancy, an increase in credibility, by simple virtue of having worn the uniform. In today's political climate, there are, indeed, bonus points for having served.
All that being said, I come back to my essential point. Military service is not a reason to vote for anyone. But as true as this is, it is equally true that to *not* vote for someone for the same reason is just as wrong.
For me, I'll choose who to vote for on the basis of the totality of the candidate. But if it came down to it, military service would be a tie breaker.
I admit that my perspective may be a bit different than yours. I served way back in the dark ages of the late 60s and early 70s. One enlistment. Out as soon as possible. I never went to Viet Nam, but I was very affected by it. It was, in many ways, my war; surely it was my generation's war. From my military service I took an abiding respect for those who not only served, but also shot and got shot. I have been deprived of the friendship of a few who never made it back. My service made me a man generally predisposed to avoid war, but also a man who understands the very real fact we live in a world of megalomania, evil intent, and plots against mankind. I strongly support a strong defense. I vehemently oppose a strong offense. I am .... antiwar.
I surely expect that most who are now running for public office, and who also served, are more or less in the same place I am. They don't get my vote automatically, but I surely want to know about the totality of the person.
I'd love to see a serious discussion of this. Please hold your snarks and drive-by comments for other threads. If you disagree with me, please lay out your case so that I - and others - can appreciate your views.
Thanks!
|