Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:20:41 AM
I try to be fair here on "Random Notes", so when I see stupidity on the right, I point it out. I don't limit myself to bashing the left. I feel if we are going to have a strong conservative movement, we need to clean our own house as well as point out the flaws on the other side.
So after I wrote
"Whites, Men Need Not Apply", I was a bit surprised to see the same error (in a modified form) showing up on the right. Well, perhaps not the same error, but something pretty close.
In my original article, I took lefties to task for suggesting that black women were in a quandary because they OBVIOUSLY had to vote either for a black or for a woman, and would have trouble deciding between Obama and Hillary. The idea that they could vote for someone white and male was considered impossible. To the left racial and sexual politics override any other considerations.
So imagine my surprise when I saw the same stupidity on the right. Instead of race and sex, this took the form of "respecting the military", but otherwise it was the same fallacy. You see, many on the right have come out and said, if not in these exact words, "John McCain behaved honorably as a POW so I have to vote for him." A few take a slightly less absolutist track and say "You can't criticize McCain, he was a POW", or something similar, but the basic logic is the same. To these people, the fact that McCain is a veteran, a POW, and was reported to have behaved honorably as a POW, means that he is AT LEAST not subject to any criticism, or, for many, even automatically worthy of a vote.
And, yes, I will agree that McCain's military service does deserve respect, but does it mean we cannot question his qualification? Or even his judgment? Just because he was in the military and was a POW, can he do whatever he wants without anyone raising questions?
I would point out to those embracing McCain solely because of his military background that Hitler was a decorated veteran. And so was Benedict Arnold. The fact that one was a valiant soldier does not mean one can't be a traitor or tyrant. Not that I say McCain is either, but if war heroes can fall everywhere on the scale from George Washington to Adolf Hitler, then the fact that one is a veteran, even an ex-POW really says nothing about one's qualification for high office.
But this is not an article about McCain, or about his qualifications for the presidency. I simply wanted to point out to those on the right who embrace McCain solely because of his service, that they are falling into an error similar to, and no less foolish than, the one embraced by leftists who think all blacks must vote for black candidates, or all women must support a woman. Neither of those is true, but it is equally untrue that those who support the military must refuse to examine the qualifications of a candidate simply because he served with honor.
Yes, military service is worthy of respect, but it does not automatically make the service member an honorable person. Many have gone into the service and emerged better people, but not all. And it would be a shame to vote someone into office on the basis of service alone, just to find out he is one of those who were not improved by their service.
UPDATED 02/01/2008For once I actually beat Dr. Sowell to the punch. It isn't anything dramatic, but I am quietly pleased to see someone I respect repeating an argument I have already written. Of course it is not an entirely new argument, but to see
Dr. Sowell write "Benedict Arnold was a war hero" made me smile, knowing I had used that several days earlier when writing on the same subject.