Trite SDMB arguments and John McCain.

Great Debates
1

Heaven knows this place is full of repeated bad arguments, but in the last few years a couple have risen over and over again like belches on Taco Bell night. The first is that certain people, by virtue of having avoided service years ago, should be labeled as chickenhawks for advocating war now. The second is that the children of certain pro-war politicians ought to be convinced to serve, or even drafted.

I have no use for either argument, have stated so in the past, and will happily argue against them again. But the fact that they keep coming up can’t be disputed. And what also can’t be disputed is the fact that neither of these arguments can be applied to John McCain.

While McCain does support the war, he has a military background that certainly insulates him from any chickenhawk charge. As for the second, three of McCain’s sons entered the military. One, Doug, completed his service as an A-6 Intruder pilot. Another, Jack, is currently in the Naval Academy. And Jimmy is an enlisted Marine whose unit has been in Iraq for months. To McCain’s credit, he has studiously avoided making Jimmy a political issue either way.

I am interested, though, how this will play out here. My sense at the time was that these were opportunistic attacks made not out of any great moral outrage but because they were easy ones to make against particular political opponents. So, since these won’t work against John McCain, others will be found. Certainly this seems to be the pattern so far.

I don’t think anyone here will vote for McCain because he isn’t a chickenhawk or because his sons believe in military service - loud protests in the past notwithstanding. Though if anyone is thinking of doing so, I’d like to hear about it.

When these arguments came up in the past I tended to point out to Democrats that war heroes ran against Clinton twice, and that this didn’t seem to affect their vote at the time. I predict it won’t now as well, and for good reasons - issues are far more important than resumes in elections. That said, though, it will be funny to see the importance of these arguments fade into the mists.

2

What’s the debate? We weren’t at war when Clinton ran for president, so it wasn’t really an issue. It only became an issue for Bush when he started a war that wasn’t necessary. n.b.: I do accept that the “chicken hawk” argument is not a valid argument.

3

I predict the “Chickenhawk” tactic won’t be used against McCain because it would be silly to do so.

I don’t really know what the question up for debate is, either.

4

I don’t understand what you’re looking to debate. You are correct that McCain is not a chickenhawk and that he cannot be accused of hypocrisy in supporting the occupation of Iraq. I disagree, however, with your implication that there is a double-standard in not holding the issue to be important. It just means the candidate lacks a particular flaw. That doesn’t constitute a reason to vote for the candidate, it just means that he lacks one particular reason to vote against him.

If a candidate is revealed to be a bank robber, that’s a reason to vote against him but “Vote for Candidate X – he’s not a bank robber” is not a presuasive campaign pitch.

5

I don’t see the debate either. Neither potential Democratic nominee avoided military service in the way that Bush et al are accused of doing, unless being born too late to serve in Vietnam or being born the wrong gender to serve as a combat troop in the Vietnam era count as avoiding military service.

PS–I don’t buy the chickenhawk argument either. But I think Bush is a fucking piece of shit for not directly condemning the Swift boating of Kerry, and that the fact that Kerry served in combat and Bush didn’t adds to the shittiness of Bush’s failure.

6

I must confess ignorance here as to McCain’s sons. But now you’ve detailed it, I’m somewhat surprised that they haven’t pulled Jimmy - the son of a prospective POTUS is a vastly tempting target.

7

Whether it’s valid or not depends on what it is you’re trying to establish. As a general “I think Candidate X sux” argument, no, it’s not valid. It also doesn’t prove the war in question that Candidate X supports is wrong.

It could serve as a data point, though, for assessing the overall character of a person, and that person’s wisdom with regards to the issue. A small point, but there it is all the same.

As a case in point, I am not sure I buy into the concept in the specific case of George W. Bush. I do, however, think that there is something to be said for Paul Wolfowitz’s perspective being sadly lacking in firsthand experience; Wolfowitz is notable for being extraordinarily bright, but suffering from an idealistically based refusal to consider any real world experience that would get in the way of his idea. According to virtually every account of the man I have ever read, he is notoriously resistant to the acknowledgement of facts that contradict his worldview. It is worth noting that if was Wolfowitz who refused to believe John Shinseki’s estimates of how many troops would be needed in Iraq, and who refused to prioritize an occupation plan; of course, Shinseki, the man with experience, was proven completely right.

One wonders if Wolfowitz’s decision to avoid service and instead spend his entire life in positions of academia and policymaking detracts from his wisdom and understanding of how the real world works; he, more so than anyone else in the Bush administration, seems to be particularly guilty of not understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences, and his CV reads as a litany of high-concept ideological positions supported by very little consideration of how they might affect ordinary human beings - or, maybe more important, how ordinary human beings will react to the implementation of his positions.

So, would four years in the Army have done him some good? Perhaps it would have. I think, frankly, that the man’s lack of military experience (or experience in anything other than academia or government) is a fairly significant weakness - again, **in the specific case ** of Paul Wolfowitz.

8

McCain is no chickenhawk. The problem with him is of a different nature – he’s an uberhawk. And that’s the one thing America can’t afford in the Oval Office at this moment in history.

9

No. It’s only valid if you want to establish him as a chicken hawk. Whether his decisions about global warming are correct should be evaluated on the basis of those decisions and the reasons given. It’s a fallacy to argue that decision X is bad because decision Y was bad, or that his “overall” character is bad because character aspect X is bad.

10

If you don’t believe Brain Glutton that John McCain is an uberhawk, consider Pat Buchanan, who says McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
This article in Bloomberg says he’s more hawkish on China than Bush.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

11

Has anyone, here or elsewhere, called McCain a chickenhawk? The fact that he’s not a hypocrite on this issue doesn’t make him right.

12

So, you think Pat Buchanan is good prognosticator? Or are you saying McCain would start a war with China…?

13

I’ve not heard anyone make either of those arguments regarding McCain. I request Mr Moto to provide some links to examples, which should be easy since these two arguments “have risen over and over again like belches on Taco Bell night” in “this place” …

14

To me, the problem with being a chickenhawk is not so much in simply supporting the war despite not having served, but in assuming the mantle of brave warrior for doing so, in contrast to those whose opposition to the war makes them “cowards”, John Kerry and Jack Murtha included.

15

Me, I’m just surprised McCain has active-duty-age children. I would have figured his sons would be grandfathers by now.

16

Have you seen his wife? She’s a lot younger than he is-- born in 1955. That’s 19 years younger.

17

FLOTUSILF

18

I’ll take Mrs. Dennis Kucinich over Mrs. John McCain, but hey, whatever pumps your pipe.

19

Well, while we’re proposing preposterously outlandish possibilities, I’d rather have Scarlett Johansson.

20

Yeah, the idea that Kucinich could ever be POTUS is “preposterously outlandish”. :slight_smile: