The Courage of their Convictions
McCain and Obama speak to Columbia students on ROTC:
In a forum on public service on campus earlier this month, Mr. Obama (Columbia ‘83) and John McCain (Annapolis ‘58) were both asked about the ROTC ban. When Mr. McCain predictably called on Columbia to “re-examine” the ban, he was predictably booed by a crowd of several thousand students who were watching the debate on a giant TV screen on campus.
The question was later put to Mr. Obama. “I think we’ve made a mistake on that,” Mr. Obama replied. “I recognize that there are students here who have differences in terms of military policy, but the notion that young people here at Columbia aren’t offered a choice or an option in participating in military service is a mistake.” The same students who had so lustily booed Mr. McCain, reported the New York Times, were “largely silent” when Mr. Obama gave the same answer.
Probably has something to do with Obama being articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.
or, it could just be that it was an auditorium full of dicks….
Ya know, I just never understood the hostility towards ROTC. It is a purely voluntary program for the first two years. You only incur an obligation if you either accept a scholarship through it, or sign on to accept a commission if offered. No one is forced to join, and I even had a couple guys in my class who were able to attend the entire 4-year program without incurring an obligation because they simply wanted the credits towards their own degrees, and didn’t accept any stipends, assistance, etc.
Those lunatics who want ROTC kept off campus would be well advised to consider where the next generation of military leaders will come from if not through that program or the Academies.
Wartime is not the time to be trying to recruit and develop leaders.
Idjets.
A good many of those lunatics who want ROTC kept off campus see the resultant lack of a next generation of military leaders as a feature, not a bug.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that Congress has set up for the military is how opposition is whipped up against the ROTC. The fact that the leaders developed in it will enable the military to be used to maintain America’s highly influential place in the world and to further the aims of democratic capitalism is the main sticking point, however.
I see this ban as a feature, not a bug.
Few things are as valuable in elections as military service. McCain ought to be polling at 15% given the popularity of Bush – but his military service means he’s at a dead heat.
Keeping liberals out of the military is good for the military and for America.
How is crowd reaction Obama’s fault? McCain could have said he agreed with the ban and he still would have gotten booed.
It is Columbia after all……………..
Didn’t say anything about it being Obama’s fault. You’re working too hard, pard.
The DADT is the justification for the ban, not the cause. It is a fig leaf they hide behind.
As readers of this site may have noticed, the military is not by any means monolithically conservative politically (waves to Skippy, OP, maybe one or two others). And Columbia students and administrators, snug in their knowledge that the services are composed of a bunch of neo-cro-magnon fascists are missing a chance to have real influence on how the services culture grows. I for one actually find this a bad trend. I would hate to see the services become politically conservative because the politcally liberal self-selected themselves out of the pool of potential leaders.
If anything, I think this points to Obama’s strange effect on people who support him.
Take the Democratic primaries. The difference between his positions and Hilary’s were just not that far off. But if the words came out of her mouth they were met with derision; from his = cheers.
@secret asian man:
You said:
“Keeping liberals out of the military is good for the military and for America.”
I say:
Uh, no.
How does that work? If anything, the military should remain as apolitical as possible. We are here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to espouse right or left wing orthodoxy simply because we wear a uniform.
Furthermore, I distinctly remember swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States – not blind fealty to a political party.
I’ve worked for Officers, Chiefs, and Petty Officers who are at all ranges of the political spectrum. I don’t mind either, nor do I think that pulling the lever for the blue candidate makes you less of an American or less of a good Sailor.
Voting and participation in the process – not your leanings – make for a good American.
“Keeping liberals out of the military is good for the military and for America.”
Totally disagree – if we can’t argue about politics, that only leaves religion and sex!
Seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with Drew that all parts of society need to be represented in the military, to keep the services as apolitical as possible.
Having said that, many of the most left-leaning liberals sure do seem to think that military service disqualifies one from having opinions…or even the intelligence to independently form an opinion based on facts
I would even argue, SAM, that military service might tend to moderate some of the more extreme views of the liberals, should they serve. At the very least, it would tend to raise the level of understanding of the military culture, if not respect for it.
I am working too hard-today has been one of those days. If someone gave me an Uzi right now, I’d go postal and do my own bit to reduce waste in government…..
XBradTC,
I agree. FWIW, Many of my circle believe that I am politically somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. No quite true, as they would discover if they actually LISTENED to some of my talking points.
For example, I believe that both men and women should be allowed to serve in any and all MOS’s. The justification for making blank exclusions in certain jobs just doesn’t wash. If a woman can pass the skills and PT test for the job, she ought to be able to serve in it.
Same for homosexuals. I have no problem serving alongside openly gay men or women. They are citizens as well, and deserve the full oportunities offered by the Constitution, and also the right to serve in it’s defense if they so choose.
Now, I am against what i would consider to be special rights, such as gay marriage, and hate-crime laws, but as to taking the oath and joining the ranks, I say that’s fine by me.
Respects,
I believe that both men and women should be allowed to serve in any and all MOS’s.
Nope, no way, no how. There are I think some very profound reasons why it does not work-and in the end why it is actually counter to readiness-as Elaine Donnelly has documented.
Just can’t drink that kool aid.
As for gay’s- I think I probably already served along side some. But I did not have to know they were gay-and that probably made all the difference.
Secret Asian Man –
Frankly as a staunch, proud, patriotic Liberal Democrat who served his country at sea in the Navy for 20 years, I am deeply offended by your statement. Your statement degrades and defames great Americans like Teddy Roosevelt (a liberal by today’s standards), Truman, Eisenhower (another liberal by today’s standards), Kennedy, Carter, George McGovern, I could go on.
Quite frankly, Columbia is wrong and not for the reasons that anyone here thinks. I think the officer corps should look more like America and like it or not, there are patriotic liberals who love America. By keeping ROTC off of more liberal campuses keeps more politically liberal officers out of the service.
The lack of diversity of ideas in the officer corps hurts, not helps.
rnb,
I was trying (and failing) to reach just that point about reflecting our nation. Not by quotas, mind you, which some folks on your side of the political spectrum seem to have an affinity for. But one thing that always amazed me was how many liberal political organizations sneered at the military when they should be seducing.
Think about it. Here’s an organization composed of young, reasonably well educated folks who are somewhat idealistic, enough so that they take action about their beliefs rather than shout slogans. If that’s not a happy hunting ground for liberals, I don’t know what is.
Er, maybe they were struck dumb?
As an ROTC graduate from a time when it was mandatory for all males for the first two years (thus a HUGE Cadet Corps, 5,000+ Army&AF at my school) I have a hard time relating to today’s scaled-down versions as they exists today–although Navy and Marine programs were always smaller.
To inhibit the “best and brightest” (supposedly) brains from exposure to the social construct that is the Armed Services and the social ethos that goes with it in attempting to defend this nation is, I think, undeniably bad for the nation in the long run. As is also the shielding of the services themselves from the critical eyes that recruits from this social strata bring to the party–which both insulates the services from a key segment of the public mind as well as denies it much needed introspection from segments of the public not usually heard from,i.e., it’s good to have fresh eyes and intellectual malcontents inside the organization–it keeps everyone on their toes.
RonF & others: In the late 60’s / early 70’s there was no DADT and the lefties still didn’t want ROTC. The leftists / anti-America types amongst us don’t need any particular policy to disagree about or to vent about by being against ROTC – they only need to know that it’s pro-American policy and they get all pissy. You don’t need overthink this stuff – if you try to figure them out, you’ll just go nuts. It’s all about their feelings and the fact that if it’s conservative, it’s bad, racist, greedy, anti-green, anti-woman…blah blah.
RussianNavyBlog: I’d appreciate a couple things from you.
First – could you explain how the people mentioned such as Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, are liberals by TODAY’S standards as you’ve said? I think I’ll disagree on that as I think the opposite is true but I’ll await your definition.
Second, could you please see your way to NOT list Jimmy Carter as a great American? He’s a disgrace and the others on your list don’t deserve to be associated with him.
Virgil,
Your post read to me as if somehow the military was inhibiting the elite left from joining and consisted of a bunch of people dedicated to “shielding” ourselves from their input. Do you really think that’s the case?
This is completely off topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU-EpU13K_o
Enjoy!!
I’m surprised they didn’t break out in song in the presence of their “Dear Leader” like those California coached automatons!
Substance with battle scars vs. empty suit sold by MSM.
b2
Curtis,
Sorry I didn’t make myself clear–I meant that it is sad that institutions like some of the Ivies prevent and/or put up barriers to their students because exposure of that segment of the social strata of America is good both for the Armed Services in the immediate sense and for the larger society over the long-haul as these graduates leave military service, return to the civilian life and nourish society with a viewpoint/outlook tempered by their service experience that they otherwise would not have had.
Stevec,
Teddy Roosevelt was liberal in his time-probably a moderate in ours. Before the word had such negative connotations. He undid most of McKinely’s approach to economics and took on some of the biggest corporations of his day. Most of his trust busting was considered anti free market by those who supported McKinely.
Back in the day, Skippy-sama, more than a few of those trusts were (economically) objectionable. The problem is that both the economic & political context have changed, as well as our terms.
Back then, “progressive” or “reformist” meant something. Truly large corporations (including especially the railroad companies) held an enourmous power over local politics. Unions were still scrabbling for a toehold, up to the point where the Supreme Court struck down one collective bargaining agreement on the basis that said agreement violated the individual’s right to freely contract their own labor. Even most conservatives today would, I think, be appalled at that logic.
There was no such thing as a pure food and drug act, and you would be amazed at the crap they would put into food. The slums in the inner cities were as bad as Nancy Pelosi seems to think they are today.
And black Americans were second-class citizens. Which reminds me, let’s all thank the idealistic Woodrow Wilson for introducing Jim Crow to Washington, D.C.
Basically, there was tremendous room for reform and social/political progress. The problem is that, a century later, society has become more tolerant and open-minded, we hold higher expectations with respect to the environment and what we eat, and for the most part our elections are much less corrupt, Chicago notwithstanding.
Alas, progressives still seem to see the need for yet even more change. They have failed to grasp that we have reached the actuarial point of diminishing returns for more extensive government intervention in society. We’ve managed to more or less eliminate sexism and racism from our social and corporate structure, and even homosexuals have gained a tremendous degree of freedom unthinkable even thirty years ago.
Progressives see an imperfect society with residual bigotry, while independents such as myself see that it’s impossible to mold to 100% perfection.
One may not refuse to hire, or fire someone else based on their race, ethnicity, religion, politics, or even sexual orientation. Any citation of any of the above as a basic for some sort of political disqualification results in protest and abuse; I cite Obama and Romney in evidence.
In other words, all the legal and social barricades are gone. Alas, we still have the barricades inside citizen’s minds, and government is worthless for that. Doesn’t mean the loyal progressive will stop trying, which I think explains speech and hate-crime legislation. Progressive intentions are good -they trying to eliminate bigotry, racism, etc.- but the methods are questionable. They see such legislation as improving society. I see such legislation has criminalizing thought without any measurable social benefit.
Such impulses really do demonstrate a law of diminishing returns, excuse the pun. But that’s why (I believe) many progressives advocate things like hate/crime speech laws, or AA quotas. All real barriers addressable by government power have been overthrown, but they’re still determined to build a perfect world, so they’re sucked down the rabbit hole of social engineering.
This is not to say there are no issues with modern conservatism, but that isn’t the current topic.
In both cases we need to acknowledge how our society works today, and think of new approaches. Get our minds “out of the box,” as it were.
I think I’ll post this on my own blog. Not too bad for off-the-cuff.
Not to mention getting a tad away from the original topic. Heh.