Uniformity
I look forward to the day when all the veterans from World War II and Vietnam are finally dead and gone.
That probably sounds unimaginably harsh, but I can't help it. I don't hate the men, but what's become of their duty in pop culture. Those were the last two major wars that used a draft, and the last ones to become a kind of milestone or clearinghouse for large sections of American youth. Men of a certain age who are running for office are now expected to have participated in those actions, and those who haven't are painted as being somehow less committed. No one thinks war is a good thing, but a vet running for office is still happy to have the experience under his belt. But the wars of my generation are scattered, mismanaged affairs, and in 30 years a candidate for office will — I hope, I pray, I plead — be able to say, "No, I didn't fight in either of the Iraq wars. I thought they were bad ideas, so I went to college and got a job instead." I'm just sick and exhausted of having to assume someone is better or stronger or more courageous simply because they went to war. They're not, and that's a dangerous way to elect someone.
Comments: 8
You should run for office with that as your opening line. Generation X's "I Have A Dream"; Dan Carlson's "I Look Forward To The Day" speech.
Dan, this is so well said! I never thought about this, but I'm really glad you did and that you posted it!
I feel the same way. I really hope that the wars in the middle east are looked back upon as they are, and not as some sort of badge of courage.
I also can't wait for this:
The last Vietnam veteran lies awake in his room; he is old and gray. A man comes to the door. "Who are you, stranger."
"My name is Dan Carlson, and I've come to finish this."
"What?"
*four hours of sissy punches eventually lead to the vets death.
Do you think military service matters? Not in terms of patriotism, but as a practical matter, or matter of policy?
I know it's super unpopular to be a conservative in our generation (at least I've come a long way since college!), but I do prefer to have a commander in chief who actually understands war and what's necessary to protect a nation. Not because I want war to happen, but because they do, and I think someone with the responsibilities of president is a better c-i-c when they do have that experience. Another option is this: have the president disregard the c-i-c title.
@Melanie: I have to disagree with your premise that only a president who's served in uniform can understand war or "what's necessary to protect a nation." FDR wasn't a vet, but he still managed to lead the country through WWII. Additionally, the president hardly acts alone in these matters (or hopefully doesn't), turning to his advisers for counsel, so it doesn't quite track that he or she would have to have had personal combat experience.
All I said was that I think a president is a better CIC when he has combat experience. And by "I'd like to have a commander in chief who understands what's necessary to protect a nation," I meant that I don't believe Obama is that person. Not that anyone who'd never been to combat wouldn't be a good president.
But we will continue to disagree on this, and all political matters. :) I'm voting for Ron Paul anyway.
What a Schmuck!
Sep 8, 2008 1:01 PM