March 31, 2005
Understanding people different from yourself...
Understanding people different from yourself. That's supposed to be on the "Blue State" side of the big stereotype slate that's written in somebody's guidebook, isn't it? (You know, the one that says if I'm in favor of gun control then I have to be anti-Israel, and vice versa?)
Heather Hurlburt at Democracy Arsenal has a nice short post on 10 steps Democrats can take to get back on the map WRT national security. Kevin Drum at Political Animal quotes one particular example:
Step 6. Every progressive takes a personal vow to learn something about our military, how it works, what its ethos is, and how it affects our society at all levels — as well as what it does well and less well in the wider world.
Sounds like good advice. Also reminds me of a great piece that NPR's On The Media did last month about how journalists, in general, just don't understand gun issues or gun owners, and how they really need to start.
Posted by bug to Politics at March 31, 2005 3:56 PM | TrackBackWhy should progressives attempt step 6? So they can realize how the US military can be both imperalist and incompetant at the same time? As a progressive army brat, who spent too much time than I should have in ROTC, a real step 6 can only serve to drive a progressive further from the viewpoint of the archetype of the miltary-industrial complex favoring nationalist.
As nice as it is to talk about supporting the troops, I find it extremely hard to believe that a progressive could use our current armed forces to impart positive global change. The last person to try that was Clinton, and he was trying to implement drastic change to the entire system, much to the protest of the pentagon.
When progressives talk about the military, they should reference Eisenhower. They should talk about the unfortunate evolution of the military into a stubborn leviathan that contracts out huge amounts of responsibilty. The gross state of our military and intelligence is something that needs real reform. It shouldn't be talked about in terms of scandals like Halliburton. I don't think it should be minimized to softball interviews on token humanitarian efforts. Progressives should use the language that is currently being used to talk about social security.
I did hear that NPR piece. It was a pretty accurate window into the head of a gun nut. I grew up in a strange community of people who were pro gun ownership and pro hunting, but were also pro gun control and anti NRA. After going through the process of getting a Class B gun permit in MA, I am convinced that real compromize is possible within the curent dialog about gun control. On the other hand, the dialog about the US military seems to be framed in terms that are inhospitiple for real "progressive" thoughts.
Whew. That was more of a rant than I intended it to be. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Indy at April 1, 2005 3:01 PMWhy should progressives attempt step 6? So they can realize how the US military can be both imperalist and incompetant at the same time?
Possibly, yeah. (I'll cop to being one of the progressives that doesn't understand how the military thinks, so I don't really know what kind of conclusions I'd come to.)
Mostly I'm thinking it's much easier to argue a point when you understand both the language and values of the person you're trying to convince. That goes for talking with hawkish Senators about military reform, hunters about the environment or born-again Christians about care for the poor.
Posted by: Bug at April 4, 2005 5:58 PM