How NOT to Protest the War

If you find people who think that liberal or generally "oppositional" types are flaky, you shouldn't be greatly surprised, nor should you necessarily chalk it up to brainwashing via Fox News. This pap from The Huffington Post yesterday gives more than adequate grounds for doubting the intelligence of its author and those who sympathize with his larger concerns. It's short, so here's the whole thing, with my paragraph by paragraph annotations.

Richard Bradley: Are the Bush Twins AWOL?

Thanks in large part to Cindy Sheehan, people are starting to raise the issue of why Jenna and Barbara Bush aren't serving in the military. It's a tough question, but I think it's a fair one. The President of the United States is calling on American young people to volunteer to go to war, but his own daughters, who are certainly of the appropriate age, are better known for their drunken nightclub escapades than for any acts of patriotism.

People have been raising this question long before Sheehan's campout (a gesture I think is great, BTW). It's a fair question, I guess, but a pointless one. It does not in the least examine the merits of the Iraq war's justification or conduct. It doesn't shed any light on the motivations of those who engineered the war. It rests on what I think is a troubling assumption: that children are obliged to sacrifice themselves for their parents' ambitions.

There's a precedent for prodding Bush on this question. Back in 1993, when Bill and Hillary Clinton moved to Washington, they decided to enroll Chelsea in a private, rather than public, school. Because the decision seemed to contradict the Clintons' stated faith in public schools, the press asked the Clintons about that decision, and they had to defend it—publicly. (And unlike the Bush daughters now, Chelsea was a minor.)

False analogy, Mr. Bradley. Parents have the right to direct the education of their minor children. When parents happen to be educational policy makers, I think it's reasonable to expect them to educate their children in ways consistent with the policies they promote. Adults are free to choose how they will or won't spend their lives, and how they will or won't apply the education they received. You seem to recognize the distinction, but don't feel obligated to incorporate it into your reasoning.

It's pretty simple, really. The military doesn't have enough soldiers; the president believes that this is a good and just war; he has two daughters who could enlist in the military, but haven't. These things don't add up.

The word is "simplistic." Again, there's a presumption that children are obliged to support their parents' beliefs. My father, for example, opposes same-sex marriage. I'm capable of speaking out against that--does it follow that I must? I'll make up my own mind, thanks. And I think that's what my dad wants me to do.

So here's a question I think a White House reporter should ask the president: "President Bush, if your own two daughters won't enlist, how can you expect anyone else's children to join the military?"

I guess that depends on what "anyone else's children" think about the war and what if anything they ought to contribute to it. Mr. Bradley, at what point do people become autonomous adults who can live by their own conscience, rather than ancilliaries to parental ambition ? (Granted, some people never do, but I don't think anyone wants to promote that as the norm or ideal). From a feminst standpoint, you could call this a crass endorsement of patriarchy--daughters' lives are bound by the choices of their father.

I think that the Bush twins have been doing some PR/visiting the troops kind of work--exactly what sort and to what extent I'm not sure offhand. Their doing that does leave them open to questions about their support for the war and how far they're willing to take it. Them--not their father. I think that some liberals get so fixated on GW that they start with him as the basis for any kind of critique. Sometimes he just doesn't figure, or figures minimally at most.

Who on earth did Bradley think would read this? He may well have assumed he was preaching to the choir, but the reasoning in this piece is liable to drive off even the most devout among the congregants of the left. I like to see people calling the powers that be to account--but I hate to see it done thoughtlessly. I'm perfectly happy to let the thoughtful voices on the right compete for attention with the stupidity of Bill O'Reilly, et al. But seeing pieces like Bradley's in a so-called progressive forum gives me more despair than almost any transmission from right-wing talk shows . Knee-jerk pewling does critics of the war no favors.