Posted on 12/04/2005 2:11:59 AM PST by Gordongekko909
I've noticed several leftists pulling the "chickenhawk" argument with impunity. Probably the most public example of this is Michael Moore in Farenheit 911 pointing out that only one member of Congress has a kid serving in Iraq, and that the rest of Congress is cowardly for not "sending" their kids to Iraq (which makes no sense, as the military is all-volunteer).
Something else that I've noticed is the lackluster and, to be frank, wussy response to this argument. The response that I've seen on FR and other places, including from Rush, is generally something along the lines of "we live in a democracy, and you don't need to be neck-deep in something to hold an opinion on it, etc." While I don't disagree with this response, I advise against using it from now on. Especially in the presence of leftists.
The problem with that response is that it is inherently defensive. If a leftist has pushed you so far against the wall that you actually have to justify your right to hold an opinion, then you are losing. Big. The proper course of action is to go on the offensive.
First, the "why." In making the chickenhawk argument (which generally goes something like 'if you like the war so much, why aren't you in the military'), the speaker crosses a big, bright, thick line: he has moved from civil discourse on substantive issues to personal attack. The chickenhawk argument is a not-so-subtle way of calling you a coward. It has literally no substantive value in terms of whether the war itself is justified, but merely questions your conviction.
If someone decides to go that route, then they do not deserve for you to continue to fight according to the Queensbury rules. It's time to remove the gloves.
And now, the "how." Start by asking what the leftie has done in support of his anti-war position. The answer will range from "nothing" to "I attended a protest." This should clinch it immediately: point out the absurdity of drawing a parallel between moping around with a placard and picking up a rifle. Follow that up by throwing a modified chickenhawk right back at the leftie: why has he or she not done more to stop the war? Hell, if you've so much as Freeped a protest, you've done as much as he has, removing any grounds to complain he may have.
The response will likely be, "but I've done all I can, whereas you haven't." See? You've already got the retreatnik on the defensive. This means that you're advancing. Point out that the leftie is incorrect; there is plenty more that he can do to oppose the US presence in Iraq. For example, he could join the insurgency. If you're talking face-to-face with the leftie, odds are he hasn't done that. Fire off the reverse chickenhawk again: why is he not planting roadside bombs and beheading hostages if he feels so strongly about his position?
The leftie has two options now: whine that you've made it personal, in which case you return to square one (that HE made it personal with the chickenhawk argument, see above), or he can stay the course and tell you that he's opposed to all of the violence, man, so of course he's not going to actually hurt anyone. To deal with this, simply beat him over the head with the reverse chickenhawk again: if he's as gung-ho as he claims to be about US withdrawal from Iraq, then he would be doing everything in his power to make his vision a reality; ends justify means and all that. The fact that he isn't in Iraq makes him a coward.
Now that you're in full charge, exploit your victory. DO NOT give your opponent time to breathe or even think, let alone respond. You have a few options here.
A) Attack the House Democrats. Segue from him being all talk to Murtha and his crew being all talk. Hell, they won't even vote for a non-binding resolution calling for the instant removal of troops. Odds are, you'll get him to go on the attack against the Congressional Democrats (in much the same way that Republicans will routinely hang conservatives out to dry if said conservatives draw the ire, deserved or undeserved, of the MSM).
B) Continue the personal tear. Don't feel guilty about this; he started it. If this causes him to wuss out and make the same arguments that conservatives have been making lately (I can think what I want, yatta yatta), then cross-apply this to the original chickenhawk argument and flat-out tell him that he can't use it anymore. Then make absolutely sure that YOU decide where the next battle starts in terms of argument. DO NOT surrender the initiative.
Cerebral substantive arguments are fine and good if the person you're up against will play by the rules. That's how political arguments are really supposed to be executed. But if your opponent decides to take it outside, so to speak, you won't look as good as you think you do by keeping your jacket and glasses on while he punches you in the kidneys. You've got to hit back.
This is tough with all the lefty statements about it.. Here is something from last year
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/jan-june04/schaeffer_04-22.html
And only six representatives and one senator are known to have children serving.
6/535= 1.12% All of Congress
also
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040913/news_1m13duncan.html
Called to duty
In his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore says that out of 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq. A publicist for Moore did not return phone calls, but Moore's Web site said he was referring to Sen. Tim Johnson, (D-S.D.), whose son deployed to Iraq in 2003. Staff Sgt. Brooks Johnson has returned from Iraq and now works as an Army recruiter.
In addition to Johnson and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, at least six other legislators have children in the military, including:
Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., has a son who recently graduated from the Marine Corps' Basic School at Quantico, Va. Sam Bond, 23, is training to be an infantry officer, Bond aide Shana Stribling said.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., has a son who is a first lieutenant in the Delaware Army National Guard. Joseph R. Biden III is a judge advocate.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., has a son in the Marine Corps who is a combat engineer. Perr Akin recently completed training in Camp Lejune, N.C., and expects to be deployed later this year, possibly to Iraq or Afghanistan, the congressman's spokesman Steve Taylor said. Rep. Akin has a son who is a sophomore at the Naval Academy.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., has at least one son in the military, Hunter said. A spokeswoman for Skelton said the congressman does not answer questions about his children because he wants to protect their privacy.
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., has three sons in the military. Alan is a captain in the Army National Guard stationed in Iraq, Addison is a Navy ensign and Julian is in the Army National Guard, press secretary Wesley Denton said.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has a son, John, who is enlisted in the Navy.
If I were accused of being a chickenhawk, I would just show the accuser both my military ID and my dependent ID--I realize not many can do this.
Fortunately, I had a better response:
I enlisted in a shooting war in 1971, at the age of 17.
While I wasn't sent overseas, I took that risk.
I lost friends there.
I was an outpatient at Fitzsimons Hospital, which at the time was the world's largest amputee hospital. I witnessed hundreds of multiple amputees, during cast changes and x-rays.
My brother has served 3 tours in the Middle East over the past 10 years.
Therefore, I have NOTHING to learn from ANY liberal tiraid on the subject, and NOTHING to apologize for!
Iraq HAS contributed to terrorism, we DO need to shut down that capability, and initiating the transition from despotism to democracy is the BEST way to accomplish that!
If the liberals believe that there is nothing worth fighting for, or that isolationism is a way to protect our freedom and safety, then they deserve neither!
Thanks. I imagine the noise on that search, from Leftie sites, is pretty intense.
While I definitely agree with you, I think that that way of explaining it is a bit too cerebral for use in a face-to-face argument with someone who's already broken some rules. It's correct; it's just not aggressive enough.
My intentions here were to prep out Freepers for face-to-face arguments with lefties. Granted, the decisions made in Washington are the ones that actually count, but still, we shall fight them on the beaches, etc.
I don't understand why you have a problem with the response; I mean, the original chickenhawk argument isn't substantive at all, so the grounds have already been shifted to personal. The idea is to beat the people who make this asinine argument over the head with it until they acknowledge its invalidity.
And you're absolutely correct in that I will not "defend avoiding military service." It's rather silly to go on the defensive when you don't need to. Being on offense is a lot more fun; you actually get somewhere when you're on offense.
So excuse me if I don't allow people to frame a debate on the merits of US foreign policy around my career choice.
I should really start keeping a notebook of leftist predictions, so that I can ID them when they don't come true. The only one that I've used recently is the draft; Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and even Chuck Hagel predicted one if Bush won in '04. So far, no draft.
"And then," Anna recalled, "they were all killed.
What love and respect you must have for your great grandfather. He sealed his knowledge of Christ with his own blood. I will remember your story of him. Thank you for telling it.
I understand.
That is why I stated "That is not to say I do not applaud your efforts and good intentions."
You did all here a good service. I was merely being in my whining mode, and stating that our supposed leaders should be doing some leading on this.
Ah, a chickenhawk.
Being on offense is a lot more fun; you actually get somewhere when you're on offense.
So to sum it up you are proud of the fact that you are no less petty in your way than they are in theirs?
And you also mischaracterized the hell out of what I said. I prefer to argue on the offensive. Deflecting the other guy's arguments may keep me from losing ground, but it certainly doesn't gain me any. And I don't like the idea of someone else being allowed to frame a debate.
If you're going to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, do that. If you're going to suggest a different policy approach, do that. But the chickenhawk argument (and, incidentally, your comments on my response to it) is none of these things. It's strictly personal. And if someone personally attacks me, I will respond in kind.
If the other guy does what you just did and acknowledge the pettiness of the chickenhawk argument, then that's good; it can be agreed that he will never use it again, and maybe the debate can move back to substance, where it belongs (with me getting to choose the next topic, of course). If not, I'm stuck demonstrating the absurdity of the chickenhawk argument by using it against the person who originally threw it at me.
And since you've made the rather questionable decision to call me a chickenhawk, what have you done to oppose the war?
As I said in the beginning responding to the opposition's being petty by being petty yourself. Quite a strategy.
And since you've made the rather questionable decision to call me a chickenhawk, what have you done to oppose the war?
You make the assumption I oppose the war. I got into this because I do find amusing, and a bit pathetic, those who would cheerfully fight a war to the last drop of somebody elses blood. Keep up the good work.
See, now I'm just confused. Your first sentence implies that you do not oppose the war. Your second sentence implies that you do. If you're going to argue, at least have a position.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.