Mark Shields: A much different war for a changed nation (Pundit Alert!)

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate, Inc.) -- In his uncompromising condemnation of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, President Bush has no more reliable and important supporter than his erstwhile political foe Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

John McCain, an authentic American hero who knows firsthand the pain of combat, has said: "War is awful. Nothing, not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. War is wretched beyond description and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. Whatever is won in war, it is loss the veteran remembers."

I dunno, I was forwarded this article and felt pressured to respond. Before you criticize my stance on McCain, please read this ( http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins/tim97-4-6.HTML ), or, hell, do a google search on him.

> > > Mark Shields, nationally known columnist and commentator, is the moderator > of CNN's The Capital Gang > > > > Mark Shields: A much different war for a changed nation > WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate, Inc.) -- In his uncompromising condemnation > of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, President Bush has no more reliable and > important supporter than his erstwhile political foe Sen. John McCain, > R-Arizona. Bollocks. John McCain remains a political foe of both George Bush's pseudo-conservative agenda and any real conservative agenda, and virtually any republican cause. It is a simple quid pro quo: McCain provides support on an issue he cannot afford to prevaricate on, and his absurd campaign finance reform bill gets passed, etc.

> > John McCain, an authentic American hero who knows firsthand the pain of > combat, has said: "War is awful. Nothing, not the valor with which it is > fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. War is > wretched beyond description and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize > its cruel reality. Whatever is won in war, it is loss the veteran > remembers."

What McCain knows more than the pain of combat is the agony of defeat and failure; any pilot with his record would have been grounded long before his capture occurred on his 4th crash, but since he was the Admiral's idiot son, he got away with it. I respect the fact that he survived those camps (in the officer's section and hospitals, mind you, not in the wet pits enlisted men were in), but it provides him with very little political currency (which he milks all the time.

What the veteran also remembers is how McCain sold out the POW's in Vietnam with his stewardship of Vietnamese detente.

> > Our leaders insist that the United States has changed profoundly and > permanently in the last year. For evidence, we are reminded that our > society's icons and idols have been changed. > > Instead of some post-pubescent, dot.com gazillionaire closing the biggest > deal this side of the international dateline, our new heroes have become > firefighters, police officers and emergency workers who -- because they > honored the vows they had taken -- marched into burning buildings on a > mission to save the lives of strangers.

I don't see anything wrong with this view of American heroes. > > There is not a politician in shoe leather who has not welcomed the photo op > with firefighters and cops. Let's not kid ourselves. If these blue-collar > workers and dues-paying union members were truly the new American heroes > and > idols, then why has their place in the economic pecking order not changed > for the better in the last year?

I don't see how monetary compensation enters into it. What, does this guy expect some massive government sponsorship on behalf of public servants at risk? I agree that their insurance system is absurd, but this statement is just odd.

> > Why do fewer employers today provide their workers health insurance? Why > has > there been no increase in the minimum wage? Why cannot firefighters even > get > a raise?

a) Because rather than have one employee with full benefits and the kitchen sink, employers would rather have several employees and actually get their jobs done. b) because government ordained minimum wages inevitably lead to unemployment...the law of unintended consequences works quite simply in this matter. c) Ask the unions that saddle the competent workers with incompetents, and leech away government payrolls across the board.

Corollary: What the hell does this have to do with anything discussed before this?

> > On the verge of war, Americans must confront a changed reality about > ourselves: John McCain's America, the culture of heroism and sacrifice, is > very much in decline. Institutions that imposed and honored sacrifice -- > the > military draft, traditional morality, the church, among others -- have > either been rejected or discredited.

Only by the Communist News Network and their media siblings, the gliteratti, etc...

Besides, a culture of honour and sacrifice is a stupid way to characterize the greatness of America. Rather, it lies in the culture of self imposed virtue, whether by personal morality or religious choice, etc. That remains strong in America, I believe.

> In the judgment of University of Massachusetts wise man Ralph Whitehead, > the > contemporary American culture's devaluing of individual sacrifice for the > common good, along with its refusal to recognize citizens' reciprocal civic > obligations to each other, make it difficult for leadership to summon a > united nation to prolonged sacrifice.

Bull****. Such language of sacrifice is raw demagoguery and academic foolishness at its finest. I see no problems with military recruiting these days...how about that just graduated college football player who turned down a million dollar NFL contract to join the ARMY Rangers? The biggest problem the Army and Navy have is in motivating people to join the many lackluster aspects of the service...the Marines have no such problems because of their adherence to tradition. But even with those caveats America has one of the finest (with the possible exception of Israel, the finest) militaries in the world, and all it takes are volunteers. Perhaps blind sacrifice is dead, but virtue and love of country is not.

> > Over the last generation, according to Whitehead, "politically, liberals > have 'deregulated' the nation's culture while conservatives have > 'deregulated' the nation's economy." > > An almost implicit libertarian consensus has emerged between the two camps: > I won't meddle too much with your personal lifestyle if you don't meddle > too > much with my free market.

To call the current climate deregulated in either respect is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Have liberals turned moral relativism into an acceptable (to them) means of moral judgement rather than its proper role as a means of understanding (a far cry from embracing or tolerating all views as equally valid)? Indeed. But they have done this by putting more rules than ever before on aspects of our lives that are Constitutionally ours to gauge, and by deregulating only those things that are potential moral or legal impediments to moral relativism (like a serious debate on abortion). Conservative thought has not really had as big a role as this guy would have us believe in the market. We still have a Federal Reserve monkeying with our inflationary paper money, we still have a welfare state weighing us down, and we are still being taxed into oblivion. What is conservative about that?

> > The inevitable result, nonjudgmental tolerance, becomes a paramount virtue. > What emerges is a society where individual autonomy and self-expression are > revered and where an individual's dominant obligation is to himself.

This is a clear case of a non-sequiter. Becoming a moral jellyfish does not make one free to be honestly autonomous, but rather a herd animal. There is no way that honest self interest can lead one to such a pathetic state. > > Of course, an individual is free, even encouraged, to sacrifice -- on the > jogging trail or in the health club -- in pursuit of the higher value of > self-improvement. This might help explain why President George W. Bush over > the last year has repeatedly urged his fellow citizens to volunteer, to > mentor and to tutor, but why in no speech has the commander in chief asked > young Americans to join the United States military.

He does not need to. Contrary to media pundits' belief, the American people can read between some lines. Besides, there is no shortage of good manpower in the military, just wasted resources on UN peacekeeping and Clintonian adventures.

> > It's all about individual choice. This will be the first war the United > States has fought in for almost a century and a half with a tax cut and > without a military draft. In 2002, the American establishment -- political, > economic and journalistic -- has no personal stake in the armed forces of > the United States. No, and No. I don't recall people being drafted during Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I...The lack of a call to draft does not mean there is an absence of commitment on the part of American people, just an understanding that a modern military requires motivated volunteers, not slaves.

> > In proudly classless America, the nation's uniformed defenders come > overwhelmingly from America's working families. These are Americans who do > not get invited to White House dinners. Their fathers do not host > soft-money > fund-raisers. Their mothers have never worn a designer original. These > brave > Americans do not have family trust funds, roman numerals after their names > or a summer place on the Vineyard.

Bla Bla bla Populism. That is an awfully broad definition of working family, and a really stupid way of ignoring the respective proportions of youths from each "class" going into the military.

> > Because the values of duty and sacrifice are no longer honored by this > society, this war will mean the complete separation of people in power in > Washington from the people at peril in the Persian Gulf. > > > I don't even know what this statement means. Sounds vaguely like pretentious dialectical marxism.

Sorry, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do html style formatting on these things to make them legible. anyonw want to point me to instructions before I embarass myself further?

> > > Mark Shields, nationally known columnist and commentator, is the moderator > of CNN's The Capital Gang > > > > Mark Shields: A much different war for a changed nation > WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate, Inc.) -- In his uncompromising condemnation > of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, President Bush has no more reliable and > important supporter than his erstwhile political foe Sen. John McCain, > R-Arizona.

Bollocks. John McCain remains a political foe of both George Bush's pseudo-conservative agenda and any real conservative agenda, and virtually any republican cause. It is a simple quid pro quo: McCain provides support on an issue he cannot afford to prevaricate on, and his absurd campaign finance reform bill gets passed, etc.

> > John McCain, an authentic American hero who knows firsthand the pain of > combat, has said: "War is awful. Nothing, not the valor with which it is > fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. War is > wretched beyond description and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize > its cruel reality. Whatever is won in war, it is loss the veteran > remembers."

What McCain knows more than the pain of combat is the agony of defeat and failure; any pilot with his record would have been grounded long before his capture occurred on his 4th crash, but since he was the Admiral's idiot son, he got away with it. I respect the fact that he survived those camps (in the officer's section and hospitals, mind you, not in the wet pits enlisted men were in), but it provides him with very little political currency (which he milks all the time.

What the veteran also remembers is how McCain sold out the POW's in Vietnam with his stewardship of Vietnamese detente.

> > Our leaders insist that the United States has changed profoundly and > permanently in the last year. For evidence, we are reminded that our > society's icons and idols have been changed. > > Instead of some post-pubescent, dot.com gazillionaire closing the biggest > deal this side of the international dateline, our new heroes have become > firefighters, police officers and emergency workers who -- because they > honored the vows they had taken -- marched into burning buildings on a > mission to save the lives of strangers.

I don't see anything wrong with this view of American heroes.

> > There is not a politician in shoe leather who has not welcomed the photo op > with firefighters and cops. Let's not kid ourselves. If these blue-collar > workers and dues-paying union members were truly the new American heroes > and > idols, then why has their place in the economic pecking order not changed > for the better in the last year?

I don't see how monetary compensation enters into it. What, does this guy expect some massive government sponsorship on behalf of public servants at risk? I agree that their insurance system is absurd, but this statement is just odd.

> > Why do fewer employers today provide their workers health insurance? Why > has > there been no increase in the minimum wage? Why cannot firefighters even > get > a raise?

a) Because rather than have one employee with full benefits and the kitchen sink, employers would rather have several employees and actually get their jobs done. b) because government ordained minimum wages inevitably lead to unemployment...the law of unintended consequences works quite simply in this matter. c) Ask the unions that saddle the competent workers with incompetents, and leech away government payrolls across the board.

Corollary: What the hell does this have to do with anything discussed before this?

> > On the verge of war, Americans must confront a changed reality about > ourselves: John McCain's America, the culture of heroism and sacrifice, is > very much in decline. Institutions that imposed and honored sacrifice -- > the > military draft, traditional morality, the church, among others -- have > either been rejected or discredited.

Only by the Communist News Network and their media siblings, the gliteratti, etc...

Besides, a culture of honour and sacrifice is a stupid way to characterize the greatness of America. Rather, it lies in the culture of self imposed virtue, whether by personal morality or religious choice, etc. That remains strong in America, I believe.

> In the judgment of University of Massachusetts wise man Ralph Whitehead, > the > contemporary American culture's devaluing of individual sacrifice for the > common good, along with its refusal to recognize citizens' reciprocal civic > obligations to each other, make it difficult for leadership to summon a > united nation to prolonged sacrifice.

Bull****. Such language of sacrifice is raw demagoguery and academic foolishness at its finest. I see no problems with military recruiting these days...how about that just graduated college football player who turned down a million dollar NFL contract to join the ARMY Rangers? The biggest problem the Army and Navy have is in motivating people to join the many lackluster aspects of the service...the Marines have no such problems because of their adherence to tradition. But even with those caveats America has one of the finest (with the possible exception of Israel, the finest) militaries in the world, and all it takes are volunteers. Perhaps blind sacrifice is dead, but virtue and love of country is not.

> > Over the last generation, according to Whitehead, "politically, liberals > have 'deregulated' the nation's culture while conservatives have > 'deregulated' the nation's economy." > > An almost implicit libertarian consensus has emerged between the two camps: > I won't meddle too much with your personal lifestyle if you don't meddle > too > much with my free market.

To call the current climate deregulated in either respect is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Have liberals turned moral relativism into an acceptable (to them) means of moral judgement rather than its proper role as a means of understanding (a far cry from embracing or tolerating all views as equally valid)? Indeed. But they have done this by putting more rules than ever before on aspects of our lives that are Constitutionally ours to gauge, and by deregulating only those things that are potential moral or legal impediments to moral relativism (like a serious debate on abortion). Conservative thought has not really had as big a role as this guy would have us believe in the market. We still have a Federal Reserve monkeying with our inflationary paper money, we still have a welfare state weighing us down, and we are still being taxed into oblivion. What is conservative about that?

> > The inevitable result, nonjudgmental tolerance, becomes a paramount virtue. What emerges is a society where individual autonomy and self-expression are revered and where an individual's dominant obligation is to himself.

This is a clear case of a non-sequiter. Becoming a moral jellyfish does not make one free to be honestly autonomous, but rather a herd animal. There is no way that honest self interest can lead one to such a pathetic state.

> > Of course, an individual is free, even encouraged, to sacrifice -- on the
> jogging trail or in the health club -- in pursuit of the higher value of
> self-improvement. This might help explain why President George W. Bush over
> the last year has repeatedly urged his fellow citizens to volunteer, to
> mentor and to tutor, but why in no speech has the commander in chief asked
> young Americans to join the United States military.

He does not need to. Contrary to media pundits' belief, the American people can read between some lines. Besides, there is no shortage of good manpower in the military, just wasted resources on UN peacekeeping and Clintonian adventures.

> > It's all about individual choice. This will be the first war the United
> States has fought in for almost a century and a half with a tax cut and
> without a military draft. In 2002, the American establishment -- political,
> economic and journalistic -- has no personal stake in the armed forces of
> the United States.

No, and No. I don't recall people being drafted during Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I...The lack of a call to draft does not mean there is an absence of commitment on the part of American people, just an understanding that a modern military requires motivated volunteers, not slaves.

> > In proudly classless America, the nation's uniformed defenders come overwhelmingly from America's working families. These are Americans who do
> not get invited to White House dinners. Their fathers do not host
> soft-money fund-raisers. Their mothers have never worn a designer original. These
> brave
> Americans do not have family trust funds, roman numerals after their names
> or a summer place on the Vineyard.

Bla Bla bla Populism. That is an awfully broad definition of working family, and a really stupid way of ignoring the respective proportions of youths from each "class" going into the military.

>
> Because the values of duty and sacrifice are no longer honored by this
> society, this war will mean the complete separation of people in power in
> Washington from the people at peril in the Persian Gulf. > >
>
I don't even know what this statement means. Sounds vaguely like pretentious dialectical marxism.

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.