I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately -- how the issue cuts between republicans and democrats, boomers, pre-boomers, gen-xers, etc. but haven't really come to any solid conclusions.
So I thought I'd throw some thoughts out and maybe stir up some discussion.
First, I don't for a second mean to take anything away from Wes. Clark or John Kerry for serving in Vietnam and serving admirably. They are brave men.
Rather, I want to focus on the critique (if its possible to divorce it from comparison to those who served) of those who didn't serve, for whatever reason.
Many (most) didn't serve in Vietnam because they weren't asked -- children, women, elderly, etc. Others didn't serve because they couldn't -- e.g., the infirm (leave for now whether Dean fits this category, fits it squarely or is somewhere in the penumbra of "infirm"). Still others didn't serve because they were doing something else -- student deferrments, single parent, agricultural worker, etc. Finally, some didn't serve (or served, but only non-combat) because they didn't want to serve -- i.e., conscientious objectors.
Many opposed the "American War" (as the Vietnamese call it) as an unjust war. If you weren't among those asked to serve no problems. If you were asked, your options were somewhat limited.
It seems to me that many fell into the last category (conscientious objector) to some degree, but perhaps not to the degree that the U.S. Government considered worthy of that classification (i.e., opposed on policy grounds).
If you think that the war was "unjust" and feel pretty strongly about not participating -- combined with a healthy dose of not wanting to die in support of policies that you loath -- you are (as my "Feminist Legal Thought" professor would say) "squarely on the horns of a DIE-Lemma -- that's 'di' meaning two and lemma meaning . . . uh . . . lemma . . . [pockets of laughter]."
Seriously, though, this presents the young man with a Hobbesian choice -- fight in a stupid war and stand a good chance of dying, or find a way out.
So, back to Dean. Now, it seems folks are faulting Dean (those that are, anyway) for "finding a way out." The most compelling argument in this vein seems to be that "by getting a deferrment, you are sending someone else in your place." That was the "guilt" that Chris Matthews described that he had and the guilt that he tried to foist on Dean.
It doesn't seem fair, though, to foist that guilt on Dean. He didn't "send" anyone to war. The U.S. Government did. Dean was unfortunate enough to have a low draft number.
Why accept this status quo as the legitimate starting place for an argument based on responsibility? Shouldn't we back up and focus on the fact that it was Uncle Sam asking Dean in the first place?
Also, what about a guy who had Dean-like X-rays under his arm, but had a really high draft number? Of course, when you ask that guy (assuming he's running for office) he'll tell you that he'd have "done his duty" and served.
I guess the questions for me boils down to this:
- are these thoughts and I ideas to nuanced to present in a "defense" to Dean's critics?
- could a proper response be a bit of outrage at the U.S. government for putting our boys to that Hobbesian Choice in the first place?
- or is it enough that Dean said exactly what he said to Matthews (i.e., that he "wanted" the deferrment and used a legit basis for getting it).
- are there voters out there who could be swayed by any particular answer or way of answering?
- or, are some demographics (WWII types v. Boomers or Dems v. Repubs or Women v. Men) likely react a certain way and there's nothing that can be done about it?
When all is said and done, if put to a Hobbesian choice in the past, can a politician successfully explain the choice made by attacking the fact that the choice was Hobbesian?