How Liberals Think

From Daily Kos Via Stevo:

Just a reminder of who serves and who doesn't from a Kos Diary:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade...

* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage...

This is a perfect example of green car liberalism. Why does George McGovern make the list but not Bob Dole? Why does Jimmy Carter make the list but not GHWBush? Why include Howell Heflin and Fritz Hollings but not Pat Roberts or Ike? Why leave out Harry Reid but include his Senate counterpart, Bill Frist? Why include Justice Thomas (who has he sent to war?) and leave out Justice Breyer?

Because they are simply looking for data that fits the model and then declaring all cars to be green. As the note on Stevo's blog said, "I am sure this one has been around, but I had never seen everything together in one place." Of course, it is not remotely "everything." It is only the data that fits the model.

That's why Pete Stark is noted as "Air Force 1955-57," but Bob Dornan who served in the Air Force from 1952-1958 and in the Cal Air Guard after that is noted as "enlisted after fighting was over in Korea." It's simple spin.

What they are proving, to answer Snoop's question, is nothing more than "how liberals think," which is to assemble data that fits their pre-conceived notions and then use that data to reinforce their opinions. They consistently confuse being critical with thinking critically.

All that being said, there is a certain amount of emotional appeal. We naturally want leaders who have done what they are asking others to do, and I can understand how liberals can find hypocrisy in those who have never served but who think others ought to go off to war. In certain specific cases, they may be absolutely correct in calling those people chickenhawks. There are plenty in both parties. Unfortunately, they find it in Frist and ignore the same in Reid.

However, in the case of the military, I think they are dangerously misled. There is a reason that our military is supposed to be under civilian control, and that reason is that history shows it is far more dangerous to place control of civilians in the hands of generals than it is to place generals in the hands of civilians. Many military men glory in war (think Patton, Alexander, Caesar) and it has long been a practice of military-minded men to seek immortality through conquest.

And while I am generally opposed to Presidents sending men off to war without a congressional declaration of war, given the choice I'd rather have the military in the hands of those who are less personally susceptible to that kind of temptation than in the hands of a Patton, who said, "Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God help me, I do love it so!"

God help the rest of us to avoid ever making a Patton President.

Copyright 2005 El Borak, inc. No animals were harmed or killed during the making of this message.