Wait a minute -- where does this "22%" stat come from? Is it credible?
Maybe it's just the bias in my background showing, or maybe things have gotten worse than I'd thought. I grew up in a blue-collar family in the Pacific Northwest, and every self-respecting man was a Democrat, and a rabid Union member. I would have thought the working class would still be solidly Democratic. How far out of touch am I?
Looks like the number comes from this poll by the Democratic Leadership Council. I think it is the "call themselves" that makes the number so low. Most people "call themselves" "independent."
"Voting for a general should make us nervous. In a democracy, Daddy shouldn't be the ideal candidate."
Just to present a counter-point, in the leadup to the Iraq War, it seemed to me that the civilian leaders were the more dangerous, gun-ho group, while Powell and certain other members of the military/intelligence groups were trying to be the cautious bunch. Wesley Clark has fought in war, unlike most of the present "leaders" of this country, or even their children. And sometimes that makes a man more cautious about employing force. He was certainly adamant about not employing troops in Kosovo.
I didn't mean voting for a general should make us nervous because generals are more likely to wage war. As you say, that's not true. But generals, as the leaders of a hierarchical, non-democratic, mostly male institution, seem much more like rulers than representatives, and that's why I'm wary of supporting one.
You point about the danger of a general being traditionally accustumed to male societies is a genuine concern, and one that should be posed to Clark. But the point about the army being hierarchical and non-democratic...well, our schools aren't either, nor the workforce (as far as I know), and the same with families (I realize there are a few exceptions). One might say that the army has more hierarchical codes, but I'm not sure that's the worry here. i think that the question is will the general be comfortable with not giving orders but persuading Congress and the American people of his policies. And it seems that although he was a general, he has always had to persuade fellow comanders, senior politicians, and, before that, his own army comanders, and do an excellent job of it all, to obtain and maintain his position.
Wait a minute -- where does this "22%" stat come from? Is it credible?
Maybe it's just the bias in my background showing, or maybe things have gotten worse than I'd thought. I grew up in a blue-collar family in the Pacific Northwest, and every self-respecting man was a Democrat, and a rabid Union member. I would have thought the working class would still be solidly Democratic. How far out of touch am I?
Posted by PZ Myers | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 2:55 PM
I'm trying to track that down. My guess is that "call themselves" differs quite a bit from "vote for," but I'll see what I can find.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 2:58 PM
Looks like the number comes from this poll by the Democratic Leadership Council. I think it is the "call themselves" that makes the number so low. Most people "call themselves" "independent."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 3:11 PM
That figures. What percent "call themselves" Republican?
-Magik "You can call me Al" Johnson
Posted by Magik Johnson | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 7:37 PM
37%. That link is clickable, you know.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 7:40 PM
The real disgrace here is the way we've lost the battle over the use of "begs the question."
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 9:23 PM
"Voting for a general should make us nervous. In a democracy, Daddy shouldn't be the ideal candidate."
Just to present a counter-point, in the leadup to the Iraq War, it seemed to me that the civilian leaders were the more dangerous, gun-ho group, while Powell and certain other members of the military/intelligence groups were trying to be the cautious bunch. Wesley Clark has fought in war, unlike most of the present "leaders" of this country, or even their children. And sometimes that makes a man more cautious about employing force. He was certainly adamant about not employing troops in Kosovo.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 12:43 PM
I didn't mean voting for a general should make us nervous because generals are more likely to wage war. As you say, that's not true. But generals, as the leaders of a hierarchical, non-democratic, mostly male institution, seem much more like rulers than representatives, and that's why I'm wary of supporting one.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 3:51 PM
You point about the danger of a general being traditionally accustumed to male societies is a genuine concern, and one that should be posed to Clark. But the point about the army being hierarchical and non-democratic...well, our schools aren't either, nor the workforce (as far as I know), and the same with families (I realize there are a few exceptions). One might say that the army has more hierarchical codes, but I'm not sure that's the worry here. i think that the question is will the general be comfortable with not giving orders but persuading Congress and the American people of his policies. And it seems that although he was a general, he has always had to persuade fellow comanders, senior politicians, and, before that, his own army comanders, and do an excellent job of it all, to obtain and maintain his position.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 1:28 AM