(Due to its timeliness and the update this post has been moved up in order. Newer posts are below so keep scrolling…)
Question: Do some newly ascendant Democrats have a political death wish? Do some seem to want to take the blank slate of imagery the election provided them and scribble a silly or alarming political caricature on it so it will be siezed by opponents, then held up as the face of their party as a whole?
It certainly sounds that some of them do:
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
Rangel’s public comment also will require that if Democrats defend it they come up with some political amnesia: in 2004 John Kerry charged that it was George Bush who was going to revive the draft. The charge was dismissed by the White House.
Kerry told The Des Moines Register, “With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft.”
Mr. Bush vowed in the second presidential debate that, if he’s re-elected, “We’re not going to have a draft, period.”
So this was idea deemed alarming enough for Kerry to raise, claiming that Bush was thinking about it.
But perhaps Kerry’s psychic powers merely picked up the wrong wave length: it was Rangel thinking of it all along.
The case can be made that given the depletion of military forces it is indeed time for a draft. But Rangel and the Democrats should (presumably) know some young voters will hear about this idea and decide that it’s in their best interest to distance themselves from the Democrats. Rangel does have a point in political terms when he says:
“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.
It isn’t only that.
Campus turmoil and demonstrations were plentiful during the Vietnam war partially because the stakes were higher for young people who knew that they might have to do required military service to fight the war. True, many of their parents did during World War II, too. But Vietnam was an unpopular war and students looked at the war more suspiciously and were more inclined to organize and hold demonstrations because they knew they could be forced to be sent overseas to fight it.
It’s no coincidence that when the military draft was ended, campus protests began to fizzle.
So Rangel is conceptually correct — except he’s arguing that a draft would just make members of Congress think twice. In fact, various segments of society would think twice in varying ways if politicos decided to slap a draft back in place. The key phrase is “in varying ways.” Some voters who are now against the war would turn against the Democrats if the party was instrumental in reviving a draft.
From the standpoint of Rangel and the image of his party, this is shoot-yourself-in-the-foot politics. It (rightfully or wrongfully) smacks of precisely the kind of power-trip-run-amok that Republican doomsayers were saying would occur if the Democrats got into power and return to control key committees. Democrats: just watch your poll numbers if you shove this baby through Congress (it is unlikely to happen). MORE:
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.
In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
It isn’t just a matter of whether this will pass or not.
Image and tone is something that can’t be squandered. Newly-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot herself in the foot last week in her vigorous and failed attempt to make John Murtha her second-in-command. In the end, all she did was undercut her own image and probably reduce her overall clout.
So if you visit Congress and you see a lot of people limping around, they’re probably Democrats.
UPDATE:
–Note our spirited debate in comments (feel free to join in).
–It sounds as if Rangel’s proposal — which is clearly a proposal to re-institute the draft to use it as a politically ideological tool as well as to replenish the supply of young people serving the country — has already started to Rock The Vote for his party:
UMass Dartmouth students said yesterday they’re opposed to a proposal by the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to reinstate the military draft.
“I think that’s a horrible idea,” said Alex Carroll-Teal, 19, of Falmouth. “The all-volunteer military is working out well. The draft would destroy morale,” he said, because soldiers who want to serve and those who don’t would be serving side-by-side.
….Of the seven UMass Dartmouth students interviewed yesterday at the Resident Dining Hall — four females and three males — only one offered qualified support for Rep. Rangel’s idea.
“I think people should choose,” said Dan Spadaro, 18, of Methuen. “I support an all-volunteer military.”
“You want to be in the Army, you choose to be in the Army,” said Nick Ambra, 18, of Methuen.
Mike Condon, 18, also of Methuen, supports a volunteer military and doesn’t support the draft.
Shannon Harkins, 19, of Palmer agreed. “I think it would make people resent the government even more than they do now,” she said.
Emily Lakis, 19, of Barnstable said she’s against the war in Iraq and opposes the draft.Lisa Soloperto, 18, of Worcester, said a draft would be “unfair to some people” and it would make them go to war “against their will.”
Colleen Foley, 18, of East Lyme, Conn., was the only student who offered qualified support for the idea.“It’s kind of scary, I think,” she said. “I guess if it’s for the good of the country, you should do it.”
Two students questioned Rep. Rangel’s logic that the draft would cause politicians to be less likely to launch wars in the future, and one student said a larger military might make wars more likely than less likely.
If Rangel did managed to get the draft back on the American scene (doubtful at this point but in politics coalitions can come together at odd times so it ain’t over until it’s over) he will certainly arouse awareness among young people who came into political awareness during a Republican majority era — into how both parties will propose and implement all kinds of policies to score political points. MORE:
Dan J. LeBlanc, New Bedford’s director of veterans’ services and a Vietnam combat veteran, said he’s against a wartime draft.
“It’s not good for the military,” he said, explaining he would not want volunteer soldiers serving alongside other soldiers who didn’t want to be there. “The troops would be demoralized.”Mr. LeBlanc, a Marine, served in Vietnam in 1966. He said he understands the concerns about the size of the military with all the global pressure on the U.S and supports “mandatory service” in the military, but not during wartime.
He said mandatory service could be beneficial to many. They would get “veteran status,” and it would help them secure positions in police and fire departments, he said.
He said many young people have obtained their GEDs through the military, after dropping out of high school.
Rangel’s proposal also hasn’t gone over too well with Scott Horton of Anti-war.com:
Charles Rangel thinks that having a society where human beings own each other is perfectly okay as long as the slaves are destroying lives and property for the state rather than producing things for private plantation owners.
….Don’t you see? Conscription will deter wars by providing the politicians with a bottomless supply of cannon fodder. And by the new magic principle of “everything works how Charlie wants,â€? the rest of the politicians will be somehow unable to swing exemptions for their own children.
(Wait a minute: when has a politician ever gotten any kind of a special break for his son or daughter when it comes to military service?)
Oh man, please, please, please tell me this isn’t what we just elected…First, Bush and Cheney have daughters and are thus exempt from Selective Service.
Second, I hate the idea of reverse-psychology being used on a military level. I’m sure millions of American families don’t want their kids being used as pawns for a game of chicken between Democrats and Republicans. Man oh man… This… Ok. I need time to process this one.
Precisely: Planning a life is unsettling enough for young people these days. Rangel is essentially using the uncertainty of having to factor in a draft, to be imposed in the middle of wartime to accentuate feelings against the war (which many Americans don’t like right now anyway)as a POLITICAL BLUDGEON.
That’s a separate issue from someone seriously looking at the pluses and minus of a draft to keep the military sufficiently staffed. Rangel’s comments about the latter are clearly an afterthought; his main intention can be understood even by a head of cabbage sitting on a shelf at the grocery store. Talk show hosts will (rightfully) have fun with this one…and in the end it won’t be one that will be helpful to the Democratic majority’s clout or support in future opinion polls.
At the risk of upsetting some in comments we’ll say it again:
Just who is ADVISING Rangel? Karl Rove?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.