Today, Republicans are to warfare what Democrats traditionally have been to welfare. Both insist that we must be willing to “sacrifice” and “pay any price” for the sake of higher ideals, but in both cases the ones insisting on all the sacrifice and paying very rarely have to do either. Republicans have an attitude towards the lives of Americans that Democratic redistributionists have for the property of Americans: it is always worth it if someone else gives up his, provided that the goals of the policy are being pursued.
Quote of the Day
Thursday May 10, 2007
From Daniel Larison:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I don't know why the chickenhawk line is so clever just because Larison says it.>
I know quite a few wealthy Democrats and middle class Democrats who believe that giving up part of their income to benefit the country as a whole is a good idea. Why does Larison think that Democrats don't pay taxes?>
This strikes me as different from and broader than the "chickenhawk" charge, which I take as condemning the hypocrisy of supporting a war but not being willing to fight. It's directed at people for whom the war is not just an occasion for a bit of flag-waving and cheering but a personal project in geopolitical engineering. How many of them believe in the cause strongly enough that they themselves would give their own lives for it, if necessary? Some would, I'm sure, but my guess is that many would not. I think the cost-benefit calculation would look rather different to a lot of them if they stood to get in harm's way themselves. This is the kind of ugly situation that a war for anything other than straightforward national defense produces.>
Okay. Once again, why is this the Quote of the Day? It's a CHEAP SHOT. It's a "You only believe X because you don't CARE about Y" argument.
Surge proponents keep saying, ad nauseam, "We do care about Y, and in fact we believe X because we don't want Z, which may very well lead to more Y in the long run!"
You may disagree about the badness of Z. You may agree about the badness of Z, but don't think that Z will necessarily lead to Y. You may think that Z is inevitable.
Or you may decide not to argue the law or the facts and put the prosecutor on trial, and that's what this argument does.>
I suppose, therefore, that Lincoln, FDR and Reagan were "chickenhawks" despite the fact that Lincoln served only 90 days in a state militia and neither FDR nor Reagan ever saw combat?
Then again, Adolf Hitler was decorated twice for bravery. The second time he received the Iron Cross, First Class, a rare honor for an infantryman. No chickenhawk he!!
Calling Larison a dumbshit is an insult to dumbshits!>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.