Lightning Joe - a piece of work
Rangel Has An Angle
posted Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Charles Rangel has an interesting idea. The Dem representative from New York thinks that part of the reason our policy makers seem so cavalier with young army lives, so willing to use war as a policy instrument, is because they have every reason in the world to think that their own offspring will not be sent into harm's way. If their own kids were being shot at, war might not seem so much like a solution, as a problem in its own right. In other words, they might start to see it the way parents of our young soldiers see it.
Now, I'm not avid about the idea of putting all our 18 year old's names in a bucket, and having to uproot them from their plans for their lives, if they have plans at that age. I myself was draftable when Vietnam was the uproar. Coming from a service family, I had an idea of what would ensue, if I got that envelope; and I never actually decided that I would respond the way I was expected to. Some decisions have to wait until all the data are in, and part of that data would be if I did or did not actually get called up.
I think I would have reported in like a good air-force brat, despite having serious reservations about why we were over there. Or I might have made a border run. The question never came up, however. Possibly because my father was already in Vietnam, I was rated a 4-F, the least likely category to be called, short of actually missing a limb.
So I don't think that a draft is a "good" thing. Charles Rangel doesn't either. But it may be better than letting our elected representatives make decisions that may mean the deaths of those sent, while knowing almost to a certainty that their own families will not be directly affected by that decision. Remember the scene from "Farenheit 911", where Michael Moore flags down Congressmen, asking that they support the war by encouraging their own children to enlist? They thought it was hilarious.
But some of us don't think it's funny that the children of lawmakers, lobbyists, bankers and CEO's, aren't among those being sent to die. For one thing, it they WERE, you can bet your army boots that THOSE kids wouldn't have to buy their own body and vehicle armor, or stand in line for two hours to eat because Haliburton had set the same meal times for the whole battalion, to save money.
Rangel's whole point is that armed force should not be used lightly, and the social burden of it should be shared. An all-volunteer force is fine, if it doesn't (as it has) turn into a defacto draft, of those who have few options for a livelihood.
It's become plain to me (partly thanks to Noam Chomsky's penetrant insights) that those who run our country have a vastly different take than I, on what a democracy actually is. My view is the sugar-coated one I was taught in school, that democracy means government by the people, you and me, setting policy and making sure that our priorities are the ones driving the government's behavior.
Those at the top, however, have evolved a much different idea of what democracy is. What they call democracy is actually an ideological meritocracy, in which a relative few have the power, and the rest of us get to watch the shift-changes, term after term, from one incumbent to the next; all of them thoroughly invested in the continuance of the status quo.
As these inductees-to-power rise in the ranks, they become more indebted to that status quo; both to the sources of money that drive our politics; and to the more experienced players, who mentor them through the "awkward phase" of their entry into power. By the time they themselves are ready to mentor the newbies, there is practically no way, and certainly no incentive, to buck the system that maintains their hard-won influence. Citizens know that incumbency is power, and vote to keep sending their reps back - even as they complain that those reps don't represent them and their issues.
In their view, I'm sure these people think their idea of democracy is the practical, realistic view of democratic governance. I happen to think it's an institutional sell-out, to money- and power interests.
We must start bringing the power of governance back to where it belongs: to the people, rather than those in an artificial world of limited consequences. One step is exactly what Charles Rangel proposes: a virtually universal draft, which wouldn't necessarily be limited to the military, but would cover a broad range of manpower needs, including environmental and engineering projects, and local and national information and healthcare projects.
Now, I'm not avid about the idea of putting all our 18 year old's names in a bucket, and having to uproot them from their plans for their lives, if they have plans at that age. I myself was draftable when Vietnam was the uproar. Coming from a service family, I had an idea of what would ensue, if I got that envelope; and I never actually decided that I would respond the way I was expected to. Some decisions have to wait until all the data are in, and part of that data would be if I did or did not actually get called up.
I think I would have reported in like a good air-force brat, despite having serious reservations about why we were over there. Or I might have made a border run. The question never came up, however. Possibly because my father was already in Vietnam, I was rated a 4-F, the least likely category to be called, short of actually missing a limb.
So I don't think that a draft is a "good" thing. Charles Rangel doesn't either. But it may be better than letting our elected representatives make decisions that may mean the deaths of those sent, while knowing almost to a certainty that their own families will not be directly affected by that decision. Remember the scene from "Farenheit 911", where Michael Moore flags down Congressmen, asking that they support the war by encouraging their own children to enlist? They thought it was hilarious.
But some of us don't think it's funny that the children of lawmakers, lobbyists, bankers and CEO's, aren't among those being sent to die. For one thing, it they WERE, you can bet your army boots that THOSE kids wouldn't have to buy their own body and vehicle armor, or stand in line for two hours to eat because Haliburton had set the same meal times for the whole battalion, to save money.
Rangel's whole point is that armed force should not be used lightly, and the social burden of it should be shared. An all-volunteer force is fine, if it doesn't (as it has) turn into a defacto draft, of those who have few options for a livelihood.
It's become plain to me (partly thanks to Noam Chomsky's penetrant insights) that those who run our country have a vastly different take than I, on what a democracy actually is. My view is the sugar-coated one I was taught in school, that democracy means government by the people, you and me, setting policy and making sure that our priorities are the ones driving the government's behavior.
Those at the top, however, have evolved a much different idea of what democracy is. What they call democracy is actually an ideological meritocracy, in which a relative few have the power, and the rest of us get to watch the shift-changes, term after term, from one incumbent to the next; all of them thoroughly invested in the continuance of the status quo.
As these inductees-to-power rise in the ranks, they become more indebted to that status quo; both to the sources of money that drive our politics; and to the more experienced players, who mentor them through the "awkward phase" of their entry into power. By the time they themselves are ready to mentor the newbies, there is practically no way, and certainly no incentive, to buck the system that maintains their hard-won influence. Citizens know that incumbency is power, and vote to keep sending their reps back - even as they complain that those reps don't represent them and their issues.
In their view, I'm sure these people think their idea of democracy is the practical, realistic view of democratic governance. I happen to think it's an institutional sell-out, to money- and power interests.
We must start bringing the power of governance back to where it belongs: to the people, rather than those in an artificial world of limited consequences. One step is exactly what Charles Rangel proposes: a virtually universal draft, which wouldn't necessarily be limited to the military, but would cover a broad range of manpower needs, including environmental and engineering projects, and local and national information and healthcare projects.
comments