From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
It's
Personal
On Tuesday we noted that Uwe
Reinhardt, a professor of political economy at Princeton, had issued, in
a Washington Post op-ed, a partial defense of John Kerry's most recent calumny
against American servicemen. Although acknowledging that Kerry's remark was
"uncouth," Reinhardt argued that the all-volunteer military is invidious
because those with greater education and opportunities have less incentive to
join up.
What we didn't realize, because Reinhardt didn't mention it in this piece (though he has elsewhere), is that this matter is personal to Reinhardt. As Town Topics, a weekly Princeton newspaper, reported in August 2005, Prof. Reinhardt's son, Mark, joined the Marines after his graduation from Princeton in 2001. Mark Reinhardt had three combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Paktika province of Afghanistan, he was seriously wounded--seven broken ribs and a punctured lung--when his Humvee hit a Taliban mine. The younger Reinhardt recovered fully.
In a Washington Post op-ed published in early August 2005--shortly before Mark Reinhardt was wounded--Uwe Reinhardt confessed that he did not approve of his son's decision to join the military:
When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.
Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?
As an editor at one of the nation's newspapers, let us say that we are impressed with Mark Reinhardt's sacrifice and sympathetic with Uwe Reinhardt's fatherly anguish at seeing his son in harm's way. But are such emotions a reliable guide to public policy? We would say not. Indeed, it strikes us that Prof. Reinhardt's personal involvement in this issue distorts rather than clarifies his views of it.
To begin with, Reinhardt's son is actually a strong counterexample to the professor's argument. Mark Reinhardt, an Ivy League graduate, plainly joined the Marines not because of a lack of opportunity but because it was what he wanted to do. Uwe Reinhardt tried to talk him out of it, which is understandable enough: He loves his son and wants to protect him.
But it is hypocritical for him to try to talk his own privileged child out of serving and then turn around and complain that the privileged don't sacrifice enough under the volunteer military. Prof. Reinhardt wrote a nasty little column for the Daily Princetonian this past September in which he taunted as "chicken hawks" those students who have refrained from joining the military. That is, he is insulting those young Americans who have taken the very course that he unsuccessfully urged on his own son.
One gets the sense that Uwe Reinhardt thinks he has made a sacrifice here. In fact, although he obviously has paid an emotional price, the sacrifice was his son's alone. Mark Reinhardt will always be his father's child, but he is not a child. He is a man, and he made an adult decision to join the Marines.
The infantilization of the American serviceman is a familiar and offensive refrain of the liberal left. In Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" there's one particularly stupid scene (and that's saying something) in which Moore approaches members of Congress and demands that they send their own children to Iraq. But of course no parent can force his child to join the military; that is a decision only an adult can make for himself.
Again, for Reinhardt this seems to be more a personal matter than an ideological one. A Princetonian news article describes a revealing father-son conversation:
"Why?" Wilson School professor Uwe Reinhardt asked of his son, Marine Cpt. Mark Reinhardt '01 and another Marine officer as they sat in a bar in San Diego. "Why did you do this?"
"Because no one else does," came the response from Mark. "There are all these kids from the barrio and the Dakotas and the farmland, great young guys going [overseas] to stand tall for America, and they need leaders."
Mark Reinhardt sounds like a class act, and his father should be very proud. But Uwe Reinhardt does himself no credit when he disparages young Americans who choose a different path.
Blueberry
Pie in the Sky
Perhaps the most over-the-top bit of election analysis so far comes from Simon
Rosenberg, a Democratic activist, posting at DailyKos.com:
Despite the many billions spent in building this modern conservative movement, history will label it a grand and remarkable failure. And we will look back at 2006 as the year this most recent period of American history--the conservative ascendency--ended.
So like two heavy weight boxers stumbling into the 15th round of a championship fight, the two great ideologies of the 20th century stumble, exhausted, tattered and weakened, into a very dynamic and challenging 21st century. This next American era will not be one dominated by these two exhausted ideologies of the past, but will be a battle for the mastery of a new, as yet unarticulated 21st century governing approach suited to the challenges we face today and built around the media and people of our time.
The core direction of this battle is not the left-right one fought at the end of the last century, but will be more about forward and backward. Meaning that the way we will have to measure progress from now on is to look at how a party or ideological movement captures the three main dimensions of this emergent, post-liberal/conservative politics of our day--a new governing agenda capable of tackling the challenges of our time, and new political arrangements built around the emergent media and people of the 21st century.
2006 will become known as the year American conservatism reached its peak, and our 20th century politics fought one [of] its very last battles. The future will belong to those who master this "new politics" of the 21st century. Friends, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that it is our movement, and our values, that leave these old and tired battles behind and get about mastering this new politics of the 21st century.
Well, it could happen. Then again, it's a natural tendency of those of us who follow such things--and this columnist is not immune--to look for great historical importance in the news of the day. Usually it isn't there, and often when it is, we don't find out until much later.
National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz digs up the New York Times account of the 1982 midterm elections--which, while a good deal less extravagant than Rosenberg's musings 24 years later, still overstate the importance of that year's outcome:
Democrats scored major victories in House races yesterday and seriously damaged President Reagan's ability to push his legislative program through Congress.
Late returns indicated that the Democrats might pick up as many as 30 seats, enough to retake effective control of the House from the coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats that gave Mr. Reagan so many victories in his two years in office. . . .
In an interview last night, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas said that the Republicans ''were really taking a bath'' in the House races. Representative Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., the Speaker of the House, called the results ''a disastrous defeat for the President'' and predicted that many conservative Democrats who sided with Mr. Reagan in the last Congress would now drift back to the party leadership. . . .
''Some of them,'' he said, ''received a message from home that they shouldn't be so strident in supporting the President.'' Mr. O'Neill suggested that the lame-duck session of Congress that convenes Nov. 29 should immediately take up a $1 billion public works bill to repair the nation's bridges and put thousands of jobless workers on the public payroll. But he insisted that the issue of Social Security should be put over until the new Congress, with its strengthened Democratic membership, opens in January. . . .
Democratic challengers were also running well in many Southern states, where Republicans have made major gains in recent years and had talked confidently of permanently altering the region's traditional Democratic orientation.
Even 1994 turned out more or less OK in the end for Bill Clinton.
Pseudonymous blogger Jim Treacher offers some "questions from a political dilettante":
- Does this mean Bush is still Hitler? I'm pretty sure Hitler never let his
opponents win an election, did he? Unless . . . this is
all part of Rove's plan.
- A major concern of the last few elections has been that Republicans need
to cheat to win, and the problem was going to be even worse with the new Diebold
machines. What happened? Did Cheney forget his password again? That darn Cheney,
always forgetting his password.
- What happened to Ned? I thought Lieberman was Public Enemy #1. Now Kos must
feel like the kid on Christmas morning who's surrounded by toys . . .
except for the one he really wanted.
- Does Nancy Pelosi ever wear a fake flower on her lapel that shoots acid?
Because that would really be a surprise for Batman when he's hauling her to
Commissioner Gordon's office.
- So the world likes us again, right? No more terrorism? YAY!!!
Knock on wood, Jim.
What
Would We Do Without Analyses?
"Analysis: Political Confrontation Likely"--headline, Associated Press,
Nov. 8
Standing
Against Democracy
A move is afoot in Massachusetts to put up to a vote the question of same-sex
marriage, imposed on the state in 2003 by a Supreme Judicial Court ruling. A
Boston Globe editorial argues forcefully against giving the people their say:
What should be a time of reconciliation and progress for Massachusetts will likely devolve, in part, into overheated rhetoric about the sanctity of "normal" marriage, demeaning to a whole class of citizens. We urge legislators in today's constitutional convention to say no to the polarizing, exclusionary constitutional ban on gay marriage.
The civil rights of individuals, most especially minorities, are properly enshrined in the state Constitution. They should not be subject to the kind of popular plebiscite voters used to decide the fate of wine sales in grocery stores. Unfortunately, anyone who has followed the ballot questions to ban gay marriage in other states has a foreboding of what can be expected here: costly, manipulative TV ads; relentless talk show vitriol; a painful divide between neighbors and within families; a coarsening of the public debate. This isn't the kind of state we believe most voters want Massachusetts to be.
Legislators need not fear the wrath of their constituents if they move against advancing the gay marriage ban to the ballot. Deval Patrick won a landslide victory Tuesday while steadfastly supporting gay marriage as a matter of basic civil rights. No supporter of gay marriage in the Legislature was defeated this year, and indeed, several opponents were cast out. And the 8,500-plus couples who have been married since it became legal in May 2004 have families and friends who vote, too.
If the Globe editors really believe what they wrote in that last paragraph, why not urge putting the issue up to a vote? If the proposed amendment fails, supporters of same-sex marriage could claim democratic legitimacy, something they lack now, whatever the merits of their position. Why is the Globe afraid of a spirited debate followed by a democratic decision?
When
Would We Act Without Experts?
"Act Now, or It's Catastrophe--Experts"--headline, Herald Sun (Melbourne,
Australia), Nov. 8
Next:
Prosthetic Tails Replace Ones Cut Off With Carving Knife
"Cell Transplants Restore Sight in Blind Mice"--headline, Washington
Post, Nov. 9
Return
to Appalachia
"Bono Calls for U.S. to Repatriate Hicks"--headline, Associated Press,
Nov. 7
That's
Easy for You to Say!
"Janaa Tha Iran, Pahunch Gaye Hindustan"--headline, Mumbai Mirror,
Nov. 9
Either
Way He Wins
"Ennis to Face Self in Superior Court Runoff"--headline, Telegraph
(Macon, Ga.), Nov. 9
There's
No Need to Get Snippy!
"Author of Circumcision Study Defends Work"--headline, GayNZ.com,
Nov. 9
So
That's What They Mean by 'Light in the Loafers'
"Gay Parade's Future Up in the Air"--headline, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 8
News
You Can Use
"Man Can Be Cause of a Couple's Infertility"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
Nov. 8
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Jim Morrison's Dad: Son's Death 'Unfortunate' "--headline,
CNN.com,
Nov. 9
- "Truck Slams Into House, 3 Puppies Killed"--headline, KPRC-TV
Web site (Houston), Nov. 8
- "French Fall Short of Kissing Record"--headline, Associated
Press, Nov. 9
- "Peace Mom Sheehan Arrested in Washington"--headline, Associated
Press, Nov. 8
- "Feingold Closer to Decision on Presidential Run"--headline, MSNBC.com, Nov. 9
The
Y0.001K Problem
Remember the "Y2K problem"? Supposedly the world was going to come
to an end at midnight on Dec. 31, 1999, because computers were unable to
handle the switch-over to a new century. That didn't happen, but a similar problem
is bedeviling NASA, the Associated Press reports:
Space shuttle Discovery was moved to the launch pad Thursday to await a launch that could be as early as Dec. 6--an effort to avoid potential New Year's Eve computer glitches.
The worry is that shuttle computers aren't designed to make the change from the 365th day of the old year to the first day of the new year while in flight. NASA has never had a shuttle in space Dec. 31 or Jan. 1.
"We've just never had the computers up and going when we've transitioned from one year to another," said Discovery astronaut Joan Higginbotham. "We're not really sure how they're going to operate."
C'mon, guys, this isn't exactly rocket science!
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to V.J. Pappas, Paul Budline, Stephen Power, Wallis Stromberg, Adolfo Laurenti, Kevin Fleming, Benjamin Sharma, Virginia Plaza, Mike Reilly, Sal Reale, Joseph Dispenza, Royal Dellinger, Mark Schulze, Jeff Dobbs, Joseph Abdy, Chris Hayes, Steve Roberts, Harry Forbes, Joseph Tully, Lee Hollaar, Kevin Mullaney, Marion Dreyfus, Craig Murphy, Barak Moore, Drew Kelly, Tony Giamis, Mary Tarpey, John Sanders, Evan Slatis, Dave Huber and David Duma. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: The election was a referendum on GOP failure.
- Dick Armey: Advice to Republicans: Don't go back and check on a dead skunk.
- Russ Smith: Will Michael Steele make a comeback? Probably not.
