s skippy the bush kangaroo

skippy the bush kangaroo

Sunday, August 25, 2002

stranger in a strange blog

but while i was perusing instapundit to find the article for the post below this one, i came across this rambling about recent leftist blogs and their enthusiasm over the almost-universal disapproval by prominent military minds against mr. bush's plans to attack iraq.

professor glenn and andrew stuttaford, one of the boys at the national review on line (i didn't call them girly boys, ann!) and a few others on the other side of aisle seem to take delight in comparing the left's position to the philosophy of sci-fi great robert heinlein in starship troopers:

one of the more peculiar notions to emerge in the last few weeks has been the suggestion by the left that only those who are - or who have been - in the military have the moral authority to commit the nation to war. it's a zany, profoundly undemocratic argument and it also sounds like something out of heinlein's starship troopers (a book liberals often criticize as 'fascist' ) a novel in which, if I recall correctly, the only people entitled to full citizenship were those who had completed a period of military service. what's next? will liberals be calling for our rule by a dynasty of warrior kings?

may i take these points on, one by one:

first, the left - whoever they are - have not said "only" the military have moral authority to commit us to war. i never found one example of writing to suggest this. what the left - whoever they are - have been saying, is, mainly, it's good to consider the opinions of those whose expertise it is that we are talking about. that is to say, if professor glenn and the boys at nro would say, hey guys, we're going to wire the electrictrical conduits through the water pipes in our house; then we might say, hey, boys, maybe you want to talk to a plumber and an electrician first. that's all. except, of course, war is not plumbing, because the difference is, in war, millions of people die.

secondly, just because it reminded mr. stuttaford of heinlein, and just because mr. stuttaford ascribes the 'fascist' description of heinlein to 'liberals,' doesn't mean (a) liberals are hypocritical, because after all, the connection was made by mr. stuttaford, and not the left - whoever they are - and (b) the book not necessarily fascist. the society in the book may have been, but i don't think mr. heinlein was necessarily so. if i remember correctly, in stranger in a strange land, mr. heinlein said that the army should be made up of homosexuals because they're angry. not so sure if that's a popular neo-nazi stance.

but we digress. because generals powell, snowcroft and schwartzkopf agree with the left this time, doesn't mean that the left thinks only the military has the right to take us into war. but truth be told, the military, as we have said in this space before, will be the ones that have to clean up the mess that the professors of law and writers of on line essays are endorsing. so it might behoove us to listen to them.
posted by skippy at 5:47 PM |


Add a comment