It's the "Attack of Conventional Wisdom" syndrome.

Post #258,484 by Another Scott 6/11/06 11:50:40 AM Reply	It's the "Attack of Conventional Wisdom" syndrome. "Conventional Wisdom" is that Republicans are stronger on defense and security issues than Democrats. Since we're at war, the only way Democrats can win, according to this simplistic view, is to be strong on defense issues. Having been a soldier automatically gives one the "gravitas" to put the Republicans on the defensive. It's a symptom of the news-bite reporting of issues in the US these days. If something can't be reduced to 2-5 words (e.g., gay marriage, death tax, war on terror, family values, illegal immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., etc.), it doesn't get covered even tersely in the popular press. It's so much easier for reporters and editors to make a superficial presentation of the issues than take the time to get into the nitty-gritty features of the issues. And since, at least in the US, TV news often doesn't devote more than a couple of sentences to a story (gotta leave time for the ads and the promos for the other shows on the network), even if reporters want to cover more than sound bites the systems they work in won't permit it. Why not obsess about their financial acuity, or their world historical knowledge? Because conventional wisdom is that national security issues matter more than anything else right now. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #258,492 by admin 6/11/06 12:47:13 PM Reply	Yes, but more than just that. Someone who hasn't been to war doesn't have the same perspective on what it means to put troops in harm's way; hence, "chickenhawks". Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #258,499 by pwhysall 6/11/06 1:12:00 PM Reply	I don't buy that. By the same token, the non-accountants in politics shouldn't be listened to on budgetary matters, the non-lawyers should be disregarded on legislative issues, and they should all be ignored on matters of foreign policy. I'm not impressed by the "they have to have done it before they can be taken seriously when talking about it" because let's face it, how many of them know what an honest day's work is like? Yet they're fucking about with the man on the Clapham omnibus on a daily basis - people whose lives are and always have been alien to them. However, you must temper the above with the fact that I live in a totally different political atmosphere to you. Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator]
Post #258,505 by Another Scott 6/11/06 1:36:55 PM Reply	OT: That is a better terminal emulator. Thanks!
Post #258,567 by tuberculosis 6/12/06 1:54:39 AM 8/21/07 5:53:59 AM Reply	There's a reason most people who have served in Iraq are coming home and running as Democrats. They KNOW the current plan/admin is hosed. They choose to try to change things and do someting else. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer] Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:53:59 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #258,503 by Another Scott 6/11/06 1:34:45 PM Reply	Yeah, but... [link\|http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks\|Chickenhawks]: Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person\ufffds youth. I think the term came from the old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons in which a tiny young chickenhawk would attempt to drag Foghorn off for dinner. In that case, he was harmless. The term has morphed as indicated above. It's sometimes used, though, to tar war supporters who didn't serve in the military as if military service is somehow a necessary prerequisite to having a valid opinion about it. That is, if someone was in the Army or Marines during a military conflict they somehow automatically have more credibility than someone who didn't. (E.g. I don't think Al Gore being a [link\|http://www.snopes.com/military/goreviet.htm\|reporter in Vietnam] gave him special insight on Vietnam or Iraq on its own.) I don't care for the term, or that line of reasoning, much myself. It's too much of an ad hominem for my taste. Good arguments should be able to stand up no matter who puts them forth. Cheers, Scott.
Post #258,506 by JayMehaffey 6/11/06 1:40:33 PM Reply	It should be a bit more narrow and important then that Like most negative political terms "chickenhawk" is is flung around without much regards for what the word actually means. Chickenhawk is more then somebody that never served in the military. It is supposed to mean somebody that is pro-military intervention but also went out of their way to avoid serving the military themselves. It is most meaningful for vietnam era people, the ones that went to great lengths to avoid the draft themselves but where at the time and/or are now pro-war. Jay
Post #258,733 by Another Scott 6/13/06 8:00:47 AM Reply	Tom Toles: 6/11/2006 Editorial Cartoon. 29 kB .img [image\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_06112006_520.gif\|0\|Your Congress at Work\|439\|520] Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!