I think Barbara Boxer’s sortie into geopolitical free association tells us a lot about contemporary American liberalism, and thus about the popular culture. I rather suspect her language was cheered by many on university campuses, in newsrooms and broadcast studios, and in Hollywood’s many locations. The bottom line: it’s all about feeling, never mind knowledge and logic. There is a straight line from “if it feels good, do it” to Boxer’s rant:
“Who pays the price?” Boxer asked Rice. “I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family.
“So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”
Advertisement
In other words, in the Senatrix’s view, neither she nor the secretary of state is really entitled to make policy on the war, because neither of them “pays the price,” neither can have the appropriate feelings. Those are limited to soldiers and their loved ones.
In like manner, only women can understand other women, and thus only women doctors can effectively treat women patients, only women can teach women’s history or women’s sociology and so forth. Only blacks can understand other blacks, with the same consequences. Only Muslims can understand the Koran and Shari’a law, only Jews should teach Jewish history, only gays can understand homosexuality, and on and on it goes.
The theory that you must have the correct emotions in order to understand a body of knowledge or master a particular subject is a corollary of the doctrine that there is no objective truth (knowledge being no more or less than an instrument of power). Every idea is held to be subjective, and thus–again–emotions and feelings are the most important things. Indeed, for a certain kind of contemporary liberal, they are the only things that matter.
If you believe that, there is obviously no point in studying anything, except to provoke emotional reactions, and you will be unable to distinguish between the validity of conflicting emotions.
Had Rice been inclined to point out the absurdity of Boxer’s position, the Senatrix could have responded with other arrows prominently stashed in the liberal quiver: she could have accused the secretary of state of being a chickenhawk. Note that Boxer implicitly disqualified anyone who hasn’t served, or who doesn’t have relatives in service, from “standing” to speak about the war.
Those of us who have supported the war for a long time have been attacked countless times for presumed chickenhawkery (t’s unlucky for many of these critics, since an impressive number of Washington pundits have children serving in the military, but no matter), as if anyone who had a child on the battlefield would automatically be anti-war.
That, I suspect, is the suppressed premise of Boxer’s outburst. I suspect Boxer probably believes that no woman with children on the battlefield could advocate aggressive policies.
How wrong she is.
I thought Liberal women loved to see women in power and specially if they were single. So how come, now being single and being woman of power is a disadvantage?
ML:
Because Condi has the wrong emotions. And she’s black, to boot, which annoys Boxer even more, I’m sure. She’s supposed to feel like a liberal.
“In other words, in the Senatrix’s view, neither she nor the secretary of state is really entitled to make policy on the war, because neither of them “pays the price,” neither can have the appropriate feelings.”
If the children of the wealthy and connected are not serving (and who would risk their child’s life in a pointless war started with lies), then what right have they to send off children from the classes that must serve for lack of other opportunity?
If you think recruiting new soldiers is tough now, try providing the poor and middle classes with other opportunities besides the military and see how many choose to go off to fight Bush’s imperial wars.
ML:
This is both beside the point and quite wrong. Nobody “sends off” other people’s children; kids volunteer. And recruiting new soldiers is not tough, it’s easy. And as for “providing the poor and middle classes with other opportunities,” they are abundantly present. Have you looked at the unemployment figures?
Fiberals, as we call them here in Canada, have no shame at all and are completely out of touch with the world they are living in.
Oscar Wilde’s observation:
Quotation can be slander
If you gerrymander.
So, Mr Leeden, are you able to answer Barbara Boxer’s question..in context this time?
Mr Bush said “”We must expect more Iraqi and American casualties”
SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Do you have an estimate of the number of casualties we expect from this surge?
SEC. CONDOLEEZA RICE: No, uh, Senator…I don’t think there’s any way to give you such an estimate.
BOXER: Has the President, because he said ‘expect more sacrifice’, he must know…
RICE: Senator, I don’t think that any of us, uh, have a number. That, of expected casualties. I think that people understand there is going to be violence for some time in Iraq. And that there will be more casualties and…Let me just say, you know, I fully understand the sacrifice that the American people are making and especially the sacrifice that our soldiers are making. Men and women in uniform. I…I visit them. I know what they’re going through. I talk to their families. I see it. (pause) I could never…and I can never do anything to replace any of those, uh, lost, uh, men and women in uniform. Or the diplomats…
BOXER: Madame Secretary, if you please…I know you feel terrible about it. That’s not the point. I was making the point as to who pays the price for your decisions. And the fact that this administration would move forward with this escalation with no clue as to the further price that we’re gonna pay militarily. We certainly know the numbers. Billions of dollars that we can’t spend here in this country. I find really appalling that there’s not even enough time taken to figure out what the casualties would be. Thank you very much.
The entire hearing is available here:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq011107_policy.rm
(Boxer’s questioning of Rice comes at appx. the 1:47:00 mark.)
It’s easy to rely on people not watching these hearings to spread your divisive version of events. I suggest you forward people to the hearings to decide for themselves.
So, Mr Leeden..are you able to answer Barbara Boxer’s question?
ML:
I always enjoy being lectured on giving a false version of events by someone who can’t even take the time to notice how my name is spelled.