« Giuliani a “Nixon Republican” | Home | Upset in Georgia »
CRNC Convention: An anti-war blogger’s perspective
By sage of monticello | July 18, 2007
The short video was produced by, and featured, Max Blumenthal, a blogger for the Huffington Post. The video, titled Generation Chickenhawk: the Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour says it all, namely that Blumenthal’s motive was to sneak into the CRNC convention to attempt to embarrass College Republicans by exposing their unwillingness to fight in a war they passionately support. Here is but a taste of Blumenthal’s story:
Yet when I asked these College Republicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. “Medical reasons.” “It’s not for me.” These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them “over there.” Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP’s next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.
…I captured a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders. See for yourself.
The argument Blumenthal uses functions on the premise that one can’t support a particular public policy without being a direct and active participant within that policy. The chicken hawk premise essentially argues that if you don’t directly and personally participate in the program or policy you are a hypocrite for supporting it politically.
Blumenthal (and other chicken hawk argument advocates) never include in their chicken hawk arguments a premise for why the chicken hawk premise should be restricted in use only to the Iraq War debate and therefore not applicable outside of the Iraq War policy. So, I will take advantage and apply the chicken hawk premise to social welfare policy.
In doing so, I conclude that those who advocate government housing but don’t live in government housing are hypocrites. I conclude that those who advocate for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, aka, food stamps) but don’t receive TANF aid are hypocrites. I conclude that those who advocate for socialized medicine but instead use their employer paid for HMO are hypocrites.
I would also have to come to the conclusion that the political will necessary for the continuation of social welfare programs has significantly dissipated. The chicken hawk premise becomes problematic to the life of a social welfare policy, or any policy for that matter, when one can only support a policy if he is direct a participant within that policy if you assume that a certain degree of political will is needed to maintain the policy or program (let’s say 41% so cloture can’t be met in the Senate). As 41% voters do not participate in any of the above mentioned social welfare programs, I officially and happily pronounce them dead if analyzed under the chicken hawk microscope.
But that is exactly my point - that no policy should be analyzed under the chicken hawk premise. I hope we all see how ridiculous this chicken hawk premise is, even when applied to social welfare policy. Quite simply, what is wrong with social welfare policy it not that people who don’t directly participate in social welfare programs still decide to politically support them. But rather, what is wrong with them, is the coercive power of the state bearing down on citizens in order to finance social welfare programs that studies show create a generational cycle of dependency on government.
So, let’s take a lesson from our illogical Democrat friends; and when we, CRs, debate let’s use logic and not empty rhetoric or false premises.
Topics: videos, politcal dialogue, logic, welfare, CRNC Convention |
July 19th, 2007 at 1:13 am
I guess that they forgot about folks like Nick Miccarelli when they decided to write such vile filth. Then on the other hand, there are people like Brian Siler who claim that people such as Taylor Burks are serving their country. Have the College Republicans earned the “Chickenhawk” title?
July 19th, 2007 at 3:29 am
This video was sad on all kinds of levels. We must do a better job at debating the issues. This guy made CR’s look like ABSOLUTE IDIOT’S. I was pretty saddened at alot of the answers and how we carried ourselves.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Daniel Bell, get a life. Why does everything for you boil down to Brian Siler and Taylor Burks?
I really can’t argue with much of the video. A $20,000 open bar is never excusable in my opinion, especially for an organization that is already in debt. I don’t so much blame any one person, just the way our organization and our members think. It is sad, and Blumenthal was right about that.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:29 am
i agree with Justin, it is upsetting that the future leaders who will guide our great nation throughout the future generation are unable to articulate substantial defense on behalf of our ideals and principles. Furthermore, I think the postings on this wall illustrate the necessity for a NewCRNC, the internal battles must subside in order to create the foundation for a new, better, reformed CRNC, the same organization which will serve as the catalyst for future generations.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I love how it is alright, to take College Republicans truths and to manipulate them into contradictions that put those hard working patriotic CR’s inbetween a rock and a hard place. Amazing, only a liberal screwball would think that a person who does that(manipulates truths for their own benifit) has much more Character than a Patriotic American who roots for his or her own team(US Troops) just as hard as that team fights. Unbelievable, Only the Left!
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I also wanted to point out that this guy interviewed high school students who were there for other purposes that weekend and not necessarily part of the convention. And for a “documentary” about how College Republicans support the war but arent enlisted…why is there a large portion devoted to asking high school students their opinion on gay marriage and declaring a high school student as “Officially Not Gay”…that seemingly is well off topic. This entire video is off base…
and also just to point out in the effort of making corrections…when he shows “Paul Gourley” [sic] speaking…he calls him the executive director…but he was the chairman…even so…the guy speaking is Dan Schuberth who was the CRNC secretary…just pointing it out…