CR Nation

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.