To reference a partial namesake, Joe Conason had a questionable column this week, somewhat critical of John Edwards' exhortation for people -- including by some small means of protest (waving signs etc.) if that is your thing -- to in some fashion protest the current Iraq policy of President Bush. Joe was uneasy about the breadth of this argument, though his column definitely seemed conflicted on the matter. The best argument, and one he honestly showed to be somewhat hazy, seemed to be pragmatic -- certain veteran groups would be turned off about this "politicization" of Memorial Day (as if the response from some quarters is not just that, something he noted), given fodder to Republicans.
[This is highlighted by the final sentence: "It will never happen if they believe that the left devalues or ignores their sacrifice." I find this troubling, especially after a bit of thought. This doesn't quite seem like him, this fear of what "they" think. Honestly, it seems passive and typical "well, you got to be careful" stuff that annoys people like him. Likewise, given no disrespect is intended, JC emphasizes the obvious nature of this fact, it is self-defeating. Finally, what is this "left" talk, as if only "the left" would defend those who served by firmly being against leading them to death in a lousy cause.]
The problem with this argument, which on some level is probably true (the column was not against softer mentions of the problems with the current policy ... waving signs and the like just deemed a bridge too far), is that it is at best a matter of degree. Degree, mind you, is important in real life, as compared to theory and rhetoric. People tend to be pragmatic and see shades of grey, sometimes arbitrarily, but overall sensibly. Still, everything seems to be deemed "political" uses of (or "against") the troops, again, quite hypocritically from some quarters. Thus, admitting the failure of the current policy -- and not continuing a policy lethal to those same troops [who btw the President doesn't want to supply a small pay raise to -- he makes it sooo easy sometimes] -- is deemed "against" the troops.
This is crap, and military people know it. This is underlined by the criticize from many military groups and top officials, often quietly when they are still in service, more loudly when they are out. See also, the opposition of the use of torture and so forth. Democrats need to fully understand the point, realizing that the military is not just fill with kneejerk conservative sorts from the back hills or something (and, those who are -- see the gal from West Virginia and the like -- know when they are being screwed ... I reference again Laura Flanders' new book that underlines the progressive potential of "red" America). They have to, shades of the sorts of Middle America liberalism of a Harry Truman and Hugo Black, take a hold of the deeply held populism often shown in such areas. A populism that often has a major liberal core.
At any rate, Memorial Day is a day to honor those who died for our country in military service. I know I am not a veteran, those some members of my family and such did and do, but it does not seem to me a dishonoring of their service to be against preventing such last full measure for shoddy reasons. It is in fact a perversity in my eyes to ignore the fact -- in fact, over the years, thousands were killed in worthless campaigns because people did not have the will to challenge appeals to "the troops" or the like. I consider, for example, the months of the Civil War ... or the last days of WWI. Thousands died in these months, months when it was bloody (quite literally) obvious that the end was coming, it was just a matter of when. Somehow, it was deemed a threat to "honor" to admit the fact, better to kill and maim some more men. For what?
I'm sure some veteran sorts will be upset that Memorial Day is being "politicized" or whatever if some people show a few anti-war signs or the like. Surely, the semi-official beginning of summer and sale season shouldn't be other than some sacred occasion, so doing something like that impugns the sacred nature of the day. Surely, it is not akin (sarcasm alert) to let's say Christmas and Easter, which honors (if one recalls) someone many deem the Lord Jesus Christ, even though many (among them quite a few at least nominal believers in his sacred nature) celebrate it with candy and gift giving. Now, I think some aspects of such celebrations in effect do honor the spirit of the holidays (family, celebration of life/Spring, spirit of giving, etc.), but so does this idea.
It is not a disservice to those who died serving our country to try to ensure that in some small way that their service will be for a good cause, and done in a way that is not a disservice of their efforts. It is not a dis to the military to criticize military policy or abuses by its members (often a result of official policy), though the Swift Boats for Liars gang and now Rudy G. wants us to believe that anything of this nature, even understanding why we have to fight some wars in the first place (at times, darn, because of errors of judgment ... since war are always right, this is obviously an error on my part). A day set aside to honor the dead is a good time as any to understand why they died and try in some way to stop unnecessary loss of life in the future. It is, quite honestly, shallow thinking to think otherwise.
We must not let others silence this truth ... the speaking of uncomfortable facts is partially so rare because people don't want to hear them, leading to criticism that is accepted without proper discernment in part as as a result of a feeling that we don't want to hear the truth anyway. So, there is a felt need to avoid it, using arguments that on some level might sound pretty credible. But, be wary all the same.
It seems Mother's Day also can be seen thru a similar lens. BTW, some of the replies to the column disagreed as well, and I share some of the sentiments.