The United States agreed to accept a Russian framework in an attempt to defuse the ongoing crisis concerning Iran's nuclear ...   more »

The good old days--Congressman Brooks canes Senator Sumner

Congress has a rich tradition of fisticuffs, including the famous  beating South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks' gave to Senator Charles Sumner before the Civil War.  To be honest, Brooks v. Sumner wasn't really fisticuffs, and wasn't really very fair.  Brooks surprised Sumner in the Senate chamber and whacked him several times a walking stick.  Sumner was unarmed, but why quibble?   Brooks won. 

Yesterday, Congressman Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) charged across the House chamber and tried to beat up Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), for calling him a poo-poo-head.  Not really, he was charging her because she called Congressman John Murtha a poo-poo-head.  Okay, that's not exactly correct; Ford evidently believed that Schmidt called Murtha, who apparently is a retired Marine and Vietnam vet, a coward.  Of course, Murtha presumably could have beaten up Schmidt himself if he wanted to, or tried, but Ford figured it was too easy a fight to pass up and so tried to get a lick in first. 

Now I'm not saying that either Ford or Murtha necessarily would have beaten Schmidt, just because she's a woman.  I've seen some really horrific girl v. girl brawls in my time, and I wouldn't presume that Schmidt couldn't take either one of her potential Democrat opponents.  Unfortunately, we just didn't get to see.

The underlying problem, which is much less interesting than who can whip who in the Congress (and especially if the guy Congressmen can beat up the girl Congresswomen) is whether Schmidt's comments were incorrect.  What she actually said, apparently in response to Murtha's call for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq was: 

"I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and former Marine.  "He asked me to send Congress a message:  Stay the course.  He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message:  that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Read reasonably, it's clear that Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward; if anybody did it was Murtha's fellow Marine, Danny Bubp.  But Bubp didn't say Murtha was a coward either.  He said, Marine to Marine, let's stick with this thing, and not act like lesser men.  Which makes Congressman Ford look like an ass. 

But there is a larger point here, that crops up again and again in American politics and the media--and that is the significance or lack thereof, of a politicians military experience.  Murtha, it's implied, deserves some added credibility in his comments on the war because of his martial past.  Not so.  There is an old comment that makes its way around the internet occasionally, comparing three different historical leaders.  One is a decorated war veteran, teetotaler, vegetarian and celibate.  The second has only brief and undistinguished military experience, is a functional alcoholic and manic depressive.  The third has no military experience, is also a heavy drinker, and is a philanderer to boot.  The three, in order, in case you didn't figure it already are Hitler, Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.

The supposition that military experience translates into sound political leadership is complete hogwash.  It has nothing more to do with political and policy acumen than being a lawyer or accountant does.  Even with regard to leadership ability, military experience means little; most military men rise in rank not because they are effective leaders of the men below them, but because they are active and energetic admirers of the men above them. 

History is replete with examples of men with little or no military experience proving to be great leaders in war and peace, while former soldiers fail.  Our greatest president, Lincoln, is a prime example.  His ablest general, U.S. Grant, proved to be a thoroughly mediocre president.

Today, deferring on policy decisions on basis on the military experience of proponents or doubters, is both common and foolhardy.  Senator John McCain's legislation on treatment the treatment of captured terrorists is bad policy, but was largely pushed through because few fellow politicians wanted to oppose McCain, ho supposedly held the moral high ground based on his own experiences as a POW during the Vietnam War.  Bill Clinton, who had plenty of flaws, was unfairly criticized for his lack of military experience.  Subsequently this led to the ridiculous spectacle of Democrats lauding John Kerry as an effective leader based on old and questionable military experiences, and Republicans, somewhat hypocritically, suddenly crying foul.

Let's stop focusing so much on who got a "whiff of grapeshot" and who didn't, and just judge our already lackluster leaders on whether what they say is right or wrong.  

I've never read a Harry Potter book, although I've bought a bunch for my stepdaughter, who has never read one ...   more »