Having spent the day in boring busy work, I’ve had the chance to ruminate about the many, many things wrong with Barbara Boxer’s attack on Condi Rice. To refresh your recollection, here’s what happened (courtesy of the New York Post, which fuliminates at Boxer’s tackiness):
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go – attacking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.
Boxer was wholly in character for her party – New York’s own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic – but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
What immediately strikes one about Boxer’s attack — aside from the obvious point that people who use ad hominem attacks almost invariabley do so because they don’t have a legitimate argument to make — is how she’s retreated entirely from feminist principles. As the Anchoress observes as part of a longer post on the subject:
Feminist Boxer, aside from making a deplorable personal observation regarding Dr. Rice, is doing one of those “flipping double standards” that had so much to do with me leaving the left.
Condi rather “embodies” the whole feminist ideal, doesn’t she? Educate yourself and work and put your personal life aside to achieve, achieve, achieve…for decades the feminists carried on that having children did not make one a successful woman, that too often children held one back and that motherhood was not the measure of a woman.
I’m actually not too surprised by this abandonment of deep-dyed principles as part of a broader attack on Condi Rice. After all, it was the Left side of the political spectrum that also engaged in the most vile racist attacks against Condi Rice. Thus, the Left appears to feel that, while the Right cannot comment on race, mental abilities, or sexuality, the Lefties can, with impunity. How else to explain their despicably racist comments regarding Condi Rice, the “cartoons” depicting George Bush as mentally retarded, and their ferocious “homosexual agenda” attack on Jeff Gannon? Clearly, being the self-proclaimed champion of people of color, the mentally handicapped, and gays means that you get to insult them with impunity.
Aside from the feminist hypocrisy embodied in Boxer’s attack against Rice, there’s also a hugely illogical element to it as well. Boxer is saying that the best way to make decisions about defending America’s interests abroad is to have a mind clouded by personal emotion.
In the ordinary world, of course, we seek objective decision makers, who don’t have a personal stake in the outcome. Thus, surgeons don’t operate on their own children, people who represent themselves have fools for lawyers, and financial reporters are banned from reporting on stories when they have a monetary stake in the outcome. Only in the acrimonious, topsy-turvy world of Boxerine politics is it a virtue to be personally and emotionally compromised when it comes to making decisions that affect our national interest.
A few others blogging:
del.icio.us
digg it
Video: Boxer gets personal with Condi at Senate hearing
Boxer’s Low Blow January 12, 2007 — Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go – attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza
The left has no principles. At least, none that it won’t abandon at perceived need, or in the interests of a cheap shot. Which pretty much equates to having none.
A day may come when Barbara Boxer can carry Condoleezza Rice’s books, but it won’t be any time soon.
Anytime you Californians want to stop inflicting her on the rest of us, that’d be OK.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Who pays the price are those who you openly admit are not part of your family, Barbs.
I think of the American nation as a family, one in which we should all owe loyalty and love to the defenders amongst the more martial branches of the clan. While you may not pay a cost because you do not care, all of America does pay a cost. Not as heavy as some others, to be sure, but it is far better than not caring at all.
(Many other things that Bush and Condi could have said, but they don’t. Barbara is lucky she gets to attack those who won’t crush her.)
Speaking as myself, of course, I tend to think that if the Left has labeled you a victim group, that means you have lost the right of self-determination to your “leaders” in the Democrat party. Because obviously Barbara will be deciding whether you get any more reinforcements in Iraq, obviously Barbara will get to decide how much of a cost you should or should not pay for being in the military or having family members in the military. You will not get to decide. Why should you, you are to be pitied, and that is all that Barbara owes you.
Clearly, being the self-proclaimed champion of people of color, the mentally handicapped, and gays means that you get to insult them with impunity.
I think it means it is time to get back under a Democrat house of pro-slavery powers, like back before the Civil War. Human rights and human dignity are not exactly a priority for the Left, and it definitely isn’t a priority for Barbs.
In the ordinary world, of course, we seek objective decision makers, who don’t have a personal stake in the outcome.
To the Left, Book, everything is about a person’s self-esteem, and is therefore to be cared about. No subject is outside of your own personal quest for aggravation, is the view of the Left. Bill Clinton, the first black President. Even issues that isn’t about you, but of folks of different skin color, is something intimately connected with your identity as Leftist.
Only in the acrimonious, topsy-turvy world of Boxerine politics is it a virtue to be personally and emotionally compromised when it comes to making decisions that affect our national interest.
To be honest, Book, I don’t think that was what barbs was thinking. I think what she was thinking, regardless of what she said, was that there are certain people of privilege, you know. Institutional privilege so to speak, to go with the institutional racism of course. This means that Barbs think that people like them, the elite leadership full of compassion and wisdom and anti-corruption (yes, anti-corruption you heard right, they fight against corruption), must uphold their duty to “wisely steer” the military and the military family members to a far less painful path. Republicans represent cruel hearted hatred, apathy, and oppression. Only the truely wise and just, Book, may protect the downtrodden. That being the American troops, Book.
Boxer basically had the moral high ground. She is in favor of protecting the military troops from being maimed and she is infavor of sparing military families the heartache of grief. Condi is on the bottom of the moral high ground valley, she is trying to defend a “surge” that will put more Americans into danger, that will prolong the war, and that will kill more families.
Feel the moral righteousness, Book, listen to Barbs. And you will feel, not see, the moral righteousness. The strength of Belief, of Faith, and of absolute fanatical zealotry. Too bad Barbs couldn’t have learned something more about communication and oration, because her technique sucks. And I’m speaking as a conscientious propagandist.
Boxer’s attack was totally uncalled for.
One Mother’s Day at church, the pastor called forward all the mothers to recive special prayer. Okay. Then, he proceeded to say, “Everyone not up front is either a man or a child.” I confronted the idiot later on bahalf of all childless women. And I have the same response now with respect to Condoleeza Rice.
I don’t much care for Rice, but this is wrong.
Oh, BTW, the pastor was NOT a Democrat, liberal or otherwise. Just a self-imporatnt fool moving up in the church ranks.
A feminist is a person who believes women are fully human and, as such, should have choices, such as; whether or not to have children.
We humans are often a very unkind bunch.
Helen –
Your comment about the definition of a feminist is correct, I believe.
I am a staunch conservative but I’ve been a little put off by the comments coming from the right today. I guess because in one sense, Sen. Boxer is correct (and I am no Boxer fan!) – she first spoke about how she herself has no family that is of the age to be in the military. I am like Dr. Rice, though, in the sense that I have no husband or children who could be affected by this. I do, however, come from a family that has had three generations in the military and as proud as I am of them, I do sometimes feel bitter that so many families in America have no one who has served. When you do have someone close to you who has served, it puts a fresh perspective on things.
On the other hand, I shudder to think what would have happened if a Republican man had made the same comment to a single, childless woman serving in a Democratic administration. It would be on the news for days on end, there would be discussions about how after 40 years we still haven’t made much progress, magazine covers, morning show specials, and so on. Sen. Boxer is going to get away with this.
I guess I’m firmly sitting on the fence on this one!
Deana
Are you an American, Deana? Then you’re affected by this.
You can deplore Senator Boxer’s remarks to the nth degree but I strongly doubt it will make any difference or cause the Senator any political damage whatsoever. She will retain her California Senate seat, elected again by the same people who elected her before and whose sentiments she reflects in this very attack upon Ms. Rice. Her constituents relish any attack on the Bush Administration and whether that attack is rational or fair is not paramount.
To the Left, the Democrats are the party that advocate world peace through dialog and understanding; that fights racism by reminding society of its inherent racism; fight poverty by redistributing wealth from the undeserving rich to the deserving poor, and use government as a tool for engineering “social justice”.
To conservatives, the Democrats are a party that enables conflict and war through inaction; that promotes racism by defining people according to their perceived “victim class”; that promotes poverty by punishing the productive,rewarding the unproductive and stoking class envy; that inevitably promotes fascist government in order to coerce change in the pursuit of their utopian ideals.
I have found that the most sexist, racist, homophobic and totalitarian people in action tend to be those who proclaim the most loudly their opposition to exactly those qualities. Because they “talk the talk”, the don’t believe they have to “walk the walk”.
While it is true that some ignorant folks that saw the military as the “Other” might get a fresh perspective if their family members join up, but that isn’t really common. It is not common for people to get a “fresh perspective” just because of their family members. Did Cindy Sheehan get a fresh perspective on America because of her son joining the military? Not really, it may have actually reinforced some previous beliefs of hers. It is no reformation solution, the military that is. Meaning, simply having connections to the military, does not make you a believer in Aristotle’s Virtue Theory or a believer in anything really centering around personal identities and philosophies.
For the tabula rosa people, it is true that for them, they don’t have any really strong core beliefs, so when presented with the Army core values they will then integrate those values. But it is not going to refresh a person’s views. It just gives them a choice. The people who were sympathetic to certain values, will still be sympathetic to those same values after whatever new perspective comes from their connection to the military.
There’s two camps more or less over this, and it concerns the draft as well. Some people believe that the military is a cure all for the cultural disease that is in America. Others believe it is not as easy as that, and that the greater cultural weaknesses represent that the military cannot fix wholesale. Individuals may be saved, but as I believe it, you cannot save the entire nation either through the draft or through introducing them to military culture, otherwise known as martial virtues.
It is hard to figure out what percentages this comes down to, because aside from personal anecdotes, there really isn’t any hard statistics. And it is too late now to get them, because the military is now all volunteer. Meaning, people who are in it, were already predisposed to military culture in the first place, so you cannot now find out how many people can actually be transformed positively as opposed to negatively by introducing them to military values.
The Left knows that the media won’t hold them accountable. So this means it doesn’t matter whether the Left has good or bad people, it means that the Republicans will always have higher standards of accountability than the Democrats, because the Democrats are not held to account by the media. And since the media controls a lot of the propaganda networks in this country, it thus has a major influence on public opinion.
It is a deductive logic conclusion.
Since we are on the subject of vapid Democrats – the Chicago Tribune today has an editorial extolling the similarities between Reagan and Obama. Bwahahahahaha!