Posted by
Mustang on Sunday, May 18, 2008 4:20:43 PM
Apparently, Senator Tom Harkin thinks that John McCain is “too military” to serve as a successful president. According to Jane Norman (writing for the Des Moines Register):
“Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals, has given him a worldview shaped by the military, ‘and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,’ Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said Friday. ‘I think he's trapped in that,’ Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. ‘Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.’ Harkin said that ‘it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up.’”
Of course, such a statement has enraged military veterans, especially those who come from generations of men who served their country in uniform. George Roper and others have addressed Harkin’s comments, as well they should. Harkin has apparently ignored the fact that until recently, most presidents served in the U. S. military, and many of them following a tradition handed down to them over many generations. On what basis should we conclude that Truman (who served as a captain of artillery) a better president than Eisenhower (an Army careerist)?
According to Harkin, a draftee (one compelled to serve his country) is a less dangerous man to have in the White House; the logic of this claim escapes me. And it is at the same time disappointing that Harkin is attempting to influence voters with an anti -military bias. I would like to think that Harkin’s service in the Navy (1962-1967) deserves our respect as much as we appreciate and honor the service of men like Colin Powell, David Petraeus, or John McCain. But Harkin overlooks the fact that McCain has served in the House and Senate for the past 26 years – longer than he served on active duty in the Navy (discounting his 4 years as a midshipman).
Harkin’s smear is worse than sophomoric; it is insulting to those whose family has a proud military tradition. If Harkin wants to debate policy, then he should confine his remarks to prevalent issues, make his case, and let the people decide whom they agree with. I hope the citizens of Iowa will repudiate Harkin’s claim.
Beyond that, I believe Senator Harkin represents the genre of politician McCain railed about in 1966. Frustrated by micromanagement of the War from Washington, McCain and fellow pilots, “. . . thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war.” This annoyance prompted Stephen Coonts to write his exceptional story, Flight of the Intruder.
There is another view; a “military mindset” is exactly what we need in Washington. I don’t mean to suggest a military dictatorship; I mean a government leader who demonstrates professional integrity, toughness, unwillingness to compromise on vital issues, and a man who rejects partisanship when it gets in the way of progress. In my view, McCain may best represent the spirit E Pluribus Unum; to me, he is preferable to baby-kissing sycophants who will do or say anything to achieve the White House. Mr. Harkin ought to be ashamed, but we know he isn’t. He’s one of those politicians whose only useful stratagem is the smear.