Gravel on DADT
I really like dark-horse political candidates; if they're to make any headway it's usually by riding on the backs of principals rather than polls.
Senator Mike Gravel has caught my attention before; now he does it again by reacting to H. Clinton's namby-pandering stance on gay equality, in particular, her husband's disastrous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so-called policy for the military.
I was choosing an excerpt from his statement but the excerpt kept growing until I ended up with his complete statement selected, so you get the entire thing below. I hope he doesn't mind.
Once again Hillary refuses to admit an obvious mistake. During the Democratic presidential debate on Sunday [3 June 2007], she said her husband's 'Don't Ask' policy was not a mistake and then she tried to rewrite history by spinning 'Don't Ask' as a "first step" toward gays and lesbians openly serving in the military. Just like with the war on Iraq, Hillary still doesn't get it.
'Don't Ask' has not been a benign "transition policy" as she claims. It was a cowardly political calculation that reaffirmed the military's unjust discharge policies and resulted in the dismissal of 10,870 dedicated service people since 1993. Discharges for homosexuality actually increased under 'Don't Ask' and cost taxpayers more than a quarter of a billion dollars. How can Hillary complain about the recent discharge of 55 Arab language specialists under 'Don't Ask' and not admit that the policy is a terrible mistake?
During Sunday's debate, Hillary also downplayed her husband's responsibility for 'Don't Ask' by claiming that he was hamstrung by "checks and balances" and Congressional opposition. Hillary should look to the example of Harry Truman for a lesson on presidential power and leadership.
When Harry Truman confronted intense congressional opposition to racial integration of the Armed forces in 1948, checks and balances didn't inhibit him. He asserted his constitutional power as commander-in-chief and integrated the military with an executive order. A day after Truman issued his order, Gen. Omar N. Bradley, the Army Chief of Staff, declared: "The Army will not put men of different races in the same companies." Truman did not reverse himself and knuckle under to military brass like Bill Clinton. He gave Bradley and the rest of the military officers a simple choice: obey orders and bow down to civilian authority or resign. A president should never back down to his generals the way Bill Clinton did with Colin Powel in 1993.
Truman also showed that a great president can and must defy popular opinion when it stands in the way of justice. In 1948, an election year, 63% of Americas opposed integration of the armed forces. Truman didn't follow the poll numbers; he stood up to a misinformed public and led them. Many historians credit Truman's brave leadership with providing an important boost to the nascent civil rights movement that would eventually transform America into a freer, more just, stronger nation. That is the power of presidential leadership.
Hillary should also understand that being a good leader sometimes means admitting a mistake. When presidents atone for mistake publicly — as when Bill Clinton apologized for not intervening in Rwanda — they send a powerful message to the public that addressing the issue is a moral imperative.
This is why when I am president I will immediately issue an apology on behalf of the federal government to each of the 100,000 service people who have been discharged because of their sexual orientation over the past several decades. I challenge all of my fellow candidates to pledge themselves that if elected, they will also issue a formal apology. I hope that we can all join together in sending an important message to the American public that the days of second-class citizenship for lesbian and gay Americans must come to an end.
[Mike Gravel, "Don't Ask Hillary: She Still Doesn't Get It", Huffington Post, 6 June 2007.]
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 at 23.14
Permalink
That's a strong and encouraging statement.
Not that I don't have plenty of bones to pick with Bill Clinton, but on DADT I'll venture a small point in his behalf.
Harry Truman was a WWI combat veteran. That gave him a certain standing with the military and public alike. That was especially meaningful in 1948, when veterans numbered in the tens of millions and WWII was still so fresh in everyone's consciousness.
Bill Clinton, by contrast, was not a veteran. Moreover, he was highly unpopular with military people and many veterans, and he knew it. Rightly or wrongly, he had been successfully tagged as contemptuous of military people by right-wing Republican character assassins. (I believe there was more than a modicum of truth to it, at least regarding his younger years.)
So, as commander in chief, Clinton's hand was somewhat weakened. I'm sure he could just see right-wingers and veterans vilifying him for trying to wreck the military he supposedly had so little regard for by promoting what they considered deviant sexual behavior in the ranks.
Some of these things aren't right, logically or on an absolute scale of reasoning and ethics. Yet, they keep occurring. Recall how Nixon could go to China, which had been off limits diplomatically for years, and make nice with ping-pong diplomacy. His credentials as a Cold War hawk insulated him. Had Jimmy Carter tried that, he would've been vilified for kowtowing and weakening our stance against international communism.
on Thursday, 7 June 2007 at 10.02
Permalink
Truman could also draw upon a society where racial integration was on the rise. Sayeed Qutb, the Egyptian radical, toured small town America in 1948 and decried our racial mixing.
Gays in the military is a little dicier, since a component of military service contains one's sexual identity.
I recently read a couple posts that said part of Muslim militancy is connected to the polygamy of Islam, which leaves many frustrated young men who can't get sex partners, so they drift to an ideology that promises them 72 virgins in paradise.
on Thursday, 7 June 2007 at 15.20
Permalink
RSF wrote:
On the rise? What, there was a lull in beatings and lynchings?
It's funny you should say that now. I've recently been struck by written and TV statements by African American WW II vets recalling how they came home after the war expecting to see progress had been made. Each recalled his surprise, disappointment, and in one case bitterness, at discovering no progress had been made at all. One or two said they actually had enjoyed more acceptance in the Army.
Re: ". . . since a component of military service contains one's sexual identity."
No, I served in the military. It seemed to have a specialized unit or function for almost everything, but there wasn't one where people turned in their sexual ID for safe keeping, or whatever. Everyone kept their sexual ID on (or in) their person at all times.
That was probably just as well, because things the service took and in stored sometimes got mixed up or lost. Or, the paper work for them did, which was just as bad. It was aggravating enough when it happened to pay records. I think if it had happened to sexual identities, serious trouble would've ensued.