In his opining on the topic of Romney’s sons serving the country, Geraghty (who’s blog I enjoy) takes an illogical turn:
Eh. I realize equating campaign work and military service wasn’t necessarily Romney’s intent, but he did describe his sons’ work as “showing our support for our nation,” and that statement, or at least its wording, leaves me a little cold. I don’t think working for a political candidate or cause – no matter how great the candidate, no matter how noble the cause – is synonymous with support for the nation.
Geraghty is a smart guy, but I find this almost silly. No political cause is a service to our nation? The problem here is Geraghty disagrees with Mitt on gut instinct, but to rationalize it, you have to make the assertion that I doubt most would agree with. This holds very little truth when set to example.
The founding fathers are a great example. I am guessing that they saw their political cause (democracy) and it’s founding as a service to the nation in which we live. I am positive that when Abraham Lincoln worked to fight the secessionist, not only was that a political cause (I’m positive the Civil War was a political battle first) but one that served our nation. I would argue those who fought for desegregation through the political system were not only fighting a political cause but serving those for whom they fought, and the generations that followed.
If offering help for a political cause is not supporting your nation, than what is supporting your nation? Only paying taxes and fighting in the army? The problem, and the one I think Geraghty is actually tacitly addressing, is that to say one political cause is supporting the nation means that you would either have to say all political causes serve the nation, or make a value judgment deciding which ones do and which ones don’t.
That should be no problem.
After all, we put a value judgment on our political philosophy for the very reasons Geraghty says do not exist- our political philosophy supports our nation. I approve of Conservatism because in my estimation because it supports our nation’s ideals and the Constitution. I don’t support liberalism because I believes it harms the same.
It’s fine if Geraghty disagrees that Mitt’s sons are supporting our Nation. The reasoning should be though, because the cause they support does not support our nation (at least in his mind,) not because supporting a political cause could never support our nation, after all, our nation was founded on a political cause.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I agree Jason.
I normally enjoy
Gerahty, but he is wrong on Mitt here. You cannot say that Mitt’s sons are not working hard for a cause that they believe will benefit the nation. Do we all need to enlist in the military to be worthwhile people? Apparently some think so.
I believe like Mitt that the most important work we do IS inside the four walls of our homes…..and whatever our children choose to do, whether enlist in the military or benefit this country in some other way is honorable.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Agree completely Jason. That statement by Geraghty is beyond puzzling. It’s incoherent. A nation, any nation, IS a political cause. It’s the embodiment of a set of political and moral ideas, crafted by the populace. If working for the nation, at the behest of the nation, to advance your interpretation of the nation’s values, doesn’t “support the nation”, then the term has no meaning. It’s certainly plausible, as Jason notes, that supporting Mitt Romney, in particular, vigorously, doesn’t actually aid the nation: that the election of Romney would be a net negative for the country. And I suspect that’s an argument Geraghty would be somewhat in sympathy with. But, that’s certainly not the argument he’s making.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I think Gerahty is trying to compare military service to campaign service. Certainly military service is considered a much greater benefit to our nation, however they both are benefits to our nation or course.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
The question/comment by Rachel Griffith was:
“..My question is how many of your sons are currently serving in the U.S. military, and if none of them are, how do they plan to support this War on Terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?”
Either she was quoted incorrectly or this is an example of a comment based on pre-supposition posed as a question.
That’s like asking..How many of your sons are in Congress, and if none, how do they plan to support keeping taxes lower? As if one could not make a contribution to keeping taxes lower EXCEPT by being in Congress.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Such a person who asked the question supposes that the only way to “support the Military” is either to join up or agree with their anti-war position.
Well said Scott #4. I see that sort of logic all the time.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Jack,
Geraghty covered that in the first sentence of the paragraph I posted. I don’t think Romney would equate campaigning and military as the same, that’s absurd. But like you said, they both benefit (support) our nation.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Republican blogger, James Joyner at OTB, put it best I think:
“Mitt Romney has given what may be the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate.”
I’m kinda surprised that you guys are trying to spin this positively, as if Mitt was actually making a good point.
When a hundred soldiers are dying every month in Iraq, to say that your sons have chosen to serve their country by electing daddy president, is almost obscene. Cetainly very stupid, and certainly not something he will live down for a long time.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I just posted on this at another site. My point was that the Left has no understanding of or respedt for a free society. They really think that everything they believe in should be compulsory. Whether a young man decides to go into the military is up to them. Each person has his own life to live. The fact that Romney’s sons have made such exemplary decisions in other facets of their existence reflects great credit on their parents.
‘
August 8th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Tano,
RE: The quote of the woman in 4.
No one is in doubt that serving in the military, is indeed, the greatest sacrifice one can do for one’s country.
However, there are other ways in which one may do so. Her question/comment was not meant for a real answer. It was meant to solidify, her already made assumption, that no one can speak of issues of national defense while not having commited to JOINING the U.S. military.
So, by that logic, you must be in the military. And if you are not, we shouldn’t converse with you because we are not capable of serving our country or contributing to any discussion at all.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Tano,
The question was designed to make Mitt look stupid. What was he to say? There is no acceptible answer for someone like this woman if your children don’t serve in the military. Just another democrat with another dumb question. Mitt did the best he could. He was honest. His kids could be like Guliani’s and be out there working for Hillary. They are supporting their father…..and THAT is honorable. I am a little sick of this “you haven’t servd in the military, therefore you can’t be for the war” crap!!
August 9th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Personally I think it’s a valid question, although I think her nerves made it a bit mixed up. I went in the service in 74, while we were still in Viet Nam. They didn’t send me but I would have gone. When a man supports the war and has 5 healthy sons and NONE OF THEM are even in the National Guard or Reserves then I think his support for the war is far too easy a decision for him to make. It makes him look hypocrital, it’s ok for your sons to die but not don’t have to.
Helping daddy get elected is not supporting the nation.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:26 am
I would disagree that no political cause could be considered service to the nation. The examples listed in the original post back that up.
But I would not say that supporting the political campaign of a candidate, especially when that candidate is your father, is serving our nation in the way that military service is. It’s not just that one is better than the other, it’s that the two are not even comparable.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Mitt is my man, but he could have handled that question MUCH better.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Casey, if this lady approach Mitt’s claim on war by using his sons, where none of them are in military in any capability, then that is fine. But she is CLAIMING that giving up your dream jobs and work for a campaign with no pay ISN’T a worthy cause. In other words, doing charity, no matter what its mission is, is also worthless. Sorry, she is way out of her loop.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Those boys don’t have to worry about pay. They have an extremely wealthy father that can support them. If Paris Hilton went on the road supporting her parent’s hotels, would that be seen as a worthy cause?
August 9th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Oh yeah….let’s compare the Romney boys with Paris Hilton. Casey…you have a chip on your shoulder because Romney is well to do and didn’t serve in the military. I’m sorry but he can still be an excellent President. And knowing Mitt, those boys have to work like everyone else.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I just think that his answer is an insult to every man and woman that’s served there, as well as their families. My nephew served in Iraq and is now home out of the Army and going to college. My sister spends every day in a panic that he will be called back. For Romney to even suggest that his sons are doing something just as patriotic is just plain bull.
I don’t care who has money, that’s part of the American Dream. I do care when people can support something that costs others their lives and glibly make such comments. I wasn’t crazy about Romney before, now I totally dislike him.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I agree with Casey here. In the past it would be inconceivable that you would support a war and not serve in it if you were capable. Imagine during WWII a politician running for office and having 5 sons and none of them in the military. It use to be thought that the leading families in society would always volunteer for military service especially in time of war. This woman’s question is valid. What does it say about your family that in time of war none of your sons have volunteered for service?
August 9th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Sean, if this lady is saying the same as what you are saying, then your argument does have merit. The problem is that she is CLAIMING that doing the charity work does not matter. Yes, there is nothing like serving in military. But still, there are many other worthy pursues (again, nothing on par of military). All of his 5 sons served on mission for 2 years, a long period for any college-aged kids. Most of the sons served in poor neighborhoods. Then they are working for something they believe in strongly, with no pay, AGAIN. How many of you actually take a time in something like Big Brother, reading to old people, etc. You cannot claim the charity are not worth it, as this writer does!
August 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Casey,
So what are we all supposed to do? Join the military…or we’re all a bunch a schmucks? These boys are serving their country by helping their Dad. You might not think it’s honorable because you dislike Mitt. They could be out helping Obama like Guliani’s daughter…which of course has been totally ignored by everyone. Remember the military is VOLUNTARY. Stop making the rest of us feel guilty or worthless for not joining up. We are trying to do something honorable here as well. It’s getting a little I’m superior because I served in Iraq. Enough already!!
August 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The question might have been a trap, but Romney’s response was tone deaf. Sorry, he’s in politics, and how people perceive what you say is important. What it ended up sounding like was “My kids didn’t serve in the military, but they’re helping Daddy get elected president, so that’s just as good”.
How should he have answered? Maybe something like “No, my kids didn’t not serve in the military. I’m afraid I wasn’t a great example in that regard as I didn’t serve either – while they did not choose the military, they have made great choices with their lives, and I’m proud of them. And as family, we do what we can to support our country in this war”.
It’s not like reminding of us of his lack of service hurts him against anyone but McCain, and it is self-deprecating and noble as it takes the ‘blame’ for not serving from his kids and back to him. Sure beats “Getting me elected is as useful to the country as enlisting”
August 9th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
SGS, I am aware that they volunteered for mission work. The woman didn’t claim charity work does not matter. The woman was asking how they would serve their country militarily in a time of war. It was a valid question. Duncan Hunter has a son in the Marines. That there shows me something about the quality of the family. Now that alone can’t tell you everything, but it does give you a general picture. As a father and possible leader of our country Mitt Romney has an obligation to try to get his sons to volunteer for military service. After all FDR’s son wasn’t riding around on the campaign trail during WWII.