Anti-Gunners Lead Opposition To Vote Supporting US Troops
April 20, 2003
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
Several months ago, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) proposed that the United States reinstate the military draft that was abandoned 30 years ago. His stated purpose was to even the playing field for young people who serve the country’s military needs, often risking their lives as so many are doing right now in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To support his agenda, Rangel claimed that a “disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military.” He told CNN that forcing the affluent to serve would establish a principle of “shared sacrifice.”
That Rangel was playing his usual demagogic “class warfare” game was never in doubt. But his suggestion that the volunteer services were loaded with poor, black and Hispanic cannon fodder, pointed the media to new story lines while Americans were taking casualties in Afghanistan and on the eve of the war with Iraq. This forced the Defense Department to release “official” figures, which provided percentages of male and female whites (affluent or not), blacks, Hispanics, Asians and others currently making up the enlisted ranks and the officer corps of the US military services. These numbers were compared with the percentage of corresponding demographics of the total US population.
As often happens, it turned out that Rangel was not right. Yes, there may have been a few percentage points more black males in the military than in the total population, but not enough to support his claim. Black women in service fell a few percentage points below the national population norm. Hispanic males made up a somewhat larger share of the military enlisted than their base in the general population, but not so much that it gave the story, or Rangel, any legs. Overall, there was the indication that the volunteer military provided poorer segments of the population of all ethnic origins a choice for a better paying job, complete with health and retirement benefits.
No Legs
The story soon quieted down, and Rangel fried other fish for a few weeks. Then came a great opportunity for him to demonstrate with a vote his genuine concern for all those in military service. It was a March 21 vote in the House on a non-binding resolution “expressing the support and appreciation of the nation for the President and the members of the armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The Senate unanimously approved a similar resolution a day earlier.
But there was no unanimity among the members of the US House of Representatives. Eleven House members voted “No” on the resolution, and another 21 voted “Present,” which some suggest indicates that they had not made up their minds whether they were for or against America’s troops.
Of the 11 who voted “No” and the 21 who voted “Present” 31 were Democrats and one was a Republican. The “No” voting member of the GOP was Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), but his vote confirmed his commitment to a libertarian political philosophy which holds that the government should only use troops to defend our shores from foreign aggressors; we should let the rest of the world stew in their own messes.
In Paul’s further defense, it should be noted that he is one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and particularly the individual right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for their own personal defense and defense of their community and country.
One cannot say the same for Rangel and his nine Democratic cohorts in the House. That’s what struck me so oddly about this vote. For the most part, they make up a hard corps of the most devoted opponents of private ownership of arms and the moral right to self-defense. They apparently don’t think very much of those who actually are making the sacrifice of serving in our volunteer military, and they don’t believe in personal defense for the average citizen.
Bear in mind that the March 21 vote was not on a pro-war resolution, just a show of support for the troops. Along with Rangel, the following members, all Democrats, voted “No:” Reps. John Conyers (MI); Mike Honda (CA); Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (OH); Barbara Lee (CA); Jim McDermott (WA); Bobby Scott (VA); Fortney “Pete” Stark (CA); Edolphus Towns (NY); Maxine Waters (CA), and Diane Watson (CA).
Presidential Hopeful
In addition, the 21 Democrats voting “Present” included presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and a host of other anti-gunners.
But take a look at the 10 Democrats that voted “No” on the resolution. With the exception of the relative newcomer, Watson, they all share an almost perfect anti-gun, anti-self-defense voting record during their House careers. Stark, of course, had also led the charge against funding the Department of Civilian Marksmanship. And bear in mind that if the Democrats regain control of the House, Conyers will become the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Maybe these people, like Paul, have deeper reasons for their votes that I cannot fathom. Perhaps they personally would all support the people who are risking their lives in the Middle East and Asia, but are only voting the way their respective constituencies would like.
But I kind of doubt that. The media and various other institutions keep conducting polls to determine the public’s attitude toward the war. Those snapshots of public opinion continue to show that public support for our troops, the President and the liberation of Iraq from the grip of dictatorship seems to be fairly consistent across the country—even among people who opposed the war. That two-thirds to three-quarters of the American public—generally across the country—support the troops suggests that the “No” voters in Congress are out of touch with their own congressional constituencies.
I’m not sure if the media relies so frequently on polls because they have gotten so accustomed to reporting on and influencing national elections by means of polling reports, or for other reasons. Certainly the people who control the news networks, the bell-cow newspapers and the print conglomerates have been doing a pretty poor job of reporting on the war in Iraq. They seem to think a war should be covered like a championship sporting event.
Embedded Journalists
On the other hand, the men and women reporters embedded with the troops or assigned to coalition headquarters seem to be doing a great job of reporting the war from the battle zone. Some of them have become casualties themselves. That has always been the risk of serving as a war correspondent up close to the action.
However, the reports that are coming from journalists embedded with troops on the leading edge of this action have provided a realistic picture of the war, and the risks taken by our courageous military forces and those of the United Kingdom. Many of those reports involve armed Iraqis facing the coalition forces with a higher level of defiance than some of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard.
I wonder what Rangel, Conyers and company must think when they see Iraqi militia armed with full auto AKs and RPGs fighting our troops. Doubtless, Hussein’s regime only allowed their trusted devotees to keep and bear arms. Still it appears that the troops Rangel, Conyers and company don’t want to support are facing the same kind of armed civilians that the anti-gunners fear so much. And given the nature of the terrorist-infested world we inhabit today, do they still want to prevent American civilians from keeping and bearing the arms needed to defend themselves, their families, their communities and the nation if we are attacked? On that question Rangel and crew would vote “Yes.” Return to Archive Index
