RSS
Home
New York the Capital of Doublespeak
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Congressman Charles B. Rangel of New York's 15th District and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has proven to be one of New York City's most honest politicians. Disregarding for the moment allegations about his finances or misdeeds- all essential prerequisites to be an effective New York politician- he unsuccessfully tried to introduce a bill to reinstate the draft due to his belief that the military is largely composed of minorities.
A draft was in effect from 1948 until 1973 when the controversy of the Vietnam War proved to be too unpopular a conflict. It wasn't until 1980 that Selective Service required all men 18 to 26 to register and give the government a pool of men it could draw from in case troops were required in an emergency.
The "war on terror" has presently no major detractors apart from Charles Rangel and a few others. The idiom is widely used and abused by politicians to gain votes. A study by the Heritage Foundation further disproves the myth that minorities make up the bulk of our armed forces, or for that matter, are assigned the most dangerous jobs. "The poor, the colored, the Marines" will not replace the "The few, the proud, the Marines" anytime soon.
Congressman Rangel wasn't successful in making his case, he succumbed to his own misinterpretation of doublespeak. Smart politicians know the difference. There is no war; the Taliban air force did not stage an attack on Norfolk or neither is the US military and it's allies engaged with a Republican Guard armored division. There are only policing operations occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan that involve our military, all limited in their capacity, engagement and scope.
"Terror", the other favorite idiom so misused has no identifiable entity. "Judeo-Bolshevik Terror" is a phrase that was favored by Goebbels and other Nazis. So was Mussolini's catch-phrase "Demo-Plutocratic Terror". Both doublespeak articulated to foment and perpetuate conflict. The correct terminology politicians should be using today is "Preventive Engagement". That would be a more honest assessment. It is a preventive and policing action employed in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The Heritage Foundation makes another interesting point stressing the fact that a large portion of the military is composed of middle-class and upper middle-class recruits, most notably after the 9/11 attacks. It further dispels Congressman's Rangel theory. Unfortunately Congressman Rangel didn't point out an important concept: a democracy thrives and sustains itself by way of noble action. Whether or not one-quarter of enlisted recruits come from the wealthiest fifth of U.S. neighborhoods, that is still not enough. Corporate leaders of tomorrow should be platoon leaders of today leading by example.
The same virtue in demand for the business world ( the "aggressive team-player", a favored characteristic) starts in the hills of Afghanistan and deserts of Iraq. Democracy doesn't ask less from its citizens but more so from the ones born and bred to nobility, after all, they are the ones that society strives to emulate.
Another study by a military sociologist at Northwestern University, Charlie Moskos, notes that during his senior year at Princeton University in 1956, 400 of 750 men who graduated went on to serve in the armed forces. In 2002, in a class of 1,000 men and women, Moskos says, only three Princeton graduates became military officers.
Congressman Charles Rangel might not have his finances straight but certainly has his heart in the right place.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
