At the most recent GOP candidate debates, the issue of gays openly serving in the military, vs. “don’t ask, don’t tell” was raised. My summary of the responses given.
Ron Paul: Everyone should have equal rights. Disruptive homosexual behavior shouldn’t be allowed, but disruptive heterosexual behavior shouldn’t be allowed, either. [Is Paul suggesting that if it becomes “known” to a CO that someone is straight, they should be discharged? Cause that’s how it works right now for gays.]
Mike Huckabee: It’s already dealt with in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It’s not a matter of “attitude” but of “disruptive behavior.” [Except, of course, that the code indicates that any known homosexual behavior is per se “disruptive” in a dischargable way. So passing the buck to the Uniform Code is hardly solving anything.]
Rudy Giuliani (asked about the discharge-because-of-gayness of some highly trained translators who could support the wars in the Middle East): This is the wrong time to debating whether we’re weakening our war effort because to do so weakens our war effort. This policy was decided in 1994 and that’s good enough for now, at least until this war is over. [“Because I agree wholeheartedly with all the policies established in 1994. Um …”]
Mitt Romney: I was wrong back in 1994, when I said gays should be able to serve openly. The current policy is working. Let’s not rock the boat now. Let’s revisit it later. [“Like — after I’m elected. Or maybe after I’m out of office.”]
John McCain: We have a great military (applause). There just aren’t enough of them — but I’m still going to trust what our commanders say. The current policy is working. [Even if it possibly means that we’re excluding some folks from the military, which we’ve just admitted is short-handed.]
At which point, all the folks on stage were asked if anyone supported allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve. Crickets chirped for a few seconds, Then they went on to other questions.
One could possibly — maybe — debate the question of timing re changing the policy. The official desegregation of the armed forces — the best analog to this, I think — took place in 1948, between wars. On the other hand, if this is a “war without end” (a/k/a “the war on terror”) then it seems like there will never be a “right time.”
By the same token, by simply dismissing the effect of the current policy (which treats truth and honesty as a grounds for discharge, no matter how good a soldier you are or how invaluable your talents might be to the war), by misstating the nature of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (which doesn’t target “disruptive” homosexual behavior, but which treats any known homosexual behavior as dischargeably disruptive), and by trying to pish-tosh away the whole subject (“We’re at war right now, let’s not worry about this until we’re at peace”), the entire stage-worth of candidates demonstrated to everyone listening that they’re either grossly underinformed, a lot more concerned about “base” votes, or or a lot more ideologically rigid than even the more “liberal” among them have made themselves out to be.
On the way-off chance any candidates are reading this exchange, try this, guys: “It’s time we all grew up about this issue. We should ask other countries how they manage it, because somehow they do. And a fellow American who puts on the Uniform and risks his or her life for our country is all right by me.”
Yeah, that was one of the other maddening sessions of the evening, the other being a woman whose brother was killed in Iraq asking when the troops were coming home – and all ten did not answer her question.
Or, DOF, as Barry Goldwater (not a man without faults, but someone those candidates should also be seeking to be emulate in some ways) put it (from memory), “I don’t care if he *is* straight as long as he can *shoot* straight.”
Part of the problem, of course, is that the debate is not really about honestly answering questions in depth. It’s about using your 20 second sentence to try and inspire support and not say something that’s going to make you a laughing-stock or turn your potential/actual supporters off. That means lots of prepared sound bites and very little substance in the face of a real issue or real question.
While I’m a big believer in the public forum, there’s not a huge amount of utility in having a dozen-odd candidates up there all struggling to come up with the pithy phrase that will rally the same base. It’s not about issues, it’s about votes.
I liked Jon Stewart’s take on it the other night. After hearing all the Republicans argue that Iraq and the War on Terror (linked again!) is the ultimate struggle between good and evil, he showed where they were asked to raise their hands if they thought gays should be allowed to serve in the military.
“Apparently the only thing worse for these candidates than another terrorist attack would be a gay hero stopping it,” remarked Stewart.
Sadly, anymore Goldwater would be on the Left wing of the GOP, close to he Center. Really just a Stones throw away from the Dem Leadership.
Yes, the JS quote was quite nice (that segment got me looking for that debate clip in general).
The annoying thing is that I suspect 2/3 of them really don’t care, and would be just as happy (or happier) to see gays openly serving and whats-all-the-fuss-about … but don’t feel (rightly or wrongly) that they can afford to actually say that in public.
The JS segment in question: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=88121
During which, after giving various clips of folks quoting the Bible, threatning to nuke Iran, and calling on an end to all *legal* immigration, he commented:
Sadly, true.