|
Tuesday, December 31, 2002
In an astonishing parallel to the tax-the-poor mantra making its way up the Republican ranks, Charlie Rangel today says: "Bring Back the Draft".
Why?
Because rich and overwhelmingly white Representatives and Senators don't have as many kids enlisted in the military as poor and minority parents do.
The main difference between Rangel's draft-the-rich argument and conservatives' tax-the-poor argument is that Rangel has a history of anti-nationalist/pro-peace philosophy backing him up.
Nonetheless, Rangel's argument should only make sense if instituting the draft will lead to a better military -- and many people who decry that amaterishness of the "volunteer army" may agree that it would.
Two sketchy things about Rangel's argument: firstly, he claims, "A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military." This is true, but it is also true that a disproportionate number of non-minorities have died in combat in the decade of combat that began with Gulf War I. (BTW: I know that I saw an essay on this somewhere recently, but can't find it; if you do find it, please let me know)
Second, he doesn't specify what kind of draft he's talking about; if it's the one most recently implemented -- the one for Vietnam -- then a draft would assumedly, as it did then, have a disproportionately bad effect for minorities and/or those on the lower end of the earning scale.
It'd also be worth noting that LBJ, who was responsible for the Vietnam buildup, did have a son in the military.
Further, if precedent is any indication, Rangel won't be able to make the argument that elected officials' kids aren't in the military for much longer: traditionally, politicians and their kids always seem to be signing up for service in wartime -- even when, as in JFK's case, they have to bend the rules.
Steven I. Weiss 9:53:00 AM
|