The song, not to put too fine a point on it, is an anti-war screed, taking shots at "the red white and blue." It was a particularly terrible choice given that Fortunate Son is, moreover, an anti-draft song, and this concert was largely organized to honor those who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But as readers of EQE already know, Dreher's testicles have not yet descended to the point where he has the courage to make his main point directly, in this case hypocritically and self-loathingly criticizing American military involvements that may later have been second-guessed, including the Iraq War Dreher himself ferociously supported while it was a hot career builder, then later reversed his position on when the opposite point of view filled his rice bowl better instead.
In this instance, Dreher's post ostensibly about Springsteen's song choice (the click bait wrapper) and its criticism (including at The Washington Post) leads incongruously with a full column image of
The song is not an “anti-war screed”; it is a song protesting the unfairness of the draft, and how the burden of war-fighting fell disproportionately on members of the working class who were not in college, and couldn’t get, say, five Vietnam War draft deferments, like some former vice presidents we could name. In that sense, performing that song last night was perfectly legitimate, even laudatory.
complete with link to a 10-year-old New York Times article.
His carefully vetted disciples in the comment boxes dutifully take up The Weekly Standard/neocon red meat from there with well-trained rodentine reflex.
Well, not all. Aptly named commenter Thomas Aquinas points out
The fact that you have to write this means the song should have not been sung. When celebrating someone’s service, it is deeply insulting to inject anything that would cause division. Why risk upsetting people you are supposed to be supporting?
Controversy, in this case, was not a virtue
No, not a virtue at all, nor Dreher's cynically exploiting the due and appropriate criticism of it by leftist Post and conservative Standard alike in order to suck up to his new isolationist patronage.
So, let's review:
- When he was at National Review, swooning at living in New York City and getting paid the bucks to do so, Rod Dreher loudly supported the Iraq War, and very likely his exhortations in favor of it sent young men and women to die there at no cost to himself.
- During the Vietnam War, Dick Cheney did in fact receive a number of legal draft deferments. He subsequently served as Secretary of Defense and Vice President of the United States. He did not, however, pick Bruce Springsteen's song list.
- Rod Dreher's brother-in-law, Mike Leming, an actual patriot and a veteran, volunteered and served in the Louisiana National Guard, both at home and in Iraq.
- Mike Leming's brother-in-law, Rod Dreher, volunteered to eat oysters in Paris and black truffles in Tuscany.
- Back home, in between those two overseas deployments, he often slept for long stretches during the day because he was depressed about himself.
- He will tell us about that ugly combat in his forthcoming hardback book for sale at something on the order of $20 a copy, the one with Dante in the title (the click bait wrap...well, you already know how that works, now, don't you)
Rod Dreher, fortunate son indeed.
UPDATE (as they say): In the few minutes since I put this post up Dreher has changed the prominently leading image (with its simpering subtitle "A lucky recipient of five Vietnam draft deferments") of Dick Cheney, replacing it with an innocuous one of Bruce Springsteen. Here is the original post I wrote about with the original Cheney image-bait.
FYI, Dreher has since edited the post to use the Springsteen photo instead of Cheney's, thus laying another layer of camouflage over the true payload.
ReplyDeleteOn the substance of the kerfluffle itself, I find it hard to see how one honors veterans by singing songs saying that they served only because they were duped or victims of class warfare.
Here's the post I wrote about in its original form.
DeleteI guess if the blog you're paid for is really your online "journal" everything you write can always be treated as a post-editable trial balloon.
If you're looking at men born during the years running from about 1944 to 1951, 45% had some sort of military service, about 25% were disqualified (categorically or contingently), and about 30% did not serve for various reasons (having to do with the military's manpower goals and the size of the available cohorts. The notion that everyone but the privileged was over fightin' in 'Nam is tommyrot. Perhaps 15% of those in the most vulnerable age cohorts were posted to some place in theatre (not necessarily in VietNam itself).
ReplyDeleteRichard Cheney was born in 1941, so his cohort likely had a similar experience (among older cohorts, service was more prevalent). The United States was not at war at all from the time he was eligible for service in January 1959 to November 1961. From November 1961 to February 1965 was the 'advisory war', which had American troops attached to South VietNamese units, training and leading. A mean of less than 1% of Army and Marine manpower was devoted to this project and it does not sound like the sort of work you'd assign Joe Blow off the sidewalks of Laramie (but I would not know having never been in the Army or Marines). From July of 1966 to January 1967 (when he passed out of the conscriptable age group and from January 1967 to January 1977 (at which point he could no longer enlist), he had dependent children. That deferment is not exclusive to the affluent and was in effect (with qualifications) during the 1st World War, from 1940 to 1943, and from 1945 to 1973 when conscription ended. Only during the most intense period of mobilization was there a general expectation that fathers would serve.
So, Dreher's main complaint is amounts to one that the newly married Cheney (who had some understandings with his bride about finishing school) did not drop out of college some time between February 1965 and July 1966 and enlist in the military (while his wife was pregnant).
While we're at it, Cheney's father was a field official with some component of the USDA, not some influential personage. Rod Dreher's idea of a 'fortunate son' amounts to the scion of a small town bourgeois most recently employed as a repairman for the phone company conjoined to a pregnant wife and with (alas) history of heavy drinking he was promising to amend.
Glenn Reynolds tells us this.
DeleteBut as is often the case with Dreher (remember the 800 Irish children thrown in the sewer by nuns, to name one), the truth of the statement doesn't matter -- it only matters that he said it. All that matters is that Dreher got to say that Dick Cheney is a hypocritical chickenhawk -- whether that is in fact true or even relevant to the issue matters not.
DeleteBullshit, in the philosophical sense. NRO has a piece on that very topic today, as a matter of fact.
I've long suspected that, as some men are colorblind, Rod Dreher was born without a sense of honor, so the full gravity of his continual traffic in accusations (and what it says about him) just never registers. He brooks no criticism of Damon Linker, deleting everything uttered about the man. Damon Linker is one rotten piece of work. Anyone can see that but Rod Dreher. Oh, and you recall this:
Deletehttp://contrapauli.blogspot.com/2009/01/jospeh-bottum-on-father-neuhaus.html
Yeah, that rings a bell.
Delete"Rod Dreher was born without a sense of honor, so the full gravity of his continual traffic in accusations (and what it says about him) just never registers."
DeleteOh my gosh. Nailed it.
Art, this is written very well. My offer to you to become an author here still stands. Just click here and send me an email.
DeleteThis is a more appropriate song for Rod. It is the Ballad of the Yellow Beret by Bob Seeger. Jonathan Carpenter
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBdL8chkuM
Thanks! I needed that! Boy, that was pre-"don't-ask-don't-tell" wasn't it?
DeleteJC, you are the tip of the spear, man.