Talking about My Generation
The world occupied by Salon is confined to the creme de la creme of liberalism on the West Coast, and they have no intention of looking beyond even for the sake of accuracy. In a recent article, the online magazine claimed, “young men eligible for the military are not marching down to sign up.” And to draw this conclusion, Salon employed polls with a sample limited to, well, liberal students opposing the war effort. Unsurprisingly, they found just what they were looking for at San Francisco State University, interviewing Ethnic Studies majors and those with Palestinian heritage.
In their September 19th article, “Hell No, they won’t go – yet,” Salon writers, Janelle Brown and King Kaufman, assert that men eligible for the draft are not likely to abide by such an initiative even if it is indeed resurrected. The “progressive” Salon used a very small sample, altogether ignoring youths who opted not to attend college and receive their liberal arts degree. Because only 68% of whites, 59% of blacks, and 55% of Hispanics go to college immediately after high school, their assessment of the willingness of an entire generation to fight a war is at best based on two-thirds of its constituency.
Of course, if poll numbers for the various socio-economic groups in support of the Vietnam War are any reflection of the present conflict, working class members more likely to have been excluded by the Salon article are in all probability largely in support of the war effort and the draft. One might presume the politically left leaning individuals who now oppose any military retaliation would be especially careful so as not to discriminate against those who cannot afford college tuition, but the opinions of this group seem of little concern to Salon and the students who they quote.
Even among college attendees, Salon questions only a fraction of all students, hardly seeking out a representative sample. Students studying more traditional subjects such as history and political science, as opposed to those concentrating their scholastic efforts on the latest academic fads, are excluded. Not a single New York City student is cited even though the bulk of the attack and carnage occurred in this area. Perhaps the absence of this relevant voice is a reflection of Salon’s conscious or unconscious desire to generate the illusion that liberals unilaterally oppose the war. Despite the city’s very traditional Democratic base, there is without a doubt more support for military action than among unscathed Californians.
In fact, college students matriculating in areas other than the West Coast were not quoted or consulted except when their support for military action is phrased in politically incorrect terms. In one instance, a student admits he’s “bloodthirsty.” In another, a student in no uncertain terms uses curse words to describe terrorists who “just come up in here and just spit in our faces.” Salon only quotes those supporting war insofar as it permits them to characterize us all as belligerent and close-minded.
After all, those who oppose retaliation eloquently quote Noam Chomsky remarking “we should be asking what we did to deserve this.” Rather than longing for retribution for the wrong committee, these students prefer to blame the United States.
The military met its recruiting goals this year, having fallen short during much of the Clinton presidency. The surge may very well be caused by a less flourishing economy as opposed to increased political leadership and a further respect for the armed forces. However, one cannot help but assume it’s a combination of the two.
Enlistment doubled in the wake of the attack. Registration rates for the Selective Service, that is, the database listing all men eligible for the draft, tripled. According to a statement issued by the Pentagon, “there has been no indication from the Congress or the administration that a return to the draft will be necessary.”