The notion that liberals disdain people in uniform was always a bit of a myth. Even during Vietnam, concern for the loss of young American lives was probably the anti-war movement’s most powerful motivation. Since then, sneery right-wingers have had it both ways about liberals and the military: When liberals oppose military action, conservative voices accuse them of betraying our fighting men and women. When liberals support military action, they are accused of callous indifference to the lives of American soldiers.
But the current liberal swooning over (retired) generals is truly something new. A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and ‘‘say what he really thinks.’’ This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think…
Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven’t swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realise it or not. They think that Clark has the best chance of defeating George Bush, and that nothing else matters. Their assessment is based on what seems to me a simple-minded view that you can place all the candidates on a political spectrum, then pick the one who’s as far toward the other side as your side can bear, and call it pragmatism. How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people’s juices flowing — that would be Howard Dean — in favour of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with?…
Anyone who wakes up to politics like Rip Van Winkle, and — without troubling to develop any but the most abstract political sentiments — immediately decides that the country needs him as president, clearly thinks highly of himself for reasons that may not be universally apparent.
(Excerpted from an article by Michael Kinsley at http://www.slate.com)