![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Chickenhawk
Jun. 25th, 2005 05:53 pmThe chickenhawk argument is gaining traction again, thanks to things like "Operation Yellow Elephant". I've encountered it again most recently in threads here and here. I'm considering whether it would be worthwhile to write up an essay to deconstruct the argument in detail, but for the moment, some good mature discussion of this can be found at Matt Yglesias and Unfogged; the comments on the latter seemed especially strong. [UPDATE: another good discussion on this can also be found here]
And on the other hand, here's an example of a discussion going into the gutter quickly, with ad hominems being thrown about with abandon by both sides. I should mention I think the blogger deserved to get nailed for saying "Since when do I have to support my political stances with physical action?" which to me is exactly the wrong answer to the chickenhawk argument. I believe that "just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). The question it seems to me isn't whether support of the troops is necessary for those who were for the war, but how exactly that support needs to manifest itself. At the same time, if a person takes the "support the troops but not the war" position, but then does nothing to actually help the troops through the various means available, are they much better than the 'chickenhawks' they are criticizing?
I think in most of its incarnations, "chickenhawk" boils down to being an ad hominem argument, and hence invalid as a means of countering what the person being targeted is saying. Also, when taken to its logical conclusion, it advocates a political order not that different from that in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," where only those who've served in the military have full citizenship and the right to vote. However, the argument does have a simplicity and ease of comprehension that is too easily underestimated by those trying to counter it, hence its persistence.
[UPDATE: some discussion on this entry can be found here, where I also posted it]
And on the other hand, here's an example of a discussion going into the gutter quickly, with ad hominems being thrown about with abandon by both sides. I should mention I think the blogger deserved to get nailed for saying "Since when do I have to support my political stances with physical action?" which to me is exactly the wrong answer to the chickenhawk argument. I believe that "just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). The question it seems to me isn't whether support of the troops is necessary for those who were for the war, but how exactly that support needs to manifest itself. At the same time, if a person takes the "support the troops but not the war" position, but then does nothing to actually help the troops through the various means available, are they much better than the 'chickenhawks' they are criticizing?
I think in most of its incarnations, "chickenhawk" boils down to being an ad hominem argument, and hence invalid as a means of countering what the person being targeted is saying. Also, when taken to its logical conclusion, it advocates a political order not that different from that in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," where only those who've served in the military have full citizenship and the right to vote. However, the argument does have a simplicity and ease of comprehension that is too easily underestimated by those trying to counter it, hence its persistence.
[UPDATE: some discussion on this entry can be found here, where I also posted it]
