I spent my weekend poolside with family and friends. It was the perfect end to a summer which was spent everywhere but poolside. Sunday was my official “Last Day to Relax before I Head Back to College.” Among the party guests was a family friend who works with the CIA. The friend is home for a while and couldn’t resist being entertained by the circus that is my family. He knows I study political science and is quite eager to debate, discuss, and pick my brain. I was lounging back in my chair, looking longingly at the pool I had just left and planning my reentrance into its lukewarm water when he began to comment on Cindy Sheehan.
As it turns out, it would be several hours before I reentered the pool.
“She is a biased, liberal, propagandist who is dismaying the memory of her son. Her husband is even filing divorce over her antics. Disgraceful!”
Before I could respond, he went into a full-out assailment. September 11th: Clinton’s fault. War on Terror: opposed by the liberal left. Iraq: Making the world safer. Cindy Sheehan: unpatriotic.
I didn’t know where to begin, so I started asking questions. We had an interesting discussion of the War on Iraq. Throughout the entire conversation, he kept saying to me, “You’re not involved in the military. You don’t understand.”
Returning to Sheehan, as he so frequently did, he began to dip into his pot of rage. I put my hand forward to stop him and said, “You’re not the mother of a kid who died in this war. You don’t understand.”
Of course, there are mothers of sons who have died in this war who still support the war. And that is their choice. But they are not Cindy Sheehan. They did not raise her son. Her situation is unique. And when she stands in protest to the war that took her son’s life, no one is better-equipped to honor the memory of her son than her. She created the memory of her son, and because of this war, she is left, all-too-young, to find a way to honor it.
I explained all of this to my friend. He sighed, put his arms in the air and proclaimed, “The president already met with her once. FDR didn’t sit down with every mother who lost a son in World War II. Why should this president have to?”
The President, whether it is FDR or George Bush, serves as a single figure with many roles. Perhaps the most compelling is his or her ability to comfort in times of tragedy. As such, maybe it’s time the President took more time from his vacation to comfort those who have been most affected by this war. Sheehan’s voice of protest is loud and unanswered. Polls show that support for the war is waning. Perhaps it would be wise of the President to extend an olive branch and attempt to support, or at least understand Sheehan. But I won't hold my breath.
Until then, what started as the single protest of a mother's broken heart and what has become a microcosm for dissatisfaction with the policy in Iraq, will continue.
With this in mind, I began to wonder two things about Cindy Sheehan: why is she getting so much press and why is she being attacked so viciously? My mind trailed off to a political philosophy class I had taken on feminism the previous semester. Our professor had mentioned that when women choose to be stay-at-home mothers they are rarely taken seriously outside of their role as a mother.
The attacks on Cindy Sheehan have attempted to paint her as a political activist, a partisan hack. If she is seen solely as a mourning mother, her message resonates in our hearts. Those who attack her believe that when she is seen as a political activist, as a biased source, her credibility diminishes. Speaking as a mother she is credible; speaking as a mother attempting to affect change in politics, she is biased. Or so goes the argument.
What perhaps is most fascinating is that Sheehan’s opponents try to treat her as if her political activism with regard to the war and her experiences with the war are mutually exclusive. She is an anti-war Democrat, right? No. This is a half truth. In reality, the fact that her life has been affected so deeply by this war qualifies her to be biased. It took her son’s life. Her love as mother and the pain she feels for losing her son motivate her actions of protest, not vice versa.
Just as the mothers who believe their sons died in a just cause deserve our respect, Cindy Sheehan deserves our respect. This war has affected her deeply, and it is not the place of anyone to judge her grieving. She must live with this grief for the rest of her life.
As my vacation dwindles to its end, I have come to realize something sad: Vacations will never be the same for Cindy Sheehan. I wonder, why can’t the President take time out of his vacation to recognize that?
Great post! If you are interested in further interpretations of how Cindy Sheehan is being "spun," check out the Sunday op-ed by Frank Rich in the Times, "The Swift-Boating of Cindy Sheehan."
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, why should Bush have to meet with a mother more than once instead of taking a nap? Because it might be appropriate for him to lose a little sleep over this war.
Gburgkid--
ReplyDeleteWhat I particularly like about your story is how you skillfully illustrate the manufactured responses of the right. A great deal of our friends on the right have done a good job absorbing the talking points of the pundits/strategists/think tanks it seems. You've got to hand it to the right--what impressive organization in getting their message out.
I can't think of anything that I have such a concise and rhetorically powerful answer to.
I am totally dismayed by the way the MSM and partisan hacks are treating Sheehan. If you get a chance, do read Frank Rich's op-ed on this Sunday; it's powerful stuff.
But Uncle Ben,
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that many of those who share your political views take advantage of suffering at least as often as the left does (which doesn't mean I agree with your interpretation, btw). How many times did the GOP speakers invoke 9-11 during their convention????
W and crew has used the suffering of families who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers over and over and over again to justify his militarism!
I am not sure I understand your point Uncle Ben, a point frequently made by those opposed to Sheehan's protest. GBurgkid mentioned it in his/her article: the view that there is something sinister and politically biased at heart in Sheehan's protest.
ReplyDeleteI quite frankly, do not understand what that actually means. Of course her protest is political. Based on the emotional pain she has suffered, and her hopes that she can prevent more people from suffering that pain, she is campaigning for a withdrawl for Iraq. Such a withdrawl would be a political decision. Likewise, supporting the war because of the pain of losing someone in 9-11 is a political decision.
In this case, the action becomes political as soon as any sort of action is recommended. If she grieved and still supported the war, that would also be a political act. If she grieves and opposes it, it is a political act. Is she merely supposed to grieve and have no other opinion? Why is it, that her electing to promote a certain course of action over another, a dirty type of politics?
In addition..no, we should not forget who attacked us, and sometimes we do have to use the military to defend ourselves. So, while we remembering who attacked us, let's remember that it was NOT Saddam Hussein or the Iraqis in power. It was Al Qaeda and they were hiding out in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is Saudi, and there are plenty of places more likely for Al Qaeda operatives to have been hiding out than in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, by all means, lets remember who attacked us. AL QAEDA, NOT THE IRAQIS.
True, AL Qaeda did attack us. It was stupid to ever have brought 9/11 into the arguments for war with Iraq. Originally it was, at least purported to be, to say that we don't want another 9/11. It got twisted so fast though (by both sides) to be about 9/11 that most people just got confused. Those supporting the war used it as a vent for their anger and those against realized it was stupid to go to war with Iraq because someone in Afghanistan attacked us.
ReplyDeleteThe true reason, at least why I thought we should have gone to war and what should have been talked about as the reason, was the UN reports. Simply, Han Blix (chief weapons inspector) said Iraq had a tremendoous amount of weapons when the cease fire was signed by Saddam and has yet to show the UN the destruction them. If I can find the report I will try to post the website, but it is online and I read it. Many times he said Sadddam still had not shown proof of the destruction of those chemical agents (the burden of which was on him) and consistently made the work of the UN inspectors very difficult. It appears to be simple enough that if you sign a cease-fire with certain conditions, conditions which were put there because you are untrustworthy and dangerous, and you don't fulfill them then the cease-fire is off. This really isn't a new war, but the continuation of a very old one after an 11? year hiatus. Of course, we didn't find anything, but the facts at the time (given by the UN) supported it.
Ed