Glenn Greenwald: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"
Glenn Greenwald


The overarching rule in our political discourse is that Democratic presidential candidates are not man enough to be President. Today, the single most masculinity-obsessed and gender-insecure commentator in America, Glenn Reynolds (followed closely by his wife), quotes an article from the supremely tough warrior John Podhoretz's magazine, Commentary, as follows:

So we may have reached the perfect gender dilemma: is Obama "man enough" to be President?

A couple of weeks ago, Reynolds pondered: "OBAMA: Feminized?," and then linked to an article on Pajamas Media by his wife claiming that Obama is a symbol of "The New Feminized Majority." A few days earlier, Reynolds fretted that the Democrats' "plan" is to "Change America with Women's Values." Sounds really emasculating and scary.

The Commentary post promoted by Reynolds today makes clear how manliness is measured:

Now it is Obama's turn to prove he can stand up to Clinton and McCain, to say nothing of real bad guys like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In this regard, his excessive deference to personal engagement . . . as a tool of foreign policy and his cool, aloof demeanor work against him. Can he take a punch or throw one?

It is always boiled down to this. The American President is, first and foremost, the "Commander-in-Chief" (a position that the Constitution provides only exists when Congress funds an army, which, now, happens to be always, since we're permanently at War). Only real men, tough guys, can be that. Being a real man -- demonstrating toughness -- requires only one thing: a willingness, actually an eagerness, to start wars and send other people off to fight in them.

The more eager one is to do that, the more of a man one is, the more fit one is to be Commander-in-Chief. The less eager one is to do that, the more one's masculinity is in doubt. Leaders on the Right are real men because they're not squeamish about sending others off to war.

George W. Bush proved what a swaggering, courageous man he was when he sent people off to fight in Iraq and then pranced around in a costume on that ship. His father, as President, was dogged by a reputation for "wimpiness" (despite actual combat service), which he was able to dispel only through the supremely manly act of sending soldiers to invade the powerful country of Panama. From a 1989 front-page article in The New York Times written by R.W. Apple, on the very day when the first President Bush ordered the ludicrous (though deadly) Panamanian invasion ("Operation Just Cause"):

For George Bush, the United States invasion of Panama early this morning constituted a Presidential initiation rite as well as an attempt to achieve specific goals. . . . For better or for worse, most American leaders since World War II have felt a need to demonstrate their willingness to shed blood to protect or advance what they construe as the national interest. . . . - all of them acted in the belief that the American political culture required them to show the world promptly that they carried big sticks.

Barack Obama doesn't appear to be all that eager to start a lot of wars and send people off to die. Therefore, unlike George Bush and Dick Cheney -- whose hard-core manliness has never been in doubt despite lives completely devoid of any acts reflecting traditional masculine virtues -- it seems that Obama (just like Kerry and Gore before him) probably isn't man enough. He's basically just a girl -- weak and scared and afraid of fighting -- and therefore not really fit to be Commander-in-Chief. So sayeth the people, like Glenn Reynolds and his war-cheerleading comrades, followed by like-minded media allies, who -- quite revealingly -- are the absolute last ones fit to arbitrate such matters.

--

[Selatius]

1. If you start wars, the military-industrial complex makes more money.

They probably want McCain to win. He'll break the bank before he realizes Iraq isn't Viêt Nam or the "gooks" he hated so much in that war.

[phantom power]

2. Of course they're going to feminize him. That's what they do.

(unless you are already female, in which case they talk about how uppity and butch you are)

[msongs]

3. obama votes to support and fund the iraqi occupation - does that make him a real man? nt

[babylonsister]

4. Get with the program; that truck had already been driven into the

ditch by * and those that voted for the war. It would be astonishing to me if you ever posted something positive about your candidate instead of smearing Obama. I have to assume you aren't capable of that.

[stillcool]

5. Kind of off topic..

but whenever I think of war, and masculinity this comes to mind..

http://www.wfa-usa.org/new/shellshock.htm
Reevaluating Society's Perception of Shell Shock:
A Comparative Study Between Great Britain and the United States
By Annessa Cathleen Stagner
West Texas State University

The combination of traditional fighting techniques and new technology in World War I forced both soldiers and officers to face devastating situations that tested not only their courage, but also their mental strength as well. While society had taught men to be tough and brave at all times, many broke upon enduring the horrifying environment of the trenches. It is obvious that men's ability to hold on to such an extreme ideal of manhood was unrealistic; however, many men tried. Jessica Meyers quoted Private Miles, who explained his emotional conflict saying, "I was frightened out of my life at nighttime. I was jellified, but I was more afraid of people knowing that I was afraid-- just a sort of bravado-- I mustn't show them I was afraid." <1> Like private Miles, many men tried to suppress their emotions, stay in control, and live up society's standard of masculinity. The devastating impact of war on soldiers, however, quickly forced society to confront the inability of soldiers to maintain society's idealistic courage. Some returning soldiers suffered through nightmares, while others suffered physically, exhibiting nervous twitches, blindness, or limb dysfunction. <2> In 1915, physician C. S. Myers unknowingly acknowledged the result of soldier's mental conflict between idealistic courage and survival leading to a form of nervous disorder, which he termed shell shock. <3>

The large number of soldiers affected by shell shock continues to engage World War I historians even today. "The heightened code of masculinity that dominated in wartime was intolerable to surprisingly large numbers of men." <4> Nearly 80,000 men in Britain were diagnosed with shell shock during the War, and the number of cases continued to rise after the War ended. Some estimates, including undiagnosed soldiers, claim 800,000 British cases and 15,000 American cases. <5> Shell shock was not just a disease of the common soldier either. Myra Schock acknowledged "historians have generally taken it for granted that officers experienced shell shock in far greater numbers than soldiers of other ranks." <6> Inevitably numerous soldiers from all ranks were diagnosed with shell shock, thus having a tremendous impact on all of society.

Shell-shocked soldiers made an impression on society not only because of their sheer numbers, but also because they called into question masculine ideals of the era. Governments suddenly found themselves confronted with sizable numbers of men who claimed to be unable to fight, but showed no visible signs of wounds. After the war ended, society had to face those same men who remained in a strange mental state. To adequately interpret and judge both societies' reactions to shell shock, it is important to examine how the governments dealt with it, and how opinion makers, through writers and especially the media, reacted to their actions. By examining the Times as well as the New York Times one is able to gain an understanding of what the views influencing the public were, not only during the war, as some historians describe, but also after. It is only then British and American societies' reactions to shell shock compared to those of their governments can be exposed.

During World War I, the British government's primary focus was to keep as many men available for service and in the field as possible. Shell-shocked soldiers directly hindered the army's ability to successfully wage war because their inability to fight decreased the army's number of active troops. Myra Schock pointed out the conflict doctors experienced when trying to balance their governmental obligations with their own sympathy for the mentally strained soldiers. The doctors knew firsthand what shell shock felt like and realized it as a genuine sickness among the troops. However, the British government viewed shell shock as a form of malingering, deserving court martial, and many soldiers "were shot for cowardice, even when doctors argued that the accused was suffering from a medical condition caused by trauma and/ or shell shock." <7> Schock stated British "doctors attempted to draw firm distinctions between their service as doctors and their role as members of the armed services at war." <8> The British government clearly put pressure on doctors and officials to treat shell shock harshly, not as a disease, but as a form of malingering.

Other historians have argued the government became more sympathetic when it became evident that those affected were experienced soldiers and officers. Joanna Bourke stated, "society as a whole acknowledged that of those affected, some had war medals for valiant behavior under fire." <9> They were not cowards, but some of the best fighting men Britain had. Instead of acknowledging the disease's legitimacy among the troops, however, the government still discredited many of its victims. Attempts were made to "protect" officers of high status by classifying them as victims of "anxiety neurosis" or "neurasthenia," while common soldiers were classified as victims of "hysteria neurosis," a purely feminine disease. <10> The differing titles reflected the British government's willingness to make a clear distinction between the legitimate illness of its officers and the unfounded appeals of its psychologically weak common soldiers.

While the government did not intend to allow shell shock to hold any legitimacy among its troops, experienced soldiers' and officers' traumatic experiences convinced to advocate for proper treatment of the shell-shocked soldiers. Virtually ignoring the existence of shell shock within common soldiers initially, Peter Leese suggested the government proceeded to improve treatment only as a result of strong public opinion.
-----------------------------------------
The governments' views of shell shock due to their actions in denying it legitimacy or helping to prevent and treat it can be fairly simply defined. The general public's perception of shell shock, however, is somewhat more difficult. Both governments strove to deal with shell shock in light of their own war efforts. The British denied its legitimacy in order to discourage what they considered malingering, while the United States hoped to keep up home-front morale through preventative screening.

Most likely, the general public knew little about how shell-shocked soldiers hindered military efforts. However, they quickly became aware of the disease's social implications. The soldier had not only failed at being a courageous hero, but had fallen subject to hysteria, a purely feminine disease. Some doctors even called it hysteria, which emphasized the soldiers' inability to maintain their masculinity. Female Malady stated, "signs of physical fear were judged as weakness and alternatives to combat- pacifism, conscientious objection, desertion, even suicide-were viewed as unmanly." <16> Upon realization that soldiers' self-control over their emotions was unachievable, shell shock destroyed society's ideal masculinity.

[Porfirio]

6. Obama had the best judgement

Opposing the war since the beginning.