Comments on: More on Moore

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:54:14 +0000

It comes as no suprise to me that the poor fight for the rich – is this not SOP?

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:07:51 +0000

I started out interested, tried to write a comment and found it didn’t meet the high standard set by others here so started again. I will just say that the cartoon-character views of ‘the other’ being trotted out in this Moore thing are a blight on critical thinking. Why can’t someone do a documentary that RAISES the standard instead of dragging it to von Daniken levels of implication and distraction?

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:12:10 +0000

Alex, indeed. No disagreement from me there. Indeed my limited understanding of public school life—gained from university friends who went to them – is that they can be pretty harsh and unforgiving environments. I went to a mixed Scottish comprehensive that drew pretty much equally from working class council estates and well-off ‘bought’ houses. I think the chances of any of the middle-class kids, otherwise bound for University, volunteering for military service was remote to say the least. Although to be fair I only recall a small number of any of my contemporaries (of any background) joining the military so it’d be unfair to be point to some imbalance on the basis of such a small sample. A few local kids where I grew up had scholarships to the private Dollar Academy and they all had to do Cadet force duty – so your point re: the greater exposure to military life at public schools bears true.

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:10:06 +0000

Matt: I doubt that public schoolboys’ experiences necessarily mirror those of the middle-class population as a whole (after all only about 10% of the population is educated privately and more than 50% of folk are middle-class). But, given that public schoolboys are routinely depicted as effete, chinless sons of privilege, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out that a decent proportion of them volunteer to serve in HMQ’s armed forces. Some of Arnold’s ethos of “muscular christianity” still remains in place at these schools. For one thing, “service” in the Combined Cadet Force – or the pipe band – was all but mandatory at my school (one afternoon a week, with the possibility of weekend training for those especially keen, plus compulsory attendance at a one week-long camp on an army or air force base. Conscientious objectors could opt for “community service” – generally helping the elderly and the infirm). I suppose this meant we had a greater exposure to military life than most teenagers and that must have played a part in persuading people to opt for a career in the Army, Navy, Marines etc.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:00:49 +0000

To the other Tom T.: I didn’t mean to sound like I was asserting rights in the name. It’s hardly uncommon, after all, and you have just as much entitlement to it as I. Perhaps it’s time I restyled myself, anyway.

By: David T

David T — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:26:53 +0000

Backword Dave: Yup. Possibly. I’m not sure how congressmen/senators’ households are counted for the purpose of statistics, though. The basic worry I have is this. When Moore’s thesis is challenged on the basis that he has chosen only the evidence which supports his claim while ignoring the counter-evidence – sometimes even by editing the evidence to make his case seem more watertight – he responds by pointing the questioner to the exact wording of his claim. In effect, he responds by stating that he is making a less universal claim than the one which he gives the impression that he is making. This is why it is so dangerous to use Moore as an authority. His proof can not always be relied upon. This is one of the things that so infuriates his critics: its like arguing with jelly. But the anti-war left should be wary of Moore as well, because he is a false friend. Interesting arguments – such as his “climate of fear” thesis which runs through “Columbine” – turn into (necessary) critiques of Moore’s methodology. More to the point, Moore knows that his methology is sloppy. He’s been taken to task for it before. And this time round, he promised that his film would be factually unimpeachable. It simply isn’t. That doesn’t mean that the more general argument isn’t worth having. Its just that its better had without reference to Moore.

By: David T

David T — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:43:36 +0000

Chris: Likewise, the points I’m making here aren’t pro- (or anti-) war arguments either. My focus is a limited one: whether Moore has made one point “quite brilliantly”. All I’m saying is that – whether or not there is a point to be made here – he hasn’t made it. I certainly agree that in the US (in particular) people from poor, often immigrant, backgrounds seek – and often achieve – social and economic advancement through careers in the military. If you take a basic and reductionist “Moore” line, you could certainly read this as the cynical exploitation of the working class by the “military industrial complex” or what have you. I’d be interested to read your expanded response to the Normblog/Eve Garrard points, which no doubt will be broader than the narrow point I’ve been making here.

By: Backword Dave

Backword Dave — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:56:41 +0000

David T—

According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1

As a Brit, I’m largely ignorant of the composition of the US senate, but I assume that, like British MPs, US politicians maintain two households: one in the capital and one in their contituencies. If this applies in the States, wouldn’t this raise the ratio to 535:1? And it seems to me that Senators are more likely to be married with adult children that the average householder. A fair comparison would be between the ratio of Senators with children who could serve and those who actually do so and those ratios in the rest of the population. Here endeth how to lie with basic statistics, pt 1.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:33:29 +0000

But before I do, people might be interested in this interesting article about the social composition of the US military. There’s a lot in there, and a more complex story than I expected. There are interesting (though disputed) comments from Charles C. Moskos, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University. See also this piece, which may identify that source of Moore’s claim that just 1 out of 535 members of Congress have children who enlisted.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:02:27 +0000

David t: I used my super-editing powers to add the final para of my last comment after you had responded to it but before I read your response. Again, I nowhere assert what you say I assert. If you are correct about Moore (and you may be) then I wrongly attribute to Moore a statement which nevertheless remains true, namely that that those who suffer and die come overwhelmingly from families and communities that are, shall we say, somewhat poorer than the politicians who chose to go to war, or the executives of the corporations who hope (hoped?) to profit from Iraqi reconstruction. Moreover, david, it is a point which you acknowledge to be true when you write in the opening para of your initial comment that: I’m sure that the children of the poor join the military in greater numbers than the children of the rich, for the simple reason that its a relatively low paid job, which represents a step up for the very poor and a step down for the very rich. Or at least, you agree with me if you grant me the “overwhelmingly”. But, as I say, I’ll probably post again on this next week.

By: David T

David T — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:43:51 +0000

Well, let me put the argument again: Moore makes one point quite brilliantly: that those who suffer and die come overwhelmingly from families and communities that are, shall we say, somewhat poorer than the politicians who chose to go to war, or the executives of the corporations who hope (hoped?) to profit from Iraqi reconstruction No, Moore makes a very limited point: that (at the time he made the film) Congressmen were less likely than members of the public to have children serving in Iraq. But that is not true. – they are more likely to have children serving in Iraq – politicians who are not congressmen have children serving in Iraq – many have close family members who are serving in Iraq – many have children who are serving in the military, although – through no choice of their own – in Afghanistan etc instead of Iraq. – other congressmen do not have children of service age: congressmen tend to be somewhat older than the general population. Moore’s point is limited, ingeniously phrased, and wrong. I don’t think Moore has any statistics on the children of “executives”. Perhaps you do.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:36:18 +0000

David T. Yes, those statistical methods are pretty basic, aren’t they? But no, I won’t be editing my post. First, because there have been 80-odd comments on it in its original form. Second, because, looking at the post and your comment on it, I see that I nowhere assert what you suggest I do assert. I may, though, write a more extended piece next week on what I think is the real issue here. That isn’t Michael Moore, or the charges of Chickenhawkery, but rather the duty of care that any government has towards its soldiers and the intersection between that issue and the realities of inequality and social division. Note that—contra assertions by some on this thread—I don’t think that the issues I raise here constitute some knock-down anti-war argument. I do, though, think that everyone (pro or anti this war ought to think about them). If I do write some more on this, I also want to take up the challenging points made by Eve Garrard over at Normblog.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:13:14 +0000

Alex makes some good points above: “One may think it morally diagreeable that the “elites” have less personal or familial investment in the casualties of war but that is not an argument against sending troops into conflict.” This might be true—it may well be that the right lesson to draw from the moral disagreeability of elite disengagement is not that we ought not to send troops into conflicts. However, it ought to be a good reason for thinking very hard about the rights and wrongs of a particular conflict and for pursuing all possible non-military solutions first. “In any case, at least in the UK, it’s not the case that the middle classes don’t have an investment in the army etc. I think around 10% of the fellows in my year at my small independent boarding school in Scotland went into the military.” This might be true. There probably does still remain, among certain sectors of the British upper middle classes, a tradition of military service. I’d like to see more facts but it’s certainly possible that it’s just factually false that there is this ‘elite disengagement’. My own experience and impression is that it still holds true and that there is an increasing death of noblesse oblige (although the role of NGOs and charities is an interesting possible counter-example to this)—however, it may be that this is a partially false impression. It’d be interesting to consider to what extent the choices of people at a Scottish public (i.e. private) school mirror the wider choices of the middle and upper classes as a whole. Even if it were true that substantial numbers of the middle and upper classes still join the UK military forces I’d still be interesting to see whether the UK was typical in the respect or a wierd and unusual case [due to long-standing traditions of Empire, etc.] If I get a chance I’ll see if there are any figures on the class origins (A, B, C1, C2, etc.) of intake into the British military—it’s possible I’m just factually wrong here [although I doubt it].

By: David T

David T — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:40:02 +0000

I’m sure that the children of the poor join the military in greater numbers than the children of the rich, for the simple reason that its a relatively low paid job, which represents a step up for the very poor and a step down for the very rich. That said, many people do join the US military for other reasons: because they believe in “serving their country”, or because they think a few years in the military will help their political careers. Accordingly – contrary to the impression Moore gives – there are in fact a number of US politicos with children serving in the military. Kopel (http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) sets out the following information: Moore’s statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore’s opening (“only one”) and his conclusion (“not a single member”) are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden’s son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not “count” for Moore’s purposes. How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf. Kopel also applies (admittedly very basic) statistical techniques to show that “a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.”: Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere expect Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age. We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1 You should also be aware of the selective editing of the various interviews with Congressmen, who – for example – tell Moore that they have family members serving in other areas of operation of the military, or who say that they children are considering enlisting, or what have you. Of course – Moore being Moore – these responses are cut from the film, and instead we’re show footage of the Congressmen blinking and looking stunned by Moore’s brilliant and incisive point. But now we have the answer to Moore’s – and your – question, don’t we? The people who call on others to do the dying do, in fact slightly more likely to have children who are at the sharp ends of their decisions to use military power. Will you edit your original post to acknowledge this?

By: peter wilson

peter wilson — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:23:33 +0000

I think the all-volunteer army is the best thing that ever happened for poor folk since the C.C.C……even better than food stamps.