Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, April 25, 2015 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply

A “hawk” is anyone who is pro-war; a “dove,” anyone who is anti-war. The characterization stops there, as if these perceptual-level symbols were enough to explain any differences in foreign policy.


According to this symbolism, there is no difference between someone who advocates military force to loot and enslave others, someone who advocates military force for humanitarian purposes, someone who advocates military force for the sake of democratic nation building, and someone who advocates military force to defend the citizens of his own country. They can all be classified as “hawks,” because they are all pro-war.


Who, then, is a dove? Is it anyone who opposes war on principle? Or is it anyone who is simply opposed to imperialist wars of aggression, but who would nevertheless go to war in defense of his own country? If you only support wars of self-defense, but are against all other forms of war, are you a hawk or a dove? The hawk-versus-dove symbolism doesn't tell you.


But in common parlance, a hawk is anyone who favors the use of military force, and a dove, anyone who opposes the use of military force. There are also positive and negative connotations associated with this terminology. The term "dove" suggests a peace lover who has everyone's best interests at heart, while the term "hawk" suggests a warmonger who has little regard for human life.


It is time to jettison these biased, anti-intellectual symbols in favor of a serious, conceptually based dialogue. The current one is for the birds.

Post 1

Saturday, April 25, 2015 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply

Well said, Bill.


A new label I heard recently, similar to 'Hawk,' is "National Security Conservative."  


I'm guessing that it is used by those who want to use military intervention for nation building, as well as being the world police, as well as creating democracies, as well as humanitarian uses, as well as for self-defense.... but don't like being called a 'hawk.'  


"National Security" isn't as anti-intellectual as the meaningless bird designators, but it isn't much better.  It is as if the words are conveying something critical to the nation's survival - like the capacity to resist actions that would cause destruction at a national level.  But when you hear people throwing the phrase around you can tell it has no actual definition.

Post to this thread

User ID Password or create a free account.