Over at Race42008, some think I’m fuzzy in my thinking regarding political causes and national causes.
I have little doubt that anyone who has ever served on a political campaign, in a professional or volunteer capacity, believes that they’re acting in the best interest of the whole country. I’m sure they’re all absolutely convinced that electing their guy to office is the best way to help the country in all kinds of ways.
The thing is, Hillary Clinton’s folks think electing her is the best way to serve the country. Obviously, many NRO readers would strongly disagree with that assessment. Jason Bonham makes the case that supporting conservative causes is in the best interest of the country – and I agree with him. But I also recognize that a big chunk of the country disagrees, and that that chunk’s ideas of “the national interest” would make me recoil. So I’m a little wary of defining supporting a particular candidate as a form of serving your country for a couple of reaons. Would that make voting for the other guy a form of opposing your country? Is voting for the other candidate a mild form of treason?
I get the feeling Bonham’s argument would be that we can identify this candidate and political cause as “in the best interest of the country” and other ones not meeting that standard. The problem is, experience demonstrates that it’s very easy to conflate our personal interest and the national interest. “What’s good for me is good for America.” Alaskan lawmakers probably genuinely believe that the Bridge to Nowhere is in the national interest. Every lobbyist’s job is to make the case that their particular cause is a national priority and that either changing laws or throwing taxpayer money at it is in the national interest.
I think getting rid of agricultural subsidies is in the national interest. Of course, I don’t get any of them, so it’s an easy call for me to make. Andrew Sullivan keeps demanding huge hikes in gasoline taxes, and rarely reminds readers he’s never driven a car. Easy for him to call for higher taxes he’ll never pay (except in higher cab fares, I guess) and to conclude that other folks paying higher taxes is in the national interest.
I’d rather define “the national interest” a bit more narrowly, by limiting it to circumstances where the benefit (or at least potential benefit) to everyone is clear. Serving the country in uniform, or even working as a fireman, or cop, or first responder, or even most volunteer work, or even donating blood – that I would contend all fits the definition of national service, because you’re giving something of yourself for a cause that benefits everyone. Even though the “not in my name” crowd might insist that they don’t want the U.S. military to do anything, their denial doesn’t refute the fact that we’re all safer, and our lives are better, because of their efforts and their sacrifice. (And their families, for that matter.) Ditto for all the other groups I’ve mentioned, and the ones that I’ll inevitably be reminded of – our intelligence agencies, our diplomats, the CDC, our doctors. Think of where we’d be if the sanitation guys didn’t pick up the garbage twice a week.
It’s not a Romney thing. I’d be irked if any candidate described volunteering for a political campaign as a form of national service, not long after being asked about military service (which is why, even if Romney’s intent wasn’t to compare them, the audience and the AP interpreted it as a comparison).