Fighting Fire with Fire
In First Responders for Kerry? Don’t Bet On It, Jack Dunphy claims that most emergency response personnel are “inherently conservative”, and that firefighters who support Kerry don’t actually do their duty as firefighters. Now, I can’t address the issue of the political affiliations of most firefighters — as far as I know, that information hasn’t been collated anywhere public. But I can address Dunphy’s absurd rhetoric within his piece.
Generally speaking, the likelihood that a firefighter will vote for John Kerry is inversely proportional to the number of fires he has actually fought. Witness all those T-shirted “Fire Fighters for Kerry” you saw at the convention. A little soft around the middle some of them were, weren’t they? Do you think some of them could haul a hose pack up 50 flights of stairs? I’m not betting on it. I’m guessing the only fires many of them have seen lately were at IAFF barbecues.
Hear that, firefighters? If you vote for Kerry, you’re probably inexperienced, overweight, and lazy. Dunphy goes on to make the absolutely ridiculous claim that — get this — most 9-1-1 calls are due to liberals causing trouble. Sure, he doesn’t come right out and say this, but… well, read it for yourself:
First, cops and firefighters are inherently conservative in that they understand the importance of following society’s rules. [...] Nearly every call to 9-1-1 is the result of someone concluding that these rules, be they the criminal laws or the fire codes, can be ignored.
Did you follow that logic? Conservatives follow the rules. 9-1-1 calls result when people don’t follow rules. Therefore, 9-1-1 calls occur because of liberals. Gimme a break. Everyone, liberal and conservative, breaks the rules sometimes and needs help.
The rest of his argument hinges on firefighters and other emergency response personnel being what he calls “Regular Guys” (i.e. beer-drinking, baseball-loving, left-hating average people — oh, and Secret Service agents) and wanting to vote for another Regular Guy.
Here’s a tip: when you’re looking for someone to lead the most powerful country in the world for the next four years, you don’t want an average joe. You want someone exceptional, someone amazing, someone far above average. A Regular Guy might be more fun to have a beer with, but an exceptional leader will make the country safe and strong. A Regular Guy might be better at barbecuing ribs, but an amazing president will rebuild our status as the most respected country in the world.
The conservatives can keep their Regular Guy. I’d rather have an Incredible Guy in office, any day.
4 Comments
Comments are closed.
My question to you, though, and please answer it honestly: Is John Kerry an incredible guy?
As for the rest of it, while I do read National Review and think there’s occasionally a great deal of insight to be found there, columns like this are the kind of thing I simply can’t stand. It’s not my idea of humor, and it’s not my idea of trenchant political analysis. But, to be fair, I think you’re being harsh in claiming that he’s even suggesting liberals are the only ones who cause problems that have to be sorted out by firefighters. He’s merely looking at the conservative nature of the firefighter’s job, what he contributes to an orderly society, and is saying that people who intentionally cause trouble go against the natural state of that orderly society. Accidents can–and do–happen to everyone.
So, while I agree that some of his comments are stupid, I’m not sure that’s one charge you can necessarily label against him. I’ll agree with “poor writer” and “poor political philosopher,” however.
Matthew,
Sadly, no, I don’t consider John Kerry an incredible guy. I do consider him more competent and capable than Bush, however, so I’d rather have him in the White House. Maybe in 2008 we’ll get a candidate who’s an incredible guy, but until then, we’ll have to play the hands we’re dealt.
To address your other point: I probably should have included the line immediately following that 9-1-1 quote. It certainly supports my reading of that paragraph. Here it is:
Once again, he’s implying (if not stating outright) that the behaviour of Democrats is what causes emergencies. I don’t think he truly believes this, as it’s obviously incorrect. But it’s what comes across in his writing when I read it, and it’s certainly a way to rally to his reader base: what conservative Republican doesn’t like to believe that Democratic behaviour will lead to a disorderly and dangerous society?
Ryan, the article you cited is a classic example of “those of my type who agree with me are purer than those of my type who disagree with me.” It’s an argument you make when you don’t have anything else.
I’m not going to vote for Kerry but your comment about ordinary guys is right on. I would prefer the president to be smarter than me. It’s a hard job.