The Dartmouth Beacon

In response to the outcry over the mailing, the state party chairman said, “I can understand why they think it is despicable, but sorry, we really do need to get potential voters’ attention.” Perhaps they were simply desperate and resorting to desperate measures: scaring first-time voters and preying on the fact that they were ill informed and new to the political process.

The aforementioned incident is one of the more egregious examples of scare tactics used to sway voters. After the mailings, leading Democrats, including former governor Howard Dean, decided to keep pushing the issue of the draft to build up their diminished political base. Their targets: 18-25 year olds whom they tried to scare into voting against President Bush. Dean even promoted his own draft idea at Dartmouth late this past summer. His plan would require mandatory civilian or military service for all youths.

Scare tactics are nothing new; their manifestation could be seen in “Bush ’04 / Draft ’05” bumper stickers plastered throughout Dartmouth’s otherwise lovely campus. The stickers perpetuated the blatant misconception that Republicans favor a draft and that President Bush will introduce it in 2005. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, a Republican congressman had introduced a bill in the House in 2002 stating that “reinstating the military draft . . . would be detrimental to the long-term military interests of the United States.” On the other side of the aisle, Democrats Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) co-sponsored the Universal National Service Act of 2003, which would reinstate the draft. Curiously, Rangel himself voted against it.

Rangel claimed his purpose for introducing the bill was to ensure a “more equitable representation of people making sacrifices.” A noble cause, undoubtedly, but Rangel based his reasoning on old numbers. During the Vietnam era, blacks and Hispanics who served in the military were disproportionately represented relative to the general populace. In 2002, however, 14% of enlisted troops were black compared to the 14% blacks in the overall population. Hispanics are actually underrepresented with 11% of total enlistees but 16% of total population. Furthermore, aptitude test scores of the military are actually higher than those of civilians—contra the popular notion that the military is a harbor for the intellectual dregs of society.

Rangel’s quest for more “equitable representation” in the military has already been fulfilled. Introducing a draft would only dilute our diversified, specialized, and professional military of volunteers.

It is interesting to take note of the change of liberal mindset. Usually liberals argue that minorities are underrepresented in most civil professions. Quite oddly, when it comes to the military, the left is upset because it feels that there are too many minorities in the service: any society’s elite profession of prestige, honor, and patriotism.

Defense funding is another point of contention for Rangel and other far-left draft proponents. They have tried to cut defense spending, and Rangel’s voting record is consistently anti-military—he has voted against defense appropriations bills and even refused to commend American troops on their valiant service in Iraq. Yet Democrats like Rangel continue in vain to use the draft to scare Americans.

Even if leading Democrats did have valid reason to fear a draft reinstatement, the reinstatement is entirely unlikely. Congress must approve any such legislation, yet both chambers vehemently oppose it. After rumors of a draft started to spread across the country, in October the House of Representatives voted 402 to 2 against reinstating the draft. Two Democrats voted in favor. Moreover, President Bush has pledged to veto the bill if passed.

Had Kerry been elected President, we might find ourselves nearer a draft, ironically. In the presidential debates he iterated his desire to send 40,000 more soldiers to Iraq, and leaving the entire US force there until 2009. Kerry even went on record: “Bush might pull U.S. troops out of Iraq sooner than a Democratic administration would.” A draft under Kerry would have been just as, if not more, likely than a draft under Bush.

CBS also played a role in the controversy by using false documents and testimonials to frighten the public. Well-respected reporter Richard Schlesinger cited false e-mails claiming that the Bush administration is "quietly trying" to pass legislation to reactivate the draft and that $28 million has been added to the Selective Service budget this year to prepare for a military draft that could start "as early as June 15, 2005." FactCheck.org later debunked the emails’ authenticity.

Finally, MTV (a bastion of all trends liberal and hip and cool) funded RockTheVote.com, a group that gives the impression that Republicans support the draft by extensively quoting the anomalous Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. The website claims, “The push to reinstate the draft is not a one party issue…it has support from both Republicans and Democrats alike,” but it fails to quote any administration official, or anyone else besides Hagel, supporting the draft. As it was youth who viewed the website, clear, fair, and complete information would have been proper.

We will not have a draft. The Republican Party is against it, most Democrats oppose it, the President will veto it, the Congress has already shown its dislike for it, and all branches of the armed forces find even the idea of a draft ridiculous. Now, if we could only convince the Democratic Party.