I was browsing threads in alt.fan.don-imus yesterday, when I happened upon the following entry by Ron Hardin, a prolific and regular poster to the newsgroup. In that post, Mr. Hardin suggests that President Clinton would have met the crew of the EP-3E Aries II SIGINT platform intercepted and forced down by the People's Republic of China when that crew arrived in Hawaii. Mr. Hardin also says President Bush would not have done this, noting that a Presidential reception in Hawaii "makes the service about [the President]".
I suppose I'm curious as to why that would be the case. There might be a solid argument for a Rose Garden reception within a week of their return for maximum ruffles and flourishes. You know, the majesty and dignity of the White House, et cetera. However, from a visual and symbolic standpoint, I also tend to think that it would send a powerful and unadorned (in a good way) message to have the men (and women?) of the aircraft greeted by no less than the President as they return to freedom. Let them disembark from their flight to a red-carpet reception party with the President waiting at the foot of the stairs in front one of those portable podiums with the Secretary of the Navy and an appropriate uniformed officer to shake their hands, exchange salutes, and then have a brief statement or so from the proper parties. That's a run-on sentence, but it conveys how I thought such things should be "ideally" greeted.
I suppose the best analog for this would be the reception given to our POWs as they were liberated from the clutches of the North Vietnamese. President Nixon was not at the arrival ceremonies, and I could see him going for the dignfied majestic concept ("The President must be presidential. See to it, Haldeman" -- RN) very readily.
After some reflection, I suppose it's more a commentary upon the political culture than anything else. For whatever reason, when a political figure is in attendance at a serious event, the motivations are analyzed as less of "the 'decent' motives of the man" and more of the "present for photographic opportunity purposes" stripe. When Mayor Giuliani attended a slew of funerals for the fire, police, and Port Authority personnel killed in the Islamist attacks against New York City, there wasn't any hubbub about him grandstanding that I recall. That may be explained by simply stating "that was different" and forcibly moving on to the next example for consideration.
Admittedly, all this stems from an article penned by Maureen Dowd at the New York Times over a closing of Dover AFB for pictures when caskets of servicemen are returned, so it's probably a waste of electrons. Cori Dauber looked at the issue here, but I'm not sure I agree with Dauber's take on it.
I don't know that Robert E. Lee attended the funerals of soldiers from the Army of Northern Virginia who were KIA against the Army of the Potomac, or indeed if any major leader does things like that. I do, however, disagree that it would somehow be inappropriate. Indeed, if my (speculative) offspring were killed in battle in some faraway land, I would appreciate the presence of the President at the funeral to tell me that my son died fighting for American ideals and so forth. It would be meaningful to me to receive the flag on behalf of a grateful nation from the one individual who can be most said to represent America at any one point.
This is probably all academic anyways, so I'd probably have to defer to the judgments of Richard Nixon or George Patton. Reader input is appreciated on this subject.
Fin.
Posted by Country Pundit at November 4, 2003 11:28 AM