Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,489,757 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Don't speak its name.


HALF A YEAR ago we expected President Clinton to have his way and remove completely the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Fortunately, we proved wrong. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy that he appears likely to accept is a reasonable one, and indeed very largely reflects current pratice in the armed forces. If legally crafted to withstand challenge in the courts, perhaps reinforced by legislative clarification from Senator Nunn, this policy could settle the dispute to the satisfaction of reasonable people.

This episode has, however, implications which bear reflection. It reveals, first and foremost, the alarming inability of this President to function as Commander-in-Chief. Bill Clinton did not have the force of character, the moral authority, or the political skill to overcome the opposition of Senator Nunn and the generals. Indeed, although it is a good thing that the Joint Chiefs of Staff won, there is something troubling about the spectacle of their Commander-in-Chief meekly accepting their terms for his surrender, as negotiated by their immediate superior, the Secretary of Defense.

On a happier note, the military virtues of descipline and comradeship received a boost, as did public awareness of the distinctiveness of military life. Still more important, the debate marked a key victory in the countryhs culture battles. Conventional sexual behavior and morality was shown to have stronger social roots than the media normally allow.

Had Mr. Clinton delivered on his pledge to the gay lobby, he would have opened the way to the next controversy: redefining the family to mean just about anything. Without in any way justifying hospitality toward homosexuals, we can feel reassured that broad public support for the nuclear family--Mom, Dad, and kids--has been demonstrated, and a social preference for heterosexuality reaffirmed. Who would have thought, a generation ago, that one would be grateful for such a small mercy? Still, let us appreciate such successes as conservatives can gain at end of the sexual revolution--they have been few enough.

COPYRIGHT 1993 National Review, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:concern over Bill Clinton's inability to defend his support for gays in the military
Publication:National Review
Article Type:Editorial
Date:Aug 9, 1993
Words:326
Previous Article:Friends of Lani. (Lani Guinier) (controversy over Bill Clinton's appointees) (Editorial)
Next Article:On the road. (mixed reviews of Bill Clinton's trips to Japan and South Korea) (Editorial)
Topics:



Related Articles
Bishops & generals: institutional identities. (Column)
Military disorder. (lifting the gay ban) (Editorial)
Military disservice. (President Bill Clinton's policy on homosexuals in the military)
Profile in cowardice. (Bill Clinton on gays in the military) (Editorial)
Lesbian baiting in the barracks. (activists allege the military uses probe into sexual orientation as weapon against women who charge sexual...
Sex, lies, and ... us. (criticism of gay and lesbian support for Bill Clinton)
More military maneuvers.(gays in the military)
Learning by example.(Brief Article)
Bill Clinton's broken promise: August 24, 1993. (From the Advocate Archives).(former president's policy on gays in the military)(Brief Article)
Against "don't ask, don't tell".(TIME LINE)(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles