"Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
Like Dwight D. Eisenhower, John McCain has seen more than enough of war to have risen above the testosterone-stoked macho that some young men rush to prove in war - any war.
My father, who served in Europe in World War II in the 277th Battalion Army Combat Engineers, told me that it's those who haven't proven themselves who keep on touting militarism. "The biggest blowhards at the American Legion are the ones who spent as much of the war as they could at the PX," he said.
There was so much of this in the Republican Party last night that, at one point in his speech, McCain looked annoyed.
McCain knows the difference between flaunting heroism as some legionnaires do and making a political decision to showcase it. He and he Republicans overplayed the hero card because they have so little else to run on.
Several times during his acceptance speech, the party's militaristic id - or is it a guilty conscience? -- threatened to erupt. Whenever McCain touched even lightly on a military or patriotic theme, we heard from a somewhat unnervingly large contingent of young men whose repertoire of political expression consisted solely of shouting "Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
They tried to dominate the rest of the crowd's reactions even when McCain was sounding poignant or somber, not pugnacious. No matter how subtle, subdued or highly dignified his appeals to patriotism, the rising and sometimes overwhelming response was "Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
In a voiceover, Fred Thompson said, "When you've lived in a box, your life is about keeping others from having to live in that box."
"Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
Someone mentioned how, a year ago, McCain's campaign was so strapped he'd had to let go of most of his staff, but that he'd come back in New Hampshire thanks to his grit and conviction that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
"Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
Sentimentally but not very convincingly, McCain named three different, hard-pressed American families whose problems he'd taken to heart, without making make clear what policies he'd support to help them. He did vow, to a family whose son had fallen in battle and whose bracelet McCain now wears, that he would "make sure their country remains safe." As the parents grew moist, the crowd cried, "Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
To introduce his theme of energy independence, McCain said, "We're gonna stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much."
"Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
McCain said that he respects and admires Senator Obama and affirmed, "Despite our differences, we are all Americans. That's an association that means more to me than any other."
"Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"
I think I recognize some of the guys I saw doing this. Their buffoonish, boorish chanting is only one side of them, not necessarily the dominant one. They haven't all curdled into fascists, as some liberals might believe. There's a decency and clueless love in them that's trying to find a political home, and there's yearning for something that's slipping away.
The problem, of course, is that the Republican Party, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are racheting up these hurts and pointing them toward war and nasty hatreds of dubious domestic villains. Yes, this is dangerous, and McCain isn't on top of it.
A couple of times during his speech, lone demonstrators who'd sneaked into the audience rose, shouted out, waved some signs, and were hustled to the exits.
In that vast hall, with the media focusing on the podium, the disruptions were easily minimized - until the guys decided to counter them by chanting, "Yoo Es Ay! You Es Ay! You Es Ay!" They did disrupt McCain's speech, far more than the demonstrators had. It was then that he looked annoyed, and rightly so.
He deflected the second uproar deftly enough, with a couple of words I haven't had time to check. But was there any good leadership on the floor? That brings us back to the Republicans' problem.
Compare McCain, who refused early release from captivity in Vietnam, to George W. Bush, who dodged the same war by getting into the National Guard on a phone call from his Dad and sneaked out of the Guard early. (Perhaps my father's wisdom about blowhards who never served casts some light on Bush's swaggering, "Mission Accomplished" flight-deck landing some 35 years after he'd left the Guard.)
It's almost as loathsome as the Swift-Boating of John Kerry, and it highlights the larger problem: Proportionately, the Republican Party has the most members of Congress and other high officeholders who've never served in the military. And its loudest war-mongers, like Rudy Giuliani and, now, Joe Lieberman, haven't served, either, although both were of draft age during Vietnam War. Neo-con war-hawks, who have battened onto McCain's campaign, have never served, unless you count their militaristic strategizing and strutting.
Ronald Reagan never served, beyond making war movies Stateside. (George H.W. Bush did serve heroically in combat, which may have something to do with his youngest son's desperate posturing.)
But the Republicans' "Yoo Es Ay!" problem is about more than young men's hormones and older men's uneasy consciences. It's even about more than just men, now that Cindy McCain has touted Sarah Palin at the convention as "a pistol-packing hockey mom." (The Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, and the National Rifle Association have all encouraged women to pack heat.)
The Republicans' real problem is that they have too few other ideas that most Americans still believe in or even want to hear. Desperate for heroes, they don't even acknowledge that John McCain's war killed 58,000 Americans and countless others, in vain: After Vietnam defeated us, it entered the neoliberal global capitalist orbit, anyway, as it would have done had we never fired a shot. There's a war memorial in Washington, but my memorial is a T-shirt on my back whose label says, "Made in Vietnam."
To his credit, McCain worked to normalize relations with Vietnam. But Republicans are so much in denial about the Vietnam war - and so eager to milk McCain's sacrifice in it - that they don't even mention that the war was conceived and conducted mainly by liberal Democrats..
McCain knows, of course, and he and John Kerry once bonded over it years ago in the Senate, despite their diametrically opposite conclusions about what the war had been for. At one point in his acceptance speech, McCain mentioned the vanity of young men like him who'd rushed into war to be "my own man," and he recounted that his torturers had cured him of it: "They broke me," he said quietly, to silence in the hall..
"I wasn't my own man anymore," he added. "I was my country's man." He claimed that his love of America had saved him, and that now "I will fight for her so long as I draw breath."
It was a difficult, fraught confession, somewhat dissonant and troubling.. McCain said not a word - as the young John Kerry had, years before -- against the senators and presidents who'd sent them to kill and be killed in a misguided, fraudulent, massively destructive, and futile venture. Its hardest lesson is that the American blood it shed does not retroactively justify, much less sacralize, America's betrayal by its leaders. One of them, Robert McNamara, understood this and, to his everlasting credit, confessed it.
McCain seems to have drawn a different lesson. "I hate war," he claimed in his speech, insisting that good judgment and principles are as important as the will to fight. I can believe him and acknowledge that Iraq is not Vietnam. But the Republican convention was desperately, indiscriminately seeking political clarity in fogs of war and bellicosity in all directions, and McCain played to it.
He reaped what he sowed: His account of his brutal transformation in captivity from self-regarding flyboy to selfless patriot deserved strong, voiceless applause from a mature, deeply moved audience.
Instead it got, "Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay! Yoo Es Ay!"


I'm not sure Dwight D. Eisenhower is the best example of someone who has "seen more than enough of war to" -- well, to what?
He never saw combat, did he? I suppose he may have read the occasional after-action report, but then, we all can do that.
September 5, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We all can't develop plans that win a World War against the likes of Nazis and Imperial Japan.
I never knew he didn't see combat, but he lived most of his life in the military, so Ike is more every bit the embodiment of that sacrificial spirit of that commitment as someone who got shot at in theater.
Ike was the last great republican president who truly gave a shit about this country. He tried to warn us about what was coming - what he had helped to create - and we wouldn't listen.
Don't belittle Ike for having served honorably. It's not right and it's not warranted.
September 5, 2008 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What sacrifice?
Eisenhower got a free education, a safe and cushy career, the opportunity to do major suck-up to the narcissistic likes of Gen. MacArthur, et als. (Ike was real good at that), an overseas mistress*, and the Presidency of the United States of America, the latter by barely lifting his little finger. And lots of golf at others' expense.
* Didn't some female Air Force officer get cashiered a few years ago for adultery (conduct unbecoming an officer v. "served honorably")?
September 5, 2008 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to win friends and influence people. If you just want to convince the rest of the liberal fringe about how shitty a guy Ike was, that is fine, great job. If the idea is to actually convince the other side of something, your strategy is a loser.
You don't sound like someone who has ever been in the military, otherwise you would know no matter how "cush" the career path, there is plenty of sacrifice to be found outside of foxholes. Sacrifice by the family as well as the soldier.
You display a startling lack of context about the military, non sequiter reference to a "cashiered" lieutenant not withstanding. I know plenty of guys kicked out for adultery as well. Isn't the democratic icon Bill Clinton a serial adulterer? I think I remember reading about that someplace. Wait, JFK, too.
How is any of your misinformed opinions about Ike and the military and adultery even relevant to the discussion at hand?
September 5, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, JasonEverettMiller; you got me wrong.
Eisenhower was one damn fine office politician. Hell; anyone who could stroke MacArthur's gigantic ego for that many years and still look himself in the mirror deserves a medal.
September 5, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
I wonder what % of married men, Republican or Democrat, are "serial adulterers". How many outside of your marriage screws makes you a serial adulterer?
Speaking as a liberal, I doubt the "liberal fringe", whatever that is, thinks Ike was a shitty guy.
September 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally think any man who can't stay true to his vows should get a divorce. Once is too many times. I believe most married men feel the same way if they are in a good marriage.
I wasn't implying the "liberal fringe" believe anything, just that Ellen seemed to be preaching to the choir when there are visitors in the belfry.
I think a more common sense approach with certain constituencies might be required to achieve our common goals - a governing majority for Barack that includes republicans, democrats and independents.
Denigrating one of the best republican presidents of the 20th century is probably not the best way to make a point to disaffected republicans.
September 5, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason said:
I have no idea what the above means, but I agree about Ike being a good President, and he's the last Republican I voted for for President..
oh crap, I voted for Reagan the first time. I must have been delerious.
September 5, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That I am a progressive republican and many progressive (or confused or pissed) republicans come to this site, yet many of your more vocal members on the left seem to be preaching to the choir, which hardly need to be converted to whatever message she is pushing.
The "visitors in the belfry" means those among you that may not belong to the "converted" to purely liberal ideology.
There are many around these parts that seem to bash the GOP out of reflect rather than reflection. Not all republicans are created equal, both presidents and moderate right of center voters.
September 5, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
I think you mistook Ellen as a liberal because she bashed Ike.
As for preaching to the choir, what do you expect in a lib area, you're going to some of that. And maybe its more commiserating than preaching.
People may reflexively bash GOPers because of the brand of GOP in control of the Federal Gov for the 6 years under Bush, not to mention the DeLay years.
For most of the time I've seen myself as liberal I valued level headed Republicans as a stop gap to keep me from going too far left, but that brand of Republican in Government has been rare
for too long.
As long as its civil in here, what more is needed?
September 5, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as people of good will can discuss things openly and honestly, nothing is really needed.
Ellen is clearly "liberal" based on other things I have seen her write. Perhaps that is mistaken, but I don't believe so. As for this being a "liberal" site, I dispute that. I say this site is a progressive site that happens to have some liberals who hang out. I see as many independents as democrats and more than a handful of "recovering republicans" around as well.
As long as my goal is to see a more progressive GOP take shape in the coming years, I will admonish "liberals" (especially those on the Raging Left) to practice what they preach and to find a little more compassion and empathy for their fellow citizens.
Preaching to choir is fine as long as it isn't done in such a way as to blame ever ill in America on "conservatives" rather than taking responsibility for their own part in our little national drama.
September 6, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
from your point of view, define "liberal" then define "progressive" as it relates to Democrats.
I suspect that Democrats that call themselves progressive are really liberals in disguise. They won't use they word Liberal because the Republicans have been so successful over the years making the word a pejorative.
September 6, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
are you getting nasty in your old age?
September 5, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a quote from Eisenhower:
Neat, huh?
September 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
here's another Ike quote:
Outside his office at SHAEF HQ in Frankfurt to Bedell Smith;
"Keep those Paras out of my liquor cabinet."
September 5, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, your brutal.
September 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, you really have it in for ol Ike for some reason. Sure, some of the things you say about him are true, but none are atrocious or disqualifying of his greatness as commanding general. You're not sore he defeated the Nazis, are you? There was no guarantee of winning that war against blatant fascism, and Ike was indispensable in that victory.
However, and here's my slight at Ike, he did have "combat" experience, as a colonel, I think, and along with General Pershing (who did fight in the First World War, as might have Ike in some capacity), viciously attacked the Bonus Army of U.S. World War I veterans who had encamped in D.C. in a courageous attempt to get recognition for their grievances against the U.S. government regarding a substantial bonus for service that they'd been promised but were never paid.
So, Ike, and Pershing, had their own Tienemann Square type blot on their records. I imagine that's one major way Ike got promoted up the ranks - for showing loyalty to command by attacking veterans, former U.S. soldiers, in the streets of the U.S. capital.
This is similar to Colin Powell's promotions up the ranks after actively helping to cover up the My Lai massacre and others during his self-acclaimed heroic Vietnam days as an officer. Ike's still a hero of sorts. Colin Powell? Not so much. Instead he's been shown to be the goat and amoral coward he always was.
September 5, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we presume that the "USA" chants were programmed by the convention managers -- sort of like the way they handed out flip-flops to conventioneers last time around?
Along the lines of that question, IOZ has a witty take on the absurd stupidity on display.
September 5, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a somewhat different assessment of my fellow Vietnam Veteran, John McBush. He does not hate war. On the contrary, he loves it. He only fears that his unfulfilled life will now slip away from him without his ever getting a chance to do Vietnam all over again -- only this time (as Rambo pathetically and desperately needs to say) "we get to win."
In the real Vietnam that John McBush never understood, we who served on the ground (instead of in the air) had a term for endless, ineffective, incremental escalation. We called it "mission creep." Now, John McBush calls this same discredited tactic "the surge," as if yet another Orwellian euphemism will magically make a difference where political/military blundering has failed. As Tallyrand said of the discredited French monarchy and its stupid policies, so I say of John McBush and the Republican Party's cynical imperial/military fetish-floggers: "They learned nothing and they forgot nothing."
Panama-John McBush sees his last grasping opportunity to play commander-in-briefs eluding him. And if he has to beat us all to death with his "noun, plus a verb, plus P.O.W." mantra, then he will. Along with his REMF hero, Deputy Dubya Bush, Panama-John eagerly sailed the Titanic ship of state directly into an iceberg floating clearly up ahead, and now proudly boasts of rearranging a few deck chairs in the orchestra pit as the doomed luxury vessel lists radically to starboard and settles down by the stern towards its watery grave.
For someone who comes from a family of admirals, Panama-John McBush knows precious little about successful sailing. He certainly never seems to have understood First Mate Starbuck's admonition to the crew of Ahab's Pequod: "I will have no man in my boat who is not afraid of a whale." Like the REMF (Rear Eschelon Mother Fucker) Deputy Dubya, Panama-John fears neither whales nor wars -- which explains why our country cannot possibly afford for this fearless harpooner to get anywhere near the tiller of our national boat.
September 5, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Murry says;
Michael, I agree. I think he may feel all that he suffered went for naught as the war was lost. I think he wants to win a war as a way to ameliorate what he feels about Vietnam.
For someone who claims to hate war, his rhetoric doesn't sound it.
He scares me.
September 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think McCain is deeply troubled and feels totally humiliated (with not insignificant reason) by his POW experience and is less in love with War than he is in the project of proving himself the combat hero he never got to be. Just my take.
But whether he is in love with war or he isn't, the effect is the same, he is a war monger, and he plays to a war loving crowd.
I was glad to see this post on that offensive USA chant. I was troubled by the faces I saw on camera that went with that chant and I wondered what it was that seemed so different from the Democratic convention the week before.
And the difference was, in a word, anger. Where last week I saw people transported with a kind of relief, tempered with joy, I saw twisted faces last night, looking out at the camera with fuck you written all over them. They reminded me of the angry mobs of Muslims you see yelling at American cameramen.
Even ewhen these Republicans started dancing (and what a sight that was. all those white people dancing), so many of them (particularly women) turned to look at the camera with their fuck you faces.
Fuck you. we're not just going to win, we're going to BEAT you.
Yoo Es Ay. Is that what being proud of this country means? Belligerance? Wake me when it's over -- if it's ever over.
September 5, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
anna am
I saw them too and wondered why so many were there and not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
September 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yoo. Es. Ay.
I didn't like it at the '84 Olympics, either.
September 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it originated in the 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid, when the USA hockey team won the gold medal.
-- ARG
September 6, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Michael Murry. Thank you. Very well said.
I often skip the comments entirely, or just skim through. Glad I found this one, though.
-- ARG
September 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, Micheal Murray - that was eloquent as hell.
September 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, Micheal Murray - that was eloquent as hell.
September 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice observations. I half-way expected the crowd to break out any moment with a rousing chant of “WE’RE #1, WE’RE #1!!!” As an American living abroad, watching this on international news for all the world to see, I'm glad they didn't.
September 5, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mammamia,
that's what they did when Reagan conquored Grenada. WE'RE #1
ACH!
September 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was surprised just how strongly the Republicans tried to play up the war-on-terrorism theme. In fact, other than the usual references to cutting taxes, I heard no other significant theme during the convention. I guess the Republicans have come to realize that the only way they can win is if Americans fear hordes of Islamic terrorists invading their backyards. In 2004 this strategy barely worked. Four years later, with an economy in disarray, it seems almost laughable.
Maybe I'm not as much of an elitist as the Republican strategists, but I simply don't believe the American people are so dumb as to be fooled by such silly fear mongering.
September 5, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key to victory is not to make fun of Americans who scream "USA". Not every American has the sage perspective of Mr. Sleeper's Dad. The key is to keep bringing this election back--one voter at a time--to the economic issues that should, but which may not, be determinative of this election. I know folks like Ellen tend to look down at the "I feel your pain" approach to political discourse, but that is how you win the election (by convincing Joe Foonyotz down the street, as opposed to Professor Know-it-all up on Academic Hill--that you're the guy/lady. Leading with challenges to contrived patriotism is like taking the shovel that will used to dig one's own gravel, and using it.
By the way, on Ike, wasn't he on the field of battle during the First World War?
September 5, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try this again.
Last sentence, first paragraph:
"Leading with challenges to contrived patriotism is like taking the shovel that will used to dig one's own grave, and using it".
September 5, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I give up on editing. You may not agree with me folks but hopefully you catch my gist!
September 5, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, there's my old pal Bruce again.....and again.....and again :-)
Bruce, you're spot on about the economy as the issue, and....the DOW is down another 102 points as of right now. This is scaring me.
September 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
He probably was, Bruce, but Wikipedia didn't mention it, so Ellen couldn't know. As always, you are a voice of reason on the left who doesn't advocate preaching to the choir when there are visitors in the belfry.
September 5, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink