Protesters in Berkeley, California have pushed a motion through local government that declares military recruiters ‘unwelcome’ and ‘unwanted.’ The motion was directed at a local Marine Recruiting office—located just off of the UC Berkeley campus. However, the phrasing of the item says that ‘recruiters,’ if they choose to stay, do so as ‘intruders.’
You can see the CNN article here: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/index.html
The rhetoric flying between sides is absurd. I’m certainly no supporter of our wars abroad, but really, Berkeley? Really? The United States Military is not entitled to occupy a legally obtained piece of property? The protesters in the CNN article cite the recruiters lying and misinforming young recruits—something I concur with. Military recruitment is a testament to what persistent patriotic persuasion can accomplish. Service is also, in many cases, made out to be something it’s not. Still, this means that the recruiting center is no longer welcome? The town of Berkeley is effectively painting the Marines as an occupying force on American soil.
This is a problem constitutionally for the city and socially for the Berkeley campus. One of the things we, as Americans, are entitled to is the raising of a regulated militia—and since the liberal interpretation of the second amendment heavily emphasizes the words ‘well regulated,’ it’s not a stretch to say that a military is where we get to exercise our second amendment rights. I’m not sure challenging the fedgov’s right to raise a military is the rhetorical fight that protesters want right now.
I’m –all for– the Berkeley Against The War Coalition, which seeks to inform possible recruits about alternatives to military service. My issue is this: if it’s okay to kick military recruiters out of town, why not other groups? If any other group were declared enemies of the city, there would be immediate public outcry. What’s coercive about the mere presence of the recruiter? And how does this ‘unwanted’ ‘unwelcome’ status affect the Berkeley Army ROTC? Here’s a group of students choosing to engage an activity that is recruitment. Are they also unwelcome? If so, what about a group that would perform the same purpose as ROTC without official military backing? It seems foolish to merely target the Marine recruiting center when there is a military presence as part of student life. It seems equally foolish to tell students—residents of Berkeley—that they don’t belong in the town.
Those issues aside, I was under the impression this measure would be a lot of noise for nothing—as the council can’t (or won’t) actually kick the Marines out, this is saber-rattling. However, because there was any response besides pulling the recruitment center out (I’ll get to that later), the protesters default to a win on the public stage. As (I hope) the real goal of this motion was to encourage public debate, I am impressed with how quickly and efficiently the tactic worked. Republicans tripped over themselves to propose the Semper Fi Act—a bill to take away Berkeley earmarks in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. Assuming these are intelligent, reasonable protesters on the city council of Berkeley (I can only assume so), they were successful in drawing public attention to a serious dissatisfaction with the current administration’s foreign policy.
The problem is, while this was a protest victory, it is a message control debacle. Of the six senators to propose the Semper Fi Act, three are up for reelection this year. Cornyn in Texas is hovering around 42% approval, Chambliss in Georgia has a comfortable 53% approval, and Inofe in Oklahoma is at 47% approval, 41% disapproval. None of these races are wide open for Dems to come in and snatch up, but a solid contender in any of those states could give each of the incumbents a run for their money. The Berkeley recruiting protest, however, has given each of these Republican senators a giant patriotic stick to wave around—what’s more ‘murican than supporting our troops to the tune of $2 million, made all the more delicious by stripping it from Godless ivory-tower liberals?
Now, those same Republicans are clearly spitting fire for no reason at what amounts to a non-binding local resolution. I’m not sure I need to express how ludicrous this Semper Fi bill is—their reasoning is that if the troops “aren’t good enough,” then neither is the federal funding. How that follows at all is anyone’s guess, but I’m not in the business of actually deconstructing the thought of steaming cups of crazy. What I do know is that conservatives who were looking for a drum to beat in Oklahoma, Texas, and Georgia now have it, even if anyone who looks at the Berkeley motion see that it’s a formal form of public protest. I’m not sure I like the idea of polarizing along ‘support the troops’ lines following the results of the 2004 election.
Rhetorically, the Marines clearly had the upper hand. CNN provides the following quote from the recruitment center’s spokesperson
“The Marine Corps is here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which does guarantee the freedom of speech,” Franklin said. “In terms of the situation in Berkeley, the City Council and the protesters are exercising their right to do so.”
Good show, Corps. Berkeley is free to protest and holler, and the Marines will promptly do whatever the hell they want anyway. Short of closing down this recruiting center and opening a ring of them around Berkeley’s official borders, that was the best possible reaction the military could have mustered.
Faced with embarrassing public spectacle on both political wings, the Marines manage to keep their public relations shit together well enough to come out of this looking like the most reasonable of the parties involved.
Genghis Philip
Gordon Levine