Well, shootfire: That didn’t work.
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is against requiring women to register for Selective Service in our Brave New Military. Accordingly, he proposed an amendment to the 2017 defense-spending bill that accomplishes the opposite of what he believes.
The idea, Hunter claimed, was that he didn’t want the executive branch to decide this apart from a congressional vote. But the whole maneuver blew up in his face like an IED. In the end, the House Armed Services Committee adopted the amendment, then passed the entire spending bill. It was a contentious vote on the amendment, to be sure, but ultimately five members from the Grand Old Patriarchs “crossed over” to ensure its passage.
Before I continue, let me put this into a broader political context: Even Paul Ryan (as of 3:46 p.m., Tuesday, May 3) thinks this is too much too soon. Paul Ryan, folks.
Hunter’s strategy in debating this topic is typical of social conservatives, demonstrating their inability to understand how to make an effective argument (or, alternatively, when not to make one at all). As per usual, something is naively assumed about the subject of the minor premise. All war is hell; women should be protected from hell; therefore, women should not be sent to war.
I will note in passing that this is not actually an argument against...