I was poking around Bill Whittle’s site Eject! Eject! Eject! and I came across this essay from November 6 that so brilliantly eviscerates the big lie about “Chickenhawks.”

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting.
:
If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself?
:
But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument…then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument…

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

As I said, it is brilliant…but not thorough. There is yet more, still. At least, within the representative samples of the Chickenhawk argument that have come to my attention, there is more. I have noticed that for much of the time, it is based on a premise that those of us who admire the dedication of the troops on the front lines, and see purpose in the mission to which they are assigned but do not share the work of engaging the mission ourselves — are engaging in a weird form of psychological projection. Instead of cleansing ourselves of unwanted impulses or desires by projecting those feelings onto others, we are shedding ourselves of the service we respect by saddling someone else with our dirty work. I would guess we are then indulging in a form of reverse psychological projection, absorbing, sponge-like, the noble attributes we recognize in those who serve. We rob them of their bravery, their selflessness, and their dedication, indulging in a game of make-believe that we are the ones who have these strengths when we’re all just a bunch of neo-con cowards.

The theory, so far as I understand it, creates a necessity for us to do this by revealing us to be the opposite of those who serve. We are selfish, weak, uncoordinated, undisciplined, were picked on in High School, and we like to pretend to be tough guys because in real life we are anything but. According to this perverted logic, simply by showing gratitude that the troops are out there, willing to serve, and recognizing the necessity of the work they do, we expose ourselves as missing all the positive traits we admire.

Again, I’m inspired to contemplate Atticus Finch’s most devastating quote: “Do you really think so?”

I was having a thought about this last week.

There are those among us who recognize the plight of poor people, castigating those who don’t help the poor as much as they could, and elevating others who do more than their share to help. Such critics — some of them, anyway — frequently demand legislation to force people to be charitable. Minimum wage laws, progressive income taxes, social programs.

So my question would be: If the Chickenhawk argument can be used to perceive self-loathing, cowardly feelings on the part of those who admire and respect military service; could it not be applied to perceive self-loathing selfishness on the part of those who impose on others, artificial obligations to be charitable?

It’s the same logic. Exactly the same.

Except they aren’t quite the same. There’s an important difference. One of those theories has some evidence to support it and the other one doesn’t. Guess which one enjoys anecdotal support; here’s a clue.

Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test
By JOHN STOSSEL and KRISTINA KENDALL

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don’t give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don’t? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I’ve heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, “20/20” went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy’s in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

I won’t directly comment on how that little experiment turned out. You’ll have to read the article. But you should be prepared for a surprise.