On July 23, 2024, I posted a blog entry entitled Political Pawns in which I stated:
With each United States (U.S.) federal election cycle, I hear politicians associated with Republicans, Democrats, and independent parties using military veterans as political pawns—a supposedly monolithic group of individuals who served a nation and who are now presumably subject to the whims of bureaucratic actors.
The blogpost went on to advocate tolerance and acceptance regarding veteran status being used to promote partisan ideologies. Daily practice of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) allows me to keep from self-disturbing about behavior of politicians who engage in proverbial chess matches of this sort.
Then, on August 6, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris announced that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz would be her running mate for the 2024 U.S. presidential election. As is the case with fallible human beings, when running for political office evidence of one’s imperfection will inevitably be revealed. Apparently, a “resurfaced video from 2018” depicts Walz stating:
I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt […] I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] research. We can make sure we don’t have reciprocal carry amongst states. And we can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place that those weapons are at.
Momentarily, I’ll set aside my argument in rejection of Walz’s irrational argument regarding the Second Amendment. By “irrational,” I’m referring to that which doesn’t comport with logic and reason.
One doesn’t understand how Walz misinterprets a clause which declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” as the politician then carries on by proposing measures of infringement. Nevertheless, one will set aside this argument for now.
Instead, I’ll address a different matter of dissension observed among the so-called veteran “community” within the U.S. For the record, a community is a unified body of individuals who live in a particular area.
Military veterans aren’t a monolith, we don’t all live in the same area, we don’t all know one another, and we don’t all share the same social or professional interests. Minor quibble aside, I’ve witnessed the reaction to Walz’s statement by those who’ve served in the military.
As a matter of full disclosure, I enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1996, as a private (E-1). The highest rank I attained was sergeant (E-5). After approximately a year of administrative and punitive trouble, I was eventually reduced to the rank of private first class (E-2).
Additionally, I was issued a bad conduct discharge in 2007, which was later upgraded to an under other than honorable (OTH) conditions discharge. Currently, my service characterization is receiving its fifth appeal consideration for an upgrade to honorable status.
Although I served honorably for my first enlistment, my second period of service represents the overall characterization of my time in the military. Nonetheless, for purposes of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, my entire period of service is recognized as honorable.
Notwithstanding this fact, many military veterans hear only of my OTH discharge and consider my entire record of service as less than honorable. I don’t self-disturb regarding this matter.
Likewise, and although I’m not proud of my OTH discharge, I have no shame regarding this matter. I’d prefer that others would recognize my service as honorable and consider extenuating and mitigating factors concerning my discharge, though people can believe however they wish.
Furthermore, I never deployed to war. Still, I did receive the standard issue Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. As well, I qualified for imminent danger, special duty assignment, and hardship pay when serving in the U.S. embassy in Lima, Peru.
In any case, I think it was worth briefly detailing my service record in the interest of acknowledgment regarding my veteran status. As I’ve observed other veterans criticizing Walz’s service record, I wanted to provide context for my enlistment in the military.
Regarding Walz’s statement about carrying weapons “in war,” one source stated, “Republicans, including the vice presidential nominee, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, began questioning Walz’s military record.” As I understand, Vance earned the rank of corporal (E-4) in the U.S. Marine Corps. Regarding Walz’s rank, one source elaborates:
Mr. Walz made the decision to leave the Guard as he considered the run for Congress and as rumors swirled about a potential deployment to Iraq. He had been promoted to command sergeant major — a rank few soldiers reach.
But in the end, he retired as a master sergeant because he never completed the coursework — which would have taken 664 hours online and 86 hours in person to complete — required to keep the rank of sergeant major.
As I understand, Walz retired as a master sergeant in the U.S. Army National Guard. Although I outranked Vance at one point and never came close to Walz’s rank, both of these military veterans apparently served with honor whereas I received an OTH discharge.
At any rate, Vance reportedly deployed to Iraq. On the other hand, one source states that “Walz’s deployment overseas was in support of the war in Afghanistan, dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom,” and “the battalion supported security missions at various locations in Europe and Turkey.”
Presumably, Walz received special pay in relation to support of an atypical military assignment though he ostensibly didn’t serve in war. Although it may seem like a pedantic issue to civilians, there’s a clear distinction between service in war and service in support of a war.
Clarifying the matter, one source states, “Harris’s presidential campaign quickly attempted damage control, issuing a statement Friday [8/9/2024] that asserts Walz ‘misspoke’ in the video.” Mistakes are part of the human condition. I make them and so do you.
In a blogpost entitled Information Overload, I discussed mistakes of factual information (misinformation), deceit with nonfactual information (disinformation), and expression of factual information that is inconvenient to some entities (malinformation).
As an example, out of ignorance—lack of knowledge or information—one may misspeak about the Second Amendment. Perhaps an individual claims to be a military veteran and a hunter, and uses misinformation by bolstering a claim for anti-Second Amendment rhetoric based on these experiences.
It’s understandable how a misinformed individual may mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment protects hunter’s rights or solely supports a standing military. However, the Second Amendment also exists in support of the people against a tyrannical government which uses a military to oppress its citizens.
Given the distinction between a mistake of fact and deceit with nonfactual information, one wonders whether or not Walz simply erred when claiming to have been in war or if he was intentionally spreading disinformation. I have no evidence to support the latter.
Therefore, being charitable to his claim when considering imperfection of human nature, I presume Walz misspoke when ostensibly spreading misinformation. I make no judgment of the politician in this regard.
Still, it’s worth considering what Walz has stated about those who dabble in misinformation. In 2022, Walz expressed:
We’ve been fighting for two years on this massive misinformation campaign – first with COVID and then, of course, since January 6th [2021], as your other guest so clearly pointed out – it’s insidious. It’s getting into every aspect of our lives. And you see these people bring up these lies in states, and then they use it as an excuse.
Walz’s take on COVID-19 has aged like fine milk, given that the oft-called conspiracy theorists among us who questioned the official narrative may’ve had valid points. Likewise, reference to Jan 6th doesn’t serve Walz well when the general public isn’t allowed to review pertinent evidence concerning the event.
Nevertheless, one remains aware of the constructive dilemma in regard to information related to Walz’z apparent stance on misinformation and that concerning his claim to have served in war. The construct of this logical inference in propositional logic uses two modus ponens propositions.
The dilemma of this form of argumentation regards a decision between the two conditional statements. For better understanding, consider the following constructive dilemma syllogism:
Form (constructive dilemma) –
If p, then q; and if r, then s; but either p or r; therefore, either q or s.
Example –
If misinformation relates to a mistake of fact, then mistakes can unintentionally result in a harmful effect.
And if misinformation campaigns are insidious, then people who misinform the public are intentionally harmful.
But either misinformation relates to a mistake of fact or misinformation campaigns are insidious.
Therefore, either mistakes can unintentionally result in a harmful effect or people who misinform the public are intentionally harmful.
This is a rational constructive dilemma proposition, as it relates to a logical form and reasonable outcome. Therefore, if Walz’s 2022 argument maintains that a “misinformation campaign” is “insidious,” it stands to reason that his misspoken service record constitutes insidious misinformation.
However, the conclusion herein isn’t one of judgment. I’ve no interest in labeling Walz as bad, evil, insidious, or otherwise. Noteworthy, using a rating of Walz as a human is something that is antithetical to the practice of REBT.
Rather, using the politician’s own fallible rhetoric, mischaracterization of his military service presents a constructive dilemma. Examining his presumed beliefs while not rating Walz as an imperfect being, I conclude the following:
Proposition 1: Walz’s mistake can unintentionally result in a harmful effect.
Proposition 2: Walz’s misinformation to the public is intentionally harmful.
Notwithstanding these rational propositions, if I can, I try to steer clear of binary conclusions – proposing either this or that arguments. Instead of using a false dichotomy, I propose a third option.
As I’ve referenced the Second Amendment herein, it may be worth addressing the First Amendment. Walz has a right to the freedom of speech. This includes mistake of facts and even deceit with nonfactual information, to a degree.
What I’m expressing in this post doesn’t relate to factual information that is inconvenient to some entities (malinformation). Instead, I’m advocating Walz’s right to speak freely about his military service so that military veterans, such as myself, can also freely speak about his record.
Therefore, I’ve constructed proposition 3: Walz’s misinformation, whether unintentional or intentional, isn’t harmful as much as it constitutes rhetoric of a fallible human being. Thus, other flawed individuals can constructively examine the dilemma of Walz’s information.
Herein, demonstrating the technique of disputation used in REBT, I have no unpleasant emotional response toward Walz. The same helpful tools which have helped me reject shame concerning my military discharge are what I’ve illustrated in this post.
After all, it’s illogical and unreasonable (irrational) to be self-disturbed into fear, anger, sorrow, or disgust using unproductive beliefs about matters such as Walz’s military record or even the character of my discharge. Being that neither Walz nor I served in war, we don’t have to go to battle with irrationality.
Likewise, you don’t have to upset yourself with unfavorable beliefs about foolish chess matches which use military service personnel as political pawns. If you’d like to know more about how stalemate partisan games rather than losing your temper to irrationality, I’m here to help.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Dinh, K. N. (2024, August 9). Draw me a watercolor Governor Tim Walz [Image]. Playground. Retrieved from https://playground.com/post/draw-me-a-watercolor-governor-tim-walz--the-main-color-tone-clzmitrhn028l1pcu2nf6e3t2
Gibbons-NeffJohn, T., Ismay, J., and Selig, K. (2024, August 10). Walz in the National Guard: A steady rise ending with a hard decision. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/10/us/tim-walz-military-career.html
Hollings, D. (2024, July 6). Conspiracy theories. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conspiracy-theories
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 8). Information overload. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/information-overload
Hollings, D. (2022, November 10). Labeling. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/labeling
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2023, March 21). Matching bracelets. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/matching-bracelets
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2024, July 23). Political pawns. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/political-pawns
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy
Hollings, D. (2023, June 21). What shame? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/what-shame
Irwin, L. (2024, August 9). JD Vance chides CNN anchor for ‘imperfect messenger’ quip on military records. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4820159-vance-criticizes-cnn-walz-military/
Kamala HQ [@KamalaH@]. (2024, August 6). Gov. @Tim_Walz: I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can research the impacts of gun violence. We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war [Post]. X. Retrieved from https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1820918063966962143
Kessler, G. (2024, August 9). Assessing claims about Tim Walz’s military service. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/09/assessing-claims-about-walz-service/
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). First Amendment. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Second Amendment. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Mitchell, E. (2024, August 11). GOP scrutiny intensifies on Walz’s military record. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/homenews/4822265-gop-scrutiny-intensifies-over-walzs-military-record/
MSNBC. (2022, December 29). Minnesota Gov. Walz asks fellow Democrats to ‘think big’ when it comes to fixing voting issues [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/y8ns76RCmWs?si=ZnrBbhFGdebehJjD
Pellish, A. and Bash, D. (2024, August 10). Walz ‘misspoke’ in saying he served ‘in war,’ Harris campaign says. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/10/politics/walz-national-guard-harris-campaign/index.html
Petitt, S. (2020). Tyranny prevention: A “core” purpose of the Second Amendment. Southern Illinois University Law Journal. Retrieved from https://law.siu.edu/_common/documents/law-journal/articles-2020/spring-2020/6-petitt-final.pdf
Superville, D. (2024, August 10). Walz ‘misspoke’ in reference to ‘weapons of war, that I carried in war,’ campaign says. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/walz-misspoke-in-reference-to-weapons-of-war-that-i-carried-in-war-campaign-says-military-service-2024-election-politics
Weissert, W., Kim, S. M., Long, C., Karnowski, S., and Miller, Z. (2024, August 6). Harris introduces new running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as the ‘vice president America deserves’. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/harris-running-mate-philadelphia-rally-multistate-tour-02c7ebce765deef0161708b29fe0069e
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Constructive dilemma. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dilemma
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_on_Terrorism_Service_Medal
Wikipedia. (n.d.). January 6 United States Capitol attack. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Wikipedia. (n.d.). JD Vance. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JD_Vance
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Kamala Harris. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Stalemate. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Tim Walz. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
Comments