"It matters not what your individual position is on either war we are currently prosecuting - in Iraq or Afghanistan - certainly we can all agree protesting at military funerals is a cruel and unnecessary hardship on our military families during their most difficult hour"
About this Quote
Ortiz’s line is less an argument than a fence built at emotional speed: whatever you think about Iraq or Afghanistan, don’t bring that fight to the graveside. The opening move - “It matters not what your individual position is” - performs a strategic erasure. By scrubbing away partisan disagreement, he manufactures a rare “we” big enough to hold hawks, doves, and the exhausted middle. That’s not ideological generosity; it’s a rhetorical trapdoor. Once you accept the premise that politics can be bracketed here, the only remaining question is whether you’re decent.
The phrase “currently prosecuting” is telling, too. It borrows the language of law and procedure, giving the wars a formal, ongoing legitimacy while skipping the messy “why.” His real target isn’t war policy but the social boundary around grief. Military funerals become sacred civic space, and protest becomes not dissent but trespass.
“Certainly we can all agree” is the pressure point. It suggests consensus before it’s been earned, making disagreement feel like an attack on “our military families,” a possessive that folds the audience into a national kinship network. The kicker - “cruel and unnecessary hardship… during their most difficult hour” - weaponizes timing. It’s not just that protest is offensive; it’s framed as sadism.
In context, this is a politician’s attempt to launder a fraught constitutional question (speech versus harm) through an almost unassailable moral claim: leave the bereaved alone. The subtext is clear: debate the war if you must, but never in a way that contaminates the ceremony that keeps the war narratable as sacrifice.
The phrase “currently prosecuting” is telling, too. It borrows the language of law and procedure, giving the wars a formal, ongoing legitimacy while skipping the messy “why.” His real target isn’t war policy but the social boundary around grief. Military funerals become sacred civic space, and protest becomes not dissent but trespass.
“Certainly we can all agree” is the pressure point. It suggests consensus before it’s been earned, making disagreement feel like an attack on “our military families,” a possessive that folds the audience into a national kinship network. The kicker - “cruel and unnecessary hardship… during their most difficult hour” - weaponizes timing. It’s not just that protest is offensive; it’s framed as sadism.
In context, this is a politician’s attempt to launder a fraught constitutional question (speech versus harm) through an almost unassailable moral claim: leave the bereaved alone. The subtext is clear: debate the war if you must, but never in a way that contaminates the ceremony that keeps the war narratable as sacrifice.
Quote Details
| Topic | Military & Soldier |
|---|
More Quotes by Solomon
Add to List
