Scott Ritter

Jon Voight is a great actor.  I personally single out his roles in Midnight Cowboy, Catch-22 and Coming Home as some of the best acting ever.  I have great respect for his professionalism when it comes to the business of making movies.  However, when this Academy Award-winning actor turns his hand to politics, my respect turns to dismay. 

Voight has identified himself politically as a conservative (although, as he acknowledges, his roots are more inclined toward liberal radicalism).  This is his right as an American citizen, and I cast no negativity to his political bent.  As someone who looks at American history, and understands that the great debates that crafted the essence and form of our great nation (witness Jefferson versus Adams), the need exists for opposing points of view in crafting a compromise solution which is acceptable and beneficial to all.  I salute those who hold to a more conservative line of thinking, as I do those who embrace a more liberal inclination, or those like myself who find themselves nestled somewhere close to the moderate center.  Combined, we make for a great nation united by shared values and ideals.

It is not Voight’s political affiliation which bothers me.  It is his narrow-minded expression of his views, largely void of historical and factual basis, which turns me off. Every American has a right to be ignorant, and John Voight certainly cannot be faulted for falling into that category.  But certainly he must understand that his status as a celebrity will bring a focus of attention on what he speaks and writes beyond that which is normally due to one lacking a resume befitting the subjects being discussed.  I can sit at a bar and opine freely with my friends about the poor state of filmmaking in America today, and how the dreck Hollywood puts out in the theaters is not up to the standards of years past.  However, this does not make me qualified to appear on network television, or write articles for newspapers, as if I were some qualified critic of the entertainment industry.

Jon Voight has recently authored an Op Ed piece in the Washington Times (July 28, 2008) in which he attacks Barack Obama, the Democratic party, Wesley Clark, and, indirectly but most importantly, the American people.  I have no problem with critics of Barack Obama.  I myself find his stance on Iraq and Iran troubling, and question whether he is getting the best advice possible on how to lead America forward in a post-Bush administration era.  But Voight doesn’t finger Barack Obama on these issues, or any of the myriad of issues relevant to the American economy, national security, health care, or any of the myriad of other matters which the nation’s top executive would need to address.  Instead, Voight treats us to a lecture on parenting, and how role models shape the character of an individual.  “We, as parents,” Voight writes, “are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.”  So far, so good.  I can’t say I disagree with the generalities of what Voight wrote.  But then he follow’s up with the clincher:  “Senator Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.”

I’m all about balance.  If one is to opine, without basis of established fact or supporting evidence, that Barack Obama allows his views on governance to be singularly guided by the words and actions of the aforementioned ‘life teachers’ Voight associates him with, then one must also apply the same standards to the Republican candidate for the Presidency, John McCain (whom Voight currently supports, his first choice, Rudy Guiliani, having dropped out of the race).  Will Voight likewise question McCain’s suitability based upon his past associations with John Hagee, a white evangelical whose hate-filled rants promoting Armageddon and the end of days whose support John McCain says he is “very honored” and “proud” to have?  Perhaps Voight, who recently visited Israel on the occasion of that nation’s 60^th anniverssary, identifies with Hagee’s characterization of Muslims as being “programmed to kill”, and as such “we can never negotiate with them”, since Voight himself referred to Palestinians as “Barbarians” and urged Israel “not to play this game” of negotiations? 

As someone who has a bit more intimacy of knowledge and experience regarding Israel and the Middle East, I can safely say that Voight hasn’t a clue about the issues he speaks of, and his ignorance of the subject of Israel and Palestine is obvious to all.  He is in good company with Hagee, who supports an American war with Iran not because Iran allegedly poses a threat to the United States, but rather because it hastens Armegeddon and the coming of the ‘rapture’.  Voight smears Obama with the preachings of others; will he not smear McCain with the hate-filled vindictives of Hagee?  Should Voight not be warning us about the failings of a man who is guided by an insane evangelical who preaches the most un-American and anti-Constitutional bile imaginable?  Hagee preaches an American war of pre-emption against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for Israel and the West.  Does Voigt support such an act, which if implemented places America on the same dark pages of history with the Japanese, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and President Bush?  Maybe Voight believes, as Hagee does, that the Holocaust was part of God’s plan?  Certainly McCain does, if we follow John Voight’s simplistic causal relationship theory:  politician listens to speaker, speaker spouts absurdities, politician embarces absurdities. 

Jon Voight goes overboard, too, when he speaks of a “strong generation of American soldiers” who “know what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy.” Jon Voight was never in the military.  He played a military man in several of his movies (as I said, Coming Home is one of my favorites).  Had he served in the military, he might have a better understanding for the oath each servicemember takes to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  He might then better understand that what drives this “strong generation” of servicemembers is loyalty to the Constitution, and not fealty to any poltical partisanship.  Voight doesn’t know war;  he’s never been there, he does not have the t-shirt (unless it was given to him as a Hollywood prop).  Nowhere in his argument does he articulate the possibility that people might be opposed to the war in Iraq because it was sold to the American people on fraudulent grounds.  Does Voight not believe that a President’s manipulation and distortion of fact to mislead Congress (and the American people) into a disastrous conflict might not constitute grounds for opposition to the conflict?  Or does Voight see some grand “marxist” conspiracy at work, the same conspiracy which he attributes so simplistically (and wrongly) to the anti-war movement which opposed the American debacle in Vietnam?

Barack Obama is an adult, and I’m sure he isn’t loosing any sleep over what Jon Voigt writes about him.  The American people are intelligent enough to see through the purely partisan motives of Voight and the editors at the Washington Times in publishing the actor’s Op Ed.  But Voight irks me most when he wraps himself in the American flag, lining himself alongside soldiers who may or may not agree with his point of view (maybe a visit to Fort Hood or Camp Pendleton would do Mr Voight good, where he could interact with a soldier or Marine who is getting ready to head off for their third, fourth, or even fifth tour in Iraq), and then has the gall to malign the character of an American hero who did serve his country in combat.  When Voight says of General Wesley Clark that he has “shame upon him”, he crosses the line.  Clark has a Silver Star earned in ground combat operations in Vietnam.  Voight has an Academy Award statue. Clark helped resolve the horrible conflict in Bosnia.  Voight…has an Academy Award statue.  Clark commanded the NATO military operation in Kosovo.  Voight…has an Academy Award statue.  Get my point? 

Voight never sweated it out at West Point (Clark was valedictorian).  Voight never experienced Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, or any other of the numerous military posts an Army officer ends up serving at during a long and illustrious career such as the one enjoyed by General Clark.  Clark, who knows a thing or two, has every right to speak about one’s military resume as an indicator of Presidential potential.  And his pointing out that John McCain’s status as a bad pilot does not immediately move him to front of the line as a contender for Commander in Chief is a fair point.  McCain’s performance as a prisoner of war is deserving of praise and admiration.  But it must be balanced by his overall performance as a Naval Officer, which was mediocre at best.  While Voight slams Barack Obama for his associations, however meaningful or trivial, with the likes of Reverand Wright and others, why not pursue McCain’s associations with Hagee?  Jon Voight is a great actor, but in my humble opinion he is a poor American who appears to have little fundamental understanding of what it means to be an American, and that which defines us as Americans. 

Scott Ritter was a 12-year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, finishing with the rank of Major.  He was a Chief Weapons Inspector with the United nations in Iraq, serving from 1991 until 1998.  A registered Republican and vocal critic of President Bush, Ritter is the author of numerous books and articles, including “Waging Peace:  The Art of War for the Anti-War Movement”, published by Nation Books (2007).