A recent essay by Ralph Peters’ in the The Journal of International Security Affairs argues in favor of attacking journalists within combat zones. Naturally, he does not advocate killing any journalists-just those in the “partisan media.”
In making his case, he begins with the straw man of the liberal American media: “we can acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that, to most media practitioners, our troops are always guilty (even if proven innocent), while our barbaric enemies are innocent (even if proven guilty).”
This claim seems to be factually incorrect, unless Peters has access to TV channels, magazines and newspapers that I do not. While there are individuals who have this sort of view, the majority of media practitioners have not exhibited this tendency. However, this is an empirical question. We just need to conduct a suitable random survey across the entire media establishment. This would involve assessing what they have said or written. It should also include surveys of their attitudes. While I do not have the funding for this, given the endless claims of liberal media bias made by folks on the right, they should commission a fair and unbiased survey of this sort to settle the matter. As it stands, this perception seems to be unfounded on an adequate survey. If there is such an unbiased, scientifically rigorous survey conducted by a neutral third party, I would like very much to see it.
Peters goes on to make another common assertion from the far right, that the media folks subscribe to an odd religious view: “rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.” Once again, perhaps my cable service does not get those channels, but I have not seen evidence that most media folks are neo-pagans. No doubt there are some-just like there are Satanists in the military. Again, this is an empirical matter and can be settled empirically. Peters sees the media this way, I don’t see the evidence for that. But, this can be settled easily enough using the method above. As always, I am open to objective and adequate proof.
Peters is right that the media shapes conflict. Information and how it is presented shapes how we see the world. This, as he argues, does make the media a potentially powerful force in any conflict. Naturally, he thinks that the majority of the folks in the media take sides and that this side is not that of America. Because of this, he goes on to say “although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”
None of this is new, of course. Even in the United States, the media has been censored in times of war and there have been news blackouts. Other countries military forces have killed journalists-as have terrorists. However, having an actual policy of American forces killing unarmed journalists would be something new (I hope). It also seems a bit odd to call for this, given how the media behaved during the first and second Gulf Wars. They accepted censorship and were generally very positive-especially those embedded with the troops.
Of course, Peters does not advocate harming all journalists and he does acknowledge the freedom of the press. However, he says that “freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.”
Peters view has a certain plausibility. What sort of information is presented by the media and how it is presented does shape how people see the world. If a journalist acts in such a way that American soldiers are harmed and the enemy is aided, then the journalist can be seen as giving support to the enemy. A clear cut example would be revealing troop locations, attack plans, and so on. Of course, I have never seen CNN or even MSNBC doing that sort of thing. It is hard to imagine a professional American journalist doing that, though not impossible. In any case, doing that sort of thing is already covered by existing policies and procedures.
Perhaps Peters has something broader in mind in regards to abusing the troops and strengthening the enemy. Now, if his view is that malicious lies and deceit that are intended to attack our troops and aid our enemies should be dealt with, then I agree with him. Of course, this is already be covered by existing laws and professional practices. If CNN broadcast a made up story about US soldiers strangling kittens and another one that the Taliban existed solely to protect kittens from the evil troops, then that would be libel and slander.
However, I am not sure if he has something much broader in mind here. That is, I am not sure of the standards he is using as to what would count (in his mind) as abuse that kills soldiers and strengthens the enemy.
In my next post I’ll take a look at his moral justification for his view.
While some might think that the notion that the media has a liberal bias is a new thing, it actually dates back to Spiro Agnew. This notion continued under the Reagan administration and is still around today. For example, it has been claimed that the media was too easy on Obama during the primaries and general election. Some even have gone so far as to claim that the biased media contributed to his victory. Naturally enough, some wonder whether the media will be too easy on Obama now that he is President.
Of course, there is the question of whether the media has a liberal bias or not. Some critics point to the surveys showing that journalists tend to be politically liberal as evidence for a liberal bias. While this does provide grounds for concern, the mere potential for bias does not entail actual bias. To use an analogy, I have definite moral views. However, when I grade student papers in my ethics classes, I do not grade them based on whether they match my view or not. Presumably other professionals can exert the same restraint as I and keep their bias in check.
In the face of such a question, the natural thing to do is to turn to the experts. Unfortunately, the experts disagree. For example, Eric Alterman argues that the liberal bias is a myth (What Liberal Bias?) while Bernard Goldberg contends that the bias is a fact (Bias). One problem with reports and books on the media is that they generally come from media folks. As such, this does raise a bit of a problem: can the media folks be trusted to objectively assess their own bias (or lack thereof)?
Laying aside experts, one way to address the matter of liberal bias is to observe what the media says about Obama. Clearly, not all the media folks are liberals who will take it easy on him. After all, the fine folks at Fox News tend to be very critical of Obama. Rush Limbaugh and other such media folks are also clearly not taking it easy on Obama.Of course, they can be accused of having a conservative bias-something that should be criticized as severely as having a liberal bias.
Other news companies might be seen as being biased in Obama’s favor. For example, some folks think that CNN is a bit too liberal leaning (with some notable exceptions) and will take it too easy on Obama. While CNN claims it will “keep them honest”, that remains to be seen.
In general, the media is often easily manipulated by the government. A few recent examples: first, the federal government created a fake “news report” praising airport security. This “news report” was then distributed to stations along with a prepared introduction for local anchors to read.
Second, during its first four years the Bush administration spent a quarter of a billion dollars on fake “news” about Medicare, Iraq, Social Security, and No Child Left Behind. It should be noted that the Clinton Administration was also active in manipulating the media.
Third, between 2004 and 2005 three editorialists were exposed for taking money directly or indirectly from the Bush Administration to promote its policies and programs. Armstrong Williams received $200,000.
Fourth, in 2007 FEMA held a “press conference” in which FEMA staff members asked the questions. The White House spokesperson replied by saying that the practice was not employed by the White House and was not something that was condoned. This reply was reported uncritically by the White House Reporters, despite the fact that the White House has done the same in the past.
While more examples could be given, these should suffice to show that the media has a long tradition of being manipulated by the government and taking it easy on the President. True, the media did get tougher on the Bush Administration. However, that was when Bush’s approval ratings began to plummet. In light of the past, it seems reasonable to expect that the media will be fairly easy on Obama-provided that he remains popular. After all, shouldn’t he get the same easy ride that Bush got?
While Fox will be critical of Obama, someone should just play them tapes of what they said about the “liberal media” attacking Bush. After all, if the President should be treated a certain way by the media, that should hold whether the President is a liberal or a conservative.
My view is, of course, that the media folks should strive to be objective. When the Obama Adminstration is in error or up to something shady (wait for it…), then the media should call them on this. When the Obama Administration does well, then that should be noted as well.
There is a great deal of debate about what the government should be doing about the economic crisis. Coincidentally, in my ethics class we’ve been discussing the legitimate role of the state.
Most thinkers take the minimal obligations of the state to be protecting the citizens and enforcing the laws. Most states take on a multitude of other tasks, but those are the most basic. Naturally, people disagree about what else the state should be doing.
Classic Conservatives hold that the state should be minimally involved in the free market. This includes both regulating it and bailing out businesses that get into trouble. The purest form of this approach is that laid out by Adam Smith. Of course, experience shows what happens in such “pure” economies (the Great Depression, for example). Hence, even conservative thinkers tend to see a role for the state in regulating and perhaps even bailing out businesses.
The “new” conservatives (aka “Bush Conservatives”) hold that the state should be minimally involved in regulation but should support business financially and bail them out. This can be seen as a form of socialism in which the state funnels tax revenue (and loans) to certain businesses. As the economic disaster of today indicates, this approach does not work that well.
The liberal view has been that the state should regulate business but should not be significantly involved in supporting businesses (except certain ones-such as those owned by women or minorities). This is the sort of view often atributed to Democrats. In reality, they seem happy to support businesses that donate to their campaigns, that they have a stake in, and those that are owned by friends.
I believe that government should regulate business for the same reason that I believe that government should regulate other aspects of our behavior: regulation is needed to prevent people from doing harm to others. While most people would probably still behave decently without being compelled, the fact that a significant number of people are willing to behave very badly even in the face of compulsion indicates that a lack of regulation would be bad. If this is true of human behavior outside of business, then it would certainly seem to apply within business as well. After all, why would a selfish and evil person stop being that way simply because he became a businessman?
As far as bailing out companies, I have mixed thoughts. On one hand, this could be justified in terms of the protective role of the state. For example, it could be argued that by bailing out failing banks, the state is protecting the citizens from the harm of financial disaster. Of course, this certainly opens the door to a rather broad interpretation of this role and this might prove problematic. For example, every failing business harms someone-does that mean the state should try to bail them all out?
On the other hand, I consider responsibility to be rather important. If I make a bad choice and suffer because of it, that is my own doing and hence it is not the duty of the state to save me. The evidence is that the economic mess is largely a product of greed, poor decision making, failure in leadership, and various moral failures. Hence, the failed companies should accept responsibility for the failures and expect to be allowed to die semi-honorable deaths.
That said, it could be argued that the companies should be bailed out because their failure would hurt those not responsible for their failure. To use an analogy, if the parents make bad choices and a family is destitute, then the state should help the young children. After all, they were not at fault and are in such straights due to bad luck and not bad judgment.
In reply to this, perhaps it is the people who should be helped out directly. The failing companies could be allowed to fail (or survive) and then new ones could arise-hopefully lead by better people who will make better choices. Realistically, I think we can (sadly enough) expect the same scoundrels back at the helm again, ready to steer onto the rocks in search
Happiness is a matter of great concern to most people, hence it is hardly surprising that the Pew Research Center conducted an extensive study of the matter in 2006.
The study had some obvious results, such as the fact that rich people claim to be happier than poor people. There were also some surprising results, such as the fact that more conservatives claim to be happy than do liberals.
In the case of conservatives versus liberals, 47% of conservatives claimed to be very happy while only 28% of liberals did so. This fact has been used by some to argue that liberalism is an unhappy world view and thus people should avoid it in favor of conservatism. This, naturally enough, raises the question of why more American conservatives report being happy than American liberals.
One possibility is that it is the nature of liberal ideology to create more unhappiness in people. For example, while the phrase “liberal guilt” is commonly used, one almost never hears the phrase “conservative guilt” (although one does often hear of conservatives being guilty). Perhaps this indicates that liberal ideology leads people to be unhappy.
Another possible factor is that the people who are conservative tend to be married, older, and more religious than liberals. In many cases they are also more wealthy than liberals. Marriage, age, religion and wealth are all factors that are connected with people claiming to be happy. So, it might not be the political ideology that causes the disparity in happiness but rather the other qualities. It should, of course, also be considered that the ideology has a causal role in these other factors as well. A person who is conservative might be more inclined to get married and be religious because s/he is conservative. Alternatively, a person might be more inclined to be conservative because of those factors. And, of course, there might be a two way causal connection. For example, a person might be inclined towards being conservative because she is religious and then find that her religious views get reinforced by her political views.
Another possible factor is that how a person views the world affects his or hear happiness. On this view, it is not the ideology itself that causes happiness or unhappiness, but rather how that ideology affects how one sees the world. Alternatively, it might be that how one sees the world and how one feels about it defines one’s ideology. Or, as discussed above, there can be feedback between the ideology and the feelings.
To be a bit more specific in this matter, liberals tend to feel bad about such things as inequality and social injustice. Conservatives tend to feel less bad about such things. Since there is so much injustice and inequality in the world, it makes sense that those who feel worse about such things would be less happy than those who care less about them. To use an analogy, if I care about Nancy and Tom does not, then if something bad happens to Nancy, I will be rather unhappy while Tom will not be so unhappy.
This hypothesis is born out by how liberals and conservatives tend to view the world. For example, take unemployment. In general, a liberal will tend to see unemployment as the result of poor government policies, corporate downsizing and so forth. In short, a liberal will tend to see unemployment as something inflicted on people. Hence, they will tend to have sympathy and feel badly about rising unemployment. In general, a conservative will tend to see unemployment as the result of bad decision making, laziness or other such factors. In short, a conservative will tend to see unemployment as something self-inflicted and hence they will tend to have less sympathy.
It is tempting to say that liberals are less happy because they care more about other people and, to use Clinton’s phrase, “feel their pain.” It is also tempting to say that conservatives are more happy because they care less and hence that their happiness rests, in part, on indifference to the suffering of others. This is, of course, a possibility.
It is also tempting to say that liberal are less happy because they are weak and unrealistic. This makes them feel badly about things needlessly and thus they are foolishly hurting themselves by being the way they area. In contrast, the conservatives can be seen as smarter-they focus on themselves and do not worry so much about others. Hence, they are happier (or at least say they are).
One final matter to consider is the fact that the survey is base on what people claim. Obviously, there is no machine that measures happiness. Further, the nature of happiness is a matter of considerable philosophical debate. People who say they are happy most likely have no true conception of happiness and are perhaps merely expressing satisfaction or a lack of discontent.
Perhaps liberals say they are less happy because they think that is what they should say. After all, how can someone be happy in a world that has so much inequality and injustice? Perhaps more conservatives say they are very happy because they mistake material success with happiness. They think they are doing well, so they think they are happy. Or perhaps they think they should be happy, so they say they are.
Happiness is, after all, a tricky thing.
My conservative friends, such as Magus71, have been watching the infighting between the Democrats with both joy and disgust. The joy is, of course, because they would prefer that the Democrats once again pull defeat from the jaws of victory. The disgust is because they regard the Democrats’ behavior and words as pathetic and hateful.
One interesting point that has come up in our discussions is that some of the fighting involves the very weapons “the left” forged for their past battles with their external foes. One prime example is the use of race and gender in attacks.
Over the years, I have seen (both in academics and in politics) a standard attack made against whites and males. The basic idea is that male success and white success arise because of special privileges that stem from being white or male. If you happen to be a white male, you get to enjoy a double bonus (this is presumably how white males are able to oppress white women).
It is evident that males and whites do have certain advantages (or perhaps another way to put it is that they are free of the shackles of discrimination that all too often hold back women and non-whites). However, it does seem unreasonable to claim that, in most cases, white males succeed primarily because they are white males. This matter is obviously controversial, so it is fortunate that I can simply bypass this dispute in the discussion at hand. What it important is that this attack was (consciously or not) honed and deployed as a standard means of attack and criticism. It has been, for example, used to explain the allegedly unjust success of white males as well as the failures of those who are not white males.
What is rather interesting is that recently Geraldine Ferraro wielded this sort of weapon against a fellow liberal-namely Barrack Obama. She claimed that, in essence, the cause of Obama’s success was due to his being a black male.
The “attack” on Obama being male was, obviously enough, “old school.” Being a man, obviously his success could be attributed to his maleness-as opposed to his ability and his efforts. After all, success and failure are presumably determined primarily by race and gender-or so we have so often been told.
What was new was that Ferraro made an attack based on race against a minority target: Obama’s success was being attributed, in part, to his blackness. This, then, was something new in the liberal camp-attributing unjustified success to blackness.
While the target was new, the method was, of course an old one. Magus71 has put forth the hypothesis that the liberals just cannot help themselves-they are so focused on race and gender that they simply think of the world primarily in these terms. Hence, when they go into a political battle, they break out race and gender based weapons and fire them at their foe. In the past, the foes had typically been white men. But now, Hillary’s foe is a black male and Obama’s foe is a white woman.
Naturally, Hillary and Obama have been careful not to attack each other based on race and gender. As the Ferraro case shows, their supporters have not been so restrained. In Obama’s case, some of his supporters have attacked Hillary for being white and for being a woman.
These attacks have shown that race and gender are still very serious problems in America. Hateful remarks based on race and gender are merely the surface manifestations of what is no doubt a much deeper and serious problem. What is rather ironic is that so many of these remarks are arising from the ranks of those who most profess to be dedicated to justice and equality.
This certainly raises an interesting question about why there is this tension between their professed values and their actual behavior.
One possible answer, as noted above, is that “the left” is so obsessed with race and gender that it is simply a reflex to define things in that manner. So, Ferraro strikes at Obama being a black man. Wright strikes at Clinton based on race.
Another possible answer is that “the left” knows that race and gender are powerful tools and hence chose to deploy them. Such is the concern for power, that they are willing to attack each other.
A third possible answer is that they are pushed to such behavior by their emotions. When people are moved by strong emotions, their powers of reasoning are diminished. Hence, the most ardent supporters of Hillary and Obama might be overcome by emotions and hence lash out in a hateful manner.
A fourth possibility is that the individuals in question actually are racists and sexists who are acting in accord with these beliefs. This has some plausibility. Attacks on people because they are white are just as racist as attacks on people because they are black or Hispanic or Asian, or whatever. Attacks on people because they are men are just as sexist as attacks on people because they are women. Given the way whites and males are often regarded by “the left” it should be no shock that there are racist and sexist elements in the left. They probably do not think of themselves as such-after all, their anger is directed at whites and men (and mostly white men). But, an addiction to prejudice is hard to control and tends to spread. It is but a small step from being critical of white males to being critical of black males. It is also but a small step from being critical to white males to being critical of white females. Hence, the hateful attacks being shot back and forth among the troops supporting Hillary and Obama should not be unexpected. There have long been racists and sexists in the ranks-but now they are shooting at each other.
The death of William F. Buckley depleted both the ranks of American conservatives and American thinkers. This event has lead many, including Newsweek to claim that conservatism is crumbling and adrift. While this seems correct, the crumbling of American conservatism is nothing new.
To discuss the alleged fall of conservatism requires defining conservatism. This is a somewhat tricky manner. Often, in the United States, there are but three political options: liberal, conservative, and the fringe (left or right). Hence, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are forced to cover a broad range of views-some of which are not exactly consistent with each other.
The stock definition of conservatism includes four main aspects: limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense both foreign and domestic, that is-military and police), and traditional moral values. Naturally there is vast disagreement about the particulars. But, for the sake of simplicity, I will take that to provide a general picture of conservatism.
Conservatism does seem to have taken a beating in recent years. Republicans claim, in general, to be conservatives and their political fortunes have taken a downturn in recent years (losing Congress to the Democrats being the main example). They have also been rocked by scandals too numerous to mention.
Some might blame the weakened state of conservatism in America on their dire enemies-the liberals. While a case could be made that Al Gore, MTV, Myspace, texting and Tila Tequila helped deal serious blows to the conservative values of America, much of the blame can be laid to rest on the self-proclaimed conservatives.
While Buckley presented a well thought out and consistent form of conservatism while living in accord with his ideals, many self-styled conservatives (most of which were labeled as “neo-conservatives”) acted in ways directly contrary to their professed values.
In terms of fiscal conservatism, Bush and the Republican congress presided over a massive growth in the deficit. Ironically, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who handed them a surplus. Obviously, people began to notice this and this helped put cracks in the conservative movement,
In terms of defense, the conservatives were more consistent-they pushed for a stronger military and took action to defend America. While their strategy can be questioned (specifically the invasion of Iraq) their commitment to pouring money into defense cannot be doubted. Of course, the unpopularity of the Iraq war has helped to damage the conservative movement.
In terms of limited government, the opposite has occurred. With alleged conservatives at the helm, the government has suffered from severe bloat. While people do love programs that benefit them, they tend to resent those that merely benefit others or provide no apparent benefit. This has also helped to damage conservatism.
In terms of traditional values, moral scandals have been all too common among those professing to be keepers of such values. Further, basic rights have been shunted aside and the most basic America value of all, rule of law, has been ignored on numerous occasions. The alleged defenders of morality have failed time after time to live up to even the most basic moral values, let alone the values they profess. These often hypocritical moral failings have done perhaps the most serious damage to the movement. When someone claims to be a champion of what is right, people expect them to (at the very least) be morally decent. The numerous moral failures by so many self proclaimed conservatives has tarnished the movement.
As many have claimed, the death of Buckley has left America without a great and true conservative intellectual. There are, of course, competent and true conservative thinkers out there-but Buckley was such a giant that he has left a massive gap in the ranks. It remains to be seen if someone will emerge who is strong enough, wise enough, and good enough to restore American conservatism. I certainly hope someone is up to the task. Meanwhile, we’ll have to just endure the usual shallow and contentious banter from the speakers of the right and the left.
Some might be surprised about my hope-I have often been accused of being a liberal. This is not the case, but merely the result of the rather unfortunate three label system that has plagued the political discourse. I suppose that my views would push me more into the liberal camp, but many of my views would also place me in the conservative camp. I try to believe what reason best supports-so it is no surprise that I, like many people, don’t neatly fit a stock political label.
History (or herstory), many say, consists of repeating cycles. One cycle involves the mildness and wildness of women.
In recent history, the 1920s was a wild phase. Women, often known as “flappers”, started smoking and drinking in public places. They even dressed in revealing attire. Revealing for the 1920s, that is. After the 1920s the depression helped usher in a return to more conservative behavior on the part of women and this conservative movement seems to have peaked in the 1950s. After that there was a return to more liberal values (the sexual revolution) and then yet another swing towards conservative value.
The past decade has seen a swing back to more wild behavior, as exemplified by reality TV and girls gone wild videos. Not surprisingly, this wildness has in turn given rise to a new culture of mildness.
At this time, the culture of mildness is fairly modest (pun intended). There are a few web sites such as ModestApparelUSA.com, ModestByDesign.com, ModestyZone.net and DressModestly.com that advocate more modest dress and behavior on the part of women. Not surprisingly, religious groups, such as Regnun Christi, are involved in endorsing a more modest way of life. Also not surprisingly, those who endorse conservative values are also advocating mildness.
It might be thought that this mildness movement is a reaction to the empowerment of women. This has some truth.
As was discussed in a previous blog, the empowerment of women enabled them a greater range of choice. Some women made use of this freedom, to greater or lesser degree, to adopt a wild way of life. Since religious and conservative groups tend to oppose wildness, they would naturally oppose such choices.
Of course, the fact that someone is opposed to wildness does not entail they are opposed to the empowerment of women. After all, a person can be for choice and still consistently oppose certain choices. This is because accepting that the freedom of choice is a moral good does not entail accepting that every choice made is morally good or wise. So, someone could be opposed to wildness and yet be for the empowerment of women.
However, a person could obviously be opposed to wildness because they are opposed to the empowerment of women. This sort of person would want to limit (or eliminate) the choices available to women-perhaps under the guise of being opposed to wild behavior. In many cases, people assume that those who oppose wildness are in this category-they are committed to taking away the empowerment of women by imposing restrictions on dress and behavior.
This is a matter of serious concern-even a cursory examination of history shows that oppression and restrictions are the norm rather than the exception. While oppression tends to be a universal thing, women tend to be prime targets of those who hate freedom and wish to control others. Because of this, it might be suspected that the new mildness movement is yet another attempt to oppress women and roll back the gains made by women. This is a reasonable concern and raises many questions, including the question of whether empowerment is consistent with being mild or not.
If mild behavior (modest dress and so on) is imposed and not chosen, then it is obviously not consistent with the empowerment of women. However, freely chosen mildness can be quite consistent with empowerment.
If a woman freely and consciously chooses to dress modestly and behave in a restrained manner, then she is still acting in a way that is empowered. After all, she is acting on her choices and is not being controlled or unjustly restricted by others. While it might strike wild people as odd, some people actually prefer not to be half naked in public and see acting with restraint as both good and desirable.
It might be objected that such women are merely being influenced by others-they think they freely choose to be mild, but they are really being controlled in subtle ways by a variety of influences.
In reply, this is probably true-we are all influenced many ways by a multitude of influences. But, there is a world of difference between being influenced by external factors and not being free. If freedom means being completely unaffected by anything else, then none of us are or could ever be free.
It might be objected that being mild is inherently a state of being oppressed because it involves such things as deferring to men, restricting one’s sexuality and so forth. Thus, mildness is not consistent with empowerment.
This is a very reasonable point. If a woman chooses to act in ways that take away her choices and thus reduces her freedom, then she is taking away her own empowerment. There is also (some claim) a certain paradox in the claim that a person could freely give up their own freedom. There are various clever arguments to show that this is impossible…or at least involves some major problems.
In any case, it would certainly seem to be a bad idea for a woman to choose to be mild in ways that take away her freedom in important ways. While every choice does mean accepting limits and giving up other options, there are some choices that seem to be inherently inconsistent with remaining a free person. For example, if a woman chooses to defer all decision making to a man, then she has given up her freedom. Other cases are less clear. For example, many westerners think that women who accept the dress codes supposedly endorsed by Islam (especially the full covering of the body except for the eyes) are being oppressed while some women who dress that way claim it is a free choice. Laying aside cultural bias, choosing to cover almost everything seems to be just as valid a choice as choosing to expose almost everything. So, if a woman can freely choose to wear a thong and teeny tiny top, then a woman should be able to freely choose to wear a burqa. Naturally, whether a woman is forced to expose or cover up almost everything, then she is not free.
Within certain limits, mildness is quite compatible with empowerment.