By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pete Hegseth, a right-wing provocateur, is critiqued for his actions, particularly his decision to remove Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship during Pride Month. The article contrasts Hegseth’s perceived weakness and lack of true warrior spirit with the genuine courage of Harvey Milk, a Navy veteran who fought for LGBTQ+ rights. Hegseth is accused of using this action to appeal to the MAGA base and to roll back LGBTQ+ inclusion in the military, while Milk is celebrated for his bravery and sacrifice in the face of adversity. The author emphasizes the significant difference in moral character between the two individuals, highlighting Milk’s legacy of hope and public service compared to Hegseth’s perceived actions.
Read the original article here
Harvey Milk is an icon. Pete Hegseth is an idiot. You can take his name off a ship, but Milk is still far more of a “warrior” than the petty Pete Hegseth, writes John Casey.
Let’s start with the obvious: Harvey Milk was an icon. He represents courage, resilience, and a fight for equality that continues to inspire. He was a Navy veteran, serving with honor, and later, as a civilian, he tirelessly advocated for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. This is a legacy built on action, principle, and a willingness to stand up against adversity, a beacon of hope for those who felt marginalized. In stark contrast stands Pete Hegseth.
Hegseth, from what we can gather, seems to be defined by bluster and self-promotion. Accusations of misconduct and a recent, highly publicized outburst at the Pentagon paint a picture of a man more concerned with his image than with service. The contrast here is stark. Milk faced genuine threats and dangers, yet he never backed down. Hegseth, on the other hand, seems to thrive on manufactured outrage and grandstanding, the very opposite of the moral courage displayed by Milk.
The decision to remove Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship during Pride Month isn’t just a political move, it’s a statement. It’s a gut punch to everyone in the LGBTQ+ community who has served or is currently serving with honor. This action is, in essence, an attempt to erase history, a denial of the contributions and sacrifices made by countless individuals. The motivations behind this are clear: to roll back LGBTQ+ inclusion, to send a message that their service is somehow less valuable. It’s about fostering division and scoring cheap political points.
Consider this: Milk’s life was dedicated to lifting others up. Hegseth’s seems driven to tear them down. Milk stood for the marginalized, the forgotten, the ones who were told they didn’t matter. Hegseth panders to the bigots. The actions of a real warrior, like Milk, are defined by his conviction and the impact he left on the lives of others.
Hegseth’s behavior is particularly appalling because it disrespects the service of LGBTQ+ individuals who have served this nation. The actions taken by Hegseth and the values he represents, stand in stark contrast to the values of Milk.
Milk was a Navy veteran. Hegseth seems to have no understanding of what it truly means to serve, to sacrifice, to stand for something bigger than oneself. His actions are not about honoring the troops; they are about furthering a political agenda, fueled by ego and the desire for attention. He may take Milk’s name off a ship, but that name is engraved in the hearts of those who believe in justice and equality.
The irony is palpable. Hegseth attempts to portray himself as a defender of traditional values, yet his actions are anything but honorable. His bluster and ego are a poor substitute for the genuine courage, compassion, and conviction that Harvey Milk embodied. He might try to use the situation to stir the MAGA base, but his motives are anything but pure.
It appears he presents himself as a “warrior,” but Milk was the true warrior. The contrast is devastating. His actions are about pandering to his base and erasing the accomplishments of someone who stood for the marginalized.
It’s also important to note the rumors surrounding Milk and his relationships and if accusations are founded or not. It’s not about the accusations, as they don’t seem to be why the ship is being renamed. We can’t ignore the current scientific understanding, and we can still pass judgment when we’re armed with the knowledge of historical context, regardless of the ultimate conclusion.