I am not sure if this was you writing this as your own thoughts, quoting something you saw (without giving a reference) or you doing a parody of right-wing talking points. (The 'greatest president' part makes me think it was not real.) But I will respond as if it were real.
True, there were plenty of white sailors who acted bravely throughout the war. But there are a few issues in favor of naming it after Miller:
- He was already a known war figure/hero (thanks to things like depictions in the media). I have to admit, I had never heard of Finn until you brought him up. (I admit, reading up on him, he was just as much a hero as Miller.) But being a known figure means that, fair or not, you will be treated differently, and in this case he is seen as a bigger symbol of "american bravery"
- Miller was part of the navy at a time when black people were treated poorly. (There was segregation in the military and black people were not allowed to perform all tasks.) Still he joined up. At a time when he could have said "why should I fight for a country that treats me poorly" he decided to serve a country that didn't treat him well.
There are currently 3 active US carriers named after non-presidents. One was named after a former navy commander (Nimitz), two were named after political figures (Stenis, Vinson)
When you have a 'tradition' where you break the rules roughly 1/3 of the time, its not exactly a mandatory 'rule' that needs to be followed.
Normally, the majority of people enlist in the military for personal benefit (steady pay, educational/training opportunities, etc.) rather than some sort of patriotic duty. (I am not saying those serving in the military AREN'T patriotic, just that its not the main motivation for enlisting for most.)
If recuritment numbers are going up, it could be that people are looking at rising inflation and slowing job creation and thinking to themselves "I need to get in a safe, reliable job".
www.thedailybeast.com
yourself
