[Industrialblog,
April 27, 2004]
The Medal-Tossing Non-Scandal
My take on the 1971 medal-tossing incident: Kerry may have merely forgotten what he did in 1971. Memory does that. And Kerry's not alone with the memory thing. Most Americans can't even remember what America was like in 1971 because:
1. Too young or not born yet.
2. Too stoned at the time.
3. Too old NOW to remember.
4. Too stoned NOW to remember.
5. Out of the country at the time.
6. Out of the country now.
Seriously, who remembers that day in 1971 clearly? Vietnam was a big, long clusterf---k and if we have any hope as a community, we need to admit that. And then move on. And most of us have long since moved on.
The bottom line is John Kerry put himself in harm's way by going to Vietnam. Then he came back and put himself in harm's way again by protesting the war. Every account I've heard of that time shows Kerry as a thoughtful young man, concerned about his country and wanted to reverse what he sincerely thought was a serious error by his country. And from all accounts I've read he repeatedly distanced himself from the more extreme elements of the anti-war movement.
Anyone could easily remember throwing ribbons, but in fact he threw medals. Whatever. Memory plays tricks.
Vietnam is one of those subjects that we have to admit the U.S. government made serious, grievous errors -- errors not just of strategy and tactics, but of morality. Two successive administrations, LBJ's and Nixon's, lied to the American people about what was going on overseas, then lied to the American people about the final result of the peace negotiations.
We were not given a straight story, repeatedly. People were asked to make sacrifices based on bad faith. We created, propped up and then abandoned an ally. We were not trying to win but trying not to lose. It was a total effing mess, start to finish, and thank God it's over.
To drag the Vietnam era into the present seems extremely foolish. Both the anti-war and the pro-war side had legitimate arguments at their disposal. Yes, Vietnam was fought to stop the spread of communism, and while Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam ultimately fell, the dominoes may have stopped right there because of our efforts. Yes, Vietnamization had shown tremendous progress but the U.S. cut off funding and aid for South Vietnam, and left them to their devices against the Russian-backed NVA. Yes, there were atrocities. Yes, the government lied but ultimately it was fighting in a good cause.
Taking a stand in the midst of that mess was not easy, and the answer is charity for all except for those few who unrepentantly took the other side: The Jane Fondas and the ones chanting "ho ho ho chi minh." The ones who wanted the communists to win and haven't apologized -- screw them. B
ut for those who made a good faith to understand a situation that still ... with the benefit of 33 years, still looks like a muddle ... no, I don't think we can be too tough on anyone. John Kerry included.
We are not electing the 1971 John Kerry. We are looking at the older man whom that thoughtful and brave young man became. He became one of the most liberal senators in the Senate. And now he's running a fairly moderate campaign, except for abortion.
My concerns about John Kerry are threefold:
* His lack of executive experience. What organization has Kerry run? How much managing has he done?
* His detachment from the mindset (and experience) of professional class, middle class, working class, rural and poor Americans. He's had an enormously privileged upbringing, but unlike George W. Bush, Kerry seems to have stayed mentally in that privileged cocoon. Bush, for some reason, identifies with ordinary Americans (and they with him) much better than Kerry.
* Kerry occasionally shows flashes of a sense of entitlement rooted in intellectual arrogance. That is, Kerry sometimes seems to be saying I hold the right ideas, so they must be right, even if the evidence points the other way. If this is true and not just my imagination, Kerry could potentially be a Carteresque president. (Carter was the last president with that kind of arrogance; Carter had contempt for Reagan and his ideas, a deep, abiding, and wrongheaded insistence that Reagan was unfit to be president and thus Reagan's ideas must be wrong.)
1. Too young or not born yet.
2. Too stoned at the time.
3. Too old NOW to remember.
4. Too stoned NOW to remember.
5. Out of the country at the time.
6. Out of the country now.
Seriously, who remembers that day in 1971 clearly? Vietnam was a big, long clusterf---k and if we have any hope as a community, we need to admit that. And then move on. And most of us have long since moved on.
The bottom line is John Kerry put himself in harm's way by going to Vietnam. Then he came back and put himself in harm's way again by protesting the war. Every account I've heard of that time shows Kerry as a thoughtful young man, concerned about his country and wanted to reverse what he sincerely thought was a serious error by his country. And from all accounts I've read he repeatedly distanced himself from the more extreme elements of the anti-war movement.
Anyone could easily remember throwing ribbons, but in fact he threw medals. Whatever. Memory plays tricks.
Vietnam is one of those subjects that we have to admit the U.S. government made serious, grievous errors -- errors not just of strategy and tactics, but of morality. Two successive administrations, LBJ's and Nixon's, lied to the American people about what was going on overseas, then lied to the American people about the final result of the peace negotiations.
We were not given a straight story, repeatedly. People were asked to make sacrifices based on bad faith. We created, propped up and then abandoned an ally. We were not trying to win but trying not to lose. It was a total effing mess, start to finish, and thank God it's over.
To drag the Vietnam era into the present seems extremely foolish. Both the anti-war and the pro-war side had legitimate arguments at their disposal. Yes, Vietnam was fought to stop the spread of communism, and while Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam ultimately fell, the dominoes may have stopped right there because of our efforts. Yes, Vietnamization had shown tremendous progress but the U.S. cut off funding and aid for South Vietnam, and left them to their devices against the Russian-backed NVA. Yes, there were atrocities. Yes, the government lied but ultimately it was fighting in a good cause.
Taking a stand in the midst of that mess was not easy, and the answer is charity for all except for those few who unrepentantly took the other side: The Jane Fondas and the ones chanting "ho ho ho chi minh." The ones who wanted the communists to win and haven't apologized -- screw them. B
ut for those who made a good faith to understand a situation that still ... with the benefit of 33 years, still looks like a muddle ... no, I don't think we can be too tough on anyone. John Kerry included.
We are not electing the 1971 John Kerry. We are looking at the older man whom that thoughtful and brave young man became. He became one of the most liberal senators in the Senate. And now he's running a fairly moderate campaign, except for abortion.
My concerns about John Kerry are threefold:
* His lack of executive experience. What organization has Kerry run? How much managing has he done?
* His detachment from the mindset (and experience) of professional class, middle class, working class, rural and poor Americans. He's had an enormously privileged upbringing, but unlike George W. Bush, Kerry seems to have stayed mentally in that privileged cocoon. Bush, for some reason, identifies with ordinary Americans (and they with him) much better than Kerry.
* Kerry occasionally shows flashes of a sense of entitlement rooted in intellectual arrogance. That is, Kerry sometimes seems to be saying I hold the right ideas, so they must be right, even if the evidence points the other way. If this is true and not just my imagination, Kerry could potentially be a Carteresque president. (Carter was the last president with that kind of arrogance; Carter had contempt for Reagan and his ideas, a deep, abiding, and wrongheaded insistence that Reagan was unfit to be president and thus Reagan's ideas must be wrong.)
Incidentally, let's not forget that in the Vietnam war the press largely mislead the public as well. For example, the Tet offensive was a massive defeat for the Viet Cong, but that's not how it was reported.
and yeah the press screwed up, but they became extremely partisan by that point. many were against the war, no matter what.
I hope in a few months we will see more about how he plans to govern based on his voting record, that he is in fact more liberal than Teddy Kennedy.
He can't really plan to govern based on his voting record, could he?
My guess is he'll be a more moderate president than a senator.
Of course, with a record like his (disclaimer: I haven't look at it myself; I've mostly concerned myself with reading his website), it would be hard not to.
Sorry about using trite abbreviations!
As you mentioned, Kerry has no executive experience, so all we have to go on is his voting record in the Senate. You can't really go with what he is spouting off, or on his website, since he flips and flops like a fresh-caught bluegill on a dock.