Bad Kaus: Leave Kerry and his Vietnam record alone.
Earlier, I wrote:
Reading Mickey Kaus' blog at Slate is always a frustrating experience. On the one hand, Kaus can still be relied on for the occasional steely-eyed insight into How Washington Works.
On the other hand, too many steely-eyed reality checks and you quickly end up with a big puddle of ugly pox-on-them-all cynicism. Most of Kaus' work, particularly over the past two years, is maddeningly nasty -- an especially unfortunate tic for a writer whose greatest claim to fame is his liberal defence of welfare reform. Never is this more true than when he gets going on his favourite subject: how much he loathes John Kerry.
Obsessive group-hating by pundits of disfavoured politicians is bad in and of itself (a fact that should hardly be lost on Democrats in the Bush era). But sometimes the practice goes beyond lazy self-indulgence and actually drives otherwise-liberal pundits to disgrace themselves in ways that strike at the heart of common decency. And that's the story with John Kerry and Form 180.
After the election, several rightwing blogs latched onto a promise Kerry made to Tim Russert on the Junuary 30th Meet the Press to sign Form 180, which entitles the Navy and Pentagon to release the signee's entire military service record -- in Kerry's case, about 30 additional pages of confidential material about his Vietnam service that the public, and the Washington establishment, has not yet seen. Conservatives had been clamouring for the form since before the end of the 2004 campaign. In fact, the issue was driven largely by those ubiquitous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. While some of the claims the Swifties made against Kerry were comprehensively disprovable on the existing evidence, the Swift Vets and their conservative allies (when they weren't hyping stupid nonstories like Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" dodge) -- claimed that the Swiftees' claims could only be solidly refuted by the information made available by the release of Form 180. In fact, with Bush now merrily into his second term, the continuing clamour for Kerry to release the form really doesn't have much to do with the Swift Vets or their allegations anymore. Instead, it's a way for conservatives to attack Kerry as a shifty, unprincipled waffler -- a man who, for all his talk, just can't get around to signing, and as of Monday, to mailing, that form.
Too many public "liberals" find this story irresistable. Yesterday, Kaus linked to this sneering column by the Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi:
AT THIS POINT it comes as no surprise. John Kerry is releasing all his military records -- but then again, he isn't.
During an interview yesterday with Globe editorial writers and columnists, the former Democratic presidential nominee was asked if had signed Form SF 180, authorizing the Department of Defense to grant access to all his military records.
"I have signed it," Kerry said. Then, he added that his staff was "still going through it" and "very, very shortly, you will have a chance to see it."
The devil is usually in the details. With Kerry, it's also in the dodges and digressions. After the interview, Kerry's communications director, David Wade, was asked to clarify when Kerry signed SF 180 and when public access would be granted. Kerry drifted over to join the conversation, immediately raising the confusion level. He did not answer the question of when he signed the form or when the entire record will be made public...
Somewhere beyond Vennochi's facile sneering (read the whole dreary thing)lies an unspoken kernel of truth: the Democrats should have known what they were getting into nominating John Kerry in the first place. The Vietnam War is a deeply, and in many cases irrationally, contentious issue for the generation who lived through it. Kerry's role in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, his testimony before Congress about the Winter Soldier Investigations, were always going to be a problem -- and one that no amount of Douglas Brinkley-inspired hagiography was going to fix. During the occupation of Iraq, what with its inevitable Vietnam comparisons, Kerry's Vietnam problem was only going to be compounded: providing conservatives with constant media-fuelled reminders of the valour of troops in a warzone that Kerry had once challenged on the Senate floor, and reminding liberals of the contradiction between Kerry's role protesting the Vietnam War and his vote in favour of, and initial support for, the US-led invasion of Iraq. At the same time, Kerry's deeply personal -- and self-selected -- association with the Vietnam War and its aftermath had no especial compensating resonance for the younger generation of voters, a point best made by Garance Franke-Ruta in this wonderful article for the American Prospect Online a year ago. In the end, Kerry was forced to hide and downplay much of what was best, most admirable and interesting, in his career during the campaign because of that conflict, because his history was so explosive. That made him look unaccomplished without really shielding him from the brunt of the inevitable rightwing attacks.
But none of that changes the fact that the ongoing flap over Form 180 is stupid and disgusting on just about every level. Kerry was the son of a Washington diplomat. At a time when most people of his age and background were getting deferments, being placed in the National Guard, or, at the very least, finding non-combat positions in Vietnam, Kerry (after failing at initial attempts to get a deferment), sucked it up and went as a regular soldier, eventually a Lieutenant and a swift boat captain, an extremely dangerous assignment. Even if you lend credence -- and I certainly don't -- to the less cracked accusations hurled by John O'Neill and his band of "Truth" seekers that Kerry was not courageous in combat, that he "fled" under fire on the Mekong Delta, that he exaggerated the extent of his injuries in order to get sent home early, or that he was, in general, a snob -- the fact remains that Kerry, as a young man from privilege, stared death in the face, participated in a terrible conflict he grew to loathe, came home to try to end that conflict and then, in his public career, worked to deal with its aftermath. As Hendrick Hertzberg put it during an NPR interview last summer, Kerry "passed the moral test of his generation with flying colours". At the very least -- at the very least -- he passed that test. As a matter of simple decency, there are certain demands, certain assumptions, that those of us who weren't put to a similar test, shouldn't make on those who were, whatever our quibbles about the details of their stories. That's got to be the bare minimum of compassionate conservatism, let alone of liberalism.
The larger point, however, is that, whatever the "truth" of Kerry's service, there is no earthly reason why he should be forced to release his military records to placate his critics. There is also no reason why anybody should be surprised at his reluctance, having been badgered into agreeing to release them, to actually do so. The records are a private matter and deal with what has to be a painful, formative period of Kerry's life. Outside of some awful scandal, of which there clearly is none, Kerry's history as a soldier has no bearing whatsoever on his fitness to be president or to be a spokesperson for his party in the Senate. The Republicans are playing a nasty con game here: encouraging people to conflate and cheapen Kerry's honour as a young man in war with whatever shortcomings he has as a politician; and trying to lure liberals into the game we always play, of trashing our former standard bearers into political oblivion if the cheap shots are easy enough. The willingness of "liberals" like Kaus and Vennochi and Wonkette to join in that game, especially over Form 180, is depressing and disgusting.
Reading Mickey Kaus' blog at Slate is always a frustrating experience. On the one hand, Kaus can still be relied on for the occasional steely-eyed insight into How Washington Works.
On the other hand, too many steely-eyed reality checks and you quickly end up with a big puddle of ugly pox-on-them-all cynicism. Most of Kaus' work, particularly over the past two years, is maddeningly nasty -- an especially unfortunate tic for a writer whose greatest claim to fame is his liberal defence of welfare reform. Never is this more true than when he gets going on his favourite subject: how much he loathes John Kerry.
Obsessive group-hating by pundits of disfavoured politicians is bad in and of itself (a fact that should hardly be lost on Democrats in the Bush era). But sometimes the practice goes beyond lazy self-indulgence and actually drives otherwise-liberal pundits to disgrace themselves in ways that strike at the heart of common decency. And that's the story with John Kerry and Form 180.
After the election, several rightwing blogs latched onto a promise Kerry made to Tim Russert on the Junuary 30th Meet the Press to sign Form 180, which entitles the Navy and Pentagon to release the signee's entire military service record -- in Kerry's case, about 30 additional pages of confidential material about his Vietnam service that the public, and the Washington establishment, has not yet seen. Conservatives had been clamouring for the form since before the end of the 2004 campaign. In fact, the issue was driven largely by those ubiquitous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. While some of the claims the Swifties made against Kerry were comprehensively disprovable on the existing evidence, the Swift Vets and their conservative allies (when they weren't hyping stupid nonstories like Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" dodge) -- claimed that the Swiftees' claims could only be solidly refuted by the information made available by the release of Form 180. In fact, with Bush now merrily into his second term, the continuing clamour for Kerry to release the form really doesn't have much to do with the Swift Vets or their allegations anymore. Instead, it's a way for conservatives to attack Kerry as a shifty, unprincipled waffler -- a man who, for all his talk, just can't get around to signing, and as of Monday, to mailing, that form.
Too many public "liberals" find this story irresistable. Yesterday, Kaus linked to this sneering column by the Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi:
AT THIS POINT it comes as no surprise. John Kerry is releasing all his military records -- but then again, he isn't.
During an interview yesterday with Globe editorial writers and columnists, the former Democratic presidential nominee was asked if had signed Form SF 180, authorizing the Department of Defense to grant access to all his military records.
"I have signed it," Kerry said. Then, he added that his staff was "still going through it" and "very, very shortly, you will have a chance to see it."
The devil is usually in the details. With Kerry, it's also in the dodges and digressions. After the interview, Kerry's communications director, David Wade, was asked to clarify when Kerry signed SF 180 and when public access would be granted. Kerry drifted over to join the conversation, immediately raising the confusion level. He did not answer the question of when he signed the form or when the entire record will be made public...
Somewhere beyond Vennochi's facile sneering (read the whole dreary thing)lies an unspoken kernel of truth: the Democrats should have known what they were getting into nominating John Kerry in the first place. The Vietnam War is a deeply, and in many cases irrationally, contentious issue for the generation who lived through it. Kerry's role in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, his testimony before Congress about the Winter Soldier Investigations, were always going to be a problem -- and one that no amount of Douglas Brinkley-inspired hagiography was going to fix. During the occupation of Iraq, what with its inevitable Vietnam comparisons, Kerry's Vietnam problem was only going to be compounded: providing conservatives with constant media-fuelled reminders of the valour of troops in a warzone that Kerry had once challenged on the Senate floor, and reminding liberals of the contradiction between Kerry's role protesting the Vietnam War and his vote in favour of, and initial support for, the US-led invasion of Iraq. At the same time, Kerry's deeply personal -- and self-selected -- association with the Vietnam War and its aftermath had no especial compensating resonance for the younger generation of voters, a point best made by Garance Franke-Ruta in this wonderful article for the American Prospect Online a year ago. In the end, Kerry was forced to hide and downplay much of what was best, most admirable and interesting, in his career during the campaign because of that conflict, because his history was so explosive. That made him look unaccomplished without really shielding him from the brunt of the inevitable rightwing attacks.
But none of that changes the fact that the ongoing flap over Form 180 is stupid and disgusting on just about every level. Kerry was the son of a Washington diplomat. At a time when most people of his age and background were getting deferments, being placed in the National Guard, or, at the very least, finding non-combat positions in Vietnam, Kerry (after failing at initial attempts to get a deferment), sucked it up and went as a regular soldier, eventually a Lieutenant and a swift boat captain, an extremely dangerous assignment. Even if you lend credence -- and I certainly don't -- to the less cracked accusations hurled by John O'Neill and his band of "Truth" seekers that Kerry was not courageous in combat, that he "fled" under fire on the Mekong Delta, that he exaggerated the extent of his injuries in order to get sent home early, or that he was, in general, a snob -- the fact remains that Kerry, as a young man from privilege, stared death in the face, participated in a terrible conflict he grew to loathe, came home to try to end that conflict and then, in his public career, worked to deal with its aftermath. As Hendrick Hertzberg put it during an NPR interview last summer, Kerry "passed the moral test of his generation with flying colours". At the very least -- at the very least -- he passed that test. As a matter of simple decency, there are certain demands, certain assumptions, that those of us who weren't put to a similar test, shouldn't make on those who were, whatever our quibbles about the details of their stories. That's got to be the bare minimum of compassionate conservatism, let alone of liberalism.
The larger point, however, is that, whatever the "truth" of Kerry's service, there is no earthly reason why he should be forced to release his military records to placate his critics. There is also no reason why anybody should be surprised at his reluctance, having been badgered into agreeing to release them, to actually do so. The records are a private matter and deal with what has to be a painful, formative period of Kerry's life. Outside of some awful scandal, of which there clearly is none, Kerry's history as a soldier has no bearing whatsoever on his fitness to be president or to be a spokesperson for his party in the Senate. The Republicans are playing a nasty con game here: encouraging people to conflate and cheapen Kerry's honour as a young man in war with whatever shortcomings he has as a politician; and trying to lure liberals into the game we always play, of trashing our former standard bearers into political oblivion if the cheap shots are easy enough. The willingness of "liberals" like Kaus and Vennochi and Wonkette to join in that game, especially over Form 180, is depressing and disgusting.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home