Randy Barnett links approvingly to a column in the Seattle Times arguing that John Kerry should shut up about his war record:
Voters honor the service and patriotism of military veterans. Indeed, so much so that they can be quickly turned off by use of such symbols cynically to evade scrutiny and accountability.That’s why Kerry’s best move now might be to shut up about Vietnam. He’s about two applause lines away from convincing voters that he’s trying to cash in on a war that cost thousands of his fellow volunteers and draftees their lives.
Which is all well and good, but in my view also solidly in the tradition of “Impartial and Reasonable Advice to Democrats from Your Friends, the Republicans.” This week’s advice: Now that Kerry is the front runner, it’s time he stopped talking about his Vietnam record, for his own good. No, really! Not because someone else’s service record rather pales in comparison. I’m afraid it won’t wash. I don’t care if Kerry mentions his life in the military every other sentence, because we all know what “cashing in on a war” really looks like.
Oh but no doubt it will wash. Don’t ask me why, or above all how, but I bet it will, because it always does. Somehow Republicans just keep getting away with it. Like Bush I sneering at Clinton for having gone to Oxford - as if Clinton were the coddled scion of privilege who got admission to top schools dropped in his lap because of an accident of birth, and Bush were the nobody from Arkansas who had to fight his way up the hard way, via brains and effort.
Same with the military stuff. Somehow Bush is seen, totally counterfactually, as Machoguy/Militaryguy, when it was Gore who actually put himself in danger (and didn’t go AWOL). Somehow it will work the same way with Kerry. Don’t ask me how, I don’t begin to understand it, but it will.
It’s not hard to understand.
Vietnam created a deep schism in American politics related to war. It polarized the parties and the American public, associating pacifism with the Democrats and warmongering with the Republicans. Each party, and its candidates, face this hurdle of different perceptions and expectations. Just as they do on the subject of taxation and some other things. In many of these cases, particularly foreign policy and taxation, it works to the Democrats’ disadvantage.
Is it “fair”? Yes and no. I was just complaining this morning about how Bush has gotten a pass with his Vietnam-era experience while Clinton was pummeled. But when you consider how many Democrats complain that any Democrat that supported the Iraq invasion is “really a Republican”, you can see why the general public scrutinizes Democratic candidates with a different standard—and some cynicism—than they do Republicans.
The advice about Kerry is politically astute. When a positive quality in a candidate is automatically viewed skeptically by the public, it becomes very important that the candidate be reassuring about that quality. Anything that can be perceived as “boasting” is counter-productive. In general, one is socially allowed to be slightly boastful about qualities in one’s self that are not in dispute. The more in dispute a quality is, the more any sign of boastfullness is perceived as overcompensation and thus is diminishing of credibility.
That’s just reality. Deal with it.
The thing that seemed really odd to me about Barnett’s post is that he’s from Mass! That he didn’t know this very well-known fact about a long-serving senator from his own state is pretty amazing, really, and has to make one wonder about his level of information. (He said on the consipiracy one time that he often listed to quite a lot of Rush Limbaugh, so maybe that explains something.) Obviously Barnett isn’t an idiot, but this is really pretty amazing on his part.
I sure wish I could still stomach reading VC (I stopped about five months ago). Perhaps I should filter it such that I only read Eugene’s posts. David Bernstein and Juan Non-Volokh have really ruined VC for me. Barnett’s pretty bad, but not as bad as them.
I think a whole lot of Political Analysis from Political Pundits has the air of a theatre critic who sits in the front row and always comments that the actors smile too wide and make overly dramatic arm gestures.
Of course they do, because half of the audience is sitting in the balcony.
I can’t tell you how many criticisms I’ve heard (about people in both parties) along the lines of “All he talks about is. . . and I wish he’d just shut up about it!”
Most people who hear John Kerry or anyone else, will only hear him once. They will not watch all 17 debates, or hear every press conference, or attend the stump speech at every whistle stop.
Commentators need to realize that only half of the speech is aimed at the media, the other half are aimed at the individual people, most of whom haven’t heard this all before.
Matt, that was Randy’s attempt at humor.
Ophelia, how much danger did Gore put himself in?
Kieran, I think this is rather good advice, so I’d be happy if Kerry didn’t take it. A fat lot of good it did for Bush I and Dole…
Did anyone else think that the sentence
Perhaps this is because, as I recall from that era, he ended up becoming a very visible leader of the anti-Vietnam left, at that time using his honorable service to advance the cause of a movement that demonized, sometimes viciously (“baby killers!), the American military, though I am quite sure this was never his intent.
to be rather disgusting? Mr Barnett appears here to be putting himself on the side of apologists for the My Lai massacre, “although I am quite sure this is not his intent”.
“That was Randy’s attempt at humor”
Reading it again, I can see that that’s a pretty plausible reading (though it does make the last part pretty hard to understand how to take.) Maybe I should wait until I drink my coffee before reading, instead of doing it while it brews. Still, a very odd post.
Well of course it’s disgusting. And of course I also find it disgusting. Apart from anything else, the implication is that one should never oppose anything any military does.
In fact that sentence demonstrates exactly why I never use the word ‘demonize’ and try not to use words of similar purport. They simply equate criticism with unfair criticism. ‘Demonize’ is one of the first words I put in the Fashionable Dictionary, I think.
Hm. That’s a bit creepy. I’ve only now read the Barnett link (that’s all right, I was commenting on what Kieran quoted and said) - and I see a lot about Milt Rosenberg and his show and blog. That’s a bit creepy because Mr. Rosenberg is a fan of B&W’s. He’s linked to something of ours and said enthusiastic things twice that I know of.
That shouldn’t be creepy, necessarily; it’s perfectly possible to agree with people on some issues and not others; and yet - well, I don’t like Mr. Barnett’s tone. To put it mildly. So I’m feeling a bit ‘any friend of’-ish.
Oh well.
“How much danger did Gore put himself in?”
Gore was ACTUALLY IN VIETNAM. He was a military reporter, not a combat infantryman, so he wasn’t in as much danger as a lot of other soliders. Nevertheless, just because you’re a rear echelon person is no assurance that you won’t find yourself in harm’s way if you are in a war zone—see Jessica Lynch.
On the other hand, to the best of my recollection, the Viet Cong didn’t kill anyone in Houston.
Keith M Ellis wrote:
I was just complaining this morning about how Bush has gotten a pass with his Vietnam-era experience while Clinton was pummeled. But when you consider how many Democrats complain that any Democrat that supported the Iraq invasion is “really a Republican”, you can see why the general public scrutinizes Democratic candidates with a different standard—and some cynicism—than they do Republicans.
Good point. While I would not go so far as Ann Coulter to refer to Democrats as the “Treason Party,” I do agree with Arnold Kling that when it comes to foreign policy in particular they the “UN Party” whilst Republicans (even though many like Bush are avidly pro-UN but not to the point of stupidity) are the “US Party.” There is a real concern and not undeservedly so that the Democratic Party is no longer a serious party when it comes to foreign policy and cannot be trusted with national security.
IMNHO Kerry is the front-runner largely because many Democrats (a) recognize that Howard Dean and his supporters would rightfully be seen by the American electorate as lunatics and (b) there is a hope that because Kerry was a veteran while Bush was in the National Guard, that he might have some gravitas to challenge Bush in the area of foreign policy. The problem though is that Kerry’s own record on foreign policy would probably be interpreted as (a) weak on national security in general (voting against Desert Storm; more pro-Soviet than pro-America during the Cold War, trying to cut the CIA budget in 1996, trying to cut military spending during the Vietnam War, etc.) or in the few instances where he might look strong on national defense, it seems his votes were determined more by the political winds (Afghanistan, Iraq) than any core conviction.
Frankly, his deficits when it comes to foreign policy by far outweigh any of the medals he did not throw over the capitol gate.
Thomas wrote:
Kieran, I think this is rather good advice, so I’d be happy if Kerry didn’t take it. A fat lot of good it did for Bush I and Dole…
Good point, I would also add though that Kerry is in a unique situation in that if he continues to try to draw attention to his service as a soldier in Vietnam he will also draw heightened scrutiny to his post-service activities – particularly his slandering of American servicemen during Congressional hearings, his opportunistic staging of the “throwing of the medals over the gate” (while making sure to keep his own for the time when it became politically expedient to be a Vietnam veteran), helping to provide propaganda for the VC during a time of war, and attempting to cut military spending while we were still involved in the Vietnam War.
Vietnam in total could turn out to be more of a political liability for Kerry than an asset.
“helping to provide propaganda for the VC during a time of war”
The treasonous bastard! When the VC were massing in their millions off Montauk and Carmel, hours away from the invasion! That bastard!!
Demonize’ is one of the first words I put in the Fashionable Dictionary, I think.
did you? bloody well done. I’ve always hated it too.
Likewise, I think it’s absolutely essential that Bush not appear to be boasting about his war record. What’s that? He doesn’t have one? Or not one he’s willing to share? Oh. Well, maybe he can prance around in a flight suit or something.
Collin Levey fails to draw an important distinction: Kerry can use his military service record as a character issue against Bush. If John Kerry sticks to mentioning his service in Vietnam in the context of whether John Kerry is an honorable man, whether John Kerry is a Patriotic American, etc., etc., and lets people like James Carville and Michael Moore tarnish Bush’s character by exaggerating the badness of his National Guard record, Kerry’s Vietnam service can be quite an asset in the campaign.
However, if Kerry gives the impression that his decisions on foreign policy in the 2000s are primarily informed by his service as a foot-soldier in Vietnam, he will be wide open to the charge of being stuck in the past and not facing the issues of today, as well as to the criticism that Clark raised - that being a general in the 1990s gives one a much better handle on the issues that the president will face in the 2000s than did being a liutenant in the 1960s. The times, they have a’changed, and if Kerry dwells on Vietnam, he’ll look like someone who didn’t change with them.
Kerry does, however, need to avoid giving the impression he gave Garry Trudeau back in 1971.
This is mildly off topic, but: a lot of far-right publications—Newsmax and the like—have already started smearing Kerry’s Vietnam record, and it’s being picked up on some blogs. A lot of the charges appear to originate from a site called “Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry”, run by a guy named Ted Sampley. I expect to see much, much more of them if Kerry becomes our nominee.
So it’s worth saying now: Sampley is so far from a credible source it is ridiculous. Kerry, along with John McCain, is on his shit list for his role in opening relations with Vietnam in early 1990s, which some veterans opposed passionately because they believed Vietnam was hiding things about POWs, some of whom they claim may still be alive. From what I understand, there’s not much evidence for this, and restoring relations with Vietnam has allowed the U.S. to finally recover the remains of many, many soliders and a few civilians (the most famous of these may be Charles Dean, Howard Dean’s younger brother.) In any case, Sampley has been making vicious, immoral charges against McCain for over a decade now. He calls him the Manchurian candidate, alleged that he lied about being tortured, says he collaborated with the Viet Cong and only escaped court martial and got medals because of his connections….It is despicable stuff, which I hesitate to even post the link to—but people may not take my word for this, so:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
There are proveable inaccuracies in his attacks on Kerry, too—the reason I mention McCain is that people who are ready to believe the worst of Kerry for protesting are probably less willing to believe these charges against McCain.
So to people on the right: This is not a trustworthy guy, and not a guy you want on your side. Do not believe his charges against Kerry, or another right wing opinion site’s repetition of his charges, without independent confirmation.
(I don’t think these attacks will work; I think they could backfire severely. But you never know—look at Cleland or McCain in South Carolina—and I’m sure they will spread if not refuted.)
By the way, it’s not just Newsmax. The National Review has also linked approvingly to Sampley’s website.
Here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200401280858.asp
“So, I wondered, where are the fully informed veterans who remember Kerry’s lies and smears? Here they are: “Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry”. The website chronicles John Kerry’s antiwar activism.”
I’m sure all the people who were, um, zealously defending the National Review to Ted Barlow a few days back have some equally convincing reasons why this is okay….
rea—you’ve got me. Gore actually went to Vietnam. Say, which do you think is riskier: flying combat planes full time for 2 years (not in combat), or spending less than 6 months as a journalist in Vietnam, with guards? Should we compare the statistics?
What everybody fails to appreciate here is that repetition of message is the key to it being absorbed.
Unlike all of us overeducated and overinformed intellectuals, most voters don’t know much about the candidates personally. And with every new speech venue comes many new audience members.
So it’s too easy for coverage obsessed people like us to say, “hey, he’s using that line again.”
What that really is is “message discipline.” Something which George W. Bush is very good at, and which the Democrats’ last nominee was exceptionally poor at. Kerry seems to understand message discipline, and chastising him for it is a fundamental misunderstanding.
“I don’t think these attacks will work; I think they could backfire severely.”
It’s so seldom that this kind of thing does backfire on the Republicans. Very rarely it does, as Trent Lott noticed. But mostly - it works just the way they want it to. They’ll manage to make Kerry into an elitist draft-dodger and W into the brave little guy who fought in his place.
See above. Bush took greater risks staying home than Gore did going to Vietnam. They’ll say anything. Anything.
Katherine wrote:
There are proveable inaccuracies in his attacks on Kerry, too
Really, like what?
So to people on the right: This is not a trustworthy guy, and not a guy you want on your side. Do not believe his charges against Kerry, or another right wing opinion site’s repetition of his charges, without independent confirmation.
I seem to recall a couple of months ago when Katherine was leading a smear campaign on her blog against Judge Charles Pickering and she posted all sorts of (often selectively edited) garbage from Far Left groups like PFAW without “independent confirmation.”
Regardless though of whether Kerry does or does not deserve the honor he received for his military service, his actions upon returning to the United States including his smearing of American servicemen, his attempt to slash military funding while we were still fighting the Vietnam War, his attempt to gut the CIA during the mid-1990s (while later complaining about the lack of quality intelligence), his generally pro-soviet leanings during the Cold War in the 1980s, his willingness to let Saddam Hussein keep the Kuwaiti oil fields, his attempt to cut off support for our troops in Iraq now, his smearing of our allies in the war, and his opportunistic waffling on the War (much like his throwing of someone else’s medals over the capitol gates) all demonstrate that he is utterly unfit to serve as Commander in Chief.
Huh. You left out the bit about propaganda in wartime this time. Wassamatta, arnchoo worried about the VC invading any more?
‘Smearing.’ That’s another one like ‘demonize’ - one of those irregular verbs, in fact. I criticize, you attack, she demonizes, they smear.
Ophelia has nailed it.
We are indeed in for an exciting year. I would never have thought that I’d be going to another Democratic caucus but — and I put off skiing, so you know it was a sacrifice — I am going to mine in Seattle tomorrow.
Bring it on.
By the way, if we’re being pedantic here, “baby killers” would be a lie and a smear if applied to specific named American soldiers who did not kill babies, but as a general characterisation of the US armed forces in Vietnam, it’s neither. There certainly were baby killers in that organisation, and they were not dealt with.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review