While General Clark comes out for national service, fellow candidates Dean and Kerry bicker over Vietnam. Hmm…while I’m very sympathetic to the idea that a war record should not be a prerequisite for political office, Kerry’s military service is obviously one of his main selling points, particularly when placed in contrast to Dubya’s AWOL year. So I’d say it’s a dumb call for Dean to begrudge Kerry’s mentioning of Vietnam, and especially given Dean’s own tour in Aspen during that time. For the Deanies, I’d think the less said about ‘Nam, the better.
10 thoughts on “The Value of Service.”
Comments are closed.
A military record didn’t help Stockdale, a lack of one didn’t hurt Clinton or W. Bush, and being a Vietnam vet isn’t going to help Kerry. Like my dad (USN, 1966-1969, Two Tours in Vietnam) said about Clinton’s attempts to squirm his way out of the service…”You did what you had to do to keep your ass out. Once you got in country, you didn’t begrudge the efforts of those trying to stay out.” Of course, this was before popular opinion turned.
National service is a great idea, provided that it’s run by the military. One shudders to think about the vast wastage an expanded version of Americorps would entail. It would be like an even bigger, more inefficient Columbiaesque mess. Revive the CCC or some other new deal era “building bridges to nowhere” organization (a well known New Deal Project in a canyon near my hometown in CA).
What purpose is served by perpetuating the Rovian slur that somehow Dean “avoided” military service and “didn’t really have a bad back” because “look! He went skiing!” Everything documented about this suggests that whatever condition he has precludes long distance running/marching, but doesn’t preclude other physical activity. Is the expectation that he should have stayed in his mother’s basement and flagellated himself daily because the ARMY TOLD HIM NOT TO GO TO VIETNAM?
(Besides, all you have to do is watch the guy walk or get in and out of cars to see that there’s definitely something not right about his back.)
Well, J-VJ, I’m not sure whom you’re quoting in your comment – those remarks aren’t from GitM, and I believe the Boston Globe article I linked to is a fair assessment of Dean’s deferment status. As I said in the original post, the fact that Dean didn’t go to Vietnam shouldn’t take anything away from his candidacy. (I agree with J-GO and his dad.) But I think its extremely unwise for Dean to lash out at Kerry because Kerry DID go to Vietnam and now won’t stop talking about it. Because, when you tally the two, serving in Vietnam seems much more statesmanlike than being (even legitimately) in Aspen, so you’d think Dean would avoid any comparisons on the issue. Instead, he’s acting like the aggressor in this case, which is, to my mind, a dumb call – such a stance (a) forces reporters to write about Kerry and Dean’s respective Vietnam-era tenures in contrast and (b) reinforces the “Mean Dr. Dean” CW.
Sorry, the quotes are meant to signify what’s implied by the sniping about skiing or participating in any other physical activity at any point during the time period in which the U.S. was at war in Vietnam — I put quotes there to make clear that it’s not how *I* characterize things. (The world needs more punctuation choices.)
I do dispute that serving in Vietnam necessarily bestows ‘statesmanship’ any more than, say, working in an emergency room in a poor urban area does.
Moreover, however the press spins it, Kerry’s incessant hawking of his Vietnam experience is just as annoying as Edwards son-of-a-millworker shtick. (Edwards is doing better at contextualizing that, lately, by the way; Kerry, OTOH, is not.] The fact that Kerry himself has said one shouldn’t use one’s military experience for political purposes merely adds to the annoyance. Besides which, the article you mention only claims to quote Dean himself in the (misleading) title. There are no quotes from dean that I saw on a quick skim. If Dean’s going to get called “mean” because of his campaign staff pointing out hypocrisies, then god help Kerry if people start attributing Jim Jordan’s asshole-ishness to him.
In short, you went for the cheap quip perpetuating a misleading stereotype about one of the Democratic frontrunners in the guise of offering advice about campaign strategy.
So when is Kerry going to actually talk about something other than how much he doesn’t want Dean to be president?
Sorry, but while it doesn’t make a soundbyte as pretty as Mean Dean, Kerry (and nearly every other Dem candidate) is meaner than Dean has ever been.
Kerry questions a comment Dean made 8+ years ago about Newtie’s Medicare plans, but has no problem flip-flopping himself over authorising Bush’s war.
Sorry, but I would much rather have Mean Dean in the WH than Spineless Kerry.
Well, J, I’ll stand by my cheap quip, as you call it. I referred to “Dean’s own tour in Aspen” during Vietnam. By Dean’s own reckoning, he spent 80 days skiing there. I also linked to an article that explained impartially the story of his back deferment…I did not link to some Rovian boilerplate. So, where does the misleading quip part come in? You’re basically proving my point – Simply mentioning the facts of Dean’s Vietnam-era story becomes “perpetuating a misleading stereotype” about him, which is exactly why Team Dean (and you’re right – it does appear to be his staffers, not the man himself) should avoid attacking Kerry on this issue.
And while I agree that there’s no quantifiable amount of statesmanship bestowed on a candidate for Vietnam service over work in a inner-city hospital, I still submit that serving in Vietnam has more of that statesmanlike je-ne-sais-quoi than being a Colorado ski bum for a year…or, for that matter, going AWOL because you can’t pass a coke test. This is not to say Kerry is a better man than Dean because of Vietnam…as you noted, Dean has his own appealing biography, which includes equally compelling attributes (such as inner-city hospital work.) But I think it’s both unfair and unwise to begrudge Kerry or any other candidate his bio. Unfair, because Kerry went to Vietnam and served ably – therefore he’s perfectly entitled to bring it up whenever he wants. (Moreover, he first came into the public eye as a Vietnam Veteran Against the War, so it’s not like he just started talking about it.) Unwise, because – as I’ve said a couple of times now – it lends itself to strictly comparing Dean’s and Kerry’s Vietnam experiences, which – within that narrow scope – casts a more favorable light on the latter.
Well, I know I’m not going to change your mind -I’m getting the sense the Kerry-Dean feud has gotten personal with you, as it should be. If nothing else, I admire the enthusiasm you bring to the table. I think it’s safe to say that none of the other main Dem contenders have found advocates here, and I’ve been harder on Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, et al on GitM than I’ve ever been on Dean. 🙂
“Simply mentioning the facts of Dean’s Vietnam-era story becomes “perpetuating a misleading stereotype” about him.”
Correct. So why do it? The point is that those are awfully carefully chosen ‘facts’ — I’m sure Dean also spent some number of total days during Vietnam brushing his teeth, too. Why adopt Republican-style spin to slam Democrats.
My broader issue is not, as you suggest, about things having ‘gotten personal’ (please; at best, that’s pretty condescending of you to suggest) or even about Kerry v. Dean, it’s a recognition that we buy into radical Republican framing of issues at our peril. Gore lost, among other reasons, because even his supporters did not fight back against the constant lies and misrepresentations.
If you’re going to remain unaligned during the primary, that’s great; bully for you. But then the best thing you can do for Democrats is to avoid perpetuating radical-right-style talking points against any of them.
If I have a chance, I’ll try to elaborate on this point at VJ sometime soon.
As an unaligned so far Democrat, I like Kevin’s website precisely because he hasn’t bought into anyone’s propaganda yet and points out the strategizing and gamesmanship going on. (Nor does he tend to buy into propaganda in general, since he has a nice critical eye for the issues.)
I’m not sure why any candidate pointing out another one’s flaws is necessarily “radical-right tactics”… sounds like the political process at work. Spin happens on both sides of the aisle, and patriotism appeals on both sides. No big mystery there.
What troubles me about this whole “we’ve all got to get on the same team” attitude is that 1) it inhibits dialogue among Democrats… hey, we all should make informed choices… unless you think that the political parties should just pick the candidates for the people, and we should go along with it for the sake of picking am “electable candidate”… exactly the kind of crap that led to Candidate Gore… and 2) it reminds me exactly of the bitter, whiny Gore apologists who said “Nader stole the election from Gore”, when the real problem was that Gore couldn’t state his case to the people strongly enough to get votes, in our democratic system.
I don’t think we should all get on the same team, nor do I think that intra-campaign jostling and criticism is not appropriate. Indeed, my website is nominally about tactics and strategy in the ’04 campaign, not policy issues, so obviously I think that’s a perfectly fun discussion to have. (Clearly, I need to expand on the point I’m trying to make because attempting to be terse is causing misunderstandings.)
Where we differ, apparently, is over what counts as radical right-style tactics and what doesn’t, and that’s what I’ll expand on at VJ when/if I have a chance. Had Kevin confined his comments to something along the lines of “Kerry’s military service is one of his selling points. It’s silly for Dean to begrudge it” or even “Kerry’s .. selling points… silly… begrudge … BECAUSE the right will hypocritically and disingenuously hammer him for not serving in Vietnam himself” I probably wouldn’t have blinked.
Kevin, by the way, was not unaligned in the last primary season, so don’t assume he’ll stay that way this time around. And if he *were* overtly supporting someone, while I’d have the same general complaint, the structure of my critique would be modified.
I do have serious qualms about brushing too many things aside as “oh, everybody spins, everybody appeals to patriotism.” No, not everything is equal(ly bad). The world is not Crossfire with only two sides and he said-she said-he-said arguments. Reading assignment: Brock, Blumenthal, Krugman, for starters. Then let’s talk.
And I was once a registered Republican (in my misbegotten youth) — definitely not going to be voting with the Greens anytime soon, never fear.
Well, J, I’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree on this one. We’re not talking about a Mediscare gambit or a Dem calling another Dem a tax-and-spender. And Dean didn’t move to Colorado to brush his teeth or even pour concrete. He, by his own account, went there to ski. And particularly if Dean’s campaign is going to act the aggressor and fault other contenders on the issue of Vietnam, that means his own Vietnam-era history becomes fair play. So, I don’t see how my initial remark is cheap, misleading, or even, “radical Republican,” nor do I see it as any different from the somewhat-daily political remarks I’ve been writing here for 4 years.
I am still unaligned at this point. (Bully for me, as you so snarkily put it.) And you’re right, that could change, although right now I still have no favorite horse among Dean, Kerry, Edwards, or possibly Clark. I should say, though, that Mark needs no education on my prior political leanings. As a former DC speechwriter himself, he was privy to an endless stream of my pro-Bradley, anti-Gore diatribes back in the day. And, while I’m sorry that you took my enthusiasm comment to be “at best…pretty condescending” (I was trying to be friendly, hence the emoticon…looks like I failed in that regard) I’d argue that it wasn’t half as condescending as handing out a “reading assignment” in your last post. More than many people I know, Mark is fully aware that the world is not Crossfire, and he is neither narrow-minded nor ignorant of political matters. Frankly, for you to suggest that he need to broaden his thinking and read up before y’all can talk, smacks deeply of the “radical-Republican” argument style that seemed to draw your ire in the first place.