Why doesn't Kerry deal with Vietnam head on?
Some question why John Kerry doesn't directly address the political legacy of Vietnam, which he spoke out strongly against, directly. He's being attacked anyway? But what's the point of ripping open wounds ona subject that, except for those who lived through the era, is but a cliche for most and celebrates one's credentials as "anti-war"? That, for many Americans and, in our current wimpy-if not-slavish media environment, translates as "unpatriotic".
This is a question worth thinking about. I believe, in the best of times, anti-war positions (probably confused with pacifism by the average Joe) are not popular. Sure, in the time we were living it, the debasement of the political process that we know as the Vietnam era became abundently clear to an increasing number of people. Eventually even Robert McNamara, who had as much to do with prosecuting the war as anyone.
And I believe that, even today, clear logic explains and decimates the case for Vietnam. Almost a no brainer. But since when has clear logic ever been a good political tactic?
If Kerry started to defend/explain his post combat Vietnam stance -- now -- well I can't begin to think of what the attack dogs would do. Look, they even got old senile (like a fox?) Poppy to do a job on Jane Fonda during the convention interview. Is this anything but a warning and a surrogate for saying we are going to go slime all over your sorry ass if you even touch that debate. (not that the Bushies aren't itching to implant the "traitor" meme into the debate by proxy whenever the chance arises).
Now if the thugs ever do bring that cat out of the bag I think -- maybe I hope -- it will raise Kerry's juices from latency and I have no question that he can become passionate and eloquent, which is always a good thing if it doesn't slop over into self-pity. Kerry has clearly sublimated his Vietnam feelings, perhaps for good reason, I don't know. But I tend to think they were genuine and not based on calculation for a political career for the reasons I named above. If that dragon is ever roused, I really pity Bush
This is a question worth thinking about. I believe, in the best of times, anti-war positions (probably confused with pacifism by the average Joe) are not popular. Sure, in the time we were living it, the debasement of the political process that we know as the Vietnam era became abundently clear to an increasing number of people. Eventually even Robert McNamara, who had as much to do with prosecuting the war as anyone.
And I believe that, even today, clear logic explains and decimates the case for Vietnam. Almost a no brainer. But since when has clear logic ever been a good political tactic?
If Kerry started to defend/explain his post combat Vietnam stance -- now -- well I can't begin to think of what the attack dogs would do. Look, they even got old senile (like a fox?) Poppy to do a job on Jane Fonda during the convention interview. Is this anything but a warning and a surrogate for saying we are going to go slime all over your sorry ass if you even touch that debate. (not that the Bushies aren't itching to implant the "traitor" meme into the debate by proxy whenever the chance arises).
Now if the thugs ever do bring that cat out of the bag I think -- maybe I hope -- it will raise Kerry's juices from latency and I have no question that he can become passionate and eloquent, which is always a good thing if it doesn't slop over into self-pity. Kerry has clearly sublimated his Vietnam feelings, perhaps for good reason, I don't know. But I tend to think they were genuine and not based on calculation for a political career for the reasons I named above. If that dragon is ever roused, I really pity Bush
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home