Fred Barnes: The Bloody Shirt Is Back (Did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?)

THERE'S NEVER BEEN a presidential campaign like John Kerry's. Never has a presidential nominee made his own experience in a war the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House. In 1960, John F. Kennedy didn't hide his World War II record as commander of PT-109, but he didn't talk it up either. When asked about being a hero, he mocked the idea and said it stemmed from having his boat shot out from under him. John McCain's experience as a POW in Vietnam was well known when he ran for the Republican nomination in 2000. But he rarely mentioned it, except to note that his longest place of residence was Hanoi. Kerry is different. His speeches, TV ads, interviews, the entire Democratic convention--all have dwelled on his four months in Vietnam and the five medals he was awarded.

And there's still another unique aspect. Never has a presidential nominee run on the basis of his role in a war he opposed. Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, and the five ex-Union officers in the Civil War who became president benefited politically from their participation and leadership in a war. Most of them, in fact, were famous for their wartime service. Kerry, by contrast, became famous as a war protester, as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, who charged that war crimes were being committed by American troops in Vietnam on a daily basis. Now Kerry has stood the Vietnam issue on its head. He insists it's his war record that shows he would be a strong president.

Why is Kerry leaning so heavily on his performance in Vietnam? It's a bulwark against attacks on his weak record on defense and national security as a U.S. senator since 1985. In an era of terrorist attacks, his votes to cut intelligence spending, indeed his overall dovishness, are liabilities. So the theme of nearly every speaker at the Democratic convention in July was that Kerry's Vietnam service, not his Senate record, reflects the kind of president he would be. "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president," Kerry declared.

The two convention speeches leading up to Kerry's were delivered by Vietnam vets, and during Kerry's speech, a group of his former Swift boat crewmates stood behind him. "I thought I was watching the VFW convention," quipped Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. Former senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee, was quick to tell the delegates that Kerry had earned "a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts." Retired General Wesley Clark talked up Kerry's moments in combat. "John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars," Clark said. "He's seen the flash of the tracers. . . . He proved his physical courage under fire."

Has a candidate's having heard "the thump" of mortars or seen the "flash of tracers" ever before been used as grounds for election? Not in recent memory anyway. Harry Truman was an artillery officer in World War I, but his campaign didn't highlight that in his tough election battle in 1948. "You didn't get Kennedy saying, 'I have served and I have shrapnel in me,'" says Fred Greenstein, a presidential scholar and professor emeritus at Princeton. "Kennedy was too classy a guy to say that." (A Kerry campaign commercial says Kerry still has shrapnel in his leg.) George Bush senior, running for president in 1988 and 1992, didn't discuss his World War II service in the Pacific. Nor did Eisenhower rely on his war experience. "He didn't have to say 'I know about war,'" says Greenstein. "Everybody knew he knew about war."

Truman, Kennedy, Bush, and Eisenhower stressed other issues. Truman thrashed the "do-nothing Congress." Kennedy deplored a "missile gap" and exuded optimism about America. Bush ran as Ronald Reagan's heir but "kinder and gentler." Eisenhower promised to go to Korea and to clean up the mess in Washington. Kerry, however, "has made his four months of military service a key part, a mantra, a touchstone," says Greenstein. Since 1904, when presidential candidates began active campaigning, Kerry "is probably distinctive in the extent to which he makes reference to it."

That's putting it mildly. Kerry's campaign is also distinctive in the modern political era in using his Vietnam record to shut down criticism. Vice President Dick Cheney zinged Kerry recently for advocating a "more sensitive war on terror." At a rally in Flint, Michigan, Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, accused Cheney of distorting Kerry's words. Then he added this: "He's talking about a man who still carries shrapnel in his body. He's talking about a man who spilled his blood for the United States of America." Democratic senator Tom Harkin went further, calling Cheney a "coward" for not having joined the military or served in Vietnam.

This tactic is not new. It's called "waving the bloody shirt" and was quite common in presidential campaigns in the post-Civil War years--but not since then. In those days, presidential nominees didn't campaign personally. But Republicans urged people to "vote the way you shot." Presidential expert Al Felzenberg cites another Republican slogan: "Every [dead] Union soldier was downed by a Democrat." In 1868, Ulysses S. Grant's Democratic foe, Horatio Seymour, was accused of southern sympathies. Even when Democrats nominated General Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880, Republicans charged he represented "a Solid South against the soldiers and sailors of the patriotic North."

The Kerry campaign now treats President Bush the way Republicans dealt with Democratic presidential nominee Grover Cleveland in 1884. Republicans pointed out Cleveland hadn't served in the Civil War. At a Kerry campaign press conference last week, Clark characterized the two candidates this way: "One man volunteered to serve his country. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He volunteered a third time to command a Swift boat in one of the most dangerous activities in the war. The other man scrambled and used his family's influence to get out of hearing a shot fired in anger."

There's a problem in comparing the Kerry and Bush war records. Kerry needs to play up his in an effort to show he would be a tough commander in chief. Meanwhile, Bush's record as a National Guard fighter pilot is not particularly relevant. He has been commander in chief for more than three years, allowing voters to judge him on his actual performance rather than on military records more than three decades old.

The Kerry fixation on his Vietnam record turns out to be more risky than expected. His claims about his war experience have become a matter for scrutiny, though not by the Bush reelection campaign as far as we know. Instead, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has charged Kerry with lying about his record in Vietnam or exaggerating it. The Kerry campaign can't dismiss the group as men who ducked Vietnam duty. The anti-Kerry veterans stayed in Vietnam for full 12-month tours, longer than Kerry did. Many were in the same unit as Kerry. Their criticism of Kerry is over specific incidents that require a specific response. Being forced to defend his war record wasn't part of Kerry's campaign plan.

Is Kerry's strategy working? We'll get an initial reading soon when polls measure whether the attacks by the Swift Boat Veterans, both on Kerry's war record and his antiwar protesting, have had an effect. The real test comes this fall when voters will be paying more attention and Kerry's Senate record on national security will be under discussion. Has Kerry's Vietnam episode inoculated him? Presidential historian Forrest McDonald doesn't think so. "He's grasping at straws," McDonald says. Maybe so.

That has been my experience too. Had a good friend who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. It was like pulling teeth to get him to talk about it. Eventually I gave up.

The one exception that I have met was my high-school driver's ed teacher in 1977. He was infantry at Metz and the Seigfried Line- had to go into German tunnel complexes and burn them alive them with flamethrowers- up close and personal. He was old and sick, and he was trying to deal with all of this before his life was over. His 'lose it' point was in a class that I was in- he started crying.

Damn. I was a ferocious reader, and a huge student of history- with WW2 as a specialty. I wanted to go take him out in the hall and try to talk him down- as best a sixteen year old kid could. Poor guy.

Hope he got it to where he could deal with it. I had to move away shortly after that- and I didn't see him again before he passed away.

Yeah. In other words, not the GOP, but Freepers, talk show hosts, bloggers, etc. I agree it would be a mistake for the GOP to focus on Vietnam. That's why I'm glad they're not doing it.

Correct. The Freepers, talk show hosts, bloggers, etc. can focus on his military record and Viet Nam. The time will come shortly when the GOP people will jump into the fray focusing on Kerry's voting record while in the Senate. Kerry will be playing defense from now until November.

The Swift Boat Vets are not a part of the GOP. There may be some who happen to be Republicans, but they are not affiliated with the party itelf.

Actually, this has taken quite a bit of time for a response to all of F'n's Vietnam this and Vietnam that. He has hardly spoken of anything else since he starting taking the lead in the Primaries. Go back and look at some of those early threads from, say, the Dim debates, or F'n's own political ads. His very being is infused with his Vietnam war hero fantasies.

I am GLAD that Vietnam veterans are finally getting their say! They were spit upon and considered "lesser veterans" for all these years. One of my cousins fought in Vietnam and he believed he was worthless when he returned to the States and was treated so horribly. Talk about having a memory "seared" into you. His life spiraled downward until he died several years ago and much of that descent was due to getting imprinted with ignobility as a young soldier by the likes of F'n Kerry and his pals.

They were spit upon and considered "lesser veterans" for all these years. One of my cousins fought in Vietnam and he believed he was worthless when he returned to the States and was treated so horribly.

Want to hear something weird? In 1969 or so, as a small boy, I asked my father if there'd be some kind of a parade or something for the returning Vietnam people. (Small boys really look forward to military-victory themed parades, especially when they read nothing but history books.)

He said, "No, I don't think that it is that kind of a war."

I am here in Iraq so I may not get the latest news. I watched Fox news shown on AFN yesterday and they said the latest Bush-Cheney commercial focused on Kerry missing 76% of the intelligence committee hearings since he has been on the committee. The piece featured the Intelligence committee chairman Sen. Roberts saying he would release the attendance records of Kerry and Edwards if they called him and asked him to. That does not sound like the Republicans are focusing on Viet Nam to me.

The Swift Boat Vets have standing to challenge Kerry, that's the key. Nobody can question their own valor or military credentials. Kerry isn't inocculated against them one bit, that's why their claims are getting such traction. Kerry can't just blow them off as he would anyone else by saying "I served and you didn't so don't question me" - because they served as well or better than he did.

This is an excellent point. When people first started questioning Kerry's service, I initially thought "well, we know he went to war and got hurt 3 times while he was there. That might not be much, but it's more than I did."

And all of that is true as far as it goes. But the "it's more than I did" is not true for the Swift Boat veterans. And that's why they have, as you put it, standing.

The Kerry fixation on his Vietnam record turns out to be more risky than expected.

What is significant is who it was who was doing the expecting. His Vietnam experience became relevant to the current presidential campaign only as it served to signify that he was a veteran who became vocally antiwar, and that this was supposed to do two things for him: first, to insulate him against the charge that he is insufficiently experienced to manage national defense, and second, and more important, that his conversion to the antiwar side was the same morally correct direction that the anti-Iraq-war wing of the Democratic party wanted to swing the nation. He was, in essence, a living symbol of their disdain for Bush's policies in Iraq, and in the absence of the latter, Kerry's Vietnam experience was as irrelevant as Harry Truman's artillery experience.

This activist wing of the Democratic party must have Vietnam, because they must repudiate Bush on Iraq. That's their entire approach to this presidential campaign, and it turns out that the vessel they had available to them was seriously flawed even in this regard. Kerry's antiwar activities alienated him from the crowd his service was supposed to inoculate him against, and the left just didn't get that. Now they're stuck with a fellow who has a pitiful voting record, a pathetic legislative record, no particularly strong anti-war stance, and a one-note refrain "I served in Vietnam." That is the stuff of only one kind of political campaign: a losing one.

This is what Bill Kristol said tonight on Jim Lehner's show:

The way I would put it is this: Kerry's presenting himself to the voters with his band of brothers who served in Vietnam, Kerry's real band of brothers were the antiwar... was the antiwar movement. That's where Kerry is ideologically and politically, and fine. He's a liberal, he's anti-war, he's been dovish on most issues in the last 30 years; he should present himself that way.

Good piece, Fred.. great history lesson.

The last few paragraphs are a bit off.. JFK is a flim-flam man.. a fraud.. a liar.. a traitor.. a schemer - nominated by his party because he could defeat GWB.

The left hates what conservatives stand for and they have demonized GWB - took opposite positions to every single issue. It's fascinating to me that to nominate a winning candidate, they selected the most dishonorable character in the history of this nation.

At a Kerry campaign press conference last week, Clark characterized the two candidates this way: "One man volunteered to serve his country. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He volunteered a third time to command a Swift boat in one of the most dangerous activities in the war.

What the hell does that mean?

"One man volunteered to serve his country."

He "volunteered" to join the Navy after his draft board turned down a request for a deferment.

"He volunteered to go to Vietnam."

How do we know this?

He volunteered a third time to command a Swift boat in one of the most dangerous activities in the war.

Per Boston Globe regarding Kerry's request for swift boats

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

"The one exception that I have met was my high-school driver's ed teacher in 1977. He was infantry at Metz and the Seigfried Line- had to go into German tunnel complexes and burn them alive them with flamethrowers- up close and personal. He was old and sick, and he was trying to deal with all of this before his life was over. His 'lose it' point was in a class that I was in- he started crying"

I'm about to cry just thinking about what he went through. At 16 you couldn't have done him much good. Hell, I don't think anyone but God could soothe the pain.

The really sad part is the guys he burned were just kids like him, doing their duty for their country which had gone mad at the time. I'll bet their scream of agony never left his memory. How can anyone who has not gone through that relate?

War really sucks, but its a fact of this life.

"Never has a presidential nominee run on the basis of his role in a war he opposed."

General George McClellan ran on an anti-war platform against Lincoln during the Civil War if my memory serves me. As I recall, the veteran soldiers of the Union Army detested McClellan and largely voted for Lincoln, enabling old Abe to win the election. If McClellan had been elected, the union would have been disolved. Oh yes, McClellan was also a democrat.

This was an instance in our history where veteran American soldiers were decisive in a presidential election during a time of war. Not by arms, but at the ballot box. They were true Americans exercising their inalienable rights and we should remember their example.

Once again it appears that American veterans may be decisive in a presidential election in a time of war.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.