Posted on 08/20/2004 8:59:58 PM PDT by RWR8189
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.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
Another thanks for your service there. Keep us informed as you can.
Did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam? That's right - received three purple hearts!
in 3 weeks time- after GWB's convention bounce, you will see the people on DU wringing their hands, that it is all over, and they picked the wrong guy--and they should have gone with Dean...
that is, if you could stomach DU, which I certainly can not.
I hope you're right. While everything seems to be going our way to clear-thinking, reasonable people who pay attention to what's going on, I'm worried a plurality of the voters will not be clear-thinking, reasonable people who pay attention to what's going on. I'm worried the swiftvet ads might backfire. People who only half-listen to the news are going to think "republican attack machine" and go with kerry.
Think people. He is perfectly willing to file a lawsuit to try to shut up a group of US veterans 3 months before a presidential election, as a nominee and a senator. How is he going to act with the entire US government at his beck and call, under real opposition, if actually entrusted with such an office?
And the Dems shriek about the Patriot Act. They've called their commander in chief Hitler, run Goebbel's worthy hit pieces as "documentaries", and the President has calmly let them rant. What would Kerry do, if the same were thrown at him, and he had an FBI, IRS, and yes also a Patriot Act at his disposal? Anybody like the Swifties chances at the freedom of press treatment Moore and company got from Bush, in that scenario?
Bump!
"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."
The original JFK had enough class to know that losing one's boat is not a cool thing for a Navy skipper to do. And he knew that millions of American Navy vets knew it too. They may have cut him some slack because of his self-effacing comments about it. He got political mileage out of PT109 but he didn't shout about it from the rooftops like the new JFK does with his Vietnam service.
I'm glad the Swifties spoke up but I don't think we should let this take the focus off of SKerry's Senatorial record. He needs to be hit with both barrels simultaneously.
So true. I returned to Travis AFB at the end of an in- country tour in mid '67.
I will never forget it. My family was there -- including a daughter I had never seen. HOWEVER, this greeting was the exception. I clearly remember that a large majority of the troops were left to fend for themselves -- no family there; no expedited transportation; and no homecoming, AT ALL.
The memory of that sad day has had a lasting effect upon me. And, never as a Nation, should we treat our veterans in such a cavalier manner. Never again !!
Thank you very much for letting me get this off my chest.
My dad earned a medal for bravery in WWII. He NEVER talked about it. Finally, a famiily-reunion booklet (he had 7 brothers) was produced about the lives of all 8 of the brothers, including my dad, and it was only then that I learned the facts about his bravery and getting the medal. Humble good brave man. That was my dad. Not a pompous BSer like Kerry.
I know a lot of Vietnam vets and only one of them talks and he's BSer from way back.
The Kool-Aid drinkers better start getting some of that
REAL STRONG 'Jim Jones Mix' - cause they'll be slitting
their wrists before long. The cat is out of the bag.
History shall record the day that 250 highly decorated
Veterans came out of obscurity in their middle/golden
years, and heroically, at great risk to their
reputations and good names, did their country a greater
service than when they fought and bled in distant rice
paddies.
Every single Vet who was spat on and called a 'baby
killer' upon his return from 'Nam has been waiting for
35 years to get back at the single man most responsible
for fostering that climate of shameful hatred.
Payback is a BITCH, Johnny-boy.
Excellent piece. Perceptive and circumspect. This should appeal to both conservos and middle grounders.
What??? But I distinctly heard Kerry tell Chris Wallace on FNS a few weeks ago that he had a strong record voting for the military and for intelligence funding. Surely Kerry wouldn't lie -- he was in Vietnam, you know!
Chris didn't call him on it -- but I think he was as taken aback as I was; he was probably prepared for Kerry to defend his voting record, not outright deny it.
As I recall, he chose the Navy when his draft board turned down his request for a deferment at a time when the Army was doing all the heavy lifting in Vietnam. Probably just a coincidence . . .
So what really explains the rancor arising in this election year? Why is it that the Democrats cannot get over their hurt feelings about the final tally in the Sunshine State? My explanation is counseled by the historic record. The two branches of the most political generation of the twentieth century, the 1960s generation, are now in the fullness of middle age. They were on opposite sides of the barricades in 1968 and so they are today -- though the barricades have been replaced by party lines. John François Kerry, the Clintons, Dr. Howard Dean and other leading Democrats were Coat and Tie Radicals in 1968, radicals adhering to a leftist agenda while favoring the ambiguity of a coat and tie to preserve what Bill Clinton famously called "political viability." In 1968, George W. Bush and many of his cabinet members were Penny-Loafer Conservatives. They wanted nothing to do with protests and communes.Immediately after the 1960s and throughout the 1970s, during which 1960s themes resonated, the contemporary wisdom held that 1960s youth culture was radical. Actually it was split. In 1972 the youth vote went against the radical George McGovern and for President Nixon. Support for the Vietnam War endured almost to the end. While protesting youth such as Kerry and the Clintons were smiled upon by the media despite the social pathologies that attended their lifestyle, for instance drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, the young conservatives developed their own distinctive point of view.
Geez, Fred, I think you forgot a biggie here. General Washington served also, and even he didn't wear it on his sleeve.
BTTT
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.