Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where's the Rest of Him? (Kerry & Vietnam)
NY Times ^ | January 18, 2005 | ERROL MORRIS

Posted on 1/18/2005, 6:31:48 AM by neverdem

GUEST OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Cambridge, Mass. — SO why is George W. Bush taking the oath of office this week and not John Kerry? For me, the answer is clear: Mr. Kerry failed because of his inability to tell his own story. John Kerry could have presented to the American people his full biography, but instead he chose to edit who he was. Why?

My guess is that Mr. Kerry and his campaign believed that certain things could not be mentioned. Foremost among these was Mr. Kerry's opposition to the war in Vietnam, which was largely erased from the candidate's life. That was a mistake. People think in narratives - in beginnings, middles and ends. The danger when you edit something too severely is that it no longer makes sense; worse still, it leaves people with the disquieting impression that something is being hidden.

Muting Mr. Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam War had precisely this effect. Remember, this is the man who in 1971 made the following statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say they we have made a mistake. ... We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Last year at the Democratic Convention in Boston, the Vietnam War was transformed into a strange version of World War II. Gone was the moral ambiguity, the complexity. Instead, Vietnam veterans appeared with Mr. Kerry as "a band of brothers," testifying to his heroism in battle.

This is what Mr. Kerry said in his acceptance speech: "Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country."

Could Mr. Kerry's campaign advisers have forgotten about his role as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War? Could they have forgotten about his Senate testimony? Did they expect others to forget - particularly longtime anti-Kerry veterans like John E. O'Neill? If so, they were gravely mistaken, and their reticence on the subject merely made Mr. Kerry vulnerable to attack.

To me, John Kerry's heroism encompassed both his actions in combat and his willingness to change his mind and stand up for what he thought was right. He realized that soldiers and civilians were dying in a war that wasn't accomplishing its objectives. Yet he never tied this crucial piece of his biography into his campaign for the presidency. And in failing to do so, he left a blank space in his personal story - a blank space that made it possible for the criticisms of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be alarmingly effective.

By implying that his real heroism was fighting in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry also left himself open to the charge that he was somehow inauthentic. Americans have a complicated relationship with their military heroes: we expect them not to talk about their heroism. War heroes, in real life and in the movies, rarely speak about their courage in battle. Eisenhower didn't. Nor did Kennedy, Bob Dole, or the president's father.

And then there was the president. Though George W. Bush's military record was arguably less impressive than his opponent's, the Republicans never misrepresented who he was. Mr. Bush never pretended to be a war hero. He never pretended to be anything but a ne'er-do-well who turned his life around when he became a born-again Christian. His life story made sense; it was recognizable and easy to understand. There was no point in attacking him about his war record (or lack of one): he had already conceded the point. He had never claimed to be a hero. John Kerry had.

Mr. Bush portrayed himself as a controversial but candid incumbent. In accepting his party's nomination, he said: "In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand." This was the cornerstone of his approach. And it worked. People grasped who he was, even when they disagreed with his policies.

After the 2004 conventions, a New York Times poll asked people whether they felt that the candidates were not being candid about their war records. Many of Mr. Kerry's supporters were mystified that almost as large a percentage of Americans felt that he was holding something back as felt that Mr. Bush was doing the same.

But the polls made perfect sense. Mr. Kerry was holding something back - his real story about Vietnam. And in the end the questions about his service in Vietnam became questions about how he would deal with the war in Iraq. Was Mr. Kerry for it or against it? Questions about Iraq became questions about his candor, and vice versa.

What's disconcerting here is that Mr. Kerry had an out. He could have explained why he went to Vietnam and then opposed the war, and then he could have used this explanation to help people understand why he voted for the Iraq war and then voted against it. His experience with the changing nature of a war could have shifted those critical swing voters, convincing them that he was just the person to lead them at this juncture in our history.

Many people believe that Mr. Kerry is not preparing for his inaugural this week because he wasn't conservative enough, because the Democrats were outwitted by Karl Rove, because of gay marriage, because of the Christian evangelicals who supposedly came out of the woodwork on Election Day.

But these people miss the point. John Kerry lost because he concealed something that was completely honorable, even heroic: his opposition to Vietnam. George W. Bush told the truth about something that, to my mind, was not honorable: he supported that war but found a way to stay home. Mr. Kerry was forthright about almost everything except himself - and in this election that was not enough.

Errol Morris, a filmmaker and director, won an Academy Award last year for the documentary "The Fog of War: 11 Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara." In the 2004 campaign, he produced political commercials for MoveOn.org.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; US: District of Columbia; US: Massachusetts; US: Texas; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; kerry; vietnam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

1 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:31:49 AM by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Did you forget the barf alert!


2 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:37:15 AM by basil (Exercise your Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

In short Kerry lost because he's one lying liberal SOB.


3 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:42:10 AM by Democrap (http://democrap.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

The fallacy is that Kerry volunteered for VietNam when in reality he went into the Vaval Reserve, the equivakent of the Nationak Guard to avoid going but his unit got called up. Secondly, He never "changed" his mind about the war. He was against it before going , while there and after coming home. How can these writers be so uninformed?!


4 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:42:56 AM by wildcatf4f3 (out of the sun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wildcatf4f3

man I gotta type slower next time.


5 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:43:54 AM by wildcatf4f3 (out of the sun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Amazing, this avowed left-winger "gets it" better than Kerry and his whole campaign staff, not to mention the entire Dim party did. Or does.

Also notable, he does not deride the Swifties, nor imply that they told lies.

Amazing. I think I'd hire this guy, if I ever had a job for this type of person.

Great post!


6 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:44:16 AM by jocon307 (Ann Coulter was right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

He most certainly did.


7 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:47:05 AM by MadAnthony1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Interesting Times; 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub

He dare not open up that can of worms...and the author did not quote Kerry's accusing the whole military of atrocities..of being like the army of Ghengis Khan..

He didn't talk about his unauthorized talks with the Viet Cong in Paris nor his being at a meeting of the VVAW where the assassination of Senators was discussed..NO, he could not go there..He had to hide and brag about "heroics".

He could not speak of treason.


8 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:49:07 AM by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"John Kerry could have presented to the American people his full biography, [but did not]...."

Thank God for small miracles.

9 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:50:35 AM by Chummy (Liberals -- the other Red meat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
NOTE:In the 2004 campaign, he produced political commercials for MoveOn.org.

LOL. If John Kerry had done what this dolt suggests, he would have lost even worse then he did.

This clown thinks that Kerry should have drawn a parallel between his Vietnam flipfloppery and the 87 Billion flipflop? And then he should have built his campaign around it. What a moron.

John Kerry never said he was AGAINST the Iraq War. In fact, he had repeatedly called for Saddam's ouster. With that in mind, the $87 Billion comment just looked more opportunistic the more it came up. At least Kerry has some marginal talent as a politician. The moveon.org idiots only talent seems to be one for frittering away other lefties' money on counterproductive advertising.

Thank God the #1 political movement on the left is so tone deaf.
10 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:51:57 AM by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the Rats in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

He left out a few things..
#8


11 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:52:24 AM by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

Amazing, this avowed left-winger "gets it" better than Kerry and his whole campaign staff, not to mention the entire Dim party did. Or does.

Also notable, he does not deride the Swifties, nor imply that they told lies.

Amazing. I think I'd hire this guy, if I ever had a job for this type of person.

Great post!



Maybe you should read it one more time...slowly,paying close attention to the last paragraph.


12 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:55:48 AM by loboinok (GUN CONTROL IS HITTING WHAT YOU AIM AT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: loboinok

"But these people miss the point. John Kerry lost because he concealed something that was completely honorable, even heroic: his opposition to Vietnam. George W. Bush told the truth about something that, to my mind, was not honorable: he supported that war but found a way to stay home. Mr. Kerry was forthright about almost everything except himself - and in this election that was not enough"

BARF


13 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:58:22 AM by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Well, this is close to the truth, and about as close as I think the Slimes can come and maintain their worldview.

Kerry didn't talk about his traitorous actions in regards to Vietnam because he knew it would sink his campaign. He figured that his silence, with a little help from the MSM, would not only allow him to hide what he had done, but attack Bush for his NG service.

But the Swiftees, Kerry's comrades in arms, didn't allow things to go as he had planned. They spoke out against him, and when the MSM ignored, and then attacked them, they raised money to tell nothing more and nothing less then the simple truth.


14 posted on 1/18/2005, 6:58:28 AM by swilhelm73 (Like the archers of Agincourt, ... the Swiftboat Veterans took down their own haughty Frenchman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

BARF


You got that right!


15 posted on 1/18/2005, 7:00:43 AM by loboinok (GUN CONTROL IS HITTING WHAT YOU AIM AT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Mr. Bush never pretended to be a war hero."

BINGO!

Kerry did, and he still does. Kerry is slime.

16 posted on 1/18/2005, 7:02:39 AM by Radix (The Tag Line you were looking for has been replaced with an exact duplicate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
According to the writer Kerry should have said...........I am John Kerry and I am a Traitor.

Yeah, that works with Americans every time.

Amazing that Kerry forgot that.

Maybe he thinks he is a hero.The delusional writer obviously does.

17 posted on 1/18/2005, 7:08:09 AM by smoothsailing (Eagles Up !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Where's the rest of him?

Not there!! He's a hollow man!

18 posted on 1/18/2005, 7:09:50 AM by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Amazing, this avowed left-winger "gets it" better than Kerry and his whole campaign staff, not to mention the entire Dim party did. Or does. Also notable, he does not deride the Swifties, nor imply that they told lies. Amazing. I think I'd hire this guy, if I ever had a job for this type of person. Great post!

ahh. did you forget the 'sarcasm' symbol?

e-gad. Like, where is the part about the collaborating with the enemy - a traitorous, illegal act that,constitutionally, makes sKerry ineligible to run for dog-catcher, let alone the Senate?

What about the self-inflicted wounds, the better to get the requisite 3 to beat it on our of the war? (No wounds requiring hospitalization.)

What about the less than honorable...well, let's just say that it sKerry HAD actually told the truth, he would've done even worse in the election.

This piece is delusional...

19 posted on 1/18/2005, 7:14:44 AM by maine-iac7 (...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

"In the 2004 campaign, he produced political commercials for MoveOn.org."

Imagine that!


20 posted on 1/18/2005, 7:28:06 AM by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson