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.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
The Fog of Kerry
Filmmaker Erroll Morris has an interesting opinion piece in yesterday's NY Times. With January 20 looming, Morris tries to figure out why Kerry lost in November. He concludes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Morris makes good points but errs (out of a need for a dramatic flourish?) in ascribing single cause reasons for Kerry's defeat. It is a popular but flawed approach to making sense of a seemingly improbable outcome (the Victorian British prime minster William Gladstone for example over simplistically blamed his 1874 defeat on the introduction of closing time for bars, stating that he was swept from office "in a torrent of gin and beer").
I also would suggest caveat emptor around anyone of Morris' generation claiming that Vietnam experiences had the potential to frame the race and also inform Kerry as president in his conduct of the Iraq war. Vietnam was the most defining moment of their lives (especially those who actively opposed the war, and thus any foreign policy issue is viewed through an indo-china kaleidoscope).
Although the surface and facile Vietnam references on both sides fit the script predetermined by Kerry and the lazy media none of the substansive issues around that war were explored (Morris is right in that regard). It is the gravest of errors for statesmen to not only refuse to learn from history but also to slavishy apply a one size fits all solution based on the facts (and not the lessons) of the last big event to effect/divide/undermine/unite (or so on) a nation.
But what do I know? I forage in dumpsters for a living.
Post a Comment