[Unless something special comes up, I shall wipe my hands of this issue after today. It does not deserve the amount of attention it received and a successful Kerry Campaign stands elsewhere. All the same, it deserves at least once to be discussed in detail over here, I guess.]
Let me open up a window to my general thought processes about most things. I am a bit of a generalist; trying to keep knowledgeable about a lot of things, though some things in particular do catch my fancy while some other things do not (economics is not really my thing). This requires me to have formulate rough pictures in my mind, and from there, I can make particular decisions. I don't think this is too unusual.
So, let's take this Vietnam business, back in the news. Neither my immediate family nor I had to deal with this issue, and my parents (to my knowledge) did not think too much of it while they went along and raised us. Also, I think the war was a sad mistake, though I understand the thinking behind it. Others, generally older than I, have much more visceral feelings about the era. Some fought, protested, or intimately was involved in the events of the day.
I surely cannot say for sure what I would have done at the time, but given my general makeup, I would probably try to use educational deferments to resist the draft. I also would have used connections, even if they benefited me more than others, if possible. I really doubt I would have done it, but if I did join up, I'd try (as one teacher of mine told us was possible toward the end) to juggle the system to make sure I didn't get sent to Vietnam.
It's important to be honest about such things, since I do think the golden rule is roughly a legitimate way of thinking about things. Anyway, what about the candidates? John Kerry, influenced by the sense of duty (noblesse oblige mixed in) instilled in him by his father's diplomatic service, the class he grew up in, and his use of JFK as a role model, felt he had to join the military. [The idea that military service was necessary for a future political career also might have been one factor in his mind.]
JFK also might have influenced the branch of service he chose, though Kerry originally tried also to get a safer post. He served honorably and bravely, though for a shorter time than many others. Also like many others, he came back disgusted with the war, but had a special gift in expressing it.
Kerry also had a high opinion of himself, and seemed to possibly have a tendency to be a bit too full of himself. Doonesbury at the time made fun of this quality. Overall, a respectable veteran, but one of many. All the same, I cannot find much respect in those who quibble over just how brave he was, especially given how slim their proofs are. Ditto the protest phase -- all the others Kerry spoke for that day in Congress should come out and tell these people to stop challenging their patriotism. Or remind them just how high the emotions were and just how young were those who expressed them.
George Bush took a different path. Bush generally came from the same class background as Kerry, but was more of a happy go lucky little rich kid. This per se is not really a character flaw, and many of us would go through the same basic route as he did early on. My idealism wasn't put to the test like those of that era, so I cannot really sneer at someone getting special help from his dad to get into the Texas Air National Guard.
I'd just underline that unlike today the chances of overseas service will about nil. The implications otherwise is when it starts getting touchy. This is one important issue -- it really doesn't matter too much that he seems (again, looking at things roughly) to have gotten out of service early. No one really expected him to give a 100% -- they really didn't miss him.
As things come out (and damn if this thing drags out like an afternoon soap opera ... that too is annoying, especially given yet again one side seems to get the better of it), it does sound like Bush got particular special treatment. Fine. So it goes for those with connections. But, yes, one might respect someone who felt a bigger responsibility to serve his time, easy as it was. Again, the true problem is when President Bush stands by while Kerry's record is smeared. This takes nerve, given his own. Ditto those doing the smearing. And, as Krugman notes, blocks attempts for voters to get a clear picture of the truth. [Sentence added.]
It is particularly grating to recall how Bush whole life was like this. Service. School. Business. Election to President. All along, special treatment, not merit alone. But, that alone doesn't disqualify. It helps, surely, but if we liked the guy, we might forgive it. Of course, we do not like the guy, especially his sense of privilege, his sense that he it was all his right, and the nerve of people to challenge him on it! To add insult to injury, Kerry is the one deemed guilty. This is just too much to bear.
So, the Vietnam issue does matter because it helps us understand the men themselves, their characters, and how each side uses these things to their benefit. It also says something of the press, including their inability to put forth the whole story, allowing one side to string us along, and (when it suits them) blame everything on partisan politics.* And, it is a real human interest story, about personalities, about a special time in our history, not dry policy concerns.
It still has troubling aspects, the clearest being that ultimately it should not dominate our decision on whom is the best candidate for president. Yes, it does serve a useful symbol of various things, including the personality of the two men. On the other hand, the implication Kerry can be a war president because he lead a few men bravely in a swift boat is ridiculous. The same applies to Bush -- others received special treatment, including some the Democrats supported over the years, and Clinton himself did not serve in the military at all. Finally, ultimately what happened since then is the truly important thing.
So, though I agree it is relevant, provides some good attack material [though not without a price], it still should not have dominated the campaign for this long. And, all sides -- the press, the President, various groups (independent or not), and John Kerry all are to blame. Not equally, of course, nor for the same reasons. This obviously is important to underline. Anyway, I guess we are stuck with it, but maybe we can put it in proper perspective and try to use it wisely.
As much as we can in an imperfect campaign.
---
* This is particularly amusing. President Bush’s press secretary declared that the Kerry supporter who recently said that he regretted that the special assistance he supplied to Dubya and others back then was just saying those things because he was a partisan hack. Said hack supported the press secretary’s mom (a Republican) when she ran for office a couple years back.
And, of course, the President himself had a hard trouble criticizing the Swift Boat ads, instead opposing all 527s (which even Sen. McCain said no one really wanted to do; only to require them to follow the same rules as other groups). This is a typical dodge that allows people to resist the substance of the matter. I hope his crocodile tears doesn't ruin his suit.