Proud politicians—who want to be accurately appreciated,
today and for all time—say the damnedest things to the New York Times.
Concluding an interview with former Nebraska Senator and now
candidate Bob Kerrey, journalist Matt Bai gets at what could be Kerry’s biggest
campaign uncertainty. It deserves careful reading:
“In April 2001, about four months
after he left the Senate, Kerrey saw his darkest secret explode into public
view. In this magazine, and in an accompanying segment on 60 Minutes, the
journalist Gregory Vistica reported that while in Vietnam, Kerrey led his SEAL
team on a mission in which more than a dozen unarmed women and children were
massacred. The revelation set off protests at the New School, and although
Kerrey spoke about the issue at length and later served on the commission that
investigated the terrorist attacks of 2001, it also seemed to preclude his
return to elective office.
“Toward the end of one of our
conversations, I asked Kerrey if he thought Fischer (Republican candidate) or
any of the outside groups would use his war record against him. Kerrey shrugged
and said he was prepared if they did, and then to my surprise, he tried to
explain, at some length, how he thought the episode had changed his life.
“'We’re not the worst thing we’ve ever done in our
lives, and there’s a tendency to think that we are,' he said. We were sitting
alone on a patio in back of a coffee shop in Fremont, accompanied by chirping
birds. 'People now look at me differently. They look at me more for who I
really am, as opposed to this glamorous war-hero, Medal-of-Honor-recipient
narrative that I don’t think is truthful. To see me as somebody who may have
done something heroic but also did something that was terrible, I think helps
people adjust in their own lives to their own attitudes about war and bad
behavior. Because we’re not perfect people.'”
Click on: www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/yes-bob-kerrey-wants-to-go-back-to-washington.html?ref=mattbai
Finding
this all too stark, Bai helpfully elicits that Kerrey is still not at peace with
himself, and that the pain he still feels, in some way, motivates his long shot
attempt to return to the Senate.
To
readers of the New York Times,
Kerry’s statement is philosophically interesting. It’s more attractive when
said about us, rather than by us, but
it’s true: we are more than our worst acts. Further, Kerrey’s coping skills
since Vietnam should be inspiring to all of us who have ever had trouble living
with ourselves.
To
voters in Nebraska, however, there are two significant problems with confessing
to war crimes in Vietnam.
The
first deserves a lot of consideration. Serving another six years in the most
coveted deliberative assembly in the free world is an honor, not a form of
penance. Recognizing Kerrey as a good neighbor and standing by him as a friend
is one thing. The Senate, however, is a reward.
The
second is easier. Kerrey's statement is disingenuous. In Nebraska, he’s not
seeking to explain himself as a flawed veteran. He’s being sold as a war hero,
pure and simple.
On
the first page of his campaign website, just touch his photograph (in full military
combat garb) and learn his “story.” You will learn about joining the Navy
Seals, his war wound and leg amputation, and the killing of Osama bin Laden.
You’ll learn that he was shocked by the attack on the World Trade Center and is
determined to keep America strong and safe. You’ll find nothing in it, however,
about women and children. It’s the resume of a squeaky-clean foothills idealist.
This
is an important election year, and grown-up politicians must do all they can to
win. However, what are those Nebraskans who read the New York Times supposed to do?
A
candidate can clench his jaw and shut up like the Greatest Generation. However,
can Kerrey confess to war crimes in the New
York Times and be sold in Nebraska as a war hero? Is America that big? Was Vietnam that long ago? Is
one more seat in the Senate that important?
No comments:
Post a Comment