Reading notes

I recommend reading at least these two paragraphs from Paul Glastris — who’s subbing at Washington Monthly for Kevin Drum — very closely. (I’ve added italics.)

What I find infuriating about all this [the SBVfT attacks on Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony] is that Kerry’s willingness to protest the war is an essential part of what, to my mind, makes him one of the great heroes—indeed, perhaps the greatest hero—of that era. Here’s a guy who, as a college student, understood and expressed publicly serious and well-founded doubts about the wisdom of America’s Vietnam strategy. Then, unlike many others of his generation, he put his doubts aside and his life on the line in order to do what he could to make his country’s policy a success. Then, having seen first hand that his initial suspicions were correct, and that the line coming out of Washington—that victory was just around the corner, that the “Vietnamization” strategy was working—was a lie, he stood up and told the public the unvarnished truth. In my book, that’s three morally courageous acts in a row. And that’s not counting the thankless but vital roles he played in investigating and ending the POW/MIA controversy, opening relations with Vietnam, and improving federal services for veterans. Name me one person in public life today who negotiated the moral minefield of Vietnam with greater courage and sure-footedness. …

The campaign has a simple choice: on the issue of Kerry’s role as a Vietnam War protest leader, they can play defense or offense. The choice is as obvious as the argument the Kerry camp should be making. We are currently involved in a war in Iraq that is failing because policymakers in Washington have miscalculated and lied—to themselves and to the American people. In November, do we choose a president who has approved these miscalculations and trafficked in these lies, or one who, throughout most of his career, has calculated correctly and spoken the truth?

Bravo, Paul. Thank you. You’ve read my mind and spoken it far better. Recognizing catastrophic bullshit and calling its perpetrators on it, as Kerry did in protesting the U.S. Vietnam strategy after having been there, is to me the height of courage and patriotism.

I think if we were to buy the Bush line on this we’d be announcing we have no idea what heroism even means. Or courage. Or integrity. Or wisdom. Or service. Or telling the truth.

Missanthropy’s Saturday reminder about the Big Lie technique from Mein Kampf comes to mind as explanation why we’re spending any time on this:

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. (full quote)

If we fall for this impudent elevation of dishonorable inaction over courageous action, if we acclaim character crippled by decades of substance abuse — even if forgiven — as it defames character honed by decades of principled public service (and who among us would tell our children there’s no difference between the two?) it’s not like we haven’t had plenty of warning as to the consequences.

Every day we dither in the thrall of this Big Lie is a day spent not focused on the plight of those still dying in Iraq. A day spent not making our world safer. Spent not being peacemakers as we’re commanded. Spent not assaulting our ballooning deficit. Spent not stewarding the earth. Not breaking our petroleum addiction. Not caring for our neighbors, for the least among us. I think, therefore, if anyone thinks the Enemy’s not behind this distraction, think again. (“The Enemy” is Jesus’ term for the devil, whose lying he forcibly condemns.)

My hope continues, despite occasional lapses: We the American people are collectively smarter than this. We do not fall for the Big Lie. We do have eyes to see, and we’re seeing; we do have ears to hear and we’re hearing.

A little later …
I see I’m conflating the Bush campaign with the Swift Boat Veterans smear project, an association that, given the evidence linking them, seems reasonable to make. If I’m wrong, I’ll revisit.

I appreciate Jeanne touching on why “veterans upset with John Kerry’s anti-war activities in the seventies take personally the accusation that war crimes were committed in Vietnam,” something I admit to not understanding. Would they prefer he’d stayed silent while more and more and more of their brothers-in-arms were killed? He was still in his 20s at the time; maybe he said things in ways he wouldn’t say now. (God help me if I were held to account for things I said in my 20s.) As I read his 1971 testimony, I see Kerry trying to harness anger and heartbreak to effect change, to end the killing, to stop a lie. I want more of us to do this, however gracefully or clumsily, not fewer.

Do skim the testimony — does it not seem eerily contemporary? Maybe he has been preparing all his life for this.

Aside: I was approaching my teen years in 1971 at the time of this testimony, living in mortal fear that Vietnam would take me and turn my body and/or my mind into sausage. The Vietnam conflict had gone on all my conscious life, seemed like, so for all I knew it might last all the way through my (foreshortened) life.

Hmm, maybe I credit Kerry’s actions with helping give me my life back.

I see I’m not alone in my concern over the long-term effects of substance abuse. I’m not sure we can reasonably warn “this is your brain on drugs” but then ignore the fried egg when it resides between a president’s ears. Juan Cole writes forcibly on this subject today.