What a topsy-turvy election! One candidate chose to fight
in Vietnam. One candidate avoided it. So which candidate
is supported by opponents of the Vietnam war? As I said,
topsy-turvy.
We hear lots of people say that the election should be
about terrorism, Iraq, Medicare, Social Security, the
budget not about a war that ended 30 years ago and
what the candidates did or didnt do while it
raged. But the current discussion isnt really
about Vietnam. Its about honesty and hypocrisy; in
other words, its about character.
The candidates of the major parties both stand accused of
lying about their records. Maybe the charges are false.
More likely, neither candidate has told the full story.
Regardless, this is not a debate about the Vietnam war,
and its a distraction from the real issue to
insist that it is.
Imagine a candidate who said, On principle, I
oppose aggressive, nondefensive wars, which is what the
U.S. governments conduct in Vietnam amounted to.
Therefore, I used every means at my disposal to avoid
fighting in that war and to persuade others that the
government should stop its killing. Who could fail
to respect such a person? His position would be
consistent and principled. It would have no taint of
cynicism or political calculation.
Neither President George W. Bush nor Sen. John Kerry can
lay claim to such respect. Their positions reek with
hypocrisy. Bush chose not to go to Vietnam when others
were being compelled to. Instead, he used family
connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard.
Whatever else can be said about the National Guard, in
the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was an escape from
Vietnam. Why do you think the waiting lists were so long?
When Tim Russert asked Bush on Meet the Press last spring
if he favored the war, he answered, I supported my
government. But apparently not strongly enough to
rush over there. Bushs response was revealingly
tepid and perfunctory. According to the wars
supporters, it was a critical battle for freedom, not
only for the Vietnamese, but ultimately for the American
people themselves, since the North Vietnamese and
Vietcong represented international communism. But all
Bush could say is, I supported my government.
I detect some reluctance there.
Maybe he sensed that an enthusiastic endorsement would
have brought questions about his avoidance. Just to be
sure, he added, And I would have gone had my unit
been called up, by the way. Easy to say that now.
(New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof writes that
according to Bushs former Guard roommate, Bush
inquired in 1970 about the possibility of
transferring to Vietnam but was turned down. If so,
why didnt he mention that to Russert? Better
question: why didnt he join the army?)
The upshot is that even if Bush attended all his
meetings, he has been unwilling to acknowledge that he
had privileged access to an exemption from combat that
others wished they had but didnt have. And he has
refused to condemn the military draft, which compelled
people without connections to kill and risk being killed
in Vietnam.
He could partly make amends by canceling draft
registration by executive order. How about it, Mr.
President?
Kerrys story is more roundabout. He volunteered
for Vietnam, although he opposed the war while in
college. When he came home, he denounced the war and
admitted to participating in atrocities. He threw medals
or ribbons, his or someone elses, over the White
House fence in protest. Now he boasts about his
service. (That kind of service the Vietnamese
peasants in free-fire zones could have done without.)
This is hypocrisy. Kerry wants to be president of the
United States. He apparently has aspired to that job
since he was in college. Perhaps thats why he
volunteered for a war he believed to be immoral a
combat record never hurts. But hes calculated that
the swing voters dont want him to condemn the war,
as he did in 1971 and as his own political base would
love. Kerry has taken many positions on many issues, but
I expect that hell stick to his new support for
the Vietnam war through election day.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Send him email.
|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
|
|
|
|