You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
VDH on "Kerryism"
2006-11-01
"The Corner," National Review



Kerry surely must be one of the saddest Democratic liabilities around. Some afterthoughts about his latest gaffe, which is one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology:

(1) How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.

(2) How could Kerry possibly claim that he was thinking of the uneducated in the context of George Bush, who, after all, went to Harvard and Yale?

(3) Some of the brightest and most educated Americans are not only in the military, but veterans of Iraq. Two of the best educated minds I have met-Col. Bill Hix and Lt. Col. Chris Gibson, both Hoover Security Fellows-were both Iraqi veterans. What is striking about visiting Iraq is the wealth of talent there, from privates to generals. Without being gratuitously cruel, the problem of mediocrity is not in the ranks of the military, but on our university campuses, where half-educated professors and non-serious students killing time are ubiquitous. Personally, I'd wager the intelligence of a Marine Corps private any day over the average D.C. journalist. Every naval officer I met at the USNA, without exception, seemed brighter than John Kerry, whose "brilliance", after all, has managed to offend millions of voters on the eve of a pivotal election. If the Democrats lose, it will be almost painful to watch the recriminations against Kerry fly.

(4) This is not the first, but third, time he has denigrated soldiers in the middle of a war-and there is a systematic theme: John Kerry's assumed superior morality allows him to pass judgment from on high about supposedly lesser folk who become tools of a suspect military: thus we go from limb-loppers and Genghis' hordes to terrorists to dead-beats. The only constant is that the haughtiness is always delivered in the same sanctimonious, self-righteous, and patronizing tone.

(5) The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists.

(6) The problem is that Kerry is not just a senator, but the most recent presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, and thus in some sense, especially given the diminution of Howard Dean, the megaphone of the entire party.

(7) His pathetic clarification, as he blamed everyone from Tony Snow to Rush Limbaugh, displayed the same Al Gore derangement syndrome, and thus raises a larger question: what is it about George Bush that seems to reduce once sober and experienced liberal pros to infantile ranting?

(8) And why is the supposedly lame Bush so careful in speech, and the self-acclaimed geniuses like a Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Howard Dean serially spouting ever more stupidities? For all the Democrats' criticism of George Bush, I can't think of a modern President who has so infrequently put his foot in his public mouth, and, by the same token, can't think of any opposition that on the eve of elections seems to have an almost pathological death wish.

The Democrats should use this occasion to have an autopsy of Kerryism, or this strange new tony liberalism, that has turned noblisse oblige on its head. It used to be that millionaire FDRs and JFKs felt sympathy for those of the lower classes and wished to ensure that the hoi polloi had some shot at the American dream. But today's elite liberals-a Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner-love the high life and playact at being leftists simply because they are already insulated from the effects of their own nostrums that always come at someone poorer's expense while providing them some sort of psychological relief from guilt. Poor Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave-from bourbon, cigars, and poker to wind-surfing and L.L. Bean costume of the day says it all.

Stanley Kurtz, writing in the same forum:

Whatever he meant by them, John Kerry’s remarks have struck a nerve. But why? Well, for a lot of reasons. Of course we think of anti-war activist John Kerry’s long-standing tensions with his fellow Vietnam Vets. Then there’s the insulting stereotype of the dumb soldier. But to understand the tensions thrown up by Kerry’s remarks, we also need to have a look at the reverse of the medal: not the “soldiers are dumb” theme, but the notion that smart people don’t become soldiers and don’t support wars. No matter who he meant the dumb folks were, the idea that smart college kids become dovish Dems is a powerful sub-text in Kerry’s remarks.

See also Jonah Goldberg's take:

If it was a joke, it was a pretty bad one, even for him. First, Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale. More relevant, if launching the Iraq war is a sign of stupidity and a failure to do oneÂ’s homework, Kerry should avoid calling attention to the fact that he voted to approve it and defended that vote throughout his 2004 presidential campaign.

But whether or not it was a joke, it certainly sounded like Kerry was talking about the troops, because thatÂ’s the way Kerry talks about everything. KerryÂ’s a bit like one of those cavemen from the Geico commercials, only heÂ’s a throwback to a slightly more recent era: Vietnam.

All of his ideas were formed from his experience as an anti-Vietnam crusader. He may have run as a born-again war hero in 2004, but his political career was founded on his activism against a war he repeatedly labeled a crime.

That’s why few gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt. The idea that the military is the last refuge for the lumpen-proletariat is a Vietnam-era chestnut that continues to pop up in liberal talking points. It wasn’t very accurate during Vietnam, and it’s even less so now. A timely study of the demographics of enlistees in our all-volunteer military found that the share of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods has declined steadily since 1999 and throughout the war. Moreover, “U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on average than their civilian peers.”

Kerry thinks it’s unfair for Republicans to seize on his comments, and to an extent he’s right. He obviously didn’t intend to insult America’s servicemen and women. But Kerry fails to understand that he — like so many fossils of his generation in the Democratic party — sounds like he’s frozen in the past. The Democratic position on Iraq is that it’s Vietnam all over again, and the only time Kerry ever seems sure of himself is when he’s reprising his anti-Vietnam schtick.

Sure, Republicans are seizing on his comments with the same opportunistic zeal Democrats displayed when they recently tried to paint the GOP as soft on sexual predation on congressional pages. But Kerry — like much of his party — seems determined to lend plausibility to such criticisms.
Posted by:Mike

#8  almost Robert Reichish
Posted by: Frank G   2006-11-01 22:11  

#7  the diminution of Howard Dean

I take exception to this. Mr. Dean has always been diminutive.
Posted by: Pappy   2006-11-01 22:08  

#6  I'll be readin' the Professor's book (A War Like No Other) next week, on vacation. I look forward to it.

It's awesome. It's also frightening in spots, especially when the deja vu sets in - it's surprising how similar a situation we find ourselves in today.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-01 17:18  

#5  I'll be readin' the Professor's book (A War Like No Other) next week, on vacation. I look forward to it.

It's awesome. It's also frightening in spots, especially when the deja vu sets in - it's surprising how similar a situation we find ourselves in today.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-01 17:18  

#4  Ouch - that's going to leave a mark.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-11-01 14:25  

#3  I'll be readin' the Professor's book (A War Like No Other) next week, on vacation. I look forward to it.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-11-01 14:11  

#2  Personally, I'd wager the intelligence of a Marine Corps private any day over the average D.C. journalist.

LOL. Surely a person of Professor's Hanson intelligence could have thought of a more realistic bet. But be that as it may, the point is that the smallest, slowest, dumbest, least combat-effective Marine or soldier to fight at Fallujah in November 2004 did more for the Republic than the DC press corps combined and doubled.
Posted by: Matt   2006-11-01 13:56  

#1  Small correction to VDH. I believe a lot more Dems regret passing on Clark or Dean than regret ostracizing Lieberman. It will be interesting to see the post-election polling in CT, but I bet Lieberman pulls a lot more independent and GOP votes than Dems who changed their minds after the primary.
Posted by: Angeash Angaish8023   2006-11-01 12:43  

00:00