This evening around 8:00 Eastern time, C-Span will be running John Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress with regard to the Vietnam War. I recall watching this when it first aired, which was at a time when I was making a difficult transition. I had been a supporter of that war, or at least a person who felt the protesters were misguided and not helping things. By '72, I was one of those protesters, even working with the leadership of a group that was more or less behind all the marches and demonstrations within a few miles of U.C.L.A. I don't recall Kerry's speeches or his appearance before the committee having any impact on my conversion but when I saw excerpts of it a few weeks ago on some channel (probably C-Span), what struck me was his restraint and maturity. Since it is now divorced from all the other Vietnam rhetoric of 1972, it may seem exaggerated and excessive. My sense is that on the topic of that war, darn near everything said on either side in 1972 was drenched in hyperbole and overstatement, and that Kerry was calmer than most. I also suspect that he was more accurate than will ever be admitted by those who are still angry at how Vietnam ended and somehow want to blame it more on Jane Fonda than Robert McNamara.
I think some people have forgotten — or are in denial — as to how much government wrongdoing has been uncovered and even admitted. McNamara started his book, In Retrospect, by saying, "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why." It was a stunning confession when he made it, as were many in that volume, but almost no one wanted to hear McNamara cleanse his conscience and "explain why." Everyone on both sides had long since made up their minds about the history of that unfortunate war and there was no room in anyone's version for new evidence. I wish more folks would follow the example of Kerry and John McCain when they worked together to try and put Vietnam behind them. In fact, I wish they'd do more to follow their own example.
In a way, I'm sorry C-Span is running Kerry's testimony now since it won't be viewed as an important part of history, nor will it be judged against things like McNamara's confessions of ineptness and deceit. It's just there so the anti-Kerry voters can use it to promote the notion that it was treasonous to say what he said, and so Kerry's backers can see what it is they have to defend. I believe Kerry's testimony is completely defensible and depending on your definition, maybe even heroic. But in the current environment, it will just be a question of whether sound bites are being taken out of context or whether what actually occurred is being accurately summarized. So far this year, the past has just been something that can be judiciously excerpted and spun, one way or another, to maybe win an election.