Wednesday, April 28, 2004
John Kerry's Pragmatist Soul
It was definitely disturbing to see John F. Kerry indulge in a blatant self-contradiction when he said, "I voted for it before I voted against it. Now it would seem that this was merely a small glimpse into the the window of Kerry's Pragmatist soul.
ABC News first broke the story ostensibly showing that Mr. Kerry has been caught in a lie in regard to how he dealt with "giving back" his war medals to the government that had let him down. What becomes apparent in examing the case is that Mr. Kerry has no regard for truth. If this scandal as any indicator, he doesn't believe that there is such a thing. For men such as this, the only "truth" is whatever works to get the job done at the time. This is the essence of pragmatism.
I will be working from the transcript rather than recounting the whole ordeal here.
The first obvious contradiction is that he has maintained that he did not throw away his medals, but now there is a tape from 1971 where he clearly states that he did throw away his medals. He attempts to clarify this by pointing out that the military would regard throwing away your ribbons and being the same as throwing away your medals.
Whenever Gibson says to him, I saw you throw medals, Kerry responds by saying, no, it was ribbons. The problem is, he's clearly trying to have it both ways again. In the 70's, he wanted to be perceived as being hard-core anti-war so it "worked" to tell the story in such a way that he looked as radical as possible. Now, in the Presidential election, such a story doesn't work so well. People might not actually think it was a good idea to throw away those medals so Kerry tries to play it the other way and say that he still has the medals. I suppose if people were to buy that it would "work" now b/c it wouldn't look like he made such an ass of himself over 30 years ago.
In 1984, he tried to have it both ways. Whenever he discovered that the labor people were upset about throwing the medals away, he tried this strategy again. While he knew that the military drew no distinctions between medals and ribbons, he tried to play it off that he merely threw away his ribbons. And, of course, if labor bought the line, it "worked," and made a good stand-in for the truth.
He then is confronted with additional contradicting statements in regard to why he didn't throw his own medals. In 1995, " it is such a personal thing i did not want to throw my medals away. then 1996," i didn't bring my own medals to throw because i didn't have time to go home and get them." His answer shows that he is completely unfazed by the fact that his answers flatly contradict each other. To paraphrase, on the one hand, he would have done it, but didn't have time, on the other, he didn't want to throw his medals away. But, of course, he was ok with throwing his ribbons, which were allegedly the same as medals a few sentences ago. I suppose that each answer "worked" to get him through that particular interview. I should also add that apparently he was "proud" of what he did. Is he proud that he threw his medals away, or that he didn't throw his medals away?
Of course, Senator Kerry likely had no idea that years later we would all be looking at what he, in fact, said and catching him in a flat contradiction. But the pragmatist mentality is unfazed by contradiction. His solution is simply to give another answer and if that answer makes the problem "go away," then the new answer "works." Contradictions be damned! They must be a GOP conspiracy as well.
| ABC News first broke the story ostensibly showing that Mr. Kerry has been caught in a lie in regard to how he dealt with "giving back" his war medals to the government that had let him down. What becomes apparent in examing the case is that Mr. Kerry has no regard for truth. If this scandal as any indicator, he doesn't believe that there is such a thing. For men such as this, the only "truth" is whatever works to get the job done at the time. This is the essence of pragmatism.
I will be working from the transcript rather than recounting the whole ordeal here.
The first obvious contradiction is that he has maintained that he did not throw away his medals, but now there is a tape from 1971 where he clearly states that he did throw away his medals. He attempts to clarify this by pointing out that the military would regard throwing away your ribbons and being the same as throwing away your medals.
Whenever Gibson says to him, I saw you throw medals, Kerry responds by saying, no, it was ribbons. The problem is, he's clearly trying to have it both ways again. In the 70's, he wanted to be perceived as being hard-core anti-war so it "worked" to tell the story in such a way that he looked as radical as possible. Now, in the Presidential election, such a story doesn't work so well. People might not actually think it was a good idea to throw away those medals so Kerry tries to play it the other way and say that he still has the medals. I suppose if people were to buy that it would "work" now b/c it wouldn't look like he made such an ass of himself over 30 years ago.
In 1984, he tried to have it both ways. Whenever he discovered that the labor people were upset about throwing the medals away, he tried this strategy again. While he knew that the military drew no distinctions between medals and ribbons, he tried to play it off that he merely threw away his ribbons. And, of course, if labor bought the line, it "worked," and made a good stand-in for the truth.
He then is confronted with additional contradicting statements in regard to why he didn't throw his own medals. In 1995, " it is such a personal thing i did not want to throw my medals away. then 1996," i didn't bring my own medals to throw because i didn't have time to go home and get them." His answer shows that he is completely unfazed by the fact that his answers flatly contradict each other. To paraphrase, on the one hand, he would have done it, but didn't have time, on the other, he didn't want to throw his medals away. But, of course, he was ok with throwing his ribbons, which were allegedly the same as medals a few sentences ago. I suppose that each answer "worked" to get him through that particular interview. I should also add that apparently he was "proud" of what he did. Is he proud that he threw his medals away, or that he didn't throw his medals away?
Of course, Senator Kerry likely had no idea that years later we would all be looking at what he, in fact, said and catching him in a flat contradiction. But the pragmatist mentality is unfazed by contradiction. His solution is simply to give another answer and if that answer makes the problem "go away," then the new answer "works." Contradictions be damned! They must be a GOP conspiracy as well.
