Dear Senator Kerry: Way back last year when I started sending a monthly contribution to the DNC, they called me up & asked me to increase my contribution. I am so frightened of George W. Bush that I immediately upped my contribution by 30%. In talking to the fellow who called me--no doubt just some low-level DNC employee--I mentioned that I was inclined to vote for John Kerry . . . or or that general, you know, Clark. That was way back when & I actually wound up supporting General Clark until he dropped out of the race. A good man gone, I'd say. Look, I'm a member of the Vietnam generation--just a little younger than you--& though I was spared (high draft number 1969) having to make the decision you made to go to or resist a terrible war waged for specious reasons, I actively opposed the war. Your example was an inspiration to me.
I supported General Clark in the primaries because I thought he would be in the strongest position to challenge the bogus claims of President Bush to be a "war president." For George Bush, war is a rhetorical stance; for General Clark & for you, & to a much lesser extent for me, war is an actual experience. Something lived through. (I have lived for extended periods in Vietnam since the mid-1990s.) President Bush, though, seems have to floated through the Vietnam years on a cloud of privilege & exception. Well, he seems to have floated through his entire life that way, but you get my point. I didn't have to go to Vietnam during the war, for which I thank the fates, but I worked in restaurants & factories to fund my education. (I am now a college professor.) Now that you are the presumptive nominee of my party, I will not only vote for you, but support you by organizing my upstate NY hamlet, where Democrats are in the minority but where, if I'm hearing my neighbors right, even Republicans are having second thoughts about George W. Bush.
Having said all that, Senator, may I be bluntly honest? I wish you were not so godamned rich. I believe the coming election will be decided on basic economic issues--jobs, Social Security--& on the ability of either party to gain control of the Vietnam Myth--the master narrative about the war that continues to shape American foreign policy. Clearly, Senator, you have the bio to take control of the story about the meaning of Vietnam & you should not hesitate to do so; but you must also appeal to the economic self-interest of American voters. And that's why I wish you were not so godamned rich. This really bothers me. I didn't agree with President Clinton's middle of the road domestic policies except insofar as they were superior to the Stone Age ideas of his opponants; but I admired his intelligence & his libedo--both shaped by his poor boy upbringing, which was a lot like mine. And I admired the way he faced down the minions of Republican privelege, hell or high water.
Senator, I know you are President Clinton's equal in intelligence & you clearly have him beat in the courage department when it comes to Vietnam; my question is, rich boy, do you have the balls to stand up to relentless Republican attacks? Even when Clinton retreated or triangulated, he always knew what he was doing. You, Senator, have something of a reputation for taking expedient positions. Actually, I don't think this is entirely a fair assessment of your career. But what I want to know when I pull the lever next week in the primary & then go on to work for a Democratic victory in November is whether you have the spine of a workingman (or woman). We Americans--rich & poor & in the middle--like to decieve ourselves about class privelege. I hope you are not self-decieved. I hope Vietnam beat the self-deception out of you.
