I am amazed by the number of angry liberals who’ve written to me arguing that Kerry’s service in Vietnam equals being strong on defense. Period. Time and again the argument lacks any reflection or nuance. He served nobly in uniform [and you didn’t!] therefore he’s strong on defense and you’re a traitorous scumbag for suggesting otherwise.

There’s so much that is baffling about this position. First of all, no one among the Democrats ever made anything like this argument when Clinton was the standard bearer. Indeed, countless Democrats, including Kerry, ridiculed the suggestion that service in Vietnam or the lack of it was particularly relevant. Second, it should be noted that any number of legitimately traitorous scumbags, starting with Benedict Arnold, served honorably in uniform. Third, there’s this odd identity politics thing going on which treats Vietnam vets as this homogeneous bloc that Kerry gets to speak for and who all think the same way. From my own limited experience, I’ve found Vietnam vets to be about as diverse politically as any other [Bleg: have their been surveys on their political attitudes?]. Even on the war itself, attitudes differ dramatically.

But most of all, what bothers me is the willful abdication on the importance of ideas. It’s as if Kerry’s voting record and speeches are entirely beside the point, as if what a candidate has done out of uniform matters not a whit compared to what he once did in uniform. This is man-on-a-white-horse thinking and considering how much the left pretends to reject such views, the hypocrisy is offensive…and a bit scary.