It’s weird that a group of people who can identify latent Hitlerism in their breakfast cereal are perplexed by the controversy surrounding Graham Platner.
“Semi-fascist.” That was how Joe Biden described “some Republicans” ahead of his stemwinder on how the GOP was corrupting the nation’s “soul.” Kamala Harris dropped the “semi” when accusing Donald Trump of harboring affinities for national socialism, a charge that the experts said fits within the ideology’s modern “looser definition.” Indeed, the GOP’s latent Naziism is overdetermined. It’s evident in their malign misuse of “redistricting and gerrymandering,” political instruments Democrats scrupulously abjure, to the “body language” and “hand gestures” that are rendered suspect by virtue of Republicans’ use of them.
This is a party that is deeply attuned to the pernicious influence of ideological fascism. So, it’s weird that a group of people who can identify latent Hitlerism in their breakfast cereal are theatrically perplexed by the controversy surrounding Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s Waffen-Schutzstaffel death’s head tattoo.
This week, the insurgent progressive candidate attempted to get ahead of the scandal his body art was sure to ignite by providing the former Obama staffers at Pod Save America with a video of him and his tattoo shirtless and drunk at a wedding. Platner told the hosts that he got the tat in Croatia in 2007 while on leave from the Marines while he was, once again, intoxicated.
“It was not until I started hearing from reporters and DC insiders that I realized this tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol,” Platner pleaded in a statement to Politico. “I absolutely would not have gone through life having this on my chest if I knew that — and to insinuate that I did is disgusting.” Well, “disgusting” or not, Platner’s former associates are not just insinuating that he’s being dishonest. They’re alleging it outright.
“He said, ‘Oh, this is my Totenkopf,’” one of Platner’s acquaintances told Jewish Insider on Tuesday, referring to the Nazi SS symbol by its Teutonic designation. “He said it in a cutesy little way.”
Yeah, it’s weird. But for some reason, the cottage industry that has formed around identifying fascist semiotics in the wild has gone silent. Perhaps they are taking their cues from progressives, who seem convinced that Platner’s almost 20-year-old judgmental lapse is being spun wildly out of proportion.
“In all due respect, all right, what I’m worried about, 50,000 Americans may die unnecessarily?” Bernie Sanders barked indignantly when confronted with his far-left ally’s indiscretion. “And you’re worried about a tattoo?”
For good measure, Sanders was similarly dismissive when asked about Platner’s social media comments, in which the Maine oysterman mused that getting so drunk (a theme emerges) that you wind up in bed with someone you “don’t mean to” shouldn’t rise to the level of sexual assault. “Have you served four tours of duty?” Sanders shot back. “I have not.”
Sanders was not asked about Planter’s comments alleging that black people are not good tippers.
Much of the far-left ecosystem followed Sanders’s lead, taking a moment away from alleging that Israeli Jews are as much perpetrators of genocide as they were the victims of one, to strip this Nazi symbol of any ideological significance.
“If you drunkenly walk into a Croatian tattoo parlor and randomly pick a skull and bones tat off the wall, as Platner says he did, there’s a better than 50% chance you’re getting something Nazi related,” Drop Site News contributor Ryan Grim theorized.
Of course. In fact, if you evince any discomfort with Nazi symbolism, you’re hopelessly detached from the noble, salt-of-the-earth American folk.
“Only perfect candidates off the Harvard law conveyor belt,” Pod Save America contributor Jon Lovett sneered, “highly disciplined, all boxes checked, well-liked and humble, absolutely no spiritual connection to having a physical body except for severe IBS, volunteered at a soup kitchen in high school, signs email ‘cheers,’ etc.”
Right. Those are your choices: McKinsey-track dandies or Nazi tatted boors.
Lovett does not observe this sort of forbearance when the “Grand Old Nazi Party” offends liberal sensibilities. Indeed, he is ever vigilant for the “fascist threat of violence” that is so “warping our politics.” Grim saw evidence of “fascism” in the Trump administration’s efforts to strip the student visas from non-citizens who engage in antisemitic agitation. Sanders can identify creeping Naziism in Donald Trump’s rhetorical slights toward immigrants, and he has surrounded himself with figures who see manifest “fascism” not just in Trump but America itself for years.
All of a sudden, that watchfulness has become inconvenient. Applying a consistent standard to their own political ally might scuttle his already imploding political prospects, and Platner’s political viability must take priority. That’s the sort of behavior we would expect from unprincipled partisans, which is what these people are. But that conclusion should prompt a critical retrospection on these and many other Democrats’ obsessive hunt for evidence of Nazi sympathies in the seemingly banal features of American public life.
If they can see it everywhere but not in their own, particularly when it is obvious to everyone, we should conclude that we’re not dealing with honest brokers. Consistency is the mark of a serious person, particularly when being consistent risks sacrificing personal interest. These are not serious people.