Political uses of historiography

Jonathan Dresner at Cliopatria has a brief post suggesting the Kerry/SBVT controversy as a "teachable moment" in historiography.

If we were writing a history of Vietnam-era medal-awarding practices (has anyone written an analysis of medal-awards that goes beyond military antiquarianism?) we would probably compare Kerry's award documentation with that of other similar missions and medical records, and might conclude that they were within the relatively wide margins for which combat awards were given. Or we might conclude that some of them were (he still has one piece of shrapnel in him) and some weren't: I don't know, that's the point, and for all the seething and frothing, nobody has offered any kind of analysis of standard deviation that would make for a meaningful conclusion. Analysis of Kerry's training and service has already made it clear that his 'four months' in-country was the conclusion an entirely typical tour of duty, and far more active than many.

I have not looked closely at the debate, but my initial impression is that Republican detractors of Kerry's war record have a long way to go, historiographically. The documentary evidence does not seem to be in their favor, with one possible exception.

I am not entirely pleased by the heavyhanded way in which Kerry has employed his military record for political purposes, but the fact remains that it is a military record. Attacks on such a record must be substantiated very well. By the way, Kerry's speaking out against the Vietnam War does not diminish his record at all; if anything, it improves my estimation of his character, since he was able to distinguish himself in combat even while holding opinions contrary to those of his superiors. Kerry did his duty to the public both in fighting and in speaking out against a fight he thought was not in the interests of the nation. There is no shame in that.

| Posted by Wilson at 22:02 Central | TrackBack
| Report submitted to the Power Desk