So John Kerry has "reported for duty."  The question remains: how long will the role last this time?

If you publish on issues that fall under the general heading of “public affairs,” you are obligated to pursue the information that you would privately prefer to bypass while claiming that it brings nothing new. Nominating conventions, which can be classified as circuses, presented mostly in bad taste, pretending to determine issues that have been decided before the fact, fall in this category. It was under the duress of this self-imposed obligation that I watched that predictable bit of cheapened American folklore called the Democratic National Convention conveyed to carry, non-surprisingly, on its shield Mr. Kerry. So, I settled down to the boredom provided for by the performance of otherwise mostly normal folks disguised in Disneyland costumes, performing acts that would make them blush when sober and at home. As you can tell, I did not expect much. Nevertheless, I had a shock. For it I thank the European version of CNN — which is, by the way, significantly better in Europe than its State-Side version I am well familiar with. (You can, on your own, draw conclusion re: CNN and some other news providers and their assumptions regarding their customers if you care to.)

My amazement was provided by the Big Enchilada of the main event that followed several days of warm-up presentations. Naturally this main event was performed on the high trapeze by the star of the loud and colorful shindig. What did I see? This is more than a rhetorical question. Once I saw it, I had a hard time admitting that what I had seemed to see was really for real. Also that it was all intended, therefore purposely staged — unlike that famous photo of the Candidate in a bunny suit. My stupefaction had Mr. Kerry as its object. He hopped into the ring (this time without the bunny-suit) with his chin hanging so far down that it made his face twice as long as it is in its naturally elongated state. On stage he bettered his overpowering entry by raising his hand to a military-style salute to entertain his anti-American and non-violent (but only in the defense of the USA) militant fans. This happened synchronized with a bold outcry: “Reporting for Duty.” At that moment I dropped my post-dinner-snack yogurt and swallowed the spoon. “How dumb, how demeaning!” was my reaction. It came about — assuming that in shock I still had the presence of mind to think clearly — that the DNC’s marketing specialists let their Mr. No. 1 do this without wearing to assure his incognito, a cloak. Furthermore that, amazingly, the coaches expected from the proverbial and as such much abused, “American People,” that had reason to feel insulted by the act, that they would not burst out laughing.

Aside from the unintended jest built into the scene of the salute, the statement in words and acting needs to be put through the microscope of analysis. We had a man presented to us who once became, through the official act that decorated him, a certified American hero. There needs to be no quarrel here with that one. But thereafter, having changed his mind (allegedly an acute characteristic of the candidate), he “returned” his medals (or perhaps not his but as a favor, as is now pretended, those of someone else) bestowed for his earlier courage. He thereby knowingly highlighted a publicity-seeking action on behalf of a declared enemy of the USA while Americans were killed and tortured by the latter. (The aforementioned USA was, by the way, at least officially at the time, his and Ms. Fonda’s country.) What that made out of the act and its perpetrator is for the reader to determine. It is also to be decided whether a genuine recovery from this manifested ailment is likely. Still, it is at this juncture that the logic of reporting (back) to duty might begin to make sense. The observer, however, is left with an unanswered question: “how long will the role last this time?”

It does not appear to be unreasonable to assume that, by reporting to duty, Mr. Kerry implied that he had been off duty for some time. And what a time it was! Presumably its highlight had been attending protest marches and testifying to then welcome and politically correct high crimes while in uniform. What a great impact that desertion made at the time and what a good reason it gives now to return to duty! This time, with the claim to be made into Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces once alleged to have been criminal by policy and general commission. This amounts to a turn-around after a turn around. You lose your balance just by watching from the side-line the rotations. Never mind the implications concerning the equilibrium of the person involved in these spins!

While this was enough to cause stupefied little me to fall off my chair, there was more to stagger a naïve person such as I still am. Everyone who cares to know is aware that the newly minted JFK is not what he tried to appear to be while acting out that pseudo-martial salute. Most of his politically conscious core-supporters imply that the USA is (again!) engaged in an unnecessary war conducted in violation of pure reason and also the law of nations, fought with improper means to achieve a reprehensible but (fortunately) not achievable end. It sounds like an old disk from the Sixties on the turn-table that repeats itself, repeats itself, repeats itself…. Somehow, from a Commander-in-Chief you naively expect that he will try to conclude the nation’s military endeavors by striving for — do not whisper it loudly! — victory. Mr. Kerry’s officially unstated — but widely understood — program is to end the war in Iraq speedily. If necessary, by giving up in a way that will not, for the superficial observer, appear and smell immediately like a capitulation. Given the fact that there is no one to parley with and nothing to negotiate about, aside from persevering in the pursuit of the current goal of winning, surrender in fact, even if not called by its proper name, is the only option left open.

It is entirely possible that some of Kerry’s future voters — mainly the uncommitted he needs to win — do not know this and would not be inclined to believe it if told. It is also likely that some of those who know what one does not talk about openly, do not care for the long term consequences. Most of voters, however, have the habit to emerge from their political hibernation for the voting season only. Therefore they have no idea of the past record and its implied perspectives for the future; for them the screen on which the past-less present is being projected and the viable options suggested, shows little that warrants suspicion. The candidate is hardly the man to emerge in Churchillian style, in the hour of seeming defeat, to grab the rudder and steer single mindedly on the course of success. Whether “on duty” or not, to keep the course unrelentingly is not in the character of the challenger.  Persistence as a trait is not supported by his past — more correctly his pasts — nor is it the unspoken mandate of the conscious hard core of his party and part of its genuine but unstated agenda. Therefore, “The Salute” that amazed this writer is a theatrical pretension. It plays for the stage effect and overlooks contradictory policy intentions unnoticed only by the politically short sighted. It is bad theater designed to diffuse in the mind of the naïve the veritable and openly voiced intentions of the candidate and his party’s nucleus that is shrewdly designed to mislead the unaware. The question left open is: who will tell the people?