Graham Platner’s victory this week in Maine’s Democratic Senate primary would have been a stunning achievement for a political newcomer under any circumstances. What makes it so amazing is that Platner pulled this off despite a decades-long string of bad habits: a Coconut Tattoo; written derogatory statements about victims of sexual violence, Black people, and women; old entries substance harassment and marital infidelity; suspicion humiliating, harassing, and physically threatening behavior toward former friends. (Platner has denied any physical or violent threats.)
Platner and his associates have provided an excuse to catch them all, which meant not only to explain how he could make so many bad decisions, but also to embarrass his critics: Platner, a Navy veteran, was dealing with the heavy emotional burden and mental stress of the war this nation sent him to fight. It’s not his fault. And he is a better man now.
But that argument—and I say this as a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—is nonsense, a convenient response designed to divert the conversation from legitimate questions about Platner’s many flaws. It plays on Americans’ sympathy for those who have fought in war and exacerbates the divide between veterans and civilians. Whether this justification is used sarcastically or sincerely — or ignorantly — it is insulting to veterans. Most of them suffer from their time in the fight but they don’t engage in the kind of behavior that Platner has. And many of them—in spite of, or because of, their wartime experiences—are among the citizens and leaders of our nation who are accomplished, moral, hardworking and patriotic.
Let me put this as clearly as I can: I know literally hundreds of war veterans and soldiers who, to my knowledge, all somehow managed to avoid getting Nazi tattoos. It doesn’t take much effort to avoid getting inked with the SS symbol.
Platner himself has he said often that much of his bad behavior stemmed from his war experiences. “I’ve been very forward since the beginning of this campaign that it was a very dark period in my life after I came back from my combat service,” he said recently. he told MS NOW’s Chris Hayesconfessing to “not being a good boy” and “self-medicating with alcohol.” He has ever has said about having PTSD and, in an interview with New York Timesdescribed an incident in which a friend was seriously injured when their car was hit by an IED in Iraq. The morning after his primary victory, Platner said that he was starting to feel like himself again in 2021, and he added“I wake up every morning trying to be a little better and a little gentler than I was before.”
His supporters support this defense, which plays into the dangerous and demeaning stereotype of America’s veterans as broken people. Speaking at Platner’s rally days before the primary, Rep. Ro Khanna acknowledged that some of Platner’s past relationships were “toxic and volatile,” before saying: “But we need to have an honest conversation in this country. We broke thousands of young people by sending them into dumb wars.” Senator Chris Van Hollen has defended Platner by saying, “Let’s take a number of issues, including the comments that he made in the past. I mean, he’s been very clear that he went to war on behalf of the United States. He went through a very difficult period, a period of PTSD.”
According to this logic, Platner is not responsible for his own actions. The baggage he carries excuses the things he has done in the past two decades – in the army, after returning to civilian life, and it seems. until decided to run for the Senate.
Some of these defenses are well-intentioned. They suggest that the sacrifices that veterans have made be commended. Perhaps some citizens feel that they are not qualified to judge people who have served and who may still be reaping the benefits of their time abroad. The gap between those who have been in combat and those who have only watched the news is wide and growing: A smaller percentage of Americans served in the global War on Terror than in any other major war in the last century. This can cause some citizens to be overly hostile to veterans, who are, after all, human.
But showing respect to the point of refusing to judge someone’s questionable actions is a version of what George W. Bush called “the mild discrimination of low expectations.” Some Americans seem to view Afghanistan and Iraq veterans almost as an alien species, whose experiences cannot be understood and who therefore have a different set of expectations. This view reduces a very diverse group of people to the phrase “broken veteran”.
In some cases, Platner’s followers who are veterans themselves have tried to lend credence to this explanation. In a A small essay published shortly before the primary, Daniel Barkhuff, founder of Veterans for Responsible Leadership, a super PAC that backed Platner, wrote: “He said stupid things. He did stupid things.” Platner, Barkhuff added, seems to have “the kind of impulsive aggression that is controlled and encouraged in ground combat units where 99% of your problems can be solved by being more violent and faster than the other guy. Nothing is hidden, and nothing needs to be excused.” Barkhuff explained that he himself has used offensive language in online arguments. But that analogy doesn’t fit many of Platner’s defenses, whose controversial history goes beyond a few bad words.
Platner and his followers often talk about his personal story as one of redemption and recovery after his time in the war. “Graham clearly made a mistake. What I appreciated about him is that he owned up to that mistake. He took responsibility for it,” Rep. Seth Moulton said of Platner’s tattoo. But has he owned up to his mistakes? Although Platner claims that he did not know the significance of his Nazi Skull tattoo, some have objected to this. His former campaign political director said that Platner “knows what it means.” A former romantic partner, Lyndsey Fifield, told New York Times that Platner had referred to the tattoo years ago as “my Skull.” When Hayes asked Platner about text in which Fifield referred to a “Nazi tattoo on his chest” before the tattoo was made public, Platner replied, “Well, he didn’t send me that text.” Her denial proved even more absurd when an unnamed former romantic partner he told it New York Post that he had a conversation with Platner about the tattoo and its Nazi meaning in 2021, and shared screenshots showing his knowledge of the tattoo before it was revealed to the public.
For the answers of a New York Times The story in which Fifield claimed that Platner had grabbed, pushed, and twisted Platner’s arm. rejected not only that character but also that she and Fifield were once dating, despite contemporaneous texts and social media posts suggesting they were in a relationship. Platner’s campaign has also attacked Fifield, who has been active in conservative circles, as a political ally, though Times found no evidence that Fifield was acting on behalf of Collins. Part of redemption is counting one’s mistakes, and targeting people who witness those mistakes is not accountability—it’s self-defense. Time Morning JoeMika Brzezinski recently asked Platner if additional controversy could arise, Platner said, “There’s nothing out there that really concerning. People will make everything look so sad.”
I’ve seen veterans deal with the real stresses of America’s longest war—the physical as well as the psychological scars that linger after witnessing death and carnage, or coming close to it yourself. Being separated from home, family, and social networks to high-stress, high-risk environments, repeated over the course of decades, took its toll on every veteran of the War-on-Terror generation—whether they were deployed once or twice, whether they were in harm’s way or away from explosions. Many veterans have fallen into drug abuse or engaged in questionable personal behavior, and I can understand why. Some have undoubtedly felt the need to “unplug,” and we shouldn’t be surprised that the kind of people who sign up to get off the plane in the middle of a trip may also have a high tolerance for risk in their personal lives.
But even if Platner’s style of behavior is not unique, that does not mean that it represents the experiences or choices of many people who have served. And if all veterans who have suffered or stumbled deserve help and treatment, that doesn’t mean that their difficulty is the ultimate excuse for bad behavior. Everyone is responsible for the choices they make. That is a lesson we learn in the military.
Anyone who claims that this kind of burden is the cost of getting “regular” people—and especially veterans—to run for office doesn’t realize how lazy and out of touch that claim is. This argument means that all veterans are a group of drunkards with a history of despicable beliefs and actions. We cannot claim to honor veterans while holding them to such low standards. This logic also ignores the many veterans who have entered public life without a traumatic past.
Veterans are part of American society, and many will continue to run for public office. But their status as veterans, while an important part of their story, should never excuse the decisions they have made. Nor should former candidates use their service as direct proof of their eligibility for office. If a candidate wants to make his wartime service an important part of why voters choose him, then he should highlight the qualities he wants to bring to office, not discount the qualities he wants them to ignore.
