Graham Platner is a Type of Guy
And You Gotta Decide What That Means
What I find very frustrating about politics is that it forces you to pretend you’re stupid. Case in point: Graham Platner’s Totenkopf tattoo—we’re supposed to believe he didn’t know what it was when he got it. Come the fuck on. First of all, the guy is an edgelordy Reddit autodidact type with a lot of opinions. This is precisely the demographic that knows all about militaria and WWII history. Not only would he know what it was, but he would also be proud to know what it was: such semi-obscure knowledge is the coin of that realm. Second, he was a U.S. Marine. Military guys know what that symbol is. And military guys like to be menacing and outside the norms of civilian society. It’s very edgy, but it’s still not a swastika or SS lightning bolts. It rides the territory on the border of taboo. Perfect!
Do I think Platner is actually a Nazi? No, not really. I think he’s an adventurer type and a bit of a lost soul. Exactly the kind of person who might start in a privileged or, at least, genteel milieu and then seek out more authentic and exciting experiences, like, say, joining the military and going to war. Historically, those kinds of people often became Nazis or fascists, but they could also become any number of other things—Communists, high-flying businessmen, international aid workers, etc. I think Simone de Beauvoir nails this type in her Ethics of Ambiguity:
Hoping for no justification, he will nevertheless take delight in living. He will not turn aside from things which he does not believe in. He will seek a pretext in them for a gratuitous display of activity. Such a man is what is generally called an adventurer. He throws himself into his undertakings with zest, into exploration, conquest, war, speculation, love, politics, but he does not attach himself to the end at which he aims; only to his conquest. He likes action for its own sake. He finds joy in spreading through the world a freedom which remains indifferent to its content. Whether the taste for adventure appears to be based on nihilistic despair or whether it is born directly from the experience of the happy days of childhood, it always implies that freedom is realized as an independence in regard to the serious world and that, on the other hand, the ambiguity of existence is felt not as a lack but in its positive aspect.
In other words, the kind of guy who would like to flaunt his lack of respect for the serious world’s norms around Nazi symbols. Moreover, de Beauvoir goes on to show their political flexibility, which comes from the very spirit of adventure: “They do not take politics seriously. They thereby allow themselves to be collaborationists in ‘41 and communists in ‘45, and it is true they don’t give a hang about the interests of the French people or the proletariat.” Again, there were plenty of these types of guys on both sides in the War.
What’s more, the adventurer’s spirit also explains Platner’s attitude towards women and love—his Don Juanism, capriciousness, and recklessness. De Beauvoir: “The taste or conquest is often subtly tied up with the taste for possession. Was seduction all that Don Juan liked? Did he not also like women? Or was he not even looking for a woman capable of satisfying him?” Good questions.
Many people on the left are subcultural bohemians with similar aspirations, and find such an attitude appealing and worth emulating. They like his rejection of the hypocritical standards of taste and behavior of the Beltway dorkwads. But it’s why I feel ambivalent about Platner: I don’t think he’s a very serious person. There’s an air of buffoonery about the whole thing. I’ve met many of these private-school Don Juans in my life, and I don’t particularly like them. They are usually real sons of bitches. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing: seriousness itself, the sheer givenness of society’s norms, has to be rejected if you are going to be an authentic person who thinks for yourself. But hopefully, then you ethically dedicate your life also to the freedom of others, not just your own. Does Platner give a shit about anybody except Platner? I guess I don’t buy the performance. Can an adventurer be a good guy to have on your side? Sure, at least they are not cowards. But I don’t entirely trust him. Maybe, because he’s certainly lying about the tattoo.
When it came out that Kavanaugh, as a drunk teenager, groped another teenager I remember thinking “this is bad, but it was 30 years ago he could be an entirely different person”. Then in the modern day while trying to get into a position of power he lied about the event and *that* is when I knew he was a POS.
This totenkopf tattoo is the same thing. It’s clear as day he’s lying about it now. Didn’t know what it was? Bullshit, and his continued lying is a sign this is a man who doesn’t deserve our trust.
He’s better than Collins because she aids and abets a more dangerous and powerful liar, but I don’t like this Platner business. There’s a very real chance he ends up like Fetterman, a serious impediment to a functioning majority.
Having known a thousand guys like this (and arguably been one at points in my youth), I feel secure in saying that he is not a Nazi. I also feel secure saying that that's the lowest bar one can clear.
Much like you, John, I don't trust him. And not only do I not trust *him,* I don't trust that he's a grown-up. Like, I genuinely worry that he isn't going to wake up in time for important early-morning votes. Whatever worries I would have about sending a teenager to the Senate—however precocious that teenager may be—are worries I have about sending Platner to the Senate, because he has consistently proven nothing if not his own arrested development.