Top of the class at Harvard and Princeton will make this guy interesting.......and possibly dangerous in debates
he's going to do well for himself in the primary debates but his success will pull the eventual nominee so far to the right that he will not be able to recover in the general and the democratic nominee, almost assuredly clinton, will win in a relative landslide. quote this post in november 2016.
not really related but jerry lembcke wrote a book called "spitting image" discussing the american cultural memory of the vietnam war and the enduring myth of the persecuted, spit-upon soldier. i intend to read it over the summer and if he's got source material regarding the position of anti-war soldiers then i'd wager it belongs as well in sociology as anywhere.
for these reasons i would actually like the lembcke sources if you would GRP
edit: whoops, i didn't see your previous post. have you read spitting image? do you know the name of the other work you're citing?
yeah ive read spitting image. it's an easy read and imo he does a good job of providing context for not only the myth of the spat upon soldier (including that there's actually more evidence that the right wing and veterans of prior wars were responsible for any spitting, and were certainly much more hostile) but also the medicalization of radical thought and action through post vietnam syndrome and eventually ptsd. society's inability to conceive of a "bad" war with "bad" soldiers gave way to a shift "from badness to madness", where radical veterans who spoke ill of empire and made allegations of atrocities committed against innocent people were given a pass for their "badness" because they were of course just mush brained victims of hellish war.
there was a pretty visible contradiction in the imperialist's narrative of the war, as the troop hating communist sympathizing gay hippy elitist activists were actually seeing their numbers swell with each passing day as more and more soldiers returned home and joined the movement in droves. by depoliticizing clearly political actions of soldiers and portraying anti war activists as hostile to the "good" troops, americans could be convinced by the administration that anti war activists lost what was actually a "good" war and broke the brains of those who fought in vietnam. there's more of course but i don't have it in front of me at the moment.
ive read some of his ptsd book, diagnosis and identity in post empire america, but i didn't get the sense that it was going anywhere all that different from spitting image so i put it down. i might revisit it later though because talking about this has gotten me interested in it again