Graham Platner Reminds Us That Morality in Politics Is Hogwash

Following Democratic-Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the New York City mayoral election, the progressive wing of the Democratic party finally has reason to celebrate. In Maine, progressive Graham Platner has been finding similar success. 

Like Mamdani, Platner has focused his energy on compassion and local issues, emphasizing the shared hardships of the working class. Like Mamdani, Platner has railed against a historically unpopular Democratic establishment. 

Yet, in the past few weeks, Platner has come under fire for some questionable resurfaced posts, ranging from naive and stupid to vaguely racist, as well as a tattoo that far too closely resembles a Nazi skull symbol. 

Platner explained himself, and whether his apologies are sufficient is for the voters to decide. But one thing strikes me: progressives are rallying around him anyway.

As a preface, Platner hasn’t lost support from Democratic leadership. He never had any. In fact, the mainstream of the Democratic Party—led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–NY)—succeeded in encouraging current Maine Gov. Janet Mills to enter the Senate race opposite Platner. Schumer’s refusal to embrace more populist progressives (who are popular) like Platner and Mamdani, whom he never endorsed, speaks to a different problem—perhaps one of myriad reasons for the Democrats’ poor favorability ratings. But that’s for another article. 

The point is: Platner was—and still is—fairly popular in Maine. Polls are conflicting between Mills and Platner, but recent insights suggest Platner maintains a narrow advantage. Clearly, Platner’s genuine anger at the system and the politicians who perpetuate it has resonated across his state. The Democratic establishment does suck, and people are justifiably mad about it. But progressives excusing Platner’s past transgressions is flooring to me. Frankly, I almost can’t believe it.

Progressives platforming Platner in spite of these character issues have to seriously grapple with the consequences of that choice. Sure, it could mark a recognition of growth—and an embrace of enlightened second chances. But it seems more likely that it’s a symptom of extreme outrage at the establishment, an anger so palpable that progressives will rally behind literally anything—and, potentially, anyone—against the establishment.

That’s a dangerous thought, one that could open the door for far more problematic individuals than Platner. And it’s just another reminder that morality in politics is largely superficial and hypocritical. 

Platner’s comments from decades prior cover a wide range of topics, from communism to police brutality to sexual violence. For the sake of this article, Platner self-identifying as a “communist” is besides the point. That said, his more troubling remarks deal with racism in America and victim blaming.

In 2012, after returning from Afghanistan, Platner responded to a Reddit comment claiming that “White people [weren’t] as stupid or racist as Trump th[ought].” He wrote: “Living in white rural America, I’m afraid to tell you they actually are.” Around that same time, Platner responded to a thread about the need for “anti-rape” shorts. Platner called on women to “take some responsibility for themselves and not get so f***ed up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to?”

A year later, Platner asked a question on a Reddit thread prompting questions about race: “Why don’t [B]lack people tip?” Platner was a bartender and contextualized his question with an observation that, “usually [the tips Black patrons leave are] between 0–5%.” 

Years later, Platner alluded to the need for armed revolution, saying, “[anyone] expecting to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle ought to do some reading of history.” He also spoke of an “armed working class” as essential. In 2021, Platner took to Reddit in response to the killing of George Floyd, arguing, “Cops are bastards. All of them, in fact.”

These posts detail a pattern of naive and reckless rhetoric. In October, Platner fervently apologized for all of the above remarks: “I don’t want people to judge me off the dumbest thing I said on the internet 12 years ago.” Platner attributed some of his comments to naivete and inexperience: “I can honestly say I did not know what the f**k I was talking about.” 

More broadly, Platner has used his past indiscretions as a vehicle for charting his personal growth. After serving in Afghanistan, Platner says he was “in different places that [he’s] not in now,” “had different feelings,” and held “different thoughts and opinions.” Platner has called that time a dark one, one where he was “very disillusioned with our government who sent [him] overseas,” and, “struggling deeply.” Yet, while he “won’t defend things [he] said in the past,” Platner feels that part of his life was an essential part of his journey. That transformation is something of which Platner is extraordinarily proud. 

Ironically, this framing may have made Platner more relatable and sympathetic to communities who feel proud of their redemption and re-discovery. The comments themselves, though, are pretty problematic. 

Then, there is the tattoo—a skull and crossbones that doesn’t not look like a Nazi S.S. symbol. Platner insists that he was unaware of its origins. He got it in 2007 while drunk with friends in Croatia. He also points out that he “passed a full background check to receive a security clearance to join the Ambassador to Afghanistan’s security detail.” Platner has since covered the tattoo with a different, unproblematic image. 

Listen: do I think Platner knowingly got a Nazi symbol tattooed on him? No. Even his troubling Reddit history is incongruent with Nazi beliefs. Platner, as a former Marine, has his fair share of tattoos, and I believe his resolute denial. But I’m not convinced this is any different than Pete Hegseth’s tattoo incident.

Hegseth was flagged for having a “Deus Vult” tattoo on his bicep, a Latin phrase meaning “God wills it” that has been co-opted by White nationalists. Hegseth also has a “Jerusalem Cross” on his chest, which fellow servicemembers reported as a reference to white nationalism. In both cases, Hegseth and Platner have tattoos with troubling contexts and backgrounds.

Platner, of course, got his covered, though it was only after articles revealing its potentially problematic meaning were published. Still, though, progressives, who—justifiably or not—have railed on conservatives for problematic dug-up tweets and old tattoos, are surprisingly forgiving when it comes to Platner.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–VT), arguably the most prominent progressive voice, responded to the tattoo incident, chalking it up to “a dark period in his life.” Sanders continued: “I think what we have got to do as a nation is not focused on a tattoo.” He emphasized that Platner has apologized, which is true. Similarly, Elizabeth Warren (D–MA), who criticized Hegseth (probably for good reason) over his tattoo, has expressed support for, “new people enter[ing] the race for the Senate, particularly those who have a strong voice,” in response to a question on Platner.

Frankly, I don’t know how much I care about these posts. He wouldn’t be the only politician to have criticized police post-Floyd, or to change their minds after broadening their perspective.

I also don’t know how much I buy Platner’s growth narrative. Some of the Reddit comments are from twelve years ago; others are from less than five. So, the idea that Platner is substantially different than he was in 2021 seems implausible to me. 

I’ve been agitated at Democrats for sacrificing actual victories for moral victories for decades. Michelle Obama’s “when they go low, we go high” phrase has become a punchline in my household, however well-intentioned it may be. And, if Platner can defeat Susan Collins, I’m inclined to take the actual victory. 

But I am nervous about the broader message platforming somebody like Platner sends—and what his ascent in the face of scandal means.

Platner has made his bread excoriating an anemic, out-of-touch political establishment. Everyday people share that anger. But is looking past a history like Platner’s actually a demonstration of forgiveness and growth? Or is it really just a reflection of how desperate the average Democrat is to dethrone the establishment?

It’s also worth reckoning with just how willing we are to forgive in the name of change. I understand the anger and the disillusionment. It makes sense that Northeastern liberals are willing to hold their nose in the name of deposing the current political class. Frankly, in Platner’s case, the ends might justify the means. 

But elevating someone like Platner—even if he has grown—paves the road for more candidates like him.

Platner has identified the anger and resentment everyday people have towards their government—for unnecessary wars, for expensive and failing healthcare, for not staying true to its word. Yet his ascension reinforces that notions of moral hierarchy are purely semantic. 

Several months ago, I wrote a piece on how Biden’s decline muddied the moral lines drawn on the left. The same is the case here. There is one major difference, though: covering up Biden was an affirmation of the establishment; forgiving Platner is a unilateral rebuke of it.

Maybe that’s a good thing. Perhaps we need more candidates like him, who are willing to “give it” to the existing political hierarchy. But, presumably, not every future candidate will come across as genuinely changed as Platner seems to be, at least to his prospective constituents. And not everyone will be as ashamed as Platner seems to be. When that happens, progressives must be very careful with how far they’re comfortable going in the fight to depose the party elite.

Sacrificing principles for control is dangerous. Just ask Republicans.

The image featured in this article is licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. No changes were made and the original photo can be found here.