Graham Platner, a progressive populist running for the U.S. Senate in Maine, is facing a crisis over a tattoo on his chest that resembled a Nazi symbol called a “Totenkopf.” Platner claims he got it when he was drunk and on a period of military leave many years ago, and that he didn’t know he’d gotten inked with a tattoo that resembles a Nazi symbol until he recently “started hearing from reporters and DC insiders,” he told Politico. He shared a video of himself shirtless on Monday with a podcast in an apparent attempt to get ahead of the story, after his campaign was informed that images of his tattoo were being pitched as “opposition research.” Then, on Wednesday, after a firestorm of controversy, he revealed that he’d covered the tattoo with a new one.
Graham’s tattoo became a test for his progressive allies, who have split on whether to defend or criticize the 41-year-old oyster farmer preparing for what could be a tough Democratic primary against Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a 77-year-old establishment Democrat. But some of those who’ve defended him risk alienating parts of their own base by downplaying a symbol of hate. Those defenders include Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, who endorsed him in August and praised him as “prepared to take on the billionaire class and fight for working people.”
There can be a cost to embracing outsider candidates too quickly or without proper vetting.
Sanders repeatedly described Platner’s tattoo Tuesday as a tolerable mistake and said the tattoo would not sway his endorsement of him. “Look, I understand this whole platoon — I don’t know too much about it — got inebriated,” Sanders said when asked about the tattoo, according to Politico. “He went through a dark period. He’s not the only one in America who has gone through a dark period.” And Punchbowl reporter John Bresnahan reports that Sanders responded to a question about the tattoo by talking about the “corrupt campaign finance system” and pointing out: “We don’t have enough candidates in this country that will take on the powers that be and fight for the working class.”
That second quote helps explain Sanders’ potentially myopic decision to stick by Platner’s side so forcefully. Charismatic first-time political candidates who can, overnight, draw big crowds and vow to fight the “billionaire economy” using social democratic principles are few and far between. But because their past may not have been fully vetted, first-time outsider candidates like Platner can be far more unpredictable and can have the kind of past that makes running a political race far more difficult. They can also potentially undermine the credibility of the movement they claim to be a part of.
And, as Sanders should see now, there can be a cost to embracing outsider candidates too quickly or without proper vetting. He and other allies of Platner would do progressives a bigger favor by not downplaying legitimate questions about him. Particularly at a time of rising bigotry, it’s not small potatoes for an aspiring senator to have had what appears to be a hate symbol emblazoned on their chest — regardless of their alleged intentions — and it shouldn’t be dismissed as such.
Platner said on a Crooked Media podcast that he got the tattoo in Croatia in 2007 and that he and other Marines chose a “terrifying-looking skull and crossbones off the wall” and that “skulls and crossbones are a pretty standard military thing.” He says he didn’t know the specific skull he got resembled a Nazi symbol still used by white supremacists. And he’s also said the tattoo wasn’t flagged when he later enlisted in the Army, which requires a full body scan for prohibited hate symbols.
But Platner’s explanation did not go over well. When he shared the shirtless video of himself Monday, it not only resulted in criticism from commentators on the left, but the GOP pounced on it and used it for fundraising pitches, while a primary rival called for him to drop out of the race. Platner’s former political director wrote on Facebook that she’s not giving Platner the benefit of the doubt: “Graham has an anti-Semitic tattoo on his chest. He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff. Maybe he didn’t know when he got it, but he got it years ago and he should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means.”
Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, told The New York Times that the symbol depicted in Platner’s tattoo was, after the swastika, one of the most well-known symbols from World War II, and said it seemed “disingenuous” that Platner would not know the symbol’s Nazi links given his military experience.
It is impossible to determine if Platner is telling the truth. But even the most charitable account of his behavior — that he didn’t know until extremely recently — doesn’t speak well of his judgment. If Platner wants to hold public office, particularly as a progressive opposed to bigotry, then the bar for his behavior is higher than that of a private citizen. A U.S. senator should be curious about the world, politically educated and sensitive to hateful messaging and imagery. One must also ask why, upon apparently learning that he would be facing a potential firestorm over the tattoo, he didn’t immediately get it covered up and preemptively issue an apology. He waited until the criticism reached a crescendo.
And the tattoo controversy comes after news reports emerged last week showing that Platner made a series of inappropriate and bigoted remarks on social media in the past. In those comments, he panned rural white people as racist and stupid, downplayed sexual assault in the military and asked why Black customers “don’t tip.” Platner apologized for those remarks and attributed them to mental health struggles he had after serving in the military. Then, on Wednesday, The Advocate reported that Platner had used anti-gay slurs and homophobic language in past social media comments. Platner called his remarks “indefensible” in an interview with The Advocate. (Platner’s aforementioned former political director resigned over some of his resurfaced social media posts.)
Another sign of Platner’s questionable judgment is that in 2018 he worked in Afghanistan as a contractor for Constellis, a successor to the security company Blackwater, the private military contractor who became a symbol of unaccountable U.S. misbehavior in the Middle East and Central Asia and whose employees killed civilians in the region. His spokesperson said that Platner “left after becoming completely disillusioned with America’s deeply failed foreign policy and endless wars.” But the fact that he did that work so late in a terrible, immoral war is a red flag. This might not be as problematic to as wide of a swath of voters as the tattoo or social media comments, but it is not a promising credential for those in the progressive antiwar crowd to which Platner seems to be trying to appeal to.
Bottom line: Even if one accepts Platner’s apologies for his past behavior, believes his account of when he learned about the meaning of his tattoo, and thinks that he may have evolved from his past errors, it’s clear that he has a questionable track record. There are legitimate reasons to be suspicious of how deeply held his current progressive beliefs are, and how disciplined he would be as a politician.
