Graham Platner Has a Nazi Tattoo

Graham Platner has a Nazi tattoo. It has since been covered up, but it was there. The image was a Totenkopf, the skull-and-crossbones insignia worn by Hitler’s SS units. In recent days, since the tattoo was revealed to the public, the Senate candidate has gone of a tour of recompense, apologizing for the tattoo. Well, not apologizing, but feigning ignorance. In a podcast with Pod Save America Platner said, “We got very inebriated, and we did what Marines on liberty do, and we decided to go get a tattoo. We chose a terrifying looking skull and crossbones off the wall because we were Marines and, you know, skulls and crossbones are pretty standard military thing.” 

It’s been curious to view the Left’s reaction to all of this, with one Twitter user saying, “How many people get tattoos that they thought looked cool, but didn’t understand the meaning of? How many vets took mercenary work for a period because the US doesn’t support them? How many young men have shitposted online? Do we want an authentic working-class party or not?” Another arguing, “… [This] scandal [helps] Platner rather than hurting him – not because people love Nazi tats but because people want a culture that brings back grace, forgiveness and growth, and smashes this hall monitor BS that makes the Dems toxic”

This line of defense, of forgiveness, has become increasingly popular. Platner is reformed, and his past as an infantryman at Abu Ghraib, a mercenary at Blackwater, and someone who once bore a Totenkopf on his chest should be overlooked because of his alignment with the progressive left. In a just world, his history is disqualifying.  In the political climate of contemporary America, however, salvation seems possible for anyone, as long as they say the right things and signal the right values.

This case signals a growing movement towards solidarity in the progressive camp, but solidarity at what cost? Is this man’s past defensible solely because he now espouses agreeable politics? Platner’s scandal is emblematic of a larger structural issue. If you say the right things, the electorate will overlook past sins. Your past can be neutralized through performative contrition. Words carry moral weight, independent of outcomes. 

Consider figures like John Fetterman, who ran as a progressive champion of labor and healthcare but has steadily shifted toward the center and further once in office. During his campaign, the policies he championed acted as moral insurance. That he was here to do the right thing. When news of his armed racial profiling incident emerged, the Left was quick to forgive, emphasizing that his progressive policies outweighed a single misstep. That he had grown. This trend is common in the broader culture of progressive institutions. Assumed political allies are excused for missteps, provided they maintain loyalty. In the case of Fetterman, loyalty was not maintained, and he has now been criticized by the same people who begged others to forgive him. This should be the fear with Platner. Are his words just there to mask his true ideas? Has he realized the power of progressives and co-opted the movement?

Of course, the concern with Platner is that he is astroturfing. Co-opting progressive rhetoric because it’s what works right now. A veteran of questionable wars, a man with a Totenkopf tattoo, suddenly packaged as the progressive everyman. Why is that so easy to accept? Part of it seems to be desperation, with the current administration, all hope seems to be lost on the progressive side. We need a victor, and for a while, Platner seemed to be the guy. But it’s important not to get caught up in hopes and possibilities. The danger here is normalizing a system where alignment with progressive values is enough to erase or neutralize serious ethical questions. In the end, the question is not whether Platner deserves forgiveness. It is whether a political culture that allows moral performance to substitute for moral action should survive.