⚡ BREAKING NEWS
Sponsor Advertisement
Maine Senate Candidate's Tattoo Controversy Deepens

Maine Senate Candidate's Tattoo Controversy Deepens

Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner faces renewed scrutiny over a chest tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol. Initially apologized, Platner now disputes its Nazi association, citing his military service, while past claims and reports contradict his narrative.

Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner is once again at the center of a controversy surrounding a chest tattoo, which critics say bears a striking resemblance to the Totenkopf, a notorious Nazi SS symbol. The first-time candidate, an oyster farmer and combat veteran, initially expressed remorse for the tattoo last October, but has since shifted his position, now asserting that the emblem was never Nazi-related. This evolving narrative has drawn significant attention as Platner vies for Maine's U.S. Senate seat, currently held by Republican Susan Collins.

The controversy first emerged last October when a shirtless video of Platner, shared with the "Pod Save America" podcast, revealed the tattoo. The symbol in question, a skull emblem, is historically associated with Hitler’s Schutzstaffel (SS), the paramilitary force implicated in the systematic murder of millions during World War II. At the time, Platner stated he received the tattoo in 2007 in Split, Croatia, during military leave with fellow Marines. "We got very inebriated and we did what Marines on liberty do and we decided to go get a tattoo," he told "Pod Save America."

Upon the initial outcry, Platner's campaign announced plans for the tattoo's removal, with Platner claiming he only learned of its Nazi associations "a few days ago." He later opted to cover it with a new tattoo, a Celtic knot with a dog design, citing limited laser removal options in rural Maine. "Going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while," Platner explained at the time. "I wanted this thing off my body."

However, Platner's stance has since undergone a significant change. In a more recent interview with the news publication Zeteo, he walked back his previous acknowledgments of the tattoo's Nazi connections. He described the tattoo as a "straightforward skull-and-crossbones" and an "eminently reasonable thing." Platner recounted a meeting with Jewish leaders where, he stated, "somebody was like, ‘Wait a second. We thought you had a swastika.'" He added, "When I explain the actual story, pretty much everybody’s like, again, ‘That seems like an eminently reasonable thing.'"

Platner further defended his decision to get the tattoo, linking it directly to his military service. "I’ll just be upfront: The more they talk about it, the more I get to talk about the fact that I got that because I was a combat Marine," he asserted. "It was the fighting I took part in, in Iraq, that resulted in me and other machine gunners getting a skull-and-crossbones tattoo. If we want to continue talking about my military service, I’m more than happy to." Notably, during the same Zeteo interview, Platner recommended the 1985 war film "Come and See," a movie that prominently features Totenkopf symbols on Nazi uniforms.

Platner's revised account has been met with skepticism and contradictory evidence. An anonymous former acquaintance, speaking to Jewish Insider, alleged that Platner referred to the tattoo as a Totenkopf in a "cutesy little way" during a 2012 conversation at a Washington, D.C. bar, stating, "Oh, this is my Totenkopf." This account directly conflicts with Platner's claim of only recently becoming aware of the symbol's Nazi connotations during his Senate campaign.

Further scrutiny emerged from Reddit posts reportedly made by Platner in 2019, as first reported by the Daily Mail. These posts allegedly show Platner participating in online discussions specifically about the Totenkopf symbol, raising additional questions about the veracity of his stated timeline of awareness.

Experts and organizations have also weighed in on the symbol's clear association. An Anti-Defamation League spokesperson stated that the tattoo "appears" to be a Nazi Totenkopf, describing it as "troubling." The ADL acknowledged that some individuals may get tattoos without understanding their hateful connections but emphasized that such individuals should be asked whether they repudiate the meaning. Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, told The New York Times that the Totenkopf was, after the swastika, one of the most recognizable symbols from World War II. She found it "disingenuous" that Platner would be unaware of the symbol’s Nazi associations, particularly given his military background.

The tattoo controversy is not the only issue to plague Platner's campaign. He has also faced scrutiny for now-deleted Reddit posts in which he reportedly dismissed military sexual assaults, questioned the tipping habits of Black restaurant patrons, and criticized police officers and rural Americans. Platner has apologized for these posts, attributing them to a period of undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following his military service.

Despite calls from some Democratic rivals to withdraw from the race, Platner has refused to exit and continues to hold the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The ongoing debate surrounding his tattoo and past online activity continues to challenge his campaign as he seeks to represent Maine in the U.S. Senate.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

From a progressive viewpoint, the discussion around Graham Platner's tattoo highlights several critical issues, including the profound impact of historical symbols, the importance of acknowledging harm, and the complexities of personal narratives, particularly for veterans. The Totenkopf symbol carries a heavy history of hate and violence, and its appearance on a public figure, regardless of intent, necessitates a thorough and sensitive response. While Platner's initial apology and attempt to cover the tattoo were steps towards acknowledging this harm, his subsequent shift in narrative to deny its Nazi association and link it solely to military service is problematic.

Progressives emphasize the need for leaders to demonstrate a clear understanding of social justice and historical context. Even if Platner genuinely lacked initial awareness, the overwhelming historical evidence and expert opinions (like the ADL and Deborah Lipstadt) demand a more comprehensive and empathetic engagement with the symbol's meaning. The focus shifts from individual intent to the collective impact and perception. While Platner's claims of PTSD and the challenges faced by combat veterans deserve empathy and support, these do not absolve a public figure from the responsibility of addressing the implications of their actions and symbols. A progressive approach would call for Platner to unequivocally repudiate any association with hate symbols and to engage in meaningful education and dialogue with affected communities, ensuring that his public persona aligns with values of inclusion and anti-fascism.

Conservative View

From a conservative perspective, the controversy surrounding Graham Platner's tattoo and his shifting explanations raises serious questions about transparency, accountability, and a candidate's fitness for public office. The inconsistent narrative—first apologizing for a Nazi-linked symbol, then denying its association and attributing it to military service—undermines public trust, a cornerstone of effective governance. Conservatives often emphasize personal responsibility and the importance of clear, unwavering moral character in leadership. A candidate's past actions and their handling of controversy reflect directly on their judgment and integrity.

The alleged prior knowledge of the symbol's meaning, as suggested by an anonymous acquaintance and reported Reddit posts, further complicates Platner's defense. This suggests a potential lack of candor, which is seen as detrimental to the principles of honest representation. For conservatives, public servants must be forthright with their constituents, and any perceived obfuscation can be viewed as a disqualifying trait. Furthermore, linking a potentially offensive symbol to military service, a venerated institution, can be seen as an attempt to deflect criticism rather than taking full responsibility. This approach could be interpreted as diminishing the gravity of historical symbols and the sacrifices made by veterans. The focus remains on the individual's choices and their subsequent accountability to the public.

Common Ground

Despite differing interpretations of Graham Platner's tattoo controversy, there are clear areas of common ground regarding expectations for public figures and the importance of civic discourse. Both conservatives and progressives can agree on the fundamental importance of transparency and accountability from political candidates. Voters, regardless of their political leanings, expect their representatives to be honest about their past and consistent in their statements. Shifting narratives, as seen in Platner's case, erode public trust, which is essential for effective governance and a healthy democracy.

Furthermore, there is shared agreement on the need for public figures to handle symbols with historical significance, especially those associated with atrocities, with utmost care and respect. While discussions may arise about intent versus impact, both sides would likely concur that symbols of hate should be unequivocally repudiated. The military service of veterans is also a point of bipartisan reverence, and both sides would want to ensure that such service is honored appropriately, without being inadvertently linked to controversial or hateful imagery. Ultimately, the controversy underscores a shared desire for leaders who demonstrate integrity, are forthright with the public, and contribute to a political environment built on trust and mutual understanding.