In recent days, as I have followed the congressional race in California’s 45th District between Representative Derek Tran and Chuong V. Vo, I have come across a growing number of posts, comments, images, and accusations circulating within the Vietnamese American community.
Some criticisms are legitimate.
Some questions deserve to be asked.
But there are also accusations that leave me wondering:
Are we trying to
understand a candidate, or are we simply looking for reasons to discredit,
demean, and despise him?
I believe an election should be decided by policy,
competence, character, and the records of the candidates, not by claims
repeated so often that repetition itself begins to masquerade as truth.
And there is something that should be said at the outset.
Derek Tran is not
beyond criticism.
I have had the opportunity to meet Derek personally.
He has enough language skill to communicate in Vietnamese in ordinary
conversation, but when discussing complicated matters of law, public policy, or
government, he is more comfortable responding in English. I have watched
interviews on Vietnamese language media in which Derek answered in English with
assistance in interpretation.
Some people do not like that.
I understand. A Vietnamese American member of Congress who speaks Vietnamese
fluently would certainly enjoy a special degree of closeness with the
community. But this is also a familiar reality in immigrant families throughout
the world.
Using Derek’s limited Vietnamese as a way to diminish him may therefore
produce precisely the opposite result. To be fair and the fact that, Derek was
born and raised in the United States, he can still speak and understand
Vietnamese to the extent that he does is something worth acknowledging.
And perhaps those making this criticism should also ask themselves
whether the younger generations in their own families speak Vietnamese much
better.
Fluency in a language does not determine the authenticity of
someone’s Vietnamese identity.
To move from “Derek does not speak Vietnamese well” to
insinuations about his background, integrity, or identity requires a very large
leap.
That question led me to look more closely at another, more
serious controversy surrounding Derek Tran: his military service.
Here, the truth is not entirely black and white.
Derek did serve in the U.S. Army Reserve. He enlisted when
he was young, served for approximately eight years, was called to active duty
in 2003, and was later honorably discharged.
Available records show that he served at Fort Stewart, Georgia. His military specialty was in culinary services. There is no record currently available showing that he was deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. He also received the Army Achievement Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.
So there should be no confusion on one fundamental point.
Derek Tran is a real
military veteran.
At the same time, there is something that deserves
criticism.
Some earlier biographies and campaign materials used
language that could reasonably leave readers with the impression that Derek had
been sent into combat in Iraq. One account even used the phrase “fight in
Iraq.”
In my view, that wording was inaccurate and unnecessary.
In a 2024 interview, Derek said that he had been called to
active duty in connection with the Iraq conflict, but he also clearly stated
that he remained stateside at Fort Stewart.
The fairest conclusion, therefore, is this:
We should not deny
Derek Tran’s military service. But neither should we ignore language that may
have overstated the nature of that service.
If Derek or his campaign described his service inaccurately, people have every right to question it. I would question it as well.
But criticizing misleading wording is very different from
turning an actual veteran into someone accused of fabricating his military
service.
The truth can be
uncomfortable because it does not always fit neatly into the slogans of our
political side.
And that brings me to an accusation I find even more
troubling:
“Derek Tran is a
Communist.”
In many communities, the word “Communist” may simply be a
political label.
For Vietnamese refugees, it carries something far heavier. Behind that word are war, reeducation camps, dangerous
escapes by sea, families torn apart, and a homeland many were forced to leave
behind.
I understand that history deeply. And precisely because the word carries such enormous weight, I do not believe it should be used casually as a political weapon against someone we dislike.
If someone says Derek Tran is a Communist, I have one very
simple question:
Where is the
evidence?
The public record I have examined tells a very
different story.
Derek has advocated for political prisoners in Vietnam. He cosponsored the Vietnam Human Rights Act. He has spoken publicly about activists and journalists imprisoned by the Vietnamese government. He objected to U.S. diplomatic participation in commemorative events organized by the Communist government of Vietnam. He displayed the yellow flag with three red stripes in the United States Congress in connection with the commemoration of April 30 and introduced a resolution concerning the Vietnamese Heritage Flag.
He also raised the issue of political prisoners in Vietnam
directly with Hung Cao during a congressional hearing.
Politicians can do the right thing because of conviction, responsibility, political calculation, or some combination of all three.
But if we are going to call a man who has done these things
a “Communist” or a “traitor to the yellow flag,” then the evidence should be
proportionate to the seriousness of the accusation.
This is where the issue begins to extend beyond Derek Tran
or Chuong Vo.
It becomes a question about how we speak to one another about politics.
Today, people do not always need to make a direct
accusation.
Sometimes they simply ask:
- Why can’t we find this record?
- Who were his parents really?
- Has he ever traveled to Vietnam?
- What is being hidden?
Each question may sound harmless on its own. But when dozens of unsupported questions are placed one after another, they can create the impression that something sinister must exist.
What troubles me even more is that this kind of rhetoric is
sometimes initiated or amplified by influential people within our own
community.
I am not opposed to asking questions. Quite the opposite. Democracy cannot survive if citizens stop asking questions. But questions should lead us toward evidence. They cannot become substitutes for evidence.
Sometimes, after searching carefully, the most honest answer we can give is simply: I don’t know. Perhaps we need to relearn how to say those three words. Because a society in which everyone is expected to have an immediate answer can easily become a society in which speculation is sold as fact.
The same principle applies to the controversy involving streamer Hasan Piker and Vietnamese refugee Bach Hac. Piker’s comments toward her were offensive and deserving of condemnation.
I have no interest in defending those remarks.
But making Derek Tran responsible for the statements of an independent streamer is something entirely different. Based on what I have been able to verify, there is still insufficient evidence to state conclusively whether Derek publicly responded to that incident or remained entirely silent.
And that brings us to another subject that is deeply
sensitive within our community: the yellow flag with three red stripes.
I respect that flag. But I do not believe it belongs to the Republican Party. Nor does it belong to the Democratic Party. It belongs to a part of Vietnamese history and memory.
A Republican can honor that flag.
A Democrat can honor that flag.
No one should have to prove his or her opposition to
Communism by voting for one particular American political party.
If we once left a society in which patriotism was equated
with loyalty to one party, I do not want us to recreate the same mentality in
our second homeland.
And the principles I am applying to Derek Tran must also
apply to Chuong V. Vo.
If someone distorts Mr. Vo’s background tomorrow, I will
object.
If someone takes an extreme statement made by a Trump
supporter and tries to hold Chuong Vo responsible for it without any direct
connection, I will consider that unfair as well.
If a principle is
used only to protect the people we like, it is no longer a principle. It has
become another political weapon.
We should want Derek Tran to explain his votes.
We should want Chuong Vo to explain the policies he intends
to pursue.
We should want to know what both men believe about the
economy, taxes, the federal budget, Medicare, Medicaid, immigration, border
security, education, small businesses, China, Vietnam, and human rights.
We should evaluate their abilities.
We should compare their records.
And then we should decide for ourselves.
We do not need a manipulated image to make that decision for
us.
We do not need a selectively edited video to make that
decision for us.
And we do not need someone to repeat the word “Communist”
often enough to make that decision for us.
In the past, reaching tens of thousands of people required a newspaper, an editorial staff, a printing press, and a distribution network. Today, it can take nothing more than one Share button.
That means each of us now holds a small part of the power and responsibilities once reserved for publishers.
And before we press that button, perhaps we should ask
ourselves a few simple questions:
- Where did this information come from?
- What is the original evidence?
- Does the evidence actually support the conclusion being
presented?
- And if this same accusation were directed at the candidate I
support, would I accept the same standard of proof?
Vietnamese people of my generation understand what propaganda can do to a society. We have seen people branded with political labels. We have seen truth distorted to serve power. We have seen falsehoods repeated until, eventually, they were treated as fact.
That history should have taught us that opposing
authoritarianism means more than opposing a particular regime.
It also means rejecting the methods that allow
authoritarianism to thrive.
Being anti Communist
cannot mean granting ourselves permission to smear others.
Believing in freedom
cannot be separated from respecting truth.
And to me, honoring the yellow flag means more than
preserving a symbol.
It means preserving the values for which so many people left everything behind: freedom, human dignity, and the right to think without being manipulated by propaganda.
This November, voters in California’s 45th Congressional
District will choose between Derek Tran and Chuong V. Vo.
If Chuong Vo offers better policies, demonstrates greater
ability, and persuades more voters, then let him win.
If Derek Tran does that, then let Derek win.
I am not afraid of a candidate I disagree with winning a fair election. We do not have to think alike. We do not have to vote alike.
But at the very least, we owe one another a basic form of
respect:
Let us argue with
facts. Then let the voters
decide.
What concerns me far more is the moment when we begin to
believe that because our candidate must win, anything said about the opponent
becomes acceptable.
When that happens, the loser is no longer merely Derek Tran
or Chuong V. Vo.