 |
|
|
 News from Around the Americas | November 2007 
Military Past Now Rare For US Candidates
 Joelle Farrell - Concord Monitor
go to original
 |  | Historians and campaign watchers say that national security policy, not past military service, will likely influence voters this election. |  | |
Since the elimination of the draft in 1973, the number of U.S. citizens serving in the military has dwindled to about 1 percent of the total population. Fewer veterans hold high political office, meaning few politicians who authorize and manage wars have a personal connection to the troops they send into combat. Less than a third of members of Congress served in the military, a steep drop from the early 1970s, when three-fourths of its members were veterans.
Military service was once viewed as a prerequisite for those running for the presidency: 31 of the 42 presidents were veterans, according to the Washington Post. But the 2008 election may mark the first time since World War II that a veteran isn't on the final presidential ballot. Of the top-polling candidates, only Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain has served in the military. The 71-year-old former Navy pilot spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Both veterans and civilians have successfully served as commander-in-chief, and voters haven't shied away from electing presidents who willfully avoided military service in a time of war. Historians and campaign watchers say that national security policy, not past military service, will likely influence voters this election.
As Korean and Vietnam War veterans age and the remaining World War II veterans die, historians believe we may soon have a presidential field with no direct experience in the military. Some veterans worry that a president with no military experience may declare war casually or fail to notice the needs of veterans returning from combat in Afghanistan or Iraq. Others think that veterans are already suffering from the military-civilian divide.
"Fifteen-month tours, and now the administration has the gall to put a finger in the chest of Iran?" said Ward Carroll, a retired Navy Tomcat aviator and the editor of Military.com, an online military community and military news site. "The military, we're looking at each other, going, 'Whose going to do that heavy lifting? . . . What are we going to do to take care of those who have served?' "
Democrats have struggled since the Vietnam War to shake the image that the party is soft on defense, and nominating presidential candidates who have served in the military hasn't solved the problem. Jimmy Carter, a Naval Academy graduate who served on a submarine, lost his re-election bid in 1980 to Republican Ronald Reagan, whose wartime service consisted of making hundreds of U.S. propaganda movies. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, lost to President Bush in 2004 after a blitz of television and radio ads called the merits of his service into question.
"Military service is not a silver bullet," said Professor Jamie Mckown, who researches American presidential campaigns and teaches government and politics at College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine. "The ability of the Republicans to paint the Democrats as weak on foreign policy - (military service) is not an antidote to that."
At the beginning
The nation's presidency began with an officer of the highest rank: Gen. George Washington, who led American soldiers to victory against the larger, better-equipped British forces. But 20 years later, civilian President James Madison's poor handing of the War of 1812 - the British entered Washington, D.C., and burned the White House and the Capitol - led some to wonder if military leaders weren't better suited for the job, said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire.
"It was really an active question about whether civilian presidents were capable of leading America in wars and managing the military in wars," he said. "Madison . . . failing badly - that set a poor first example."
Many aspiring presidents began joining the military to boost their credentials. But they weren't always America's finest troops, including New Hampshire native Franklin Pierce, who served during the Mexican War.
"He didn't have a glorious experience in Mexico: He fell off his horse at one point," said Michael Birkner, a history professor at Gettysburg College. "But he served . . . and that was enough of an accolade to get him elected."
"In the generation from 1870 into the first world war, it really did make a difference to have served in the Civil War," Birkner said. "William McKinley . . . carried hot coffee to soldiers in combat, but that was good enough of a credential."
Still, Americans were beginning to see that some who succeeded in war weren't as adept in politics. President Zachary Taylor, who spent 25 years fighting American Indians on the frontier and won major victories in the Mexican War, served only one stormy year in office, during which he threatened to lead an army against Southern states that had defied him. He died several months later from illness. President Ulysses Grant, one of the 12 generals who have been elected president, led the North to victory in the Civil War but was an ineffective president who often looked to Congress for direction.
Meanwhile, some presidents with little or no military experience showed great leadership.
"Abraham Lincoln, he had been in the Black Hawk War for a couple of months and he had been a critic," Birkner said. "And yet he proved to be an adept commander-in-chief, a very patient and effective leader on the military side."
Franklin Roosevelt did not serve in the military but led the country during World War II.
"The military loved him," Carroll said. "They wept when he died."
The leading candidates
This election cycle, the leading candidates aren't veterans. Of the Republicans, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney never served. He was criticized earlier in the campaign when he said his five adult sons, none of whom is in the military, were serving their country by helping to get him elected. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, 63, like many in his age group, received deferments to attend college. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson likewise never served.
Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, worked as a flight surgeon in the Air Force after he was drafted in 1962. He remained in the Air National Guard while he finished his medical residency in Pittsburgh. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, was an Army Ranger who served in Vietnam. Both are well back in most presidential polls.
The Democrats considered to be in top tier of candidates, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, have no military experience. Of the other Democratic candidates, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd served in the Army Reserves and National Guard and former Alaska senator Mike Gravel was in the Army.
After World War II and until this election cycle, most of the men who ran for president had served in the military. When critics said John F. Kennedy was too young and inexperienced to be president, he cited his service in the Navy, where he suffered serious injuries after a Japanese destroyer rammed and sank his PT Boat.
Dwight Eisenhower, a World War II general, was elected during the Korean War.
"The typical voter seeing America stuck in the morass of Korea, they thought, 'If this guy could do D-Day, he can do Korea,' " said Birkner. "And he did. He didn't deliver a victory, but he delivered peace with honor."
Candidates' military service has became a staple of political campaign ads, Mckown said. While some campaigns use pictures of candidates in military dress, the most decorated war veterans, Eisenhower and retired general Wesley Clark, tried to soften their images by donning sweaters instead of their uniforms, Mckown said.
This year, McCain has run ads that remind voters of the years he suffered as a POW. He's using his service and his years in the Senate to distinguish himself from his rivals.
"John McCain's experience in the military is part of what makes him prepared to be commander in chief from day one," said McCain spokeswoman Crystal Benton. "He knows, because he's lived it, that we must bring our troops home with honor and in victory."
Veterans swarm McCain events, but that may not translate into votes. Military.com conducted an online poll during the summer to find which Republican its readers favored. McCain came in second to Giuliani, Carroll said.
"McCain is a fantastic guy, I sure respect the hell out of him," Carroll said. "I'm not saying I'm voting for him."
Some campaigns that boasted too much about a candidate's military service came to regret it. Kerry saluted and declared that he was "reporting for duty" at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. By making his service in Vietnam the center of his candidacy, he left himself vulnerable to attacks on his service, said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who studies the military-civilian divide.
"It's dangerous to run on one of those things and make that not just a bonus but a centerpiece," he said. "As long as it's treated as a plus rather than the sum total, it'll only be a plus."
Some thought Kerry and Clark, former NATO supreme allied commander, were perfect candidates to bolster the party's military credentials. But Clark didn't get very far and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth blindsided Kerry, dulling his campaign momentum.
"Kerry was an attempt to get beyond the Vietnam syndrome to show they had a tough guy in the ranks of liberals," Birkner said. "In the end it didn't carry the day."
Clinton concerns
Bill Clinton's election in 1992 marked a turning point: He was the first president elected since World War II who not only had never worn a uniform, but who had avoided military service. His opponent, the first President Bush, by contrast had enlisted in the Navy at 18 and had flown 58 combat missions during World War II. Bush had also presided over the Gulf War, a military victory after the troubled exit from Vietnam.
But voters weren't concerned with war when they elected Clinton, Birkner said.
"The Cold War was over, the new enemy threat had not emerged and people were focused on the economy," he said.
The military wasn't receptive to Clinton, at least initially. Some considered him a draft dodger, others were irritated when he implemented the don't ask, don't tell policy.
"Military commanders weren't likely to give him the benefit of the doubt," Scala said.
Much of the military's initial distaste for President Clinton carried over to Hillary Clinton. Some rumors, exposed as untruthful as far back as 1993, still circulate among veterans. One such rumor was that the Clintons refused to let military personnel wear their uniforms in the White House. Both Newsweek and The Washington Post found the rumor to be untrue.
"Some of that is in the realm of urban legend," Feaver said. "But they originate from this rocky relationship with the military. Then, in a vicious-cycle way, they contribute to the rocky relationship."
DuBose Kapeluck, a former Marine and assistant professor of political science at The Citadel military college in South Carolina, said many troops still feel resentment. He thinks Hillary Clinton may suffer for it.
"Her affiliation with her husband, who was accused of being a draft dodger, that whole aura surrounds both Clintons," he said.
But Hillary Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee who has made multiple trips to Afghanistan and Iraq, has worked hard to reach out to veterans. She's introduced legislation to help cut red tape for veterans trying to secure benefits and pushed for increasing the military death benefit for military members killed in the line of duty, according to Kathleen Strand, a campaign spokeswoman.
"Senator Clinton has recognized that that was a liability, and she has assiduously courted the military," Feaver said. "And there's some evidence that it's working."
Carroll, the Military.com editor, has a similar view.
"The more you find out about Hillary, the more you realize that your perceptions were wrong," he said. "She's a hawk . . . she's pretty tough. If I'm a military guy, I look at Hillary and say you know, she doesn't really take any sh-."
Policy, not the past
It's difficult to know what will sway votes in a primary or general election, but political pundits and veterans interviewed for this story think it will be policy, not military service, that plays the biggest role in influencing votes.
Maj. Gen. Kenneth Clark, adjutant general of the National Guard, said military service is not a litmus test for him, especially since some have joined the military just to burnish their credentials for a career in politics.
"It's just like degrees," he said. "Somebody's got a degree from XYZ college, it doesn't necessarily mean you learned something. It means you checked the box off."
Iraq will be a big issue for all voters, including veterans, and Carroll thinks more military members are looking for a middle-of-the-road candidate.
"Military experience is something that matters on the margins," he said. "Those who served in Iraq, they know what the truth is, and it isn't a teary-eyed flag-waving (solution), it's a pragmatic one: Make sure that their service and sacrifice isn't wasted. That's not a precipitous pullout, and it's not stay until hell freezes over."
Carroll thinks there may be a resurgence of veterans getting involved in politics as troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan. While Americans have been ambivalent about the Vietnam War, even those who oppose the war in Iraq respect those who went to fight it, Mckown said.
Several recent combat veterans ran for office during the 2006 midterm elections, including Democrat Patrick Murphy, an Army captain and Iraq war veteran who won a congressional seat in Pennsylvania.
"More and more veterans are running, and more and more veterans are winning," Carroll said. "All of a sudden, being a veteran is a tie-breaker again." |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us