The midterm elections this fall will be the first in which a sizable number of veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq run for Congress. At least fourteen have declared so far. But in an era when military and national-security issues have long been the province of the Republican Party—indeed, are thought to have strengthened the GOP's grip on the White House and Congress in the past two elections—the bigger surprise is under whose banner these veterans are choosing to run...nearly every one of them is a Democrat.
Personal experience at home and abroad has prompted some of these veterans to run. Take here the story of Sgt. Major Tim Walz:
Command Sergeant Major Tim Walz is a twenty-four-year veteran of the Army National Guard, now retired but still on active duty when a visit from President George W. Bush shortly before the 2004 election coincided with Walz's homecoming to Mankato, Minnesota. A high school teacher and football coach, he had left to serve overseas in Operation Enduring Freedom. Southern Minnesota is home to a large Guard contingent that includes Walz's unit, the First 125th Field Artillery Battalion, so the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are naturally a pressing local concern—particularly to high school students headed into the armed services.
The president's visit struck Walz as a teachable moment, and he and two students boarded a Bush campaign bus that took them to a quarry where the president was to speak. But after they had passed through a metal detector and their tickets and IDs were checked, they were denied admittance and ordered back onto the bus. One of the boys had a John Kerry sticker on his wallet.
Indignant, Walz refused. "As a soldier, I told them I had a right to see my commander-in-chief," the normally jovial forty-one-year-old recently explained to a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party dinner in the small town of Albert Lea, Minnesota.
His challenge prompted a KGB-style interrogation that was sadly characteristic of Bush campaign events. Do you support the president? Walz refused to answer. Do you oppose the president? Walz replied that it was no one's business but his own. (He later learned that his wife was informed that the Secret Service might arrest him.) Walz thought for a moment and asked the Bush staffers if they really wanted to arrest a command sergeant major who'd just returned from fighting the war on terrorism. They did not.
What explains this trend? Green mentions several factors, including the example of Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett who lost the race for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, the personal conviction of these veterans that they can serve their country in office as they served in the military, and the simple fact that thanks to Afghanistan and Iraq there are more veterans available to run.
Democrats are of course welcoming these soldiers with open arms. There are those on the right who will accuse the Democrats of cherry-picking veterans who are opposed to the war in the hopes that the veterans will confer some legitimacy on Democrats in the areas of personal integrity and national security. First, not all of these veterans are running as Democrats; some are running as Republicans as well, and there's really no reason why the Republicans wouldn't also seek to cherry-pick veterans who support Bush and his decisions on Iraq. The criticism on the second point-national security-maybe a little closer to home. As Green states in the article, veterans appears to be "innoculated" from questions of legitimacy on national security issues. There may be some Democrats that welcome veterans who appear to come with "National Security Cred" stamped on their foreheads. But Democrat's problems with national security don't come from the fact that the majority of Democratic politicians haven't served. After all, simply take a look at the "high priests" of national security on the conservative side, and you'll see mostly pudgy white guys who've probably only ever been shot at playing paintball. And veterans alone won't fix that problem, though they themselves won't have their own authority on the issue questioned. Instead, it really just seems that there are a lot of veterans out there who find themselves leaning Democrat one way or the other, and feel like they've got something to contribute to both Democrats and the country in general. And as Green points out, there's just the simple fact that these veterans are in fact being welcomed with open arms by Democratic leadership and voters, unlike veterans of Vietnam who were not so welcome in a Democratic party still largely influenced by an anti-war movement that viewed the veterans negatively.
Whatever your political leaning, there's no doubt that these soldiers have something to offer our country still, and we should embrace them for it.
3 comments:
It's highly interesting most veterans running this year are Democrats.
Very much so. Like I said I don't think anybody is cherry-picking anybody else (though if you think Republicans aren't looking for veterans to run, you'd be a fool.)I just think that because of Bush and his policies, Democratic veterans are more highly motivated to run right now, and are embraced by the party, and are excellently poised to defeat GOP incumbants. If you're a vet, it's a perfect time to run as a Dem.
I think it's worth noting, and honestly I think it may have something to do with the fact that the administration has apparently abandoned the values that our military protects, as well as neglecting its duty to the military itself.
Post a Comment