newswire: 9/2/2020
- In a shift away from a longstanding pattern, veterans no longer dominate American politics. Even though voters say they’re still enthusiastic about candidates who have served, veterans now only make up 18% of the House and 19% of the Senate. (The Economist)
- NH: The veteran looms large in the American political imagination. From George Washington to James Monroe, from Ulysses S. Grant to Theodore Roosevelt, from “waving the bloody shirt” to the Greatest Generation, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, veterans have dominated the executive and legislative branches for so much of American history that it’s hard to imagine they don’t play much of a role anymore. More than two-thirds of our elected presidents have been veterans.
- But their numbers are indeed declining. For most of the 20th century, international conflicts in Europe, the Pacific, Korea, and Vietnam produced a steady supply of veterans, often drafted, who later became lawmakers. At one point in the 1970s, approximately three-quarters of the members of Congress had served in the armed forces (mostly in World War II). But they lost their majority in the House in the 1990s. The Senate (with an older average age) followed in the early 2000s. Now veterans make up less than a fifth of both houses.
- The obvious explanation for the decline is that, with the end of the draft and the shrinking size of the military, there are fewer veterans to elect. The growing number of women in Congress are also less likely to come from the armed forces.
- Why does this matter? Several studies have shown that veterans and non-veterans vote differently when it comes to military and foreign policy. And the difference isn't what you might think. One oft-cited study by Duke University’s Christopher Gelpi and Peter Feaver found that fewer veterans in Congress predicts a higher likelihood of belligerent foreign policy. From 1816 to 1992, the larger the proportion of American policymakers with military experience, the smaller the probability that the U.S. would initiate a militarized dispute.
- To be sure, this study was conducted in 2002--a time when the number of veterans in Congress was much higher than it is today and also a time when many of these had been conscripted. The wars of Iraq and Afghanistan are creating a very different pool of volunteer veterans with different combat experiences. It also matters which generation is making the decisions. It’s impossible to conclude that it’s military experience alone that makes the difference.
- Yet 15 years later, another study from Colgate University’s Danielle Lupton came to a similar conclusion. She found that House representatives with military experience were significantly more likely to vote for restrictions on troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan and also more likely to vote for congressional access to information about war operations. What’s more, they were less enthusiastic than their non-veteran colleagues about military intervention for nation-building purposes.
- Statistically, in other words, Representative Tulsi Gabbard may be a bit more typical than Senator Tom Cotton when it comes to veterans' readiness to put troops in harm's way.
- For more on this topic, I’d recommend Jeremy Teigen’s book Why Veterans Run. His research suggests that, despite their shrinking numbers, veterans will continue to play an outsized role in campaigning and elections. They’re more likely to run for office than their civilian counterparts, and veterans are still over-represented in Congress relative to their share of the population. Contrary to stereotype, however, their service records don’t necessarily give them an edge: While the power of military service still looms large in voters' minds, veterans don’t actually win primaries and elections more often than their non-veteran counterparts.
