Even though neither major party nominee for president has a military background — one of them avoided service through a series of deferments and a claimed bone-spurs disability — and U.S. armed forces are not currently involved in any ground wars, military matters are playing an outsized role in this year’s election.
That role has four dimensions. First, is the country in a position to apply military force, if and when needed, beyond our borders? Second, what, if anything, will be the armed forces’ role in the event the losing presidential candidate’s supporters seek to contest the results through civil disorder? Third, is military service a particular qualification for public office? And finally, if the answer to the third question is Yes, is some military service more salient than other service?
The first two questions are certain to be addressed as the election draws near – indeed, they will remain on the national screen for the foreseeable future given current hostilities in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. The second question may lose its urgency after Election Day, certification of the results, and the inauguration, unless the example set by former President Trump following his 2020 election loss proves to be a lasting part of American political life.
The fourth question is getting particular attention owing to the current effort to SwiftBoat Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ choice for running mate. Republicans are working overtime to call into question his account of his service in the Minnesota National Guard and to contrast it with Ohio Sen. JD Vance’s service in the U.S. Marine Corps. The fourth question cannot be divorced from the third, so let me start there.
How important is military service of any kind as a qualification or preparation for high elective office? While many presidents and vice presidents have served in the nation’s armed forces, their services have varied greatly. Some have been senior commanders, such as Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, while some were heroic junior officers whose lives were on the line, like Presidents Kennedy and George H.W. Bush. Others served in relatively safe assignments for longer or shorter periods (Presidents Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Ford, and Reagan). Some terminated their service unimpressively, an example being former President George W. Bush, who trained as a pilot but never saw combat and whose service ended in a cushy Air National Guard billet. He went on to serve two terms as president. As did former President Barack Obama. He, like President Joe Biden, never served at all. To date, no woman veteran has been elected to either of the two highest offices in the land. Neither of the current major-party candidates for president has had military service,yet each of them enjoys broad popularity, and barring the unforeseen, one of them will be the next commander-in-chief. And of course, former President Trump has already held that office, even though he did not win the popular vote.
Both candidates for vice president, in contrast, served in the armed forces as enlisted men. One is retired by reason of longevity. The other is simply one of the country’s millions of veterans.
The Senate and House of Representatives, of course, include numerous veterans and military retirees. Many of those who are seeking election for the first time this year make a point about their past service. How relevant is that service? It depends.
Courage under fire is a rare virtue, and anyone who has had that experience deserves the thanks of their fellow citizens. But does it make a person better qualified to serve as a legislator? In my view, not particularly. On the other hand, military personnel may be called on to display moral courage, and that is unquestionably pertinent to fitness for elective office, since that kind of service may require the individual to resist improper influences. I can think of candidates among the current crop who have done so.
On the other hand, this kind of moral courage may well be called for in other contexts as well, such as the world of business, education, scholarship, and work as an attorney or judge. I would argue that the real question, when it comes to qualification for elective office, is not whether one has worn the uniform, seen combat, or sustained wounds, but whether one has displayed the broader traits that cross the civil-military divide. These include not only moral courage, but dedication to the Constitution and laws of the land, personal integrity, leadership, setting an example for others, empathy, and plain old good judgment. A civilian who has never considered military service is every bit as capable of patriotism and selfless conduct as a career soldier. In short, simply having worn the uniform is not a compelling credential for elective office; you would need to know a great deal more before deciding how much weight it deserved – and who the competition was.
This brings me back to the fourth question, a question made all the more pertinent right now because of two time-honored practices in American political life: running on your military record (and maybe puffing it here and there), on the one hand, and picking over an opponent’s military record (if any) for blemishes or falsehoods, on the other. The current hand-to-hand combat over service records between the Walz and Vance campaigns, of course, seems particularly absurd given the lack of military service by either former President Trump or Vice President Harris. But let’s leave that aside.
Military service comes in many sizes and shapes, so comparisons are hard to make. How do we compare services that are identical in every material respect except for those that Candidate A served during the conscription era while Candidate B served during the All-Volunteer Force Era? How does a draftee with a Purple Heart stack up against a volunteer who wasn’t wounded? Does holding a commission necessarily mean a candidate is better suited to elective office than one who was a noncommissioned officer or a PFC or Seaman Apprentice? Is anyone who served in the Marine Corps inherently more patriotic or more suitable for elective office than someone who served in the Coast Guard or the Space Force – or the Public Health Service, which is a uniformed service but, ordinarily, not an armed force? Where in the pecking order do we place someone who served on active duty for six months followed by years of “weekend warrior” reserve duty (e.g., former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn) or who received a commission upon completion of ROTC but spent only a few months on active duty for training (e.g., Justice Sam Alito of the Supreme Court)? Is it worse to avoid the draft than not to volunteer when there is no draft? Do we think the less of those who were exempt from conscription as women or as sole-surviving sons and did not volunteer? Are conscientious objectors disqualified for elective office? What about those who can and do serve as noncombatants?
There’s no need to belabor the point: The possible comparisons are nearly infinite and defy neutral principles of evaluation.
Where does this leave candidates and voters this year? My own view is that Gov. Walz has done two things that are both right and politically smart: his campaign has forthrightly conceded that he erred in referring to his service in war, and he has saluted Sen. Vance for his one-hitch service as a Marine. I don’t care if Gov. Walz retired as an E-8 rather than as an E-9, or that he retired with 24 years of creditable National Guard service instead of re-upping for yet another hitch. Nor does it seem to me to make the slightest difference in Sen. Vance’s qualifications to hold the country’s second-highest office that he filled a public affairs billet when he served in Iraq.
A lot is at stake this year. Let’s not get side-tracked with irrelevant cheap shots.
