Fueled by Super PAC dollars

The recent push to get any veteran into Congress appears to be coming from the With Honor Super PAC. Founded in 2017 by several high-profile backers, the “cross-partisan” group was designed to send more veterans to Congress in 2018, with no regard of their supported candidates’ platforms. Their website makes no mention of a single policy issue.

Its advisory panel includes notable Washington insider David Gergen. Gergen served as public relations spinster to several Presidents as he played damage control for the Executive branch during Watergate, Iran-Contra, and various other scandals. Routinely on the wrong side of history, in 1993 Rolling Stone said that “[Gergen’s] first instinct was to bolster the embattled executive, rather than the belittled Constitution.”

Media spinster and With Honor advisory board member David Gergen has become directly involved in 2018 Congressional races, stumping for veterans regardless of platform or qualifications.

Then there’s author and venture capitalist J. D. Vance, whose popular memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” has been widely panned for its “damaging rhetoric” and endorsing policies used to “gut the poor.” Vance’s book was extremely divisive, drawing praise from the right and condemnation from the left.

With Honor plans to spend at least $30 million to influence this year’s midterm elections. A big chunk of that is pushing their narrative into sponsored posts in your favorite news outlet.

Less veterans, not just in Congress

However, the With Honor Super PAC’s tale of the decline of veterans in Congress does not tell the full story. It’s true that the number of veterans have declined since the 1960s, when veterans accounted for 75% of Capitol Hill. But these numbers were exceptionally high for several reasons.

The most obvious among these reasons was active conscription. During the World Wars, Korean War, Vietnam War, and countless others, young men were required to serve. When the draft ended in 1973, there was an obvious reduction of Americans serving in the military. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.

Ballooned after WW2, Korean, and Vietnam Wars. (source)

In addition, modern wars require much less personnel. In the Afghan and Iraq Wars, far less troops are deployed due to smaller scope and modern weaponry. As a result, only 0.4% of the nation is currently serving in the military.

These factors contribute to a decline in military participation for all Americans, not just in Congress. Today, only 7.3% of Americans have served in the military.

Through that lens, 19% of Congress is nearly a 300% over-representation of veterans, not a cause for alarm of their absence as the With Honor Super PAC would have you believe.

Veterans are not above partisanship

Many factors have changed in Congress since the 1960s. Over the past 60 years, party control of the Senate and House of Representatives has greatly influenced lawmaking. For 26 years, from Kennedy to Carter, Democrats held a majority in both chambers. Democrats held the House for a solid 40 years.

Democrats held both the House nearly from Eisenhower to Bush Jr. (source)

With Honor’s narrative would have you believe that veterans were working on both sides of the aisle, compromising and collaborating to move things forward for the past several decades. In reality, strong majorities of the Democratic party had allowed for easier passage of legislation.

Military service is romanticised

The With Honor Super PAC is tapping into an inherent romanticism when a veteran’s patriotic sense of duty, leadership, and service of the country is discussed. This viewpoint is not without merit, but it’s incomplete. Service of the country can be interpreted many ways, and not necessarily in a bipartisan and constructive manner.

It would do us well to remember that throughout our nation’s history some of the most partisan and divisive members of Congress were war veterans. To exemplify this, we need to look no further than our current members of government:

Senator Jim Inhofe served in the Army from from 1957 to 1958 and is consistently ranked as the most unwaveringly conservative member of Congress. He’s a prominent climate change denier, supports a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and proposed an Amendment to make English the national language.

served in the Army from from 1957 to 1958 and is consistently ranked as the most unwaveringly conservative member of Congress. He’s a prominent climate change denier, supports a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and proposed an Amendment to make English the national language. Senator Tom Cotton was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in the Army. With strong support from the ultra-conservative Tea Party, Cotton strives to overturn Roe v Wade, believes amnesty for undocumented immigrants is “immoral,” and considers Obamacare a threat to free society.

was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in the Army. With strong support from the ultra-conservative Tea Party, Cotton strives to overturn Roe v Wade, believes amnesty for undocumented immigrants is “immoral,” and considers Obamacare a threat to free society. Potential Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated first in his class at West Point. He went on to serve in the House of Representatives, where he declared homosexuality a “perversion,” has affiliations with many anti-Muslim organizations, and called President Obama an “evil Muslim communist.”

graduated first in his class at West Point. He went on to serve in the House of Representatives, where he declared homosexuality a “perversion,” has affiliations with many anti-Muslim organizations, and called President Obama an “evil Muslim communist.” In President Trump’s Cabinet, there’s Chief of Staff and retired Marine General John Kelly. As then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Kelly transformed ICE into a lawless agency which separates families, deports law-abiding immigrants, and dishonestly portrays immigrants as criminals.

Congress was meant for civilians

Not too long ago, many looked at the number of war veterans in power in Washington with a reasonable skepticism. A recent op-ed by Pentagon officials warned of the dangers of having too many veterans in power and an over-reliance on military figures.

During his transition, then President-elect Trump looked to veterans for several key posts in his Cabinet. However, the Founders intended civilian control of the military, and this is embedded in our Constitution. As James Madison explained in 1793, the President was made commander-in-chief, but Congress was given the power to declare and fund war, to avoid a potential military dictatorship.

In early 2017, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis was only three years removed from active duty when appointed. His appointment required an exception to the National Security Act of 1947, which mandated that the Secretary of Defense come from civilian life and prohibited appointment within 7 years of relief from active duty.

Secretary Mattis noted in his own book, “Warriors and Citizens,” that veterans may not be best suited for policymaking. As Mattis writes:

“Military leaders often try to leach the politics out of political decision making in order to better analyze problems and develop strategy; this can lead to ‘perfect’ solutions impractical for consideration by elected officials whose portfolios are broader than the military mandate alone.”

In essence, military veterans have a hard time understanding electoral politics and the will of the people, making them ill-suited to craft policy that can actually become law. This is quite the opposite of With Honor Super PAC’s narrative of veterans pushing past partisan gridlock.

“Wars not make one great”

The problem inherent in the With Honor Super PAC’s “cross-partisan” approach is that it relies entirely on the candidate’s status as a veteran. The group does not consider a candidate’s platform or personal character. Instead they assume that all veteran candidates innately embody characteristics that, in reality, vary widely.

There are many veterans serving in or running for Congress who are well-qualified, bipartisan, and serve the country well. But as the late Jedi Master Yoda once said, “Wars not make one great.”

When voters head to the voting booth for this year’s primary and general elections, they should not make their decision simply on status. Rather, they must consider candidates as individuals, judging them on merit, platform, and character. Military service is honorable, but just a single aspect of a potential Congressperson’s qualifications.