The Fall of Veterans in Congress

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX)

Last night, we had the first incumbent member of Congress to lose their reelection bid: Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) lost a primary bid from Tea Party challenger John Ratcliffe.  This is noteworthy for multiple reasons, including that Hall is one of the most senior members of the House (he's been serving since 1981, before his colleagues Aaron Schock and Patrick Murphy were even born), but also because this will put an end to a storied tradition of World War II veterans in Congress.  After the recent death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the only two remaining World War II veterans in Congress were Hall and Rep. John Dingell.  Dingell is retiring this year, and Hall's primary loss means that for the first time in decades, no World War II veterans will be serving in Congress next January, and likely none ever will again.

There's a melancholy about this (seasons change, time passes by), but it also begs the question of veterans in Congress in general, which seem to be on the decline.  It isn't like there haven't been a plethora of wars since 1945.  Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and both Gulf Wars have timed well enough that nearly every generation has had the opportunity to serve in the military during a time of war.  Today, about 20 percent of the Congress has served in the military.  That's not an awful percentage, all things considered (for anyone who says it is, start complaining about the percentage of women in Congress, because it's about the same), but it's still a huge decline over past Congresses.  In 1976, for example, 77 percent of Congress had served in the military.

This is a particularly pertinent question not just because of Hall's now imminent retirement, but also because of the Veterans Affairs scandal raging through Congress.  Both sides have their claws out: the Republicans over the VA's handling of the wait list, the Democrats lashing back at the Republicans for Richard Burr's letter on Friday and for the Republicans blocking passage of Sen. Sanders' veterans bill this past February.  People are up in arms about this quagmire, and trying desperately to sell the blame, because this is an issue that nearly every American feels strongly about (even more so, I would wager, than on health care).  As a nation, we desperately want to respect veterans and give them the treatment/honor they deserve.  However, increasingly, we aren't voting for them.

It's worth noting that in 2012, for the first time in eighty years, no veterans appeared on a major national ticket.  It's also worth noting that in the five previous elections, the losing presidential candidate was the one who had served in active combat: George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain all in part ran on their combat record, but to no avail.  None of the current serious Republican candidates for president in 2016 served in the military, and only Rick Perry did amongst the serious 2012 candidates.

Even in Senate and House races, it seems like military service is a non-starter in terms of gaining votes. One of the best examples of this appears to be this year's Senate race in Arkansas, where Rep. Tom Cotton served in Iraq and is making that a cornerstone of his race.  Mark Pryor (whose age admittedly puts him in a rare position of an American man who probably didn't have the option of enlisting in his early-mid twenties to fight in an active war) is not a military veteran, and one would assume that in a deep red state like Arkansas this could have an effect.  That doesn't seem to be the case, though, as Cotton, the highest-profile veteran running for the Senate this cycle, cannot seem to gain traction despite multiple campaign commercials trumpeting his service.

We've seen this in other races as well-Shane Osborn won the Distinguished Flying Cross for his involvement in the Hainan Island incident, but lost his Senate primary in Nebraska to non-veteran Ben Sasse.  Persistently, while it doesn't seem like military service is a hindrance, it seems to have no bearing on the outcome of the actual race.  Fewer and fewer military veterans seem to successfully run for higher office.

There are of course other military veterans other than Cotton running in close Senate races this cycle.  Aside from incumbents, the Republicans have Joni Ernst in Iowa and Daniel S. Sullivan in Alaska, while the Democrats have Gary Peters in Michigan (and kind of John Walsh in Montana, who is technically the incumbent but doesn't quite feel that way), but none of them (save perhaps Ernst) seems to be putting their military career at the forefront of their campaign, certainly none in the way that Cotton is.  However, as Hall and so many past veterans are finding out, it seems to be something that doesn't seem to connect with American voters in the way that it used to do.  American voters increasingly are finding that they want to give respect to their veterans, but not necessarily their votes.