Putting up veterans for 2006 elections

Tim at Balloon Juice raises some interesting questions this morning about general perceptions of the two main parties and how the fielding of candidates who are Iraq war veterans might affect those perceptions.

A month or so back I remarked to John that there seemed like a large number of Iraq vets running as Democrats these days, an observation that came largely from Kos'’s efforts in pointing them out. John asked how many Republicans there were, and since I didn'’t know we both shrugged our shoulders and moved on. The question matters because as everybody knows both sides are recruiting desperately for 2006, and the side which troops choose says any number of things about the mindset of the actual grunts prosecuting this war. A gross imbalance, depending on which side it fell, would be either a slap in the face of the yellow-ribbon-on-an-SUV crowd or else a vindication of their smug self-superiority.

The KOS post is here, and if the numbers are accurate, it would seem that the Dems have recruited up to three dozen veterans to run for Congress while the Republicans have only put up one or two. (I haven't seen these numbers confirmed solidly in the MSM yet, so take that with a grain of salt for the time being.) But what does it all mean?

On the surface, at least from the perspective which we'll be getting from the punditocracy, some people could take it as a sign that "Veterans prefer the Democratic Party." Or at least that how some of the spin will be directed. As a former member of our armed services myself, I have to say that any claims that the military swings wildly to one side of the aisle or the other are largely specious. Our military folks are a slice of American society like anyplace else. (Though unfortunately they do tend to be overly highly represented in the lower income and education demographics, for whom the military is often one of a much smaller number of options for young people than in better off families.) You will find Democrats and Republicans and independents of all stripes in the military.

Could this help the Democrats? Well, clearly it couldn't hurt much. The war is getting increasingly unpopular and having your candidate speaking on that subject from a position of direct experience will carry some weight. But is it enough?

Even if we assume that the majority of these candidates are officers with college degrees, as opposed to enlisted personnel, it might make for a fairly thin resume during the campaign and their GOP opponents will doubtless make an issue of that. (While still saluting their opponent's valiant military service, of course.) The only national office where direct military service could be said to carry some precise benefit is for the White House, in the president's role as Commander in Chief - and even that is rather watered down since the actual military leaders and the Pentagon take care of the nuts and bolts of running a war once a President has declared it. Congress long ago absconded from their constitutional duty to control the declaration of war and happily allow the Executive branch to take over that function.

Veteran candidates will certainly carry some advantages into a race as long as Iraq looms large as the driving issue in the next elections, but I'm not convinced that will be enough, purely by itself, to convince voters to send them to Washington to represent them. The parties will both need to ensure that their vets bring a longer list of credentials and some other education and/or experience showing that they have the tools required to represent their home states in DC.