Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Only 20% of Congress Are Veterans; Down from 80% in the ’70s
Considering the rank partisanship of modern American politics, the bipartisan mourning of Sen. John McCain feels like something from a different era. His broad-based appeal is partly due to his centrist politics but primarily his unique background as a Naval aviator and prisoner of war speaks to voters’ collective memory. He was a rare politician who could speak of duty, honor, and sacrifice without a hint of postmodern irony.
Veterans used to be commonplace on Capitol Hill, but today they’re an endangered species. Using statistics compiled by the non-partisan Brookings Institution, I graphed the decline of servicemembers in the Congress and Senate over the past 50 years.
In the 1970s, more than 80 percent of Senators and 75 percent of Congressman had military experience. Today, only about 20 percent of either chamber are veterans. Precious few modern politicians were willing to put their lives on the line to serve the nation, especially when it might interfere with an Ivy League degree or a robust bank account.
This trend is disturbing to us veterans but it should disturb all citizens. The most important votes a Senator or Representative will ever cast involve matters of war and peace. To have a political class so divorced from the life-and-death consequences they inflict upon others is a bad omen for the future of representative government.
Perhaps more distressing is the lack of those unfashionable values — duty, honor, sacrifice — that empowered our greatest leaders to achieve our greatest victories.
Published in Military, Politics
Interesting that there’s a sharp increase in the Senate as of 2016; that’s probably because of the small sample size, in that the addition of, say, 4 veteran Senators would be a 4% increase…?
Yes, I believe the trend is disturbing too, but not because we need to have a large percentage of former military in Congress. The trend is disturbing because those who haven’t served loathe the military instead of respecting it. Even some of the Democrats who served have a less than stellar appreciation of making sure our soldiers and sailors have the best.
I knew we were in trouble in 1992, when a pot-smoking draft dodger beat President George H.W. Bush, a bona fide war hero, and in my mind, the most qualified man ever to serve as President, based on his prior public service and the positions he held.
I hope your lady Senatorial candidate in Arizona wins this November. Heck, I might even post a pic of me in a pink tutu if she does win, as long as it doesn’t violate the COC . . .
I don’t see that. Except for a few outliers like <-Hillary– and her ilk, I rarely meet or hear of anyone who doesn’t express gratitude to people in the military, even most extreme democrats.
Maybe I’ve seen it and heard it more than you have.
Still, a politician can sing the praises of the military all he wants, then vote against bills that give the military what they need to defend us . . .
I notice that to republicans “give the military what it needs” means to buy material (from politically connected vendors). To democrats it means to give people in the miltary more benefits. Sure more perks are always nice, but to me the mission comes first.
The student loan regime means there’s one less incentive for college-minded people to pursue a military career. Why give Uncle Sam several years of your life in exchange for a university degree when Uncle Sam just hands out loans like candy?
Because you also get paid on top of it?
Then which do we need – weapons to fight with, or benefits to make our military know they and their families are looked after?
It’s both!
Oh yeah, ask the E-4 enlisted petty officer about the perks . . .
I think you are reasoning wrong about this. In World Wary II, 11% of the entire country served in the military. About half of military age men in the 1940s served in the war, and of that half about 40% were volunteers and 60% were drafted.
About 30 years later, this cohort of men were in their 40s-60s, just the right age for a congressional career. Since that time there has been no comparable military conflict, so there simply aren’t as many military veterans in the congressional-age population to draw from. People in their 40s-60s nowadays were too young to serve in Vietnam. Desert Storm was an impressive campaign but it only involved 700,000 US troops. Most who served in the post-2000 wars are still on the younger side for a political career.
This seems right, but I would go farther. Given the low percentage of the general population that serves in the military, I would say they are currently over-represented in both the House and Senate. The reason for this is likely that the military is just about the only institution left in our society that enjoys broad public support.
Good observation. However, it should be pointed out the military is not formally represented in Congress, and was not intended to be. This ensured civilian control over the armed forces, which back in the days of our Founding Fathers, was considered a threat to freedom. They knew standing armies were a threat to the general populace, and ensured 1) the people would control the military, and 2) the people would always be armed.
I wasn’t suggesting that they represent the military in Congress, just that service is a serious resume-plus for any candidate and the reason why.
In the ’70s a forty-year-old who was never in the service would be suspect; because everyone served. In the a forty-year-old who was in the service is an anomaly. And might be one of those guys who just loses it one day because of PTSD.
What was once normal and expected is now abnormal and suspect.
Conscription gave the young’uns a healthy understanding of what the government could do to them.
If only that lesson had influenced their policies during 40 years of Democrat control of Congress.
Yep.
Got it!
And they used that excuse to get the vote. Now look at what they’re doing to us . . .
Coincidentally, today is the 36th anniversary of my graduation from the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego. It was a time (1982) when most people my age didn’t serve. Some years later when they would have the vets stand at church to honor them, I remember it being of bunch of really old guys, and me. Weird.
My Son is active duty today in the Air Force. He’s smarter than me and followed in the footsteps of both of his grandfathers and picked the Air Force! Fine with me. In the rear with the gear. I wish that more men would serve, but I am against the draft. I get why people want it, but our all volunteer military is vastly superior to any conscript army. My biggest regret of having less than 1% our our Ivy League grads serve in the our Armed Forces is that they are our future leaders, the elites who will be populating the heights of industry, education, and government. Half the graduating class of Harvard served, in WWII. Yes, a draft, but people volunteered. Anyway, the regret is that there is no longer this shared experience. The common bond. Being a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine is so foreign to them. One of the really cool things about the Marines was your exposure to people from all walks of life. I was a kid from Oklahoma. I got to hang out with Hispanics from the barrios of East LA, black guys from the hood, white kids from Ohio, Florida, Connecticut, country boys from Georgia, etc. Being exposed to new music, ways of thinking, etc was very healthy. Our elites are really missing out on this. The average American may as well be an aliens species.
They are our future leaders only because we accept their insistence that only they can lead and are smart. Remember when Bush foolishly named his crony to the Supreme Court, or suggested that he might? So many people, such as Ann Coulter and even Virginia Postrel as I recall complained that she wasn’t qualified because she went to SMU instead of Yale, Harvard or, sniff sniff, Stanford.
Well, it’s more than us saying “OK, you lead”. The elites are already in power, and that is how they perpetuate it. Promote from within, so to speak. As for the law schools, I totally agree. That’s one reason I was in the Amy Coney Barrett camp. She only when to Notre Dame law school. The horror!