An interesting question was raised yesterday at a Mitt Romney campaign stop in Iowa. And although it wasn’t phrased the way I’m going to discuss it here, it did hint at a greater issue that is frequently referenced and even appealed to but rarely discussed. Romney was asked by a member of the local peace group why none of his sons were in the military. Romney has five sons, ages 26-37, none of them with military experience.
Romney himself does not have military experience, even though he was of service age during the Vietnam war. His excuse is perfectly reasonable one however: he had a high draft number, and was also completing his Mormon mission at that time. His sons have no such excuse, and as Romney pointed out, they are adults and responsible for their own actions and inactions.
What fascinates me about this exchange is that Romney had to defend his sons’ lack of military experience in the first place. While it is true that his sons are a visible part of Romney’s campaign team, they are not the candidate themselves, nor should their lack of military service play any part at all in his campaign. Now it is true that such decorated veterans as John McCain love pointing out that their son is going to Iraq, how personal that makes the Iraqi war for them, etc. This is all fine and good except for the fact a relations military service should have no bearing on the candidate’s own qualifications for elected office.
Now, I don’t mind people asking about a candidate’s own military service. The military is a unique institution how a person preformed in it can be a unique and useful insight into their character. But is military service a prerequisite for public service or elected office? To be sure, there are many fine Congressmen and Senators who have no military service record and still got elected, but it seems that after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 candidates are increasingly emphasizing their own service or their opponents lack of service.
Most people will remember the squabble between George Bush and John Kerry over their military records, both of which
were unclear. The attack ads from Swiftboat Vets for Truth and their counter-organizations left a bad taste in the mouth of most voters, but the issue continues to come up non the less.
The reason I worry about this apparent litmus-test of military experience is personal. I am a young man of military age with a strong interest in politics. I’m also about to head off to college seeking a history or political science degree, with an eye towards law school or government work. But if I want to be a Representative or Senator at any level, or someday even President, should I enlist in the military first?
My reasons for not entering the military originally are two-fold. One, I am a physical wimp. Not unhealthy in any way, but never having taking an interest in sports or heavy recreation I am not, shall we say, fully developed. This could be overcome I’m sure, and in fact I am trying to do so, but not with the goal of entering the military. I know that not everyone in the military has to shoulder a 100-lb pack and patrol through Basra every day, but the idea was still enough to discourage me.
The second reason could almost be marked up as chance. Due to a variety of factors which I won’t bother printing here, I was offered several scholarships that made it possible to go to schools I had my eye, but not my money, on attending. I had briefly considered ROTC in fact to help me attend college, but the scholarships rendered this option unnecessary.
Having said all that, why I have always respected the military I have never thought of myself as a solider. That may be fine and good you say, but what of your duty to your country? Mitt Romeny tried to address this in a rather pathetic way in my opinion, saying that “his sons were helping him get elected because they think I will make a great President. That’s patriotic.” Okay, maybe. Patriotic in your eyes’, treason is someone else’s. But that is besides the point: it would seem that military service is the only means of patriotism respected in America today.
In support of this, I present radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, who has recently started to maintain that anyone interested in public office 10, 15 or 20 years down the road (a la me) better have military service if they hope to get elected. Hugh does view the current “War on Terror” as the modern day World War II, which may be a slight exaggeration, but I have to wonder how right is he? Career politicians are already labeled as such as if it was a dirty word, ignoring the fact that most of the Founding Fathers were themselves careerists in their service to their young country.
What am I to do? Enlisting now would be purely out of other selfish (and admittedly far reaching) plans and dreams. Not enlisting could be called unpatriotic! There is no clear victory, both ways are potential dead ends. What I finally resolved myself to was this: if there be need, I will answer it. Until then, I don’t believe my calling or path in life includes the military. Who knows, things could change any minute—a new war is never far from happening in our connected and 24/7 world. And looking back, I realize that it has always been this way. So many of our leaders in the last century were military men because so many men were in the military! World War II took every man of fighting age and ability—virtually none escaped service of some kind. The war today is not that type of war, and we may hope that it never will be.
In the current campaign, military service doesn’t seem to matter. Senator John McCain is the only Presidential candidate with a record worth bragging about, and his campaign has floundered severely in the last month, leaving the race relatively military-free. But if more and more men become military-experienced, we may face a time when military and elections go hand in hand.
