Joseph Zambon
Throughout American history, military service was not just an asset but almost a prerequisite for political success. Serving in the armed forces imbued candidates with a sense of duty, patriotism, and leadership – qualities that resonated deeply with the electorate. However, the evolution of media, political strategies, and societal values has complicated this once straightforward equation. Today, military service can be both a powerful credential and a potential vulnerability.
Military Service as a Political Advantage
Military service has long been a powerful asset in American politics, symbolizing dedication, courage, and sacrifice. Over time, however, the perception of military service in the political arena has evolved, shaped by key moments in history.
One of the earliest and most compelling examples is the story of General Daniel E. Sickles. After losing his leg at the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War, Sickles chose to preserve his amputated limb. Far from shying away from this stark reminder of his sacrifice, he took his leg with him on the campaign trail, presenting it to voters as a tangible symbol of his commitment to the Union cause. This bold and unforgettable gesture not only garnered significant attention but also helped Sickles secure support, making him one of the more memorable figures of his time.
Robert Dole and Tammy Duckworth
Just as Sickles leveraged his visible injury to underscore his dedication, veterans with visible wounds often receive a heightened level of respect and reverence in both life and politics, as they rightfully should. These physical reminders of their service and sacrifice resonate deeply with the public. For example, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, who was grievously injured during World War II, spent a year recovering in the hospital and lost the use of his right arm. Similarly, Senator Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs while serving as a helicopter pilot in Iraq, exemplifies courage and resilience. The visible injuries of Sickles, Dole, and Duckworth serve as enduring symbols of their heroism and make it difficult for political opponents to criticize their military service without appearing insensitive or disrespectful.
Their stories highlight how the physical scars of war can become powerful symbols of patriotism, often shielding these veterans from the harsher aspects of political criticism while reinforcing their stature as leaders who have truly sacrificed for their country.
When I was stationed at Portsmouth Naval Hospital at the close of the Vietnam War, I had the privilege of treating a triple amputee who had been injured in Vietnam. What struck me most was his incredible resilience and how he had adapted to such profound injuries. I vividly recall him sharing that he even went dancing on his prosthetic legs—a testament to his indomitable spirit. I shared this story a few years ago at a ceremony honoring University at Buffalo students who were veterans. It was clear from the knowing nods of the veterans in the audience that they understood the strength it takes to overcome such challenges, even if others might not fully grasp it.
War Hero to Political Target: Max Cleland
In The Art of War, Sun Tzu emphasizes the principle of turning an opponent’s strength against them. He argues that by exploiting an enemy’s strengths, one can use their power against them to achieve victory with minimal effort and risk. This strategy can turn military service – even that of a wartime hero – from a political strength to a political liability.
Max Cleland’s story is a powerful reminder of the complexities faced by veterans even with visible war injuries in the political arena. Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm to a grenade during the Vietnam War, turned his resilience into a remarkable political career. After recuperating for 18 months and earning both the Silver Star and Bronze Star, Cleland became the youngest person elected to the Georgia State Senate at the age of 28. He later led the federal Veterans Administration before winning a seat in the U.S. Senate from Georgia in 1996.
However, even heroes like Cleland are not immune to the brutal realities of politics. During his re-election campaign in 2002, just a year after the September 11 attacks, Cleland became the target of a controversial television ad engineered by Bush campaign manager Karl Rove that questioned his commitment to homeland security. The ad, which juxtaposed images of Cleland with those of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, implied he was soft on the war on terror—a tactic that many found deeply offensive. Even fellow Vietnam veterans and prominent Republicans like Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel condemned the ad. Senator John McCain who was himself a Vietnam War hero and prisoner of war for six years, said, “I’ve never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield — it’s worse than disgraceful, it’s reprehensible.”
As a decorated war hero, Kerry appeared to have the credentials to challenge George W. Bush, especially since questions had been raised about Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard.
However, Kerry’s military service quickly became a focal point for attacks. A group of Vietnam veterans launched a campaign to discredit Kerry’s service. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth questioned the legitimacy of his medals and his actions during the war, turning what should have been a strength into a vulnerability. The term “swiftboating” entered the political lexicon as a strategy of attacking an opponent’s strengths by distorting or exaggerating the truth.
Chris LaCivita: Swiftboat to Trump
Trump’s current campaign co-chair Chris LaCivita was behind the swiftboating campaign serving as consultant and principal media advisor to the Swift Boat Veterans. LaCivita, himself a Purple Heart winner for wounds suffered in the first Gulf War, wrote and produced the Swift Boat TV commercials financed by Texas conservative millionaires.
Despite the lack of evidence to support the Swift Boat Veterans’ claims, their campaign gained traction in the media and resonated with some voters. The Kerry campaign struggled to respond, and the damage was done. What should have been a strength of Kerry’s candidacy became a weakness, contributing to his loss to Bush.
Swiftboating Tim Walz
Tim Walz, the current Governor of Minnesota and Democratic nominee for vice president, exemplifies how even the most honorable military service can be twisted into a political liability. Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard just two days after his seventeenth birthday, dedicating 24 years to his country and rising to the rank of command sergeant major. His military background has been a key part of his political identity, enabling him to connect deeply with veterans and working-class voters alike.
However, like John Kerry before him, Walz is now facing an attempt by Republicans to “swiftboat” his military record. This term refers to a campaign tactic designed to undermine a candidate’s military service, and it’s being coordinated by Chris LaCivita, who was instrumental in the original swiftboat attacks on Kerry. The strategy is familiar: distort and discredit Walz’s military service in the hopes that it will stick in voters’ minds.
Trump’s Disrespect for the Military
It’s important to remember the context: Walz is running against Donald Trump, who not only dodged the Vietnam War draft but has also made disparaging remarks about American war heroes. Trump called the fallen soldiers at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France “suckers and losers,” a statement confirmed by his former chief of staff, General John Kelly. Trump also famously said of Senator John McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war, “I like people who weren’t captured.”
The disrespect shown by Donald Trump towards America’s military heroes reached a new low on August 17, 2024. In a shocking display of ignorance, Trump once again showed his disdain, if not outright hatred, for the U.S. military by claiming that the Presidential Medal of Freedom is more prestigious than the Medal of Honor—a decoration reserved for service members who exhibit “conspicuous gallantry” in the face of enemy fire.
Speaking to a group of Republicans at his New Jersey golf club, Trump was introduced by Miriam Adelson, a wealthy GOP donor and the billionaire widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. In 2018, Trump awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.
Better Than the Medal of Honor
In his speech, Trump described the civilian award as “the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor.” He went further, claiming that the civilian award is “better” because “everyone [who] gets the Congressional Medal of Honor [it’s not the Congressional Medal of Honor, its the Medal of Honor], they’re soldiers [they’re not, some are sailors, some are marines, some are airman]..They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead.”
Trump’s statements are not only incorrect but also insult every service member, especially those who have risked or given their lives defending our nation. The Medal of Honor, awarded “in the name of Congress,” is not equivalent to a civilian award. His attempt to diminish the Medal of Honor again reveals his deep-seated animosity toward the military. It’s another reminder that he is unfit to lead.
As the vice presidential debates approach, Republican candidate J.D. Vance will likely repeat distortions of Tim Walz’s record in an attempt to cast doubt on Walz’s honorable service. This situation highlights how military service, once a straightforward political asset, can be frequently manipulated into a liability by those who have never themselves served. It’s a stark reminder of the complexities of modern political campaigns and the lengths to which some will go to undermine their opponents.
"...even baseless accusations can gain traction and create lasting damage."
The Changing Perception of Military Service
The experiences of John Kerry and Tim Walz reflect a broader change in how military service is perceived in American politics. Several factors contribute to this shift.
- Polarization of American Politics: The increasing polarization of American politics has led to an environment where opponents can weaponize any aspect of a candidate’s background. Military service, which once commanded universal respect, is now subject to the same partisan attacks as any other aspect of a candidate’s record. In this hyper-partisan atmosphere, even a distinguished military career can be painted in a negative light.
- Rise of Misinformation: The rapid spread of rumors and falsehoods has made it easier for opponents to launch attacks on a candidate’s military record. Social media and the 24-hour news cycle amplify these attacks, allowing them to reach a wide audience quickly. As a result, even baseless accusations can gain traction and create lasting damage.
- Public Scrutiny of Military Service: The public’s understanding of military service has become more complex and nuanced. Voters are more likely to scrutinize the details of a candidate’s service, considering factors such as deployment history, rank, and specific duties. This increased scrutiny means that candidates must be prepared to defend their military records in ways that were not necessary in previous generations.
- Politicization of Military Service: The politicization of military service has led to a situation where veterans themselves are sometimes divided over the significance of different types of service. As seen in the cases of John Kerry and Tim Walz, even fellow veterans can be mobilized to attack a candidate’s record, creating a sense of division that weakens the perception of military service as a unifying force.
Conclusion
Military service, once a golden ticket to political credibility, has become a double-edged sword in modern politics. The cases of Max Cleland, John Kerry and Tim Walz demonstrate how military service can be transformed from a strength into a liability through political attacks, misinformation, and changing public perceptions. As military records continue to be scrutinized and manipulated in the political arena, candidates who are veterans must navigate this complex terrain carefully, balancing the honor of their service with the realities of a politically charged environment. In today’s politics, no credential is immune from attack, and even the most respected forms of public service can be turned against those who seek higher office.