Veteran voters

I guess it's inevitable, given that the Democratic National Convention sometimes had the aura of a regimental reunion, that there'd be a lot of discussion about the impact of the veteran's vote this year. Looking at a pre-convention Pew study, Mark Kleiman was a little nervous

The Chef at Ragout has the numbers. At least pre-speech, Kerry wasn't doing any better among veterans (even Vietnam-era veterans) than Gore did four years ago, according to the Pew survey.

But wisely noted that the 6% gap revealed in that poll wasn't the whole story.

That doesn't mean Kerry's emphasis on his service record is a mistake: the audience for that is much wider than veterans.

The cited Chef also points out that prior military service is only part of the equation for veterans making voting decisions.

By the way, the median age of veterans is only a little less than sixty. Most served in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, and were probably draftees rather than gung-ho volunteers. Their main concerns surely include Medicare and Social Security. They do lean towards Bush, but not by as much as you'd think, since older people tend to vote Democratic.

Then Steve Benen at the Carpetbagger Reportcame up with a brand new CBS News poll...

While President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney held a 47 percent to 41 percent lead among vets in mid-July, the tickets are now in a statistical tie: Kerry-Edwards with 48 percent, and Bush-Cheney with 47 percent.

...which seems to mean that the Convention emphasis had at least some positive impact. It's true, though, that regardless of the respective qualities of experience that divide the candidates, or the policies they advocate, the veteran's vote is likely to be divided, in many cases along lines that are more closely related to mythology than policy.

Tom Shaller gets a lot of it right at The Gadflyer.

It strikes me that vets find themselves at a curious intersection of contemporary American politics. They exhibit a reflexive sympathy for Republican leaders, stoked perhaps by (exaggerated) memories of liberals as draft card-burning peace protesters and conservatives as blood-sweat-and-tears soldiers who never hesitate to grab the flag and fight for the country.

But then they look at the chickenhawk draftdodgers among the top ranks of the current Republican Administration, and they see a group of neocons in suits – the sort of people who played with Army men as kids, but flinched when the country asked them to put on a uniform and grab a weapon. Upon closer inspection, vets then notice that these chickenhawks are spewing platitudes about doing “whatever it takes” to support the military at the same time they are pushing our regular military, and reserves, to the limits.

As you might imagine, I have my own view of the importance of John Kerry's military service and the veteran's vote. Some of that view is informed by nearly four decades of political activism, but for the most part it comes from three decades of activism on veteran's issues, including membership in vet's groups ranging from VVAW to the American Legion.

The biggest thing I've learned in that time is that there's actually very little that can be said about veterans in general, but it's really hard to convince people outside our ranks that that's true. One thing that is true, though, is that over time, and especially during a time of war, general esteem for veterans has gone up considerably over the years I've been one, and having so many so visibly supportive of the Kerry campaign can do nothing but help. It's what I call the 'firefighter effect,' which was one of the reasons that I was so confident of an Iowa surprise in the primaries months before many observers saw it coming. I just felt that when the local firefighter showed up at a caucus and said "I'm for Kerry," it was going to give a lot of people permission to come along. When a guy who will risk his life to save yours expresses an opinion, you're likely to give it serious consideration.

It's a lot like that with veterans right now. But there have always been a lot of veterans in the Democratic Party. What John Kerry has done is elevate our visibility considerably, mainly by giving us permission to be visible. Last summer was at a Kerry appearance which was literally the first time in all my years of Party activism that a Democratic candidate asked military veterans to stand and be recognized. This year was the first time I ever felt comfortable to wear my Vietnam veteran ballcap to a Party event. The Convention floor was awash in those caps, and WWII caps, and Korea caps, and VFW and Legion caps, not to mention the troop of generals and admirals that crossed the stage.

Does this mean that all, or even most, veterans will vote for John Kerry? No. It means that people who are apt to be influenced by their favorable impression of the veterans in their family or community might be willing to give Kerry a longer look than they otherwise would, though, and I'm convinced that the longer they look, the more they'll like.

Kerry will get his fair share of the veteran's vote, but as, or maybe more, importantly, he'll get the benefit of veteran's influence, as a result of our enhanced visibility in the campaign and the Party, to a greater degree than any Democrat since, perhaps, John Kennedy. He won't win the election based on our votes alone, but we just might have an influence on the winning margin that exceeds our ballots.