iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ward Carroll

GET UPDATES FROM Ward Carroll
 

Will Obama Get the Vet Vote?

Posted: 11/10/2011 1:34 pm

Through the spring and summer of 2008 I was witness to a sea change. Military veterans -- both officer and enlisted -- were warming to the notion of Barack Obama as president -- an eye-opener in that during previous election cycles this same demographic had skewed predominantly Republican.

While covering the Democratic National Convention in Denver I had the chance to pulse many of the "Veterans for Obama" principals. All of them sounded a similar theme around why they'd shifted from the moderate-right to the moderate-left: They were put off by the perceived perfidy of the Bush Administration and felt somewhat duped by the calls to action they'd responded to. It was similar to the feeling of moderates overall during that presidential race but more personal in that these vets had put themselves in harm's way for a cause that felt increasingly contrived and Machiavellian as the facts surrounding the wars emerged and the campaign wore on. Most important to the political spectrum is that the support of this cohort of vets informed the eventual outcome of the election.

Veteran voices are again emerging as a weather vane of sorts, and this time they're more strident and arguably less focused than those of 2008. The Occupy Wall Street movement has given them a forum to vent their frustrations. "For 10 years, we have been fighting wars that have enriched the wealthiest 1 percent, decimated our economy and left our nation with a generation of traumatized and wounded veterans that will require care for years to come," said Joseph Carter, a 27 year-old Iraq War vet, at a recent Occupy event in New York City as reported by AP.

"I swore to defend their freedoms, and they were being taken away. It's very unconstitutional," said James McBride, an Army Reserve veteran "who said he was less than honorably discharged for medical reasons."

For all of the press coverage of the Occupy movement what remains unclear is what linkages the electorate -- war veteran and otherwise -- will make between Wall Street and the Obama administration. And while it's safe to suggest that those who participate in Occupy events are not political moderates, per se, their sentiments may resonate with those who are. And if they do Obama could suffer from the same loss of faith that swayed moderate voters in his direction last go 'round.

This irony is heightened by the fact that Obama has done a laudable job as commander-in-chief, especially considering his lack of military experience coming into the job. The administration has attended to veteran benefit issues, including those surrounding employability. And the president has worked his way through the "bad actors" target list, most notably authorizing the offing of Osama Bin Laden and indirectly facilitating a similar fate for Muammar Gaddhafi.

But for those accomplishments, Obama finds himself sort of where George H.W. Bush was in the months after Desert Storm. That had been as clean as war gets -- 100 days worth with a decisive end and a national victory parade when the troops got home. Plus the war had made for great TV -- aircraft gun camera footage narrated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf himself. It was ratings gold across the country. (Amazing to think how huge CNN was then.) Immediately following the hostilities Bush the Father's approval ratings were at a whopping 85 percent. A second term was all but guaranteed.

Enter James Carville et. al. beating the "It's the economy, stupid" drums. Unemployment was up. The deficit was too high and threatened America's position across the globe. (Sound familiar?) Whatever the Bush campaign tried to do to remind the voters of preserving Kuwait's freedom as a way to counter the opposition's economy-focused strategy fell on deaf ears. The rest is Clinton White House history (with its own strained relationship with the military -- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," anyone?).

This parallel isn't lost on the Obama campaign, even in this early phase of the election. I recently sat down with a former administration official, and while he accepted the Bush 41 similarities, he added that Obama wouldn't attempt to stymie Republican focus on the economy with tales of SEAL Team 6 popping OBL (as much as they'd like to). They know nobody cares in the face of a recession, a housing crisis, and near double-digit unemployment.

But even if vets make the linkage between Wall Street's greed and Obama's policies, they still may not bail on him. After all, so far the other side hasn't done a whole lot to earn their allegiance.

 

Follow Ward Carroll on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wardcarroll

 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
12:50 PM on 11/11/2011
A note to the moderators, please post my comments...i do understand they do not conform to your ideals but you are supposed to post all comments, after all this is still a free country, Obama has not been successful in making us a third world country yet...
photo
scottishboy
Born in the USA!
11:35 AM on 11/11/2011
I'm a vet and he will NEVER get mine!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Gold Standard = four paws and a tail
07:26 AM on 11/11/2011
Most members of the military who were not doctrinaire conservatives gravitated leftward in the last election as did the rest of the country. My husband is a retired vet and my son is currently serving. While my son would never say a bad word about his commander-in-chief publicly, he has pointed out that said commander does not control his vote. When asked, he says politics is not one of his priorities and he has not made up his mind yet. Privately within the family he has expressed his complete disgust with Obama and says he will vote for whomever opposes him.

Since members of the military live by a completely different code than does the rest of the population, and they are prevented from political expression when in uniform, it is a little difficult to accurately judge the voting proclivities of the armed forces.
photo
WellReadAussie2
Different words, same sentiment
05:21 AM on 11/11/2011
Hope all you proud Vets and serving members will unite behind your Commander in Chief because he seems more interested in getting you home as best as possible rather than continuing the stouch as long as possible. There are much better things for your armed Forces to do than go fighting. At least not every day.
06:15 AM on 11/11/2011
Continued...
...Even in the case of Iraq, the plan for withdrawal was instituted prior to Obama's inauguration, so it's difficult to credit the Nobel Peace Prize winner with that achievement, especially considering that he fought against the deal in recent months. Despite the apparent departure from Iraq, rest assured that an American presence will remain in the country for decades to come, with the largest U.S. embassy having already been constructed in Baghdad. Additionally, we have recently come to learn that plans are even being developed for simply relocating troops from Iraq to Kuwait rather than redeploying them to their duty stations here in America. So, what practical evidence is there that President Obama is interested in the return of troops from foreign lands? All I have heard is empty rhetoric.
photo
WellReadAussie2
Different words, same sentiment
08:17 PM on 11/11/2011
I truely apologise for any offence my comments might have caused. My heart wants my Prime Minister to bring our boys home from Afghanistan....yesterday. What I had hoped to express was the thought that unlike some others, Pres. Obama hasn't started any new wars. That stouch in Lybia really, in the scale if Iraq etc, just a quick punch-up. So no new wars. And physically, he's reducing the temperature and numbers. Not itimately knowledgeable about the other side's plans, but I have a strong belief that they want to send more of your Nation's Finest to do their bidding far from home.
06:16 AM on 11/11/2011
Is that a joke? Are you saying Barrack Obama is interested in bringing the troops home? Which troops are those? The more than one-hundred thousand currently deployed in combat zones? The ones current stationed overseas at any of hundreds of American military bases worldwide? Active service-members and veterans have indeed chosen a candidate, and it's not President Obama. The numbers show that Ron Paul - the man that advocates returning troops home not just from combat theatres, but from military installations all around the world as well - has the most support from this group (including myself) by a fair margin. Ron Paul has received campaign donations from active service-members and their families exceeding those of all other Republican candidates combined, and far exceeding those made to President Obama's current presidential campaign. This was the case in 2008 and it will continue to be the case during the 2012 campaign cycle. Current and recently separated members of the armed forces understand better than anyone the hardships and undue stress placed on the lives of our troops. Personally, I witnessed the ruination of several marriages and subsequent destruction of families during my two tours in Iraq. Our armed forces are simply stretched too thin, and President Obama has done nothing to rectify this fact by continuing Bush's failed war policies, indeed even expanding some areas of the conflicts. To assert otherwise is simply foolish.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:54 AM on 11/11/2011
They are more likely to vote for Ron Paul.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
08:29 PM on 11/10/2011
Of the last 5 presidents, only Bush41 had military experience so I'm not sure why the article's mention of Obama not having military experience in terms of winning the vet vote matters...........................................I don't think veterans will support Obama in 2012...........No other demographic group, except for white working males, votes against its own self interest more than veterans.
05:57 AM on 11/11/2011
You might be right. But, I'm a vet, and given the choices the repubs are offering (Romney, Gingrich, old 999,Michele (shot fired - heard round the world in NEW HAMPSHIRE?), Perry - the Revolutionary War fought in th 16th CENTURY?), Huntsman - the only reasonable voice on stage at 1%) looks like Obama for me. Particularly when dems are viewed in light of Prop 2 in Ohio. Check polling results after the election and see how repubs couldn't wait to kneel in front of their plutocratic masters.
12:29 PM on 11/11/2011
you just follow the crowd...
06:34 AM on 11/11/2011
Personally I am a veteran and you're right, I don't vote for my own self-interests. Well, I would say I don't vote for what most would view as my self-interests, but that's only because I have a different view of what my self-interests are. Just because I'm not voting in support of social programs to help veterans like myself does not mean I'm not voting for my own self-interests, it simply means that I'm not voting for your view of what my interests are. I'm still voting in support of my self-interests which I happen to view as the interests of everyone (I try not to make policy decisions in terms of group interests but rather the equal interests of the individual - regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, career, or other category - thus the interests of the individual are the same as the interests of the whole).