By: Emilian Papadopoulos
The U.S. has a long tradition of presidents with military background — all in all, approximately 75% of American presidents. War-time presidencies are also a significant American tradition, laden with special responsibilities and often a special relationship with the public. There has been surprisingly little discussion about the absence of military candidates for 2008.
A strong tradition
The extent of service among past “military presidents” is widely varied.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, of course, was Supreme Allied Commander during World War II. Jumping back in time, we have the trendsetters: George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, etc.
And the importance of military service in the 2004 contest between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry is fresh enough in all our minds.
Here, two quick notes for the trivia buffs:
George H.W. Bush was the youngest pilot (just 19 years old) in the U.S. Navy in World War II.
Ronald Reagan, after serving honorably in the Army Reserves and in the Air Force in World War II, was barred from combat because of poor eyesight and spent his remaining time narrating for pre-flight training movies with the Army Air Forces Motion Picture Unit.
2008?
Of the four Democratics currently polling in the double digits — Clinton, Obama, Gore (though he shows no real signs of announcing soon), and Edwards — none have military service.
Among the Republicans (same benchmark, same poll) — Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson — only McCain has military service under his belt.
Food for thought
Given that the Iraq war has been top of the agenda since 2003 and national security shows no signs of falling off the radar, it’s surprising that we don’t have more candidates with military credentials stepping up to the plate.
Also interesting is the fact that among all leading candidates of both parties, the person most supportive of and optimistic about the Iraq war is the only one with military service: McCain. Generally, those who have served in the military tend to be, counter-intuitively, less hawkish and more restrained in their use of military force. This adds a particularly interesting twist, with the only military-credential candidate supporting the ever-less-popular war as the countdown to election day approaches one year.
Are we seeing a backlash against “hawkish” foreign policies? Or just a coincidence based on which candidates think they’re in the right place at the right time?
Comments 2
And of the eight you mention, McCain’s chances look the worst right now. Including even Gore, who’s not running.
Posted 12 Jul 2025 at 3:34 pm ¶Good point. I just dug up an article on this exact topic, ~20 days old, but worth a skim. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2423789220070625?feedType=RSS
HIGHLIGHTS:
“If no candidates in 2008 are running on or against their Vietnam records, perhaps we won’t have to look at Iraq through the prism of Vietnam … Perhaps we will be able to look at the Iraq war as a new situation.” - Michael Flamm, Ohio Wesleyan University History Professor
“Service in the military provides perspective on war, perspective on sacrifice … To the extent that we’re losing that, that might be kind of a problem.” - Tom Knecht, University of Denver Political Science Professor
Posted 12 Jul 2025 at 3:41 pm ¶Post a Comment