Once again, history is not kind to the soldiers of America's least popular and most divisive war. This election may have closed the book on a Vietnam veteran ever being elected president.
Barack Obama's win over John McCain marks the third straight defeat of a candidate who served active duty in Vietnam. The electoral dynamics may have been very different in 2000 and 2004 than they were in 2008, as were the war records and even the political parties of Al Gore, John Kerry and McCain. But each of them lost to men who never served in Vietnam.
Zogby International polling done in the week prior to the election found that a majority of voters, in evaluating political candidates, did value military service. However, their opinions about Vietnam and the success of our military there were much less favorable than those of other wars.
In the end, the only men who came of age in the 1960s to sit in the Oval Office will be Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, neither of whom served in Vietnam. Opponents portrayed Clinton as a draft dodger. Bush's time in the Air National Guard was marked by accusations that he used his father's influence to avoid active duty, and that he failed to fulfill his commitment. Still, these two baby boomers, one a studious but self-indulgent liberal, the other a swaggering conservative from a politically connected family, have led the nation for the past 16 years.
Clinton defeated two decorated veterans of World War II. George H.W. Bush was a Navy flier shot down in the Pacific. Bob Dole suffered terrible wounds and life-long disabilities as a soldier in Europe. Both tried to paint Clinton as less than honorable--and failed.
Gore enlisted in the Army after graduation from Harvard and was a military journalist. Neither his nor Bush's military records played much of a role in that election.
In 2004, Vietnam became a central issue. Kerry had commanded a swift boat in Vietnam and won two Purple Hearts. As a new and controversial war raged in a foreign land, Kerry's war record could have become a positive for him. Along came a conservative group that felt Kerry had misrepresented his Vietnam record. They launched a national media campaign to discredit him and were successful in fostering doubts about what really happened on those boats. The now famous "swift-boating" of Kerry also painted him as undermining the Vietnam troops when he became a spokesman for anti-war veterans.
Republicans also reacted forcefully when CBS (nyse: CBS - news - people ) reported on documents that purported to claim Bush received preferential treatment to avoid active duty in Vietnam. They were able to raise questions about the authenticity of the documents and effectively killed the story.
No doubts have ever been raised about McCain's ordeal as a POW for five and a half years after being shot down in Vietnam. McCain as a war hero has always been central to his political identity and was often touted by his campaign. But in the end it meant little to the 2008 electorate.
How helpful is it for a would-be president to be a war veteran? Was being a Vietnam veteran a negative for Gore, Kerry or McCain? Or was it less of a positive than serving in other wars? At Zogby International, we tried to get at the answers in a survey of 1,200 likely voters taken during the week prior to Election Day.
A majority (53%) said military service was very or somewhat important in casting their vote for President. This opinion was consistent across age and gender, showing it does resonate with voters. However, responses of Republicans and Democrats were very different. Three-fourths of Republicans said military service was important, compared with 35% of Democrats. That certainly seems to make ideological sense, but leaves one wondering if Republicans felt as strongly when Bush was the candidate.
We asked two questions about World War II, Vietnam, the 1991 Gulf War and the current Iraq War. How important was each to national security? How successful was the military in each?
On both, Vietnam placed last. As expected, 90% said World War II was very or somewhat important to U.S. security, and 93% said our military was very or somewhat successful in that worldwide engagement. For the Gulf War, 73% said it was important to our security, and 78% said the military was successful. For the Iraq War, the same measures were 64% and 54%.
However, for Vietnam, 54% said it was important to U.S. security, and only 38% said our military was successful there.
Americans love a winner. Vietnam is associated with losing and is seen as the most divisive era since the Civil War. That isn't fair to the generation of men and women sent to intervene in a civil war in the jungles of Southeast Asia, but it is their legacy.
When they returned, there were no parades greeting veterans who served on the ground in Vietnam, and there will be no inaugural parades for those among them who wanted to lead the nation.
John Zogby is president and CEO of Zogby
No comments:
Post a Comment