Door to the White House closes on Vietnam Vets
John McCain’s defeat in the Presidential election very likely closed out any possibility of a Vietnam veteran becoming President. He is, in fact, the third consecutive Vietnam vet to lose the Presidential election.
Al Gore served as an Army journalist in Vietnam, and John Kerry won a Purple Heart there commanding a swift boat. Both lost to George W. Bush, whose military service in the Air National Guard is perhaps best known for questions about whether his father’s influence helped him get in the Guard.
Bush and Bill Clinton are the only two members of the Baby Boom Vietnam generation to hold the White House. Clinton was assailed with charges of being a draft dodger during the 1992 campaign. Still, he defeated incumbent George H.W. Bush, who as a World War II Navy flier was shot down over the Pacific. Four years later, Clinton defeated Bob Dole, who suffered terrible wounds and life-long disabilities in World War II combat in Europe. Now comes the defeat of McCain, perhaps the politician most identified with Vietnam service due to his ordeal as a POW for five and a half years after being shot down in Vietnam.
So, in each of the past five Presidential elections, men who served in war zones of WWII or Vietnam has lost to someone who never had that experience.
In a Forbes.com column published in November 2008, John Zogby examined why Vietnam vets have been denied the White House. He cites Zogby International polling that found 53% of likely voters believed that a candidate’s military service was important in deciding their vote. However, in comparison to other wars of the past 60 years, Vietnam was held in the lowest regard as for its importance to security and success of the military.
Was Vietnam service a real factor in this election, or any of the previous four? Is it just a coincidence that no Vietnam vet will ever be commander-in-chief?
Loading ...
Thank you for sharing a very interesting question.
US history demonstrates a significant preference for leaders with military renown. I suspect that this represents times and events which have captured the attention of the American public. Our involvement in Vietnam and the antiwar backlash of the 1960s was the beginning of an era where a man who did not at least stand in readiness to serve in the military could be fully considered a man.
While I see very positive things growing out of this attitude, I am also reminded of the ultimate fates of societies where the majority of citizens did not feel responsibility to bear arms in their country’s service.
To answer your question, I believe that military service has lost much of its importance in the American imagination. Particularly inspirational actions can still capture public attention, and actions of military service no longer hold a position of superiority to all other inspirational actions. Following this logic, it seems to me that people serving our country in the public view will have an advantage over people serving our country on a distant battlefield. In other words, beyond the question of a Vietnam president, we are seeing the sunset of the military president.
Please note, you do not “win” a Purple Heart, Bronze Star or any of those awards. You EARN them.
Unfortunately, this is showing a trend away from Patriotism. At one time it was an honor to be a veteran. With the poor treatment of veterans and the poor treatment of those still on active duty, the government is not doing itself any favors.
It is always sad when an era ends.
Today, most people recognize the “Vietnam War” for what it was, ie, an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional invasion of a foreign sovereign nation for the purpose of exploiting its natural resources (sound familiar?). Clearly the dire warnings of the lunatic right-wing sabre-rattlers were totally false. In the end, we lost the war in Vietnam, but the prediction that the “commies” would take over all the countries of the entire southeast Asia region (the infamous “domino effect”) has NOT come true. In fact, we now have a healthy active trade relationship with Vietnam, itself.
If the US actually practiced the high sounding words we were all forced to memorize in grade school, we would have been helping Ho Chi Min fight the imperialist colonial French forces and drive them out of Vietnam, in which case, Ho Chi Min would never have been forced to turn to the Chinese for support, something he was not anxious to do. Instead, we chose to take the place of the French for our own imperialist motives, and stayed just long enough to pump all the oil out of the vast off-shore reserves in the Mekong Delta. If you doubt that this was the REAL reason we were there, I knew guys who manned the patrol boats that guarded the off-shore rigs.
Some folks are fond of saying hindsight is 20/20, but even in the 60’s, there were plenty of Americans who took the time to find the facts, and saw the war for what it was. John McCain was not one of them. Instead of joining the ranks of the REAL patriotic Americans who actively voiced their disapproval, he chose instead to volunteer, become a pilot, and drop napalm on villages filled with innocent men, women, and children, including some in Cambodia and Laos, extending the litany of crimes and sins committed by the US administration. All because he hoped that this would finally make his father and grandfather love him. In my book, that hardly qualifies him to be President, or engenders any sympathy for the suffering he endured after his capture. Don’t get me wrong, I DO feel great empathy for the millions of Americans who were unwillingly drafted and forced to participate in the war, and I am disgusted and angered by the shabby treatment all veterans receive from our government after their active service ends.
But in the final analysis, I do NOT believe that military service, OR the lack thereof, should be a determining factor in deciding who is best qualified to be the chief executive of our nation, any more than having played a sport automatically qualifies you to be a coach. Does anyone think Michael Vick would be a good choice as a football coach? Things are hardly ever black and white, and despite the popular tendency to paint history that way, reality is far more complex, and simple conclusions drawn from isolated facts are ultimately, utterly meaningless.
Seems poster John needs to have some remedial history classes regarding the whys and wherefores of Vietnam. And by the way John, “those people” in the 60’s didn’t look at facts, just ask Jane Fonda.
Ah yes, the obligatory bitter 60’s hippie (John) whenever Vietnam comes up — the leftist equivalent of Pickett’s Charge against “the Man”.
In reality — just do the math. You don’t see 30-year-old Presidents. Therefore, you really couldn’t have a Vietnam President until 1980. 1980 — Reagan, 8 years. 1988 — Reagan’s Vice, Bush, 4 years. 1992 — Clinton, 8 years. 2000 — Bush II, 8 years. 28 years, 4 Presidents. You can’t draw any meaningful statistical conclusions from a sample size of 4. The real reason no Vietnam President — same reason we didn’t have a WWI President — the post was locked up (by FDR and his Vice for 20 years).
BTW — what would REALLY be educational, but it’s already been done to death, is INCUMBENCY. People just don’t move in a different direction easily or that often. Reagan / Bush I / Bush II was essentially 20 years of a single administrative structure and theme. Interspersed was 8 years of Clinton, and quite frankly, Obama is essentially Clinton II given the shear number of Clinton Redux — so that’s basically 2 Presidential administrations in 32 years.
Alternatively, do a study to show where the country took an actual change in tack to a direction previously untried — Reagan 1st term, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln. Much more interesting.
The further we get from WWII the less patriotic people become and the less appreciative of military service they become. The Yuppies are the worst Americans in the history of the country. They don’t care to serve. they don’t choose to buy American manufactured products. The economic condition of the country points out the direction we are heading in. The way to reverse things is to reinstate the draft, restart manufacturing, balance the trade deficit even if it requires tariffs. We must re-energize America. Also stop the entry of illegal aliens. We used to be a country of laws, we have to return to being one.
Thank you John for the history lesson
“Clearly the dire warnings of the lunatic right-wing sabre-rattlers were totally false.”
I did not realize that JFK and LBJ were part of this group. I always thought that they were liberal minded Democrats.
Kenneth, thanks for the excellent posts and I think you hit the nail on the head.
John, that was a finely written overview of the tragedy of America’s VietNam horror. When McCain ran his sloppy campaign, I kept thinking to myself that he had a real sense of entitlement to this presidency because of his notion that he had been a “hero” in VietNam. What kind of nation calls a man a hero who volunteers to go and bomb innocent men, women and children in a land that never posed us any harm, from his bomber jet plane? What a joke that was. I am from the generation that was forced to go to an immoral war, but escaped with a low lottery number. Many friends were not so lucky.
We all celebrated huge victory parties on 4 November, not just because of the wondrous election of an articulate, intelligent and rational new president, but for the defeat one more time, by dumping McCain, of the evil war in VietNam.
Tom
Many from your generation, including myself, enlisted or were drafted into the service to defend their country.
It was a responsibility we felt we owed. Where we were sent was irrelevant. Unfortunately, your low lottery number probably ostracized you from many of your friends who “were not so lucky,” but returned without being called baby killers by good friends like you. You sound like someone who wasn’t thinking to yourself about McCain’s sense of entitlement, but how some of your good friends who were there, could possibly think this guy was a hero. You’ll never get it Tom, you escaped with a low lottery number. Too bad.
@Bruce
Passing of another generation. Thank God Almighty! We are free from the tyranny of the culture wars of the 60’s and 70’s, and the subsequent politic. I am looking forward to the turnover in the rest of our institutions. The boomers are some of the biggest resource hogs on the planet. I blame them for the excesses of our society. Hopefully we can survive their largess.
No but we may have a President that won’t get us into another Vietnam. That’s the best answer.
John D. Isn’t that great? You served and you seem to have liked it. My friends who were drafted, were not glad to have been enslaved to serve, which is was being drafted was. My brother was called a baby killer when he walked in uniform through the San Francisco airport. I know that hurt. He is 80% disabled from VN and guess who takes care of him. Me. I never blamed the draftees for anything, and marched beside them in the demonstrations. They were called VN vets against the War. I don’t know a soul though who thinks McCain is a hero. I guess the unfortunate thing for you and me is that we are bound together by what Chris above calls the Boomer generation, though it is trite in usage and non descriptive. I can still hate the war in VietNam, but I made peace in my heart as far back as 71 with the soldiers who were dragged in. You will never get that.
Tom
Read Henry V; Act IV, Scene 3 and thank you for taking care of your brother.
As a disabled Vietnam veteran, with 16 years of military service, I am not sure that I agree that the door has closed on the possibility of a Vietnam Veteran being president. I am only 56 and in 8 years would only be 64, and and there are even some Vietnam vets that are younger than I am. So theoretically that leaves 12 years for a Vietnam Veteran to become president, and not have been as old as Ronald Reagen.
John D. The Englishmen that remained behind were not doing so because they did not believe in that war. I don’t need specific references to the classics. You may want to get your head out of Shakespeare and read Days of Rage or something, or maybe not, do what you want, as I said.. I am tired of this endless intra-generational dialogue of anger and conflicting ideology that will never be resolved. I leave the rest to you. I can hardly find this post anymore, and I am even losing my anger toward you lol..so Peace or Kill the towelheads or whatever