Does It Matter That Vance and Walz Are Veterans?
Military service doesn’t qualify someone to be vice president, but it can help.
I’VE BEEN ASKED SEVERAL TIMES whether it will matter that both candidates preparing to debate tomorrow—Tim Walz and JD Vance—are veterans. As someone who served in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard for twenty years, I can tell you from personal experience that military service can shape a leader’s perspective in profound ways. But how it can prepare someone for elected office—or whether it can at all—is a more complicated question.
Military service can be a credential of patriotism and leadership. People want leaders who have been tested under pressure, who understand what it means to serve something greater than themselves.
But military service isn’t the the same for everyone, and while the vast majority of people in the military are the best of what America has to offer—patriotic, brave, dedicated—there are also jerks, sloths, narcissists, and wackos, just like you’d find in any other group of millions of people. The challenge for Walz and Vance will be to apply the lessons of service to real-world issues.
If past is prologue, Vance and Walz will raise their service records—or their opponent’s—during their debate Tuesday night. Vance has tried, and failed, to accuse Walz of stolen valor. Walz, for his part, has simply thanked JD for his service. That’s the grownup answer. But the reason military service can be such an issue is that the gap between the military and the rest of society is as wide as it’s been in a century. As of 2015, less than 1 percent of Americans were in uniform at any given time, and that fraction of a percent isn’t representative of Americans as a whole—it’s whiter, more Western and Southern, and more likely to have a family member in the military. The result is an American public, including most voters, who respect the military but don’t understand it.
It would be easy for Vance and Walz to take political advantage of the arcane intricacies of the military—say, by making too big a big deal about the distinction between holding a rank during service and retiring at a rank. Instead, they should communicate clearly how their service shaped their political opinions. For example, will their military experience inform their stance on Ukraine? On defense spending? Or even on the issue of national unity, which is perhaps more fractured now than at any point in recent history? If either of them can convincingly tie their military service to their ability to govern effectively in these areas, it could give them an edge.
But it won’t be enough for either vice presidential candidate to claim that their time in uniform by itself is a qualification. Military service doesn’t automatically make someone a great leader. We’ve seen politicians who never served make sound decisions for our country’s security, just as we’ve seen veterans fail in leadership. This is as true of presidents as it is of members of Congress. I’m encouraged that so many of my fellow post-9/11 vets have run for and won seats in Congress, but I’m also slightly suspicious that the voters are clear on what military service means. For some people, it means driving a truck. For others, like those in the special forces, it means conducting highly complex, highly secret operations with a small, close, highly trained team under intense stress. Both are necessary in the military, but for my money, the experiences of the truck driver might translate better to Congress—where the teams are large, ever-evolving, loose, and not always all that elite.
In other words, it’s not enough to know that Walz and Vance served—they should tell us what they learned and how they’d apply those lessons in civilian office.
Walz’s service in the National Guard may have given him a greater understanding of the balance between military life and civilian responsibilities. Guard members often have to juggle their service with civilian careers, meaning Walz is likely well-attuned to issues affecting both soldiers and working-class Americans. His rank as command sergeant major (which he held prior to his retirement) means he understands the enlisted perspective rather than the officer class.
Vance’s experience as a Marine in Iraq likely gave him a different perspective. The Marine Corps is known for its “can-do” attitude, its focus on efficiency, and for getting things done under the harshest conditions. Vance, unlike Walz, also served abroad in a war zone—an experience he may invoke to defend isolationism.
Having served in the Air Force, including in Iraq, I know firsthand how military experience can shape a person’s worldview. You see the real consequences of policy decisions, not just in terms of dollars and cents, but in human lives. You gain a deep respect for diplomacy, the value of strong alliances, and the importance of a strategic, measured approach to conflict. But military service also instills in you a respect for civilian oversight and the need for accountability in government. This balance is crucial for anyone who could any day become commander-in-chief.
The principal lesson of my military service was that everyone is always part of a team, and only with a team can anyone achieve a mission. No man is an island, and no single man can change the world, but with a team, you can make a difference. Is this a lesson JD and Tim have learned?
It would be a disservice to the country and to the military if Tuesday’s debate devolved into two veterans attacking each other’s service. Ultimately, whether either candidate’s military service will make a difference in the debate depends on how effectively they communicate what their service taught them. It’s not enough just to have worn the uniform—they’ve got to show voters that they understand the complexities of the world and how to navigate them.
One last note for the candidates before they debate: The standards for honorable service in the military are high. The standards for honorable service at the highest levels of the American government ought to be even higher.
 | A guest post by
|