Los Angeles, California – The criticism came almost as soon as Tim Walz joined the Democratic presidential ticket: Did the Minnesota governor exaggerate his military record for political gain?
That was the line of attack Republicans zeroed in on. Just one day after Walz became the running mate of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, Republicans were on the offensive, questioning his 24 years of National Guard service.
“I wonder, Tim Walz, when were you ever in war?” JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential pick, asked at a campaign stop on August 7. He proceeded to falsely accuse Walz of abandoning his unit on the eve of combat.
“What bothers me about Tim Walz is the stolen valour garbage. Do not pretend to be something that you’re not.”
But while Republicans continue to denounce Walz, experts say the importance of military service may be waning — at least, as far as rallying voters goes.
Wayne Lesperance, a political science professor and president of New England College, said the debate over Walz’s military record reminded him of how rare military experience has become in presidential races.
Not since 2008 and the George W Bush presidency has a military veteran served as an executive in the White House, either as a president or vice president.
“There was a time in American history where that sort of service — military service of any kind, really — was seen as something that was an absolute must,” Lesperance told Al Jazeera.
“And that’s clearly not the case anymore.”
A fading tradition
In the current presidential race, neither of the two leading candidates has any military background whatsoever.
Harris, the Democrat, has spent nearly her entire career either as a prosecutor or in politics.
Her Republican adversary, former President Donald Trump, likewise avoided military service. He received several draft deferments during the Vietnam War and later established himself as a real estate tycoon and reality TV personality.
That marks a shift in United States tradition. Starting in the 1940s, the country was led by a string of veteran presidents. First there was Harry Truman, a colonel. Then Dwight Eisenhower, a general. Even Richard Nixon was a Navy Reserve commander.
But that streak ended in 1993, with the election of Democratic President Bill Clinton. In the three decades since, only one veteran, Bush, has reached the White House.
In the US, the president doubles as the head of the military, and Lesperance explained that previous generations of voters wanted their commander-in-chief to understand firsthand the stakes of sending young Americans to war.
“That was the big piece of it,” Lesperance said. “I think that sort of service was also a test of patriotism.”
A numbers game?
But a generational shift has taken place in the United States. Mandatory military service used to be a common facet of American life: During World War II, more than 10 million men were drafted into the military.
But the proportion of men drafted declined in subsequent conflicts. Over the course of the Vietnam War, for instance, only 1.86 million men were called to duty.
The draft ended in 1972, and military service has been voluntary ever since. As a result, the number of veterans in US society began to shrink further.
Today, the US military struggles to meet its recruiting goals. In the 2023 fiscal year, the Department of Defense reported that the military missed its target by 41,000 recruits.
Jeremy Teigen, an Air Force veteran and political science professor at Ramapo College of New Jersey, argues that the public has not lost interest in electing veterans. The problem is, fewer of them are available as candidates.
“The decline in military veterans [as candidates] is, in large part, explained by the fact that we stopped generating such huge pools of veterans,” Teigen said.
Lesperance echoed that observation. “What happened, it seems to me, is that there were fewer and fewer candidates that were emerging in the ’90s and beyond that had that military service,” he said.
Shifting perceptions
But some critics speculate that the changing nature of the wars themselves has shaped perception of the veterans involved — and whether they might be suited for public office.
Writing in the publication The Hill, veterans lawyer Rory Riley-Topping pointed out that every time a Vietnam War veteran has run for the presidency, they have fallen short.
Vietnam veteran and Republican presidential candidate John McCain, for instance, was defeated in 2008, and Democrat John Kerry lost in 2004, amid a smear campaign about his war record.
“It tells us that the Vietnam War changed our perceptions of who veterans are and what they are capable of,” Riley-Topping wrote, citing the divisive nature of the conflict and the public backlash that accompanied it.
Previous veteran-presidents, she added, were seen as “strong, mission-oriented leaders”. But during the Vietnam era, “the public perception changed to one of veterans as victims, often struggling with mental health issues such as PTSD”.
The tactics used against veterans like Kerry continue to have ripple effects. The term “swiftboating” — derived from the name of the group that attacked Kerry, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — has since become shorthand for distorting a candidate’s record.
Several US media outlets, including NPR and CNN, have deployed the term to describe the present-day attacks on Walz. Even the Republican strategist who advised the Swift Boat campaign, Chris LaCivita, has drawn parallels between Walz and Kerry, calling them “birds of a feather”.
For Teigen, the decreasing number of veterans in the voting public is also exerting an influence on who is elected to public office.
With fewer veterans overall, Americans are not directly feeling the impacts of war the same way they used to. “We rely on a very small segment of our society to be in uniform, and they’re not as connected to society, and they’re much smaller in number,” Teigen said.
New pathways to the presidency
The impact of those demographic trends is felt beyond the White House. Veteran representation in Congress has also declined since the 1970s, around the time of the Vietnam War.
Back then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, approximately 70 percent of legislators in each chamber were veterans. Now, that number hovers at less than 20 percent.
Christian Grose, professor of political science and international relations at the University of Southern California, said the military used to be seen as a springboard for leadership.
“The path used to be military service, and then go back to your state and run for something at the state level or lower, and then eventually go to the presidency,” Grose said.
“But what we’re seeing instead is people who are running for office having other careers outside of the military first.”
He pointed out that it remains common for lawyers to seek the presidency, a tradition that began with the “founding fathers” of the US and continues with Harris, a former attorney general from California.
Grose added that the shift away from military veterans in office has coincided with greater representation in other areas.
For example, women are statistically less likely to have a military background. Yet, an increasing number of female candidates are seeking the presidency, from Harris to Hillary Clinton to Nikki Haley.
An enduring value
For Teigen, however, the fact that both major-party running mates in this year’s race are veterans is evidence that military experience is still valuable in politics.
Not only is Walz a National Guard veteran, but his Republican counterpart Vance is also a former US Marine.
“Both vice presidential candidates have service. We certainly wouldn’t expect that, just looking at the raw numbers of veterans who might become eligible political players,” Teigen said.
He explained that many Americans still perceive the military as a trusted institution. Parties and campaigns leverage that perception, he added, as an efficient way to connect with voters.
For instance, a 2016 poll by the Pew Research Center found that military service ranked as the most positive trait a presidential candidate could have, above religion and experiences like being a business executive.
“There are some things that, generally speaking, voters infer from military service, like public service, sacrifice, patriotism, duty to country. That’s all baked in,” Teigen said.
The Pew Center’s research also indicated that a candidate’s military service is more likely to appeal to men and Republicans. But Lesperance speculated that may have changed, since Trump did not serve in the military — and he nevertheless has become a defining force in the Republican Party.
Even among Democrats, Grose believes Walz’s military background may give the party a slight edge in areas where the military is held in high regard, including communities with military bases.
“For Tim Walz, I think that’s one of the advantages that he has electorally,” he said.
Grose acknowledged that such a boost may not be substantial. But given how tight the presidential race is this year, he warned that no candidate can afford to give up an advantage, particularly in battleground states.
“It still can move some voters in an election in Wisconsin or Arizona, where the margin might be 5,000 people.”
