Democrats Hope Walz and the Party’s Military Veterans Have the Right Stuff

“One of the failings that we have… is that not a single member of Congress from Missouri is a veteran, not any of them,”

—Lucas Kunce, Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Missouri and a Marine Corps veteran.

In 25 years, only one candidate with military service, George W. Bush, has been elected president. Despite disappointing performances by Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain, both major parties have doubled their efforts to identify, recruit, and finance veterans to run for office, not just for the presidency but up and down the ballot.

Their preferred candidates have combat experience and can self-fund by tapping personal wealth or business connections acquired after serving as an officer, such as David McCormick, the former hedge fund titan, West Point grad, and Republican challenging Senator Bob Casey in Pennsylvania.

Few veterans-turned-candidates come from the working class. However, some do, like the Democratic and Republican vice presidential nominees, Tim Walz and J. D. Vance, as well as Ruben Gallego, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Arizona. On Tuesday night, Americans will watch Walz and Vance face off in the vice presidential debate, marking the first time veterans have been the vice presidential nominees of major parties since 1996 when then-Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army and served in Vietnam, faced Jack Kemp, the late NFL quarterback, Republican congressman, and Housing and Urban Development who was in the Army Reserve in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

When vets seek office, they often argue, as Lucas Kunce, the Democrat running for U.S. Senate from Missouri does, that Congress needs former soldiers because of their foreign policy and veterans affairs experience, their demonstrated record of public service and sacrifice, and their embrace of values like honesty, integrity, and respect for the Constitution—points that Vance and Walz may well make in their favor when they go under the klieg lights at CBS News which is moderating the debate.

Rival Service Candidates

Walz and Vance are a study in contrasts, of course.

While both come from modest Midwestern backgrounds, served as non-commissioned officers (NCOs), and used their GI bill benefits to attend state schools—Vance went to The Ohio State University, a flagship school, while Walz attended Nebraska’s Chadron State College—their trajectories dramatically diverged.

Born two decades after Walz, Vance famously attended Yale Law School, became a venture capitalist and protégé of right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel, amassed a small fortune himself, and then, with the help of a $15 million investment from Thiel, won a vacant U.S. Senate seat from Ohio two years ago.

By contrast, Walz picked up a master’s degree from Minnesota State University, Mankato, and became a high school teacher and football coach while serving in the Minnesota National Guard for 24 years. He was inspired to run for Congress in 2006 as part of the Wellstone Action campaign, named after the late progressive U.S. Senator, also from Minnesota. After winning the first of six House races—with crucial Democratic party support in a district that had been Republican for a century—he joined the House Veterans Affairs Committee (HVAC), often considered a low-status assignment spurned by aspiring politicians, eventually becoming its ranking member and one with a first-person knowledge of the VA health system.

Walz suffered hearing damage from his repeated exposure to artillery blasts during Guard training that began when he was 17. On the HVAC, he became a strong advocate for other veterans with service-related conditions, including those struggling with PTSD and depression.

Notably, in 2018, he was one of only 70 House Democrats opposed to the VA MISSION Act, later signed by then-President Donald Trump, which significantly accelerated the privatization of veterans’ care. Walz was prescient when he warned that it would force the VA to “cannibalize itself” by diverting billions of dollars from direct care delivery to reimbursement of private doctors and hospitals.

In contrast, the Vance campaign recently hailed the MISSION Act as “bipartisan legislation that expanded veterans’ access to quality care and cut needless red tape.” A spokesman for the senator said Walz’s vote against it was “not the kind of leadership veterans need in Washington.” And Vance recently said he’d like to see privatization taken even further.

Swift-Boating, 2024-style

Walz has discovered that running for office with military credentials offers little protection against partisan flak from fellow veterans. In early August, Vance, a much affronted former PR guy for the Marines, who spent six months in Iraq in a non-combat role recounted in Hillbilly Elegy, accused Walz of “stolen valor.” This allegedly took the form of the then-Congressman misspeaking (in a 2018 appeal for gun control) about the need to curb civilian use of “those weapons that I carried in war.”

As Walz has since explained, he handled plenty of weapons, but never in a combat zone, and when he deployed abroad in 2003, it was only in support of other troops being sent to Afghanistan. He has also tried to tamp down insider carping about whether he should properly refer to himself as a former “command sergeant major” or merely a “master sergeant,” a distinction lost on most non-veterans.

By late August, the Republican pile-on was joined by 50 other veterans serving in Congress. They denounced Walz for retiring from the Minnesota Guard in May 2005—before a deployment order was issued to his unit in August of that year—so he could run for Congress the following year. No notice was taken that Walz is part of the small minority of enlisted personnel who serve for two decades or longer instead of leaving the military after a much shorter tour like Vance.

According to Representative Brian Mast, the Florida Republican who chairs Veterans and Military Families for Trump and other signatories, Walz’s retirement was tantamount to “abandoning the men and women under his leadership.” This decision, Mast charged, reflected a “lack of honor,” a personal “unwillingness to lead in time of war,” and an alarming history of “blatant misrepresentations” throughout his “political career.”

Many of these same Republican House members were among the 35 former officers and NCOs who rejected the results of the 2020 presidential election and refused to certify Joe Biden as the winner. Three House GOP co-signers of the Mast letter—Eli Crane, a former Navy SEAL from Arizona; Cory Mills, a former sniper from Florida; and Clay Higgins, a retired staff sergeant from Louisiana—have trafficked in conspiracy theories about the failed attempt to assassinate Trump this summer. However, that hasn’t kept Higgins from serving on the House committee investigating that matter or from distinguishing himself this week with a rant about Haitian immigrants to the U.S., legal and illegal.

Integrity and Civility?

What made the Republican veterans’ denunciations of Walz worthy of note was not just its “Trump-Vance MAGA-2024” letterhead but how many signatories also belong to the “For Country Caucus.” According to its mission statement, this “bi-partisan” group was launched on Capitol Hill five years ago to “advocate for a less polarized Congress that works for—and is trusted by—Americans.” Since then, it has provided “its principled military veteran members with the opportunity to work together across party lines to pass thoughtful legislation on national security, veterans affairs, and national service.”

Everyone in the 30-member caucus, consisting of 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats, must take “the With Honor pledge.” This is a written promise “to serve with integrity, civility, and the courage to work across party lines.” Past and present caucus members have, in turn, gotten financial backing from a Super PAC called the With Honor Fund (or its successors).

This vehicle for post-Citizens United “independent spending” was launched with $22 million from Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder and former CEO, and other members of his family, plus contributions from fellow billionaires like Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, and Michael Bloomberg, the founder of Bloomberg News and former mayor of New York.

In 2018, With Honor spent more than $1.7 million on the re-election campaign of Representative Michael Waltz, an Army veteran from Florida who became a leader of the For Country Caucus. Waltz (with a “t” unlike the Democratic vice presidential nominee) just joined the MAGA attack on Governor Walz, led by a For Country caucus member and backed by its current Republican co-chairs, Representatives Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa and Tony Gonzales of Texas. Miller-Meeks is a former Army nurse and doctor who uses her slot on the House Veterans Affairs Committee to help the private healthcare industry gain market share among VA patients via the MISSION Act.

Among Democrats in the caucus, Representative Jared Golden from Maine has been the most boldly bi-partisan during this election cycle. In the wake of Joe Biden’s disastrous debate in late June, the combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, who is running in a district almost certain to go for Trump, declared that the former president “is going to win. And I’m okay with that.” Further adding to his profile in courage, Golden blamed Biden for running “a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our Democratic system”—a “chattering class” notion that he rejected.

Who Shot Sheehy?

As the Democratic Party struggles to hold the Senate, there are six races where down-ballot service candidates could oust an incumbent or claim an open seat, with consequences for the legislative agenda of whoever becomes president (and shapes the future direction of the VA).

Like Vance and Walz, the vets in these battles range from conservative Republicans to progressive Democrats, with a rare labor-backed independent steering clear of major parties and their corporate backers in his Nebraska Senate race.

Trump weighed in early this year on behalf of three former officers trying to replace current Democratic officeholders in Pennsylvania, Montana, and Nevada. Koch-funded Super PACs also back all three as part of their $100 investment in 2024 candidates with right-wing politics and/or military experience.

The Keystone State challenger, McCormick, a West Pointer and Gulf war veteran who left his last private-sector job as CEO of the world’s largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, with a net worth north of $100 million. He’s up against Bob Casey, a popular incumbent seeking a fourth Senate term who has maintained a modest lead in the polls while the presidential race remains virtually deadlocked

In Montana, Democrat John Tester, current chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, was also elected in 2006 along with Casey and Walz. A non-veteran, Tester is touting his role in the passage of the PACT Act two years ago, which has helped nearly one million post-9/11 vets gain access to VA benefits and care for ailments related to their burn pit exposure in the Middle East. Tester was also an architect of the MISSION Act, which helped Trump privatize VA care over the objections of vets in the House like Walz.

Tester now faces a strong re-election challenge from Tim Sheehy, a wealthy newcomer to the state who calls himself a “conservative outsider.” Sheehy is a 38-year-old Annapolis graduate, former Navy SEAL, and Afghan war veteran hailed by Trump as “an American Hero and a highly successful Businessman.” In a fashion helpful to the “career politician” he is challenging, Sheehy has muddied the waters about his military prowess via conflicting claims about whether a bullet wound he suffered was the result of combat duty abroad or self-inflicted during a later outing to Glacier National Park. Montana remains a GOP stronghold, occasionally electing a Democratic governor or senator. But Tester faces a tough fight.

There’s no such uncertainty about the war wounds of Sam Brown, an Army captain and West Point graduate running for the U.S. Senate in Nevada. His “near-death experience” with a roadside bomb in Afghanistan left him permanently scarred despite 30 surgeries over three years. With Trump’s blessing, Brown is trying to keep Democrat Jacky Rosen from winning a second term based on her being what the GOP calls “a Biden-Harris rubber stamp.”

On his campaign website, Brown points to his “starting a small business that stepped in when the VA fell short by providing critical medications to veterans in need of care” who were adversely impacted by “the inefficiencies of bureaucracy.” As a result, he’s “wholly committed to expanding on the VA improvements made by the Trump Administration.” He wants to ensure “that competition—not government—drives medical innovations that lead to better care and lower costs.” Rosen has been running well ahead of Brown, but the state is competitive, especially at the presidential level.

The Progressive Vet Alternative

Iraq war veteran Gallego, the House member for Arizona campaigning against former broadcaster and MAGA champion Keri Lake for the state’s open Senate seat, was not a fan of VA privatization under Trump. Like Walz, the former Marine and Harvard grad voted against the MISSION Act of 2018. He initially announced his Senate bid as a Democrat primary opponent of Kyrsten Sinema before she became an independent and decided not to run for re-election.

While on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Sinema, who is not a veteran, has been an ally of VA privatizers in both parties, including Tester and Jerry Moran, the Kansan and ranking Republican on the committee. Unlike Sinema and Lake, his Republican foe, Gallego claims he “knows how important the VA is to Arizona veterans,” based on his personal experience as a patient “who has struggled with PTSD.” With backing from Common Defense, the progressive veterans’ group, Vote Vets, and many labor unions, Gallego pledges to improve the VA’s ability to meet former service members’ financial, medical, and social support needs. He’s opened up a solid lead against Lake, but Arizona’s presidential race is very tight.

In Missouri, a lawyer and like-minded Marine Corps reservist, Lucas Kunce, is challenging conservative Senator Josh Hawley. In addition to enjoying the advantages of incumbency, Hawley has recently rebranded himself as a right-wing “populist” critic of corporate power and selective friend of labor causes.

A 13-year veteran of active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Pentagon, Kunce grew up in a working-class family that was forced into medical bankruptcy. He is refusing to take any money from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists, lending credibility to his criticism of “Wall Street, Ag monopolists, Pharma and Big Oil.”

While serving abroad, Kunce had burn pit exposure and now uses the VA for his healthcare. He has been hammering Hawley for stalling passage of the PACT Act—a maneuver joined by 40 other Republicans—until widespread outrage forced a change in their position on the legislation. The problem for Kunce is that Missouri, once a swing state, has become ruby red. Trump won the state by 15 points in 2020. No Democrat has won statewide office since 2012.

In neighboring Nebraska, Navy veteran Dan Osborn is waging a surprisingly strong independent campaign against Senator Deb Fischer, a two-term devotee of Donald Trump. (Democrats declined to nominate a candidate, hoping Osborn could carry the seat.) A recent poll shows him up nine points in the state’s purple 2^nd district, where Kamala Harris is also ahead and seems likely to pick up a crucial electoral vote. Like Maine, Nebraska apportions its presidential electors by congressional district.

Osborn is no faux voice for “the working man,” like Vance and Hawley, both Yale law school alums. He’s a high school graduate who served in two state guard units after his active duty before working in a Kellogg’s cereal plant. He became local union president, led a successful strike, and then got fired for his workplace militancy. He now belongs to a building trades union and works in the boiler room of Boys Town, another iconic Omaha institution.

Osborn’s blue-collar agenda highlights the need for real labor law reform, minimum wage increases, paid leave, and vigorous rail safety enforcement.

The UAW, state AFL-CIO, and various public sector unions, including AFGE at the VA, back him. As he makes the rounds of veterans’ halls in Nebraska, Osborn criticizes delays in processing veterans’ disability claims and fraud and abuse by Pentagon contractors (who are big donors to his opponent).

But mainly, he blows the whistle on the gross under-representation of workers in what he calls a “country club full of Ivy League graduates, former business execs, and trust fund babies,” whether they’re veterans or not. According to Osborn, his opponent “like so many other Republicans and Democrats, has been bought and paid for corporations and billionaires,” which is why he favors election law reform and ending the filibuster.

The degree to which voters in Nebraska and other states embrace the idea that candidates from either party (or neither) are a better bet than their rivals because of past military service will be tested on November 5. However, as the resumes and records of 2024 service candidates confirm, many other factors determine candidate viability and desirability, not to mention what kind of future leadership they will provide if elected for the first time or again this Fall.

One thing is sure: there will be a vice president next year with a military background. Whether they use that unique position to fight further privatization of veterans’ health care or expand benefits for fellow vets is one of the many things that will be decided come election day. And with 60 percent of the country still holding the military in esteem, among the highest of any institution, there will be no shortage of former service members vying for public office, high and low, for years to come.

The post Democrats Hope Walz and the Party’s Military Veterans Have the Right Stuff appeared first on Washington Monthly.