America Loves a Man Who Served?

Every election everybody is abuzz over who "nobly served their country in its time of need," and how a candidate's military service (or lack thereof) will impact the election. Parties, for as long as I have lived, have had groups come out every election to tout the extent of their candidate's military service or their opponent's lack thereof. The question really is: are candidates who have convinced the public that they served really any more successful than their peers?

Lets look at recent candidates who have flamboyant war stories...such as getting shot or tortured. Who would that be? John McCain (2008), John Kerry (2004) and Bob Dole (1992). All three of them, as I am sure you know, lost their elections.

So, the question comes from this, does military service in general indicate a losing candidate? Lets look at the records. The 1992 and 1980 elections must be skipped for now because they were between two candidates who won at some point. Al Gore (2000) served in the Vietnam war, while Dukakis (1988) and Mondale (1984) served in Korea. Ford (1976) served in WWII (remember, he was president but he never won an election, which is what is in question here). McGovern (1972) also served in that war. Prior to that a good chunk of the baby boomers were not even of voting age, and it gets a little hard to consider everything one contineous culture.

So, now lets examine the other side of the coin. What are the military histories of winning candidates?

Carter and George Bush Senior each won and lost one election. Both of them won against somebody with equal or less military experience, and both of them lost to somebody with no combat experience. Carter (1972) served on a submarine. He won against Ford, who had a considerable record of service, and lost against Regan who never saw battle at all and couldn't serve overseas. George Bush Senior (1988, 1992) served active duty Navy and saw combat. He won against Dukakis (who served) in 1988. Its reasonable to say this didn't break the trend because when both candidates in an election served they can not both lose. He lost to Clinton, who had no record of military service.

George W Bush (2000, 2004) worked first in the Texas Air National Guard and then was discharged to inactive duty in the Air Force Reserve. Various forms of the National Guard have been socially seen as a great way to draft dodge, and were a popular alternative to serving in the Vientam War for particularly well well-connected people. Since social perceptions directly influence elections, its reasonable to say that is what matters here, and that against the candidates George W Bush faced it isn't unreasonable to say that the majority of the public considered him the figure with less military service.

What about the rest of the candidates? Obama (2008) has no military history. Clinton (1992, 1996) employed significant shennanigans to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War. Regan (1980, 1984) tried but never saw battle and couldn't serve overseas because of his nearsightedness. Nixon (1968, 1972) was exempt twice over from service, joined anyway and requested multiple times for more demanding duties but retired never seeing combat. This history brings us neatly back, once again, to the time before the baby boomers were of age to vote.

So what can we scientifically conclude from this? Nothing: this is just a statistical correlation. It is, however, a very strong correlation that United States presidental elections have, for the past 40 years, tended very strongly to favor the candidate with less military service.

So, why is this? Hippy baby boomers won't vote for "baby killers" they spent their college years protesting in the streets? Maybe, after all it really does fit the timeline, but I have never heard of a generation who sold their beliefs out so rapidly and wholeheartedly as the baby boomers (upcoming post). Atom proposed that the numerous foreign interests which contribute to our election campeign funds might be more likely to financially support a non-military candidate. That sounds very plausable, but I haven't been able to discover enough election campeign contribution data to really draw correlations either way. Personally, I'm not really ready to break out my tin foil hat quite yet.

What are the odds of this happening by accident? There have been 9 elections since 1972. If for each election a winner was selected at random from the two major parties the odds of it lining up with this exact correlation by random chance would be .19% or just a touch more unlikely than 525 to 1. So, its fairly likely that there is something mathematically to this, but I really haven't a clue what it is. I'd welcome any thoughts on the topic.