‘The commander-in-chief test’: Harris and Trump clash on military issues, following a familiar script.
The use of military-related attacks is a strategic move rooted in a long-standing political tradition. In the current election cycle, both candidates find themselves susceptible to these kinds of assaults, and neither is holding back.
TroibNews 
Donald Trump's recent visit to Arlington National Cemetery has reignited debate about the use of military matters in politics, especially as the 2024 presidential race heats up. Initially meant to draw attention to Vice President Kamala Harris' role in the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, where 13 U.S. service members died, the event ended up embroiling Trump’s campaign in accusations of inappropriate behavior and violating federal laws against political activities on cemetery grounds.
This incident adds to the recurring theme of military and national security issues becoming potent tools in political campaigning, a tactic neither confined to incumbents nor newcomers in the race. Both presidential hopefuls, who have not served in the military themselves, have picked veterans as their vice presidential candidates, underlining the military's significance in their political strategies.
Military respect is a longstanding element in American political tactics. “There's always, I think, a political instinct to lean into respect for the U.S. military, because it's a binding moral foundation,” explained Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), a former Marine. This respect, or the lack thereof, often becomes focal in political scrutiny and attack ads.
Historical political controversies, such as the Benghazi attack, the Iraq War vote, and the swift boat criticisms of John Kerry’s Vietnam record, underscore the enduring impact of military issues in politics. Specific campaigns, like George H.W. Bush criticizing Bill Clinton as a draft dodger, and Michael Dukakis’ failed tank photo-op similarly highlight how military images and decisions shape electoral outcomes. Peter Feaver of Duke University reflected on Dukakis' mishap, noting, “Dukakis, of course, was doing that to show that he was tough and cared about national security, but he looked goofy in the hat, and it just it backfired on him.”
Feaver also emphasized the importance of the commander-in-chief image, stating, “Presidents have to pass the commander-in-chief test. They have to meet some minimum threshold that yes, they could be trusted to be commander in chief, they could be trusted with the nuclear arsenal, with the lives of our men and women who serve in uniform.”
The controversy at Arlington centered around a confrontation where Trump’s campaign team was accused of disrespecting federal regulations against political acts on cemetery grounds, as they allegedly pushed a staff member at a wreath-laying ceremony. The Army has since issued a statement, explaining that their staffer was "abruptly pushed aside" in an attempt to prevent a campaign photographer from taking unauthorized photos, but the staffer is not pressing charges and considers the issue resolved.
Trump’s campaign has defended the visit, with spokesperson Karoline Leavitt declaring Trump as a staunch supporter of the military. Meanwhile, Michael Tyler, a spokesperson for Harris, expressed disappointment over the incident in a CNN interview, emphasizing her commitment to military families.
The Arlington ceremony was only the latest clash over military respect; earlier, Trump faced criticism for displaying a campaign ad of Biden checking his watch during a memorial, and family members of fallen soldiers criticized Biden at the Republican National Convention.
As Election Day approaches, the military records of the candidates' running mates, particularly criticisms against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for alleged “stolen valor,” are pivoting into sharper focus. “My record speaks for itself,” Walz declared on CNN, countering the allegations.
Despite various controversies including Trump's alleged disparaging remarks about service members, which he has denied, his advisor Chris LaCivita believes Trump's military support remains strong. “It didn't make any difference in the previous two cycles. He won the lion's share of the veteran vote and the military vote, and I think he'll do it again this time,” Gerow concluded.As the 2024 electoral battle unfolds, the intertwining of military themes and personal narratives will continue to play a pivotal role. Both Trump and Harris face unique challenges regarding their portrayals of military support and national security credentials, especially as they approach an electorate that places significant value on these issues.
The landscape is shifting, with national security and military affairs becoming less about traditional ideologies and more about personal connections and stories that resonate with voters. Harris, for instance, will likely capitalize on her commitment to supporting troops and their families, as expressed in her recent speeches. This commitment could be seen as a means to counteract any criticisms arising from the Afghanistan withdrawal.
At the same time, Trump's challenges will not only revolve around campaign missteps or allegations of misconduct but also his historical comments regarding military service. The continuing scrutiny of his past statements, particularly regarding veterans and service members, poses a considerable risk to his narrative as a military advocate. Critics assert that these views could alienate a segment of voters who hold military values in high esteem, especially as veterans' groups are increasingly vocal about their concerns.
The election cycle may also bring new precedence in how contentious military issues are leveraged in campaign strategies. The landscape of political combatants, including veterans and military families, will likely serve as both allies and adversaries. Their testimonials, whether supportive or critical, could sway public opinion in a pivotal manner. Compelling personal stories from military families often resonate deeply, leading to potential shifts in voter sentiment.
Republican operatives are keenly aware of the stakes and the necessity of maintaining Trump’s stronghold among military voters, which has been a hallmark of his previous campaigns. With talk of military policies, including funding and support for veterans transitioning to civilian life, becoming increasingly central to the electorate's concerns, both camps will need to navigate these waters carefully.
As the election nears, both candidates are expected to ramp up their efforts to connect with military families and veterans, using the platforms at their disposal to portray themselves as trustworthy leaders. Efforts may include town halls, participatory events, and strategic advertisements highlighting their respective records and commitments to military service members.
Both campaigns may also face new challenges that arise from evolving public perceptions of military policy and veteran care. For instance, issues such as mental health support for veterans, concerns over travel restrictions for military spouses, and broader discussions surrounding the effectiveness of military engagements will likely create battlegrounds for debate.
Ultimately, 2024 promises to be an election where military issues are not just a backdrop but a central theme. As candidates maneuver to define their narratives while addressing complex military realities, the voices of veterans and active-duty personnel will remain essential in shaping the conversation. The outcome may very well hinge on how effectively each candidate can connect with this critical voter base and how personal stories intertwine with political platforms to convince the electorate of their commitment to military service and national security.
With military service as a sensitive touchpoint for millions of Americans, the candidates will not only be fighting for votes but also for honor and respect in the eyes of those who have served and sacrificed for their country. The challenges ahead for both campaigns are significant and layered, ensuring that military issues will remain at the forefront of the national discourse as the election approaches.
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
This incident adds to the recurring theme of military and national security issues becoming potent tools in political campaigning, a tactic neither confined to incumbents nor newcomers in the race. Both presidential hopefuls, who have not served in the military themselves, have picked veterans as their vice presidential candidates, underlining the military's significance in their political strategies.
Military respect is a longstanding element in American political tactics. “There's always, I think, a political instinct to lean into respect for the U.S. military, because it's a binding moral foundation,” explained Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), a former Marine. This respect, or the lack thereof, often becomes focal in political scrutiny and attack ads.
Historical political controversies, such as the Benghazi attack, the Iraq War vote, and the swift boat criticisms of John Kerry’s Vietnam record, underscore the enduring impact of military issues in politics. Specific campaigns, like George H.W. Bush criticizing Bill Clinton as a draft dodger, and Michael Dukakis’ failed tank photo-op similarly highlight how military images and decisions shape electoral outcomes. Peter Feaver of Duke University reflected on Dukakis' mishap, noting, “Dukakis, of course, was doing that to show that he was tough and cared about national security, but he looked goofy in the hat, and it just it backfired on him.”
Feaver also emphasized the importance of the commander-in-chief image, stating, “Presidents have to pass the commander-in-chief test. They have to meet some minimum threshold that yes, they could be trusted to be commander in chief, they could be trusted with the nuclear arsenal, with the lives of our men and women who serve in uniform.”
The controversy at Arlington centered around a confrontation where Trump’s campaign team was accused of disrespecting federal regulations against political acts on cemetery grounds, as they allegedly pushed a staff member at a wreath-laying ceremony. The Army has since issued a statement, explaining that their staffer was "abruptly pushed aside" in an attempt to prevent a campaign photographer from taking unauthorized photos, but the staffer is not pressing charges and considers the issue resolved.
Trump’s campaign has defended the visit, with spokesperson Karoline Leavitt declaring Trump as a staunch supporter of the military. Meanwhile, Michael Tyler, a spokesperson for Harris, expressed disappointment over the incident in a CNN interview, emphasizing her commitment to military families.
The Arlington ceremony was only the latest clash over military respect; earlier, Trump faced criticism for displaying a campaign ad of Biden checking his watch during a memorial, and family members of fallen soldiers criticized Biden at the Republican National Convention.
As Election Day approaches, the military records of the candidates' running mates, particularly criticisms against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for alleged “stolen valor,” are pivoting into sharper focus. “My record speaks for itself,” Walz declared on CNN, countering the allegations.
Despite various controversies including Trump's alleged disparaging remarks about service members, which he has denied, his advisor Chris LaCivita believes Trump's military support remains strong. “It didn't make any difference in the previous two cycles. He won the lion's share of the veteran vote and the military vote, and I think he'll do it again this time,” Gerow concluded.As the 2024 electoral battle unfolds, the intertwining of military themes and personal narratives will continue to play a pivotal role. Both Trump and Harris face unique challenges regarding their portrayals of military support and national security credentials, especially as they approach an electorate that places significant value on these issues.
The landscape is shifting, with national security and military affairs becoming less about traditional ideologies and more about personal connections and stories that resonate with voters. Harris, for instance, will likely capitalize on her commitment to supporting troops and their families, as expressed in her recent speeches. This commitment could be seen as a means to counteract any criticisms arising from the Afghanistan withdrawal.
At the same time, Trump's challenges will not only revolve around campaign missteps or allegations of misconduct but also his historical comments regarding military service. The continuing scrutiny of his past statements, particularly regarding veterans and service members, poses a considerable risk to his narrative as a military advocate. Critics assert that these views could alienate a segment of voters who hold military values in high esteem, especially as veterans' groups are increasingly vocal about their concerns.
The election cycle may also bring new precedence in how contentious military issues are leveraged in campaign strategies. The landscape of political combatants, including veterans and military families, will likely serve as both allies and adversaries. Their testimonials, whether supportive or critical, could sway public opinion in a pivotal manner. Compelling personal stories from military families often resonate deeply, leading to potential shifts in voter sentiment.
Republican operatives are keenly aware of the stakes and the necessity of maintaining Trump’s stronghold among military voters, which has been a hallmark of his previous campaigns. With talk of military policies, including funding and support for veterans transitioning to civilian life, becoming increasingly central to the electorate's concerns, both camps will need to navigate these waters carefully.
As the election nears, both candidates are expected to ramp up their efforts to connect with military families and veterans, using the platforms at their disposal to portray themselves as trustworthy leaders. Efforts may include town halls, participatory events, and strategic advertisements highlighting their respective records and commitments to military service members.
Both campaigns may also face new challenges that arise from evolving public perceptions of military policy and veteran care. For instance, issues such as mental health support for veterans, concerns over travel restrictions for military spouses, and broader discussions surrounding the effectiveness of military engagements will likely create battlegrounds for debate.
Ultimately, 2024 promises to be an election where military issues are not just a backdrop but a central theme. As candidates maneuver to define their narratives while addressing complex military realities, the voices of veterans and active-duty personnel will remain essential in shaping the conversation. The outcome may very well hinge on how effectively each candidate can connect with this critical voter base and how personal stories intertwine with political platforms to convince the electorate of their commitment to military service and national security.
With military service as a sensitive touchpoint for millions of Americans, the candidates will not only be fighting for votes but also for honor and respect in the eyes of those who have served and sacrificed for their country. The challenges ahead for both campaigns are significant and layered, ensuring that military issues will remain at the forefront of the national discourse as the election approaches.
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
