Julie

A sharp increase in contributions from the military to Democrats suggests the Republican commander-in-chief and his party are losing the troops' support.

September 13, 2007 | Assessed favorably this week by the war's lead general, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq appears to be causing a surge of another sort—and one that's not positive for President Bush or the Republican Party. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the party they've long supported. In the 2002 election cycle, the last full cycle before the war began, Democrats received a mere 23 percent of military members' contributions.* So far this year, 40 percent of military money has gone to Democrats for Congress and president, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Anti-war presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the top recipients of military money.

"People are saying now enough is enough," said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs, an intelligence officer who said she spent two months in Baghdad earlier this year, speaking for herself and not the Army. "If you're a soldier, you're going to do your job, do what you're commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep."

Griggs, who voted for George H.W. Bush but not his son the current president, contributed to Obama's presidential campaign this year, she said. Among the military forces, she's not alone in her support for the Democratic senator from Illinois, who has spoken out against the war since its start. Obama, who has never served in the military, has brought in more contributions from uniformed service members—about $27,000—than any other presidential hopeful, Democrat or Republican. "I feel that he's the most progressive candidate and he stands for change," Griggs said. "I believe he is that breath of fresh air that we need to get this country back on course."

Among GOP candidates, Ron Paul, the only Republican who opposes the war, has brought in the biggest haul from the military since the start of the 2008 election cycle in January—at least $19,250. Republican John McCain, a Vietnam War prisoner who backs the administration's policy in Iraq, has raised $18,600. Paul, who was a flight surgeon in the Air Force, got nearly twice as much from servicemen and women in the campaign's first six months as GOP fundraising front-runner Mitt Romney and four times more than better-known candidate Rudy Giuliani.

"If you're a Republican partisan, but opposed to the war, it is not surprising that you'd find Paul somewhat attractive," said Ronald Krebs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota who studies the sociology of war and military service.

Other presidential candidates who have served in the military in some capacity include Republican Duncan Hunter, who served as an Army ranger in Vietnam; Democrat Mike Gravel, who served in the Army; and Democrat Chris Dodd, who served in both the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.

Donations May Be a Way to Protest, While Still Following Orders

In the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, uniformed service members gave about three-quarters of their federal contributions to Republicans. The percentage dropped to 59 percent in the 2004 cycle and has remained there since. This shift toward Democrats is most visible among members of the Army, who gave 71 percent of their money to Republicans before the war began. So far this year, members of the Army have given a mere 51 percent to the GOP, spreading their contributions nearly evenly between the two major parties.

The drop in contributions to Republicans—which began nearly the second the war in Iraq did in early 2003—seems to suggest that there is a passionate group of people in the armed services who are looking for ways to express their opinion, said John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute. "This [data] suggests that among the military, the people who feel most intensely about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq are negative about it," Samples said. "It's a general discontentment over the way the administration has handled the war—or even that we're in a war."

Although members of the U.S. military don't give much in political contributions compared to employees of most industries—just under $1.8 million in the 2004 election cycle and about $330,000 so far for '08—this surge in giving to Democrats is telling for a segment of the population that has historically been labeled as strongly Republican.

"My guess is if you asked most of these folks, they'd continue to identify as Republican. But the fact there's been longstanding tension between this administration and the uniformed services and the fact that nearly all Republican candidates have not distanced themselves from the war has obviously affected their standing with those in the military," Krebs of the University of Minnesota said.

Other observers say that the shift in contributions, especially to Democratic presidential candidates, is merely evidence that the military force has grown more diverse. "This shows that the military does not quite fit the stereotype of this Republican monolith," said Joyce Raezer, chief operating officer of the National Military Family Association. "The military in a lot of ways reflects the country. It's diverse in a lot of ways. It's not a surprise you'd see people exercising their ability to support a variety of candidates."

As for 46-year-old Barack Obama, his popularity may be explained by his youth, which would appeal to uniformed service members, who tend to be young, said Joe Davis, director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "[Obama] brings youth, and with youth comes energy and new ideas. One could say that is very appealing to a newer generation," said Davis, whose group represents an older contingent of servicepeople. Younger members of the military are less likely to donate money to candidates at levels that can be measured, however. Federal Election Commission records indicate that most military donations come from officers or civilian employees.

For the presidential candidates, reaching out to the military may not be a bad strategy to gain votes. According to the Department of Defense, the voting participation rate among uniformed service members was 79 percent in the 2004 presidential election, compared to 64 percent of the general public. That would translate into approximately 1.9 million voters in the 2008 election.

Despite being a popular recipient of military contributions, Ron Paul does not have an outreach program in place specifically for the demographic, according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for the Texas congressman's presidential campaign. "[Paul's] freedom message is an all-inclusive message and we don't tailor it for one party or another," Benton said. "Ron is for strong national defense and for a strong military. He wants to bring the troops home to protect our borders. If you're looking for the candidate who really supports our troops, that's Ron Paul."

Civil Servants Take a Stand

Civil servants in defense-related positions are also increasing their donations to Democrats. Contributions from employees of the Department of Defense seem to follow the incumbent party in the White House, favoring Democrats in 2000, while Bill Clinton was still president, and heavily favoring Republicans since George W. Bush took office. But in the 2008 election cycle, only 62 percent of the defense department's contributions have gone to the GOP, compared to 79 percent just before the war began. A career senior executive at the DoD, who spent some time in Iraq and asked to remain anonymous for this article, made a political contribution for the first time ever this year as one way to express outrage toward the Bush administration's eavesdropping program and definitions of torture.

"My breath is taken away by the disregard of constitutional rights by this administration," the defense official said. "I decided that I would still not do any political things at work. I don't even have political discussions when I'm at the office. But I decided I needed to do more. We can't have people not doing what needs to be done."

The war in Iraq is now in its fifth year and has claimed the lives of more than 3,700 U.S. troops and an estimated 66,000 Iraqi civilians, and has cost the U.S. more than $448 billion. If the proposal Gen. David Petraeus unveiled this week is implemented, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq would be scaled back to 2006 levels by next summer. To outspoken members of the military, that's not the reduced role they'd like to see the U.S. play in Iraq. "People have been saying all along that this whole surge would not work. They said it before it happened," Griggs, the Army officer, said. "I think the American public is getting less and less tolerant, and this report (from Petraeus) didn't help that at all."

Capital Eye - The Other Iraq Surge

gunnut

I forgot, would this be before or after the General Betray Us ad?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

ExNavyAmerican

No offence to any NG here, but the National Guard is made up of a lot of liberal college students trying to pay their way through college. Is that what they mean, I wonder?

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

crooks

The figures seem to talk about the mainstream US military - so instead of tip toeing round why not just say what you really think?

The US military has always struck me as Republican turf, but maybe this snippet sums it up:

__________________
'Liberty - it is newly strung and shall be heard.' - Motto of the United Irishmen.

Julie

The last sentence of the article (if in fact you read it), would confirm that it was "after" the ad.

Bluesman

I can speak to this PERSONALLY.

Is there a fraction of the military that is Democrat? Sure, there always has been. But I can tell you from personal observation that NO segment of American society can be counted on by the Republicans to vote for them as much as the military. Even the dreaded bogeyman of the Democrats, Evangelical Christians, the source of the feared 'Religious Right', has a higher percentage of Democratic voters than the military.

I attended a Bush appearance at MacDill AFB at the lowest point in the war: casualties were climbing, political progress had stalled, it looked like we could actually LOSE.

And you've have thought Playboy bunnies were coming to that hangar to hand out $100 bills and french kisses. It was like a rock concert, except that it was brain-broiling hot in there, we had no seats and were all standing up the entire time, packed in like addicts at the crack house on Free Hit Day. You should've seen the ENTHUSIAM. You couldn't fake that, and it wasn't like when Clinton visited the troops in Bosnia, where some troops had to be ORDERED to go. It was actually my wife's and my DAY OFF, and we STILL got in uniform, drove all the way into base, went through security, and waited in that horrible hangar...and the place ERUPTED when The Man came down the air-stair.

I posted about it waaaay back thar, when the dumbest mofo in WAB history claimed US military morale was collapsing.

Keep in mind that this happened at the HQs of CENTCOM and SOCOM, the hardest-fighting parts of the entire military in the war that we supposedly HATE our C-inC for. We've all worked the extra hours, seen friends and colleagues killed and wounded, spent time there ourselves (okay, MOST of us...grrrr ), so if this crap were true, it would be doubly-so RIGHT THERE.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Julie

So you are disclaiming the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics?

Bluesman

I don't dispute that the Democrat percentage among the military is going up by some increment. It could hardly help it, because it was low enough already, and, as that figure is never going to be static, I would expect it to go up SOMEtime.

What I definitely DO dispute is that the military is 'turning' on the GOP.

Julie

I did not say that in particular, and I don't think there is anyway you can prove that either way unless you spoke with the donor personally.

Look Blues, it is not so much Bush's policies people are turning on, and I'm sure as to the military, it is not the military turning on the GOP either. I firmly believe it is the blatant incompetence of the execution of these policies, as well as the war, that is the turning point. Americans are past tired of half-ass execution of anything this administration attempts to do.

The GOP will not lose on principle, they will lose on backing a proven, incompetent administration. With that said, if Hillary wins, or any Democrat for that matter, you are going to have alot of crow to eat, my man.

Bluesman

How so? I never have said that a Democrat won't win. I fear one WILL. So, how would I be proven wrong if they manage, as they almost have twice before, to fool enough people into thinking they're something they're not, or that they'll be better by any objective measure?

I'll eat no crow if Hillary is elected. But we'll all find out what REAL incompetence is if she DOES.

Dreadnought

If Hilliary wins we will all eat crow, and her husbands politics wether we like it or not. Personally I dont see this happening and if it does it means one thing. Most that know her and her husband have no idea of the politics they have stood for in the past and future. We would literally be shooting ourselves in both feet and prove our own stupidity towards politics as a whole.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Julie

They can only prove you wrong after they take office. Whether that happens or not, only time will tell.

Maybe, maybe not, like I said, only time will tell.

Army5339

I know a lot more libertarians and independents in the military than I do either liberals or conservatives.

I would say that the NG and Reserves have a different political makeup than AD, especially those who joined prior to 9/11. Many people were merely putting in time to get retirement or college money, not to deploy. I worked with some reservists immediately following the start of OIF, and that was depressing. Very few of them thought they were ever going to deploy. They were scamming the system, thinking that a massive reserve callup would never happen. On 9/11, I remember people crying in the hallways, asking to be discharged, because they only signed up for college money.

I believe that those who join active duty, and especially those who joined post 9/11, which is fast becoming a large part of the military, lean towards conservative libertarianism. It is easier to align with the GOP than it is with the Democrats, who are taking a hard tack to the left. The far left is no ally of the military or its personnel.

HistoricalDavid

"No True Scotsman" fallacy, sorry. The NG has seen combat in Iraq, at worst they are just not as hardcore as the rest.

__________________
HD Ready?

dundonrl

President Bush is my president.. I support him, and what he stands for.. this is coming from a 16+ year Navy Veteran (4 years too go till I retire) I used too be a registered Democrat, since they were for the "little guy" but like President Reagan said, he didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left him.......