The Values and Vices of Veteran Voices

• In Event: People in Politics

Abstract

How do military candidates employ their military identities in an election and what are the effects of this campaign messaging on vote choice and public opinion of institutions associated with these candidates? Despite concerns among scholars about the danger of a politicized military, military regulations limiting participation in politics, and evidence suggesting the limited electoral success of military candidates, veterans are commonplace in the U.S. political arena. In the 2018 Congressional elections, over 150 candidates with military backgrounds obtained major party nominations. I argue that there is a tradeoff between the reputational damage of military participation in civilian politics and the benefits that military candidates and parties alike may gain from different appeals to military identity. To do so, I use case studies from the 2018 U.S. Congressional elections and existing data from the Wisconsin Advertising Project and Wesleyan Media Project to develop a typology of military campaign rhetoric in congressional elections. Through an experiment using treatments modeled on rhetoric from prior congressional elections, I address the effects of these types of campaign messaging on a series of political outcomes including vote choice, candidate image, perceptions of political parties running military candidates, and views of the military as an institution. This project resolves part of the puzzle of why military candidates run for office by demonstrating the positive effect such candidates have on public opinion of parties even when a candidate is electorally unsuccessful. It also demonstrates the dangers of political strategies that increase attention to military service in a political campaign. Moreover, the work confirms that the military is a unique and normatively important identity group in politics.

Author

• Nicole Kliewer, Princeton University