Swing voters the presidential debate forgot: veterans

Wednesday's presidential debate included some love for Big Bird, but none for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose plight was ignored. But vets could prove an important voting bloc.

David Goldman/AP
President Obama (r.) greets Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the first presidential debate at the University of Denver Wednesday in Denver.

There were no mentions of America’s veterans during Wednesday night’s presidential debate, a point that frustrates former US troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It was seriously disappointing,” says Tom Tarantino, a former US Army captain and chief policy director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). “This was the debate that was supposed to focus on domestic issues and care for the men and women who had come home from Iraq and Afghanistan – it just didn’t seem like a priority.”

This perplexes veterans advocacy groups. “We have the ability to swing these elections – that’s the biggest secret nobody seems to have keyed in on,” Mr. Tarantino says.

Among IAVA’s members, 90 percent are registered to vote, roughly 40 percent of whom do not register or identify with any one party. The remaining 60 percent who do are equally split between the Republican and Democratic Parties.

“We’re pretty politically independent, pretty politically savvy – and we’re looking for candidates to address the needs that we’re facing,”  he says.

And while veterans represent only 6 percent of voters overall, US military bases – and thus the former fighters themselves – are concentrated in a number of swing states.

This includes 150,000 veteran voters in Florida, another 150,000 in Virginia, and 60,000 in Ohio, according to IAVA figures.

Their particular concerns include lowering the veteran unemployment rate, protecting veterans’ education benefits, improving support for female veterans, and extending critical Veterans Administration services, says Tarantino.

“With one veteran committing suicide every 36 hours, a 10.9 percent unemployment rate, and veterans’ education under attack from predatory for-profit schools, candidates and policy makers have a moral obligation to care for those who have served our country,” according to the IAVA Voter Guide.

The passing references during the debate to the US armed forces – Mitt Romney said he believes the military “should be second to none,” and President Obama cited the dangers of giving the Pentagon upwards of $2 trillion in money it’s not requesting – fell short of the robust debate of veterans issues for which the IAVA and other advocacy organizations had hoped.

“A passing reference to military spending isn’t enough,” says Tarantino. “Saying ‘I will support the military,’ and ‘Thank you for your service’ – while that’s fine and we appreciate it, we have serious problems,” he adds. “And, so far, we haven’t been hearing a lot of specifics.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.