On Memorial Day, we are all moved to think of those we have known, those we have loved, who have fought and made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may enjoy freedoms and liberties we often take for granted. This Memorial Day, while reflecting upon these sacrifices, particularly the ones most personal to me, I was amused by the speech Mitt Romney gave today at a Memorial Day event in San Diego, California. With John McCain, Vietnam War hero and POW, as window dressing, Romney proclaimed of veterans:
"Memorial Day is a day to give thanks to them, and to remember all of America's soldiers who have laid down their lives to defend our country," Romney said in a statement. "As we enjoy our barbecues with friends and families and loved ones, let's keep them in our thoughts and in our prayers."
Sure, Romney thinks we should give thanks to all of our soldiers who have laid down their lives... It's the ones who came home that he doesn't have much respect for. I was surprised at the results of
a recent Gallup poll showing that Romney leads Obama in veteran support a whopping 58% to 34%. Especially since four years ago, McCain beat Obama among veterans by a 54% to 44% margin. It is difficult for me to believe that so many veterans would vote against their self-interest, in light of the fact that the
Romney budget plan, in order to deliver on spending caps and lower taxes, will have to cut programs such as veteran's disability benefits. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
Although Governor Romney has not proposed specific Medicare policies, it would be virtually impossible to achieve his budgetary objectives while sparing Medicare from substantial cuts. If Medicare as well as Social Security were protected, all other programs — including Medicaid, veterans' benefits, education, environmental protection, transportation, and SSI — would have to be cut by an average of 40 percent in 2016 and 57 percent in 2022, just to limit federal spending to 20 percent of GDP. If the budget also had to be balanced, all government programs other than defense, Social Security, and Medicare would have to be nearly eliminated: six out of every seven dollars going for them would disappear.
Ironically, Romney suggests to veterans that they are suffering under an economy that has been created by Barack Obama's policies. He does not mention the economy that President Obama inherited after eight years of disastrous Republican reign.
As the folks at Gallup point out, men who serve in the military may be more likely to become socialized into a more conservative orientation to politics as a result of their service and men who in the last decades have chosen to enlist in the military may have a more Republican orientation to begin with. In this respect, veterans may identify with Mitt Romney. However, again, I would suggest that veterans are guilty of willful ignorance. In looking for the candidate with whom they can most identify, they must surely take into account each candidate's military record. And, while it is true that prior to taking office in 2008 President Obama did not serve in the military, one certainly cannot say that he has no history of service in our armed forces any longer. Indeed, President Obama has served as the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces for the last four years. During that time, President Obama has been the final authority on all matters of defense both foreign and domestic. Never before has a U.S. President inherited multiple wars or conflicts being fought on at least two fronts, and a massive "War on Terror" here at home. Still, by all accounts, he has performed his duties as Commander-in-Chief with competence, confidence and diplomacy. It makes you wonder how Obama would have answered the call, had their been a war or conflict when he was a young man.
We do know how Mitt Romney answered that call.
In May 1966, while at Stanford, Romney took part in a counter-protest against a group
staging a sit-in in the university administration building in opposition to
draft status tests. Mitt Romney received a student deferment from the draft for the academic year 1965-1966.
In July 1966, he left for France for a 30 month stay to begin his Missionary work.
While in France, he enjoyed a ministerial deferment from the draft.
Upon returning from France, Romney entered BYU. He once again had a student deferment from the draft.
When his student deferment finally ran out, his high number in the December 1969 draft
lottery (300) ensured that he would not be selected.
It is one thing to exercise one's First Amendment rights to assemble and protest - whether you are protesting a war you believe is unjust, or simply protesting the cause of another. But, to protest a protest of an unfair draft in a war many feel is unjust, when you know you will receive the benefit of deferment after deferment is just plain hypocrisy. Romney has, predictably, claimed that he both "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.” and that "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.” I think we can tell, from his actions, what the truth is. Veterans, can you?
Today, Romney told his audience that America's military might is needed "not so that we just win wars, but so we can prevent wars." "A strong America is the best deterrent to war that has ever been invented," he said. Sadly, wars ultimately are fought. And, some of the brave men and women who risk everything in those wars come home; often broken, in body, mind and spirit, but home none the less. What of the debt we owe them? Mitt Romney would build up our military, while letting out veterans who return home languish. It would seem that from Mitt Romney's point of view, it would simply be preferable for our soldiers to fight bravely and not come home at all. That way we could honor them once a year, and then get back to our families and friends and our barbeques.