A Strange Presidential Election Statistic

From early 1973 up to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the United States experienced a period of "relative" peace.  In this period, although there were actions and crises abroad (the Mayaguez incident in Cambodia (1975), Iranian hostage rescue attempt (1980), Lebanese peacekeeping mission (1983), Grenada invasion (1983), bombing of Libya (1986), Panama invasion (1989), and covert operations in many places including Nicaragua and Afghanistan), we were not involved in a heavily staffed, full blown military effort that was tantamount to war.  This climate against major military involvement overseas was relevant to me in that, although I initially had to preregister for the draft in the early 1970's, suddenly the draft completely ended, including registration, for the entire time that I would have had to be in it.  Even now, with no draft, it is now a requirement for those deemed qualified to preregister (just in case a draft needs to quickly be reinstated).  But with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and President Bush's determination to drive them out with primarily American military might, we have experienced a resurgence of the military, with anything of a martial nature being seen as a positive political force.  Veterans are now accorded a higher place in our society, although much still needs to be done to tend to the needs of those returning from combat duty with injuries and illness.  It is considered to be good political capital to identify oneself with the military in a supportive way.  Certainly this is the case with my own congressman, (very) conservative Republican Cliff Stearns, who decries big federal government...except in military and veteran matters.  I'm not necessarily against the military receiving a big budget (albeit with effective oversight), and I am all for giving veterans their due in civilian life.  And especially after 9/11, all of us are in debt to our fine soldiers who put their lives on the line abroad to protect us.  God bless them.

So, in the presidential elections since 1990, you might just think that candidates with records of military combat service abroad would prevail over those who either got deferments, safe assignments at home, or completely avoided military service.  And you would just think wrong.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush, a World War II hero soldier, lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton, Vietnam War deferment recipient.  Clinton in turn defeated Robert Dole, another decorated (and severely injured) WW2 veteran, in 1996.  2000 saw Al Gore, his service in Vietnam notwithstanding, lose to George W. Bush, who avoided Vietnam combat with his cushy National Guard service during the period.  Dubya then won reelection against Vietnam War combat veteran John Kerry in 2004.  So 2008 rolls around and what happens?  I guess you know the pattern by now: Vietnam War hero and long-term POW John McCain lost to Barack Obama, who opted (like me) to avoid the military in his youth and wasn't confronted with a war during that period.

1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008.  The hero/soldier/veteran loses out.  And political parties were irrelevant to this outcome. So now here we are in 2012.  I guess "they" got the lesson by now, since we have as candidates non-military Obama running for reelection against Mitt Romney, who...you guessed it... avoided military duty with deferments.  So the chain WILL be broken this year, but not with a combat veteran getting into the oval office...