The Other Iraq Surge A sharp increase in contributions from the military to Democrats suggests the Republican commander-in-chief and his party are losing the troops' support. By Lindsay Renick Mayer
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."
-CRP Researcher Douglas Weber contributed to this report.
*Data reflects contributions greater than $200. The Federal Election Commission does not require recipients to itemize smaller donations or disclose those contributors' names and occupations.