Military service provides unique education and experience opportunities not readily available elsewhere, a key selling point for recruiting an all-volunteer force. But do those experiences that make service members valuable in the military translate to success in political service? This is one of the questions Danielle Lupton explores in her research and book, Reputation for Resolve. She joins host Carrie Lee to discuss the role of reputation in international politics and the impact of veterans in politics, Congress, and even the White House. It’s the latest episode in our Civil-Military Relations Center speaker series.
When you think about a military veteran running for office, what does that person look like? What does their record look like? Off the very top of your head, what does that person look like?
Podcast: Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | Pandora | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Podchaser | Podcast Index | TuneIn | Deezer | Youtube Music | RSS | Subscribe to A Better Peace: The War Room Podcast
Danielle L. Lupton is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Colgate University and co-editor of International Studies Perspectives. Her research specialties include international security, US foreign policy, and civil-military relations. She is the author of Reputation for Resolve: How Leaders Signal Determination in International Politics (Cornell University Press, 2020). Her research has been published in journals such as the American Political Science Review, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, Security Studies, Political Research Quarterly, and the Journal of Global Security Studies, among other outlets.
Carrie A. Lee is an associate professor at the U.S. Army War College, where she serves as the chair of the Department of National Security and Strategy and director of the USAWC Center on Civil-Military Relations. She received her Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University and a B.S. from MIT.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo Credit: Gemini AI
Two, possibly very related, topics: (1) Military veterans running for office. And. (2) Reputations for resolve.
As to these such, possibly very related topics, could the perception that military veterans have a greater degree of resolve, and indeed a “reputation for resolve,” could this have effected, and indeed still effect, voter decisions?
Herein, many/most/all non-veterans not being seen is such “reputation for resolve” terms; which, in the veterans case, specifically meant/may have meant placing his/her very life on the line. (Thus, “resolve” on steroids?)”
Thus, while the veteran has “picked up a weapon and stood to post” (resolve on steroids?) the non-veteran has not done anything — resolve-wise — that is actually comparable?
From the perspective that I offer above, as to the questions posed/printed at the introduction to this podcast, above, to wit: “When you think about a military veteran running for office, what does that person look like? What does their record look like? Off the very top of your head, what does that person look like?” As to these such questions I would answer, “Someone who wishes to use their military service — and thus their unique reputation and record for resolve and reliability — to help further his/her post-military career in politics.”
From an overall perspective, here is something that I believe that Dr. Carrie Lee, Dr. Danielle Lupton and others should focus much more on.
This being that, (a) post-the Old Cold War, there seems to have been a change for the worse in many countries’ (to include our own country’s) civil-military relations, civil-elite relations and civil-government relations and that (b) these such changes for the worse can be traced to the fact that, post-the Old Cold War, our militaries, our elites and our governments came to be seen as being much more devoted to (and, thus, came to be seen as being much more associated with?) ACHIEVING often unwanted (capitalist-based in this case) revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value changes both here at home and there abroad.
( Note: During the Old Cold War, our militaries, our elites and our governments were seen as being much more devoted to [and, thus, were seen as being much more associated with?] PREVENTING and/or REVERSING unwanted [communist-based in this case] revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value change both here at home and there abroad!)
Thus, only if one views today’s matters from 180 degree “about face” perspective that I provide above, only then, I believe, will we be able to properly and adequately research and address our civil-military, our civil-elite, our civil-government, etc., problems and issues today.
(Thus, for example, how a military veteran running for office might be viewed as being someone to vote for — or someone not to vote for today — this having much more to do with, today — not his/her military service and/or his/her combat record — but, rather, whether he or she is seen as being for, or against, the capitalist-based revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value changes embraced by/associated with our militaries, our elites and our governments after the Old Cold War?)
Consider my argument above from the following perspective; this being, that:
a. While during the general period of the majority of the 20th Century, the communists and communism posed the gravest threat to the traditional social values, beliefs and institutions of the states and societies of the world (to include our own),
b. Beginning in the 18th Century, and thus both before and after this such 20th Century time, the capitalists and capitalism posed the gravest threat to the traditional social values, beliefs and institutions of the states and societies of the world (to include our own).
“All in all, the 1980s and 1990s (and the 2000s and the 2010s also, Muller’s book is written in 2002) were a Hayekian moment, when his once untimely liberalism came to be seen as timely. The intensification of market competition, internally and within each nation, created a more innovative and dynamic brand of capitalism. That in turn gave rise to a new chorus of laments that, as we have seen, have recurred since the eighteenth century: Community was breaking down; traditional ways of life were being destroyed; identities were thrown into question; solidarity was being undermined; egoism unleashed; wealth made conspicuous amid new inequality; philistinism was triumphant.” (From the book “The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought” by Jerry Z. Muller; therein, look to the section on Friedrich Hayek.)
Thus:
a. While you might find good/better civil-military, civil-elite, civil-government relations during 20th Century, when many militaries, elites and governments stood hard against the (threatening to traditional social values, beliefs and institutions) revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value changes demanded by the communists and communism back then,
b. You are unlikely to find such good/better civil-military, civil-elite, civil-government relations after the Old Cold War, when many militaries, elites and governments are seen to have reverted to their pre-Old Cold War/default mode — of supporting the (threatening to traditional social values, beliefs and institutions) revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value changes demanded by the capitalists and capitalism of late?