Marine Phillip Baucus, the nephew of Montana Senator Max Baucus, died in combat in Iraq this past weekend. To my knowledge, Corporal Baucus is the closest relative to a Congressman killed in action in Iraq. According to this dubious source, less than one percent of the members of Congress have a child in Iraq.

Might members have voted differently on the war had the lives of their children been directly affected? Maybe. It is a good idea to have elected representatives actually represent those they represent. It is also a good idea not to immunize representatives from the affect of the votes that they cast. Might it be that the lives of those who govern are too distant from the lives of the governed?

About one in four current members of Congress served in the military, a ratio that has declined dramatically in recent decades. As the proportion of veterans has dropped, the willingness to use force, in Panama, in Kuwait, in Somalia, in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Haiti, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in places I've forgotten about, has increased. Would they be so quick to draw had they been involved in previous gunfights?

An informed Congress is best. Experience is an excellent way to become informed. The lack of experience in so important an area as the military detaches Congress from its most important Constitutional responsibility. Obviously, Congressmen can't help but voting on a great many issues in which they have limited experience. But this experience, military experience, is somehow of greater importance, at least in the context of being an elected representative in Washington, than, say, experience in the space program or experience as a school teacher. A veteran voting on war is an informed vote. A veteran voting on war also feels immune from attempts to impugn his patriotism should he vote for peace. The vote he casts is thus in someway freer from outside influences than the vote cast by his non-veteran colleagues.

Senator Baucus's nephew's death brings to mind an earlier time in American history when the children of public servants, as a matter of family honor, actively sought service. Like Max Baucus and Iraq, Theodore Roosevelt advocated American entry into World War I. So infectious was Roosevelt's martial spirit that his son Kermit jumped the gun on America's entry into the Great War by joining the British army. His four other children, including daughter Ethel who went to France as a nurse, served in World War I as well. Theodore, Jr. was gassed by the Germans, and lived to tell about it. Like his brother Kermit, Theodore took unnecessary risks and was known more for his courage than his judgment. Quentin, the baby of the family, took the greatest risk by flying, at a time when flight was in its second decade, behind enemy lines.

Quentin, a 20-year-old kid who dropped out of Harvard and postponed a marriage to fight in the war, was killed somewhere over France. Like the offspring of current politicians of import, Quentin Roosevelt was a child of privilege. Unlike the offspring of so many current politicians of import, the twenty-sixth president's son did something to tell the world he understood the duties that come with privilege. He never got his diploma from Harvard. He never married his sweetheart. He never became president. He never did these things because he went to war and made the ultimate sacrifice.

They don't make jingoes like Teddy Roosevelt anymore. And they certainly don't make politicians' sons like Quentin Roosevelt anymore, either.

Good post, Dan, and sentiments I agree with to an extent.

But I think I would submit that the main reason military service has gone down so dramatically, among politicians and others, as of late, is that its simply no longer compulsory. Obviously that doesn't apply to men like Quention and Kermit, who actively sought service.

But should the honor of a politician rest on the shoulders of his children, instead of on his own?

Sorry, I think this is a ridiculous idea. If the members of congress based their voting, (on any issue), on whether or how it affects their own children, then they wouldn't be doing their job.
Just because a congressman may be a veteran doesn't automatically make their opinion or view more valuable, correct or informed. It'd be like saying just because I've been in the hospital and had an operation that I'm an expert on medical care.
The veteran congressman may be so traumitized by battle that they would never vote to use the military, or they may have loved battle so much they wouldn't ever vote against it.
Their experience IS an outside influence on their vote.
Just because one doesn't vote to wage war doesn't mean they are voting for peace, it could be appeasement or cowardess , stupidity or simple self interest. Voting for war doesn't automatically make one a hero or a patriot either.
All the examples of the people from the past who actively sought military service, if they were to do it today, seek out combat, would not be called or treated as hero's, but called blood thirsty monsters and there are people in this country who would cheer at their deaths.

"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline." - Col. Jessup, A Few Good Men.

Truer in today's America than ever.

In general, people these days don't look at privilege as something that's not free. This goes for Joe the plumber's son but especially for the offspring of the truly "Privileged". That's why everytime I see a guy in uniform, I give him a thanks. They understand.

Dan, I'm a veteran proud to have served my country. I'm also a devoted FOF (Friend of Flynn), appreciating both the spirit and content of your offerings. However, I do respectfully disagree with several of your conclusions in your latest commentary.

I would suggest a Google search of Congressional records from the 19th century would show a lower proportion of members had military experience then than those today, if only because the Armed Forces were significantly smaller in proportion to the overall population for most of the 1800's (the Civil War excepted). Also, Abe Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, the men who were perhaps our greatest war-time Presidents, had no military experience whatsoever.

More importantly, I would point out that one's status as a veteran doesn't make one a combat veteran. For example, John Murtha served a year in Viet-Nam, but not in a combat slot. He finished his 35 years of military service in the Reserves, which hardly qualifies him as an expert on the use of force as part of national foreign policy.

Regardless, I would maintain that having seen combat doesn't necessarily provide one a greater appreciation of the value of human life than others lacking such experience. Hitler saw war first hand and had no compunction sending and the rest of Europe into the flames of WWII.

I would also suggest that many of those who serve have a drastically different view of their position and duty than civilians. "Greater love hath no man than he lay down his life for his friend" helps explain the comraderie and kinship members of the military enjoy with their fellows. But I don't know anyone with whom I served that wouldn't have been willing to risk their lives to stop the genocide in Rwanda or Cambodia, regardless of whether the bloodshed impacted our national interest.

NR ran an article about the service gap a few days ago:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2VjMDY3ZDMyNmYxNmZlMTM1YzgzZjdmMzhiYTEyMzY=

Makes sense that since colleges are actively banning recruiters that fewer college grads would be joining.

Linking doesn't seem to work on your comments anymore.

"It is a good idea to have elected representatives actually represent those they represent."

By this reasoning, a man cannot properly represent a woman, the old cannot represent the young, a white cannot represent a black, a Catholic cannot represent a Jew, etc.

No, actually it doesn't. What it suggests is that America's families are diverse with regard to military service and the families of Congressmen are rather monolithic. It's unhealthy for a republic to have the representatives so far removed from the experiences of the represented. There is something amiss when millions of Americans have had a family member serve in Iraq and almost none of the 535 members of Congress have had a family member in Iraq. Cheers to John McCain's son for enlisting.

Why doesn't it? Why can't a person without a child in Iraq represent someone with a child in Iraq in matter concerning Iraq?

I'm talking about 535, not one. There's nothing peculiar about one congressman not sharing this experience with his constituents. After all, most constituents don't have a family member in Iraq, either. But when just about all 535 don't have this experience, which is not terribly uncommon amongst the represented, then there is a disconnect between the elected and their electors. I think that's a bad thing.

Our society values celebrity more than accomplishment, and perhaps that's a reason why a politician's kid might balk at the idea of military service.

Our society values celebrity more than accomplishment.

Kind of like putting your money on the lottery rather than hard work. How true. Consistent with this is that those 535 get elected despite their lesser stake in the military. Any chance for James Webb vs. the football star?

"Our society values celebrity more than accomplishment". How true. Kind of explains an anomoly like Paris Hilton. What are people thinking?

I have long felt that some kind of automatic military service after high school or perhaps as an officer after collage made alot of sense and would cure many social ills. Today, with new and different types of threats and Dan's point about who does and does not serve, I like the idea even more. Is there anyone out there, who served, that does not believe that they learned something, grew up and became a better member of society by serving? I think Switzerland and maybe Israel run their countries this way.