[ad_1]
The president’s supporters know his mouth is loose and are generally unimpressed. But in a close race, even small changes in favor of the military could have big consequences.
US President Donald Trump greeted troops on a visit to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan last November.
“It’s clear to me,” says Eric. The man in his early 40s is a driver for a driver services agent in Charleston, South Carolina and a former noncommissioned officer in the US military, including two missions in Afghanistan. “When a Democrat is elected, our budgets go down. If there is a Republican in the White House, we get more money. I don’t need to think twice. ”
The numbers don’t lie
The conversation with Eric was a few months ago, but nothing has changed for him. And even the latest scandal over President Donald Trump’s alleged remarks about fallen or war-disabled American soldiers probably won’t change that. Because at that moment Eric was very clear: “I just look at the numbers. I don’t care what the politicians say. They all lie anyway. ”
Trump is the Republican nominee and therefore also Eric’s choice. That is by no means exceptional. Millions of Americans will think like him in November, albeit for different reasons. It could be the conservative judges who, thanks to Trump, populate the American courts for life. It could be the tax breaks that carried Republicans through Congress in 2017. It could be Trump’s clear support for Israel. The list of possible reasons is long.
But what role will the theme play, which has shaken most of the American media in recent days? In “The Atlantic” magazine, editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, citing several anonymous witnesses, described how Trump had spoken disparagingly on several occasions about those who did military service for his country. He insisted on excluding war invalids from a parade because it looked bad. He had wondered aloud how anyone could be stupid enough to do military service. And finally he called fallen American soldiers failures (“losers”) and idiots (“fools”).
The White House was quick to present the whole thing as a pipe dream, a joke, and a pure fabrication. The urgency was understandable. The problem with the article is that it illuminates in great depth the contradiction between Trump’s personal views and his staging as president: repeatedly in his previous life the president had publicly mocked those who went to the Vietnam War. instead of making money or flirting with women. But his election campaign and his presidency were always characterized by respect or even admiration for members of the armed forces.
According to Goldberg’s report, a particularly revealing scene occurred during a visit to France to mark the centenary of the end of the war in 1918, when Trump canceled a tribute at the Aisne-Marne military cemetery. Apparently this happened because it was raining, so his helicopter couldn’t fly and his Secret Service bodyguard wouldn’t take him there. However, according to the Goldberg report, the real reason was that the president did not see why he should risk his hairstyle for this visit, because the cemetery is “full of failures.” The 1,800 marines whose bones lie there died in the battle at Belleau Forest when they stopped a German advance on Paris in the spring of 1918. Trump reportedly said they were idiots for allowing themselves to be killed.
What is interesting about the Goldberg report and the response from the White House is the fact that no politician or official of any name could be found to come to the president’s aid. In the first years of his term, Trump liked to pose in front of “his generals”, whom he accepted into his government to give them a martial and professional look. Most left their office frustrated, but without public protest. Former Secretary of Defense and General of the Marine Corps James Mattis had openly criticized his former boss for the first time last June. Trump was the first president in his life who didn’t even try to unite the American people, he said at the time, “Instead, he’s trying to divide us.”
Former White House chief of staff John Kelly, also a former general in the Marine Corps, had later openly supported Mattis. It was Kelly who, after Trump’s rejection, drove to the Aisne-Marne Military Cemetery regardless of the rain, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dumford, and laid a wreath there. Kelly himself had lost his son in the war in Afghanistan.
Trump’s ostentatious respect for the military cannot be reconciled with the fact that neither he nor his sons have served in the military. The president’s niece, Mary Trump, described in a recent biography how her uncle Donald had prevented her son Donald junior from volunteering – she had made it clear that he would disinherit him immediately if he did. That was the end of the topic.
A little sometimes is enough
In conversations with Trump supporters, one thing is always clear: They know that their idol has a loose mouth and often says things that they personally don’t like. But drawing conclusions from this for the fall elections is a different matter. Goldberg’s article might fit this scheme very well: You don’t like to hear it, but you don’t care.
Veterans and military personnel were considered safe assets for Trump in 2016. A poll conducted by the independent “Military Times” in August now shows that opinions in active duty troops are not as clearly distributed in favor of Trump as they were. Four years ago, when Hillary Clinton (20.6 percent) was only about half the value of Trump (40.5) arrived. Had the elections been held in August, slightly more active-duty members would have voted for Biden. However, almost 13 percent had also spoken in favor of a third candidate, that is, they provisionally rejected both candidates from the main parties. That, of course, could still change, possibly in Trump’s favor.
But the snapshot also reflects a longer-term trend that doesn’t look good for Trump. In collaboration with the Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University in New York, the Military Times identified a turnaround in 2018 when, for the first time, more active service members had an unfavorable view of their commander-in-chief than a favorable one.
Trump’s disparaging remarks about those killed in action and people with disabilities are probably not reason enough to convince his followers to change their minds en masse. But with a tight election result like 2016, only a few votes could be decisive, including those of the active duty military.
