You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Congressional Demographics
2005-03-14
No link, as this was posted on my employer's intranet site which is not accessable to non-employees, and the cited source CQ magazine is subscriber only.

Congressional Quarterly magazine looked at the demographics of the current 109th Congress and came up with the following: The average age of senators is the highest ever, and the average House member is older than at any time in at least a century. But it is the accelerating decline in military service among members that may be the most eye-catching statistic, given the prominent issues of war and security that this Congress faces. In 1969, as Richard M. Nixon took office at the height of the Vietnam War, three of four members of Congress had been in the military. In 1991, when Congress authorized President George H. W. Bush to wage war to end Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, just more than half the members - 52 percent - were veterans. But the 109th Congress, which will legislate on the nation's current military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terrorism, includes just 140 veterans - 109 in the House and 31 in the Senate - barely one-quarter of the membership. That is a nine percent decline just since the 108th Congress and a 49 percent drop since the Gulf War 14 years ago. The dwindling number of veterans in Congress is largely the result of the institution of an all-volunteer army in 1973 and the aging of the World War II generation.
Just wait a few years, when the men and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan start running for office. They will be fantastic leaders!
Posted by:SC88

#6  I think Rob't KKK Byrd skewed the results - wasn't he at Vicksburg?
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-14 10:17:00 PM  

#5  Just make sure they aren't giant papier mache' puppet robots, 'k? ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-03-14 9:35:15 PM  

#4  Less draft talk, more giant robot research I say.
Posted by: Chris W.   2005-03-14 12:59:19 PM  

#3  
Military Vets (.pdf)

General Demographics
Posted by: BigEd   2005-03-14 12:36:48 PM  

#2  The effects of having a draft shouldn't be ruled out. What I mean is that the possibility of being drafted did cause a few of my military acquaintences to join up (including myself). That's not exactly the same as only having "all vol" force. So having a "choice" between being a draftee for two years or going ahead and joining up the service of your own choice for three to four years is not the same now.
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous6392   2005-03-14 10:59:09 AM  

#1  But there are so few of them. Our military is the smallest relative to population since before WWII. Now, at the highest levels, we have the same number of offices as then (535 Congressmen vs. 531 back then), the explosion in all levels of government means that there are many, many of the "training" levels to fill. Not just elected offices, but high-visibility appointed ones.

Secondly, I don't know if that's really the case. After all, it was the "greatest generation" that led the country in the 60s and 70s, and we know how that turned out.
Posted by: Jackal   2005-03-14 8:46:55 AM  

00:00