As the 2024 election heats up, a familiar tactic is resurfacing: questioning military records. This week, Republicans scrutinized Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz’s military service, drawing parallels to a strategy used two decades ago known as “swift boating.”
This term describes unfounded political attacks, originating from a campaign aimed against John Kerry during his 2004 presidential run. Kerry’s military history and subsequent anti-war activism became the target of a smear campaign that significantly impacted his candidacy.
Walz’s experiences in the National Guard have come under fire, particularly after his recent comments regarding “weapons of war” in a speech advocating for gun control. Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance questioned whether Walz had ever served in combat, echoing past attacks that doubt veterans’ service.
Both vice presidential nominees this election cycle, including Walz, are military veterans who did not see combat, similar to the 2004 election landscape. The new accusations not only revive old sentiments but also connect to past tactics of character assassination linked with military service.
In 2004, the anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, formed and raised millions for ads undermining Kerry’s military credentials. This time, Chris LaCivita, a Republican operative with ties to both attacks, has indicated that similar sentiments could be directed at Walz in the current election.
However, experts suggest that 2024’s context differs significantly. Unlike the 2004 election amid the Iraq War, voters this cycle face different geopolitical challenges, and the scrutiny surrounding Walz may not draw the same reaction it did for Kerry. Additionally, Walz is not the party’s presidential nominee, potentially reducing the impact of these attacks.
Political analysts also note that today’s accusations come directly from the Trump campaign, contrasting with the disassociated nature of the 2004 attacks. With the Trump campaign’s direct involvement, any negative messaging may reflect directly on them, potentially complicating the narrative.
The Democrats, having faced similar challenges in 2004, may be less inclined to remain passive. Party leaders likely understand the importance of promptly countering such narratives, emphasizing the need for a forceful defense against what they deem as unfair characterizations.
As the campaign unfolds, it remains to be seen how effective these tactics will be in shaping public perception and influencing the voter base ahead of the 2024 elections.
