Ryan Peters: Thumbs up to Mikie Sherrill. Thumbs down to Diane Allen.

By Rubashov

In a video paid for by Nick DeGregorio’s campaign for Congress, former Assemblyman Ryan Peters touts military experience as the preeminent qualification for public office. Peters, a former Navy SEAL, states: “There is simply no boardroom or classroom that tests you like a combat zone.”

Peters goes on to say, “You see things, and you’re put in situations… that test the core of who you are. Because ultimately… you will have to look into the eyes of our enemy and decide right then, right there, whether or not you have the strength to fight…”

The ancient Greeks might well agree with Peters. Military service and procreation were twin virtues revered by their civilization. Both were considered essential to the preservation of the city-state, and military service was compulsory. In Athens, for example, service was limited to a set period. In Sparta, it was for life.

But are Peters’ views relevant today? Is combat vet Tammy Duckworth more qualified to be President than was someone like Ronald Reagan? Peters appears to think so. Duckworth, an Army Lt. Colonel, lost both her legs to combat. She is currently the United States Senator from Illinois and a decidedly liberal Democrat. Is Peters suggesting that we ignore her positions on issues and vote for her based on her unquestionable military experience?

Should we have cast our votes for, say, John Kerry (Navy Lieutenant, winner of the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts) over George W. Bush? Peters seems to say “yes”.

The only Republican in the Legislature to vote for Democrat Governor Jim Florio's gun ban was a United States Marine (a Captain). Should Republicans have voted for him based on his military experience? Or should they have taken his anti-Second Amendment position into account?

The video features a clip of DeGregorio, a candidate for Congress in the 5th District, complaining that his Republican primary opponents have questioned his experience. Nick, who reached the rank of Major in the Marine Corps, is running a campaign largely based on his military service. On his campaign website, there are many paragraphs about what Nick did in the military, but there’s nothing about what he’d do in Congress. No issues page. No policies.

Nick compounded this by refusing to share his views with a panel of statewide conservative leaders that included Mayor Steve Lonegan; Marie Tasy (New Jersey Right to Life); Alex Roubian (2nd Amendment Society); Rev. Greg Quinlan (Center for Garden State Families); John Robert Carman (NJ Constitutional Republicans); and Josh Aikens (AriseNJ). Every other candidate for the GOP nomination in the 5th District participated, as did every candidate in the neighboring 7th District – including elected officials like Senator Tom Kean Jr. and Assemblyman Erik Peterson. Perhaps Nick hasn’t fully formed views on issues like taxation and abortion and the Second Amendment?

Whatever the reason for Nick’s reticence to share his ideas on issues, it does raise perfectly reasonable questions about what those ideas might be – or whether Nick has any ideas at all. In the video, Peters suggest anyone who questions a former combat veteran and candidate for public office should face cancellation for daring to do so. Peters states, “So, for any guy who puts on a suit, sits in an office, and says those who chose to put on a uniform and face down the barrel of a gun, that they don’t have experience – you sir, have no business representing anybody in Congress.”

This is quite an extreme statement and a species of that faux moral outrage one generally associates with the Left. Of course, all citizens – suit-wearing or not – have not only the right but the duty to question the experience of those who wish to represent them in Congress. To suggest that questioning certain people should result in the questioner being cancelled is irresponsible and absurd.

We wonder if Republicans will face the same admonishments from Democrats when Senator Duckworth runs for President in 2024? And we can’t help but wonder who Assemblyman Peters would have voted for last year, if Phil Murphy had run with Mikie Sherrill (retired Navy Lt. Commander and a combat helicopter pilot) against a Quaker pacifist like Diane Allen?

If we place the romance and emotional rhetoric to one side, it is clear to see there are many kinds of experiences that could be helpful in Congress. Having gone through a pandemic, perhaps a candidate with a medical background might be helpful? A career in medical research might even be more helpful. Would Peters suggest cancelling such a candidate if they dared ask Nick where he stood on the issues?

Experience should be the beginning of a candidate's story. It should not be a candidate's entire story.

This is not to place blame on Ryan and Nick alone, because they have not embraced this criterion on their own. They are victims of the political campaign industry’s consultant class. America might not manufacture anything anymore, but politics and government affairs and lobbying has never been bigger.

Today’s political consultants don’t think of a public servant or a statesman when they think of a candidate – they think of a Facebook celebrity. And that is what they seek to manufacture. A nice, plausible face with a good back story that produces the mandatory emotional “likes”. Candidates are admonished not to think or tell anybody where they stand on issues. In place of genuine thought, there is a script. Human concern is carefully choreographed. Image is all.

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

…

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

(Excerpts from “The Hollow Men”
by Thomas Stearns Eliot)

We disagree with these political consultants. We believe that issues matter to people. Issues motivate individual people to vote. Not categories designed by algorithms. Issues have meaning to people.

Take these folks in this video, for example. Are they “Soft Democrats” or “Swing” or any one of the other descriptors designed to make it easier to sell some technological shortcut to figuring out what is on people’s minds (short of having a discussion with them). To us, they appear unique, individual, and motivated by an issue that concerns them. Of course, we could be wrong. Watch the video. You describe them. Are they Republicans?

How would the sacred algorithms describe them?

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell