Party Favor

Military veterans never have been a reliable Democratic Party constituency, but you hardly would have known that if you followed the recent Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Day after day, event after event, the quadrennial affair paid seemingly endless homage to those who served in our nation's armed services. On the final evening, it came as no surprise when war hero and former Veterans Administration chief Max Cleland introduced presidential nominee John Kerry for his acceptance speech.

Whether the veterans extravaganza pays political dividends for Kerry and his party is a question that won't be answered until November. One outcome, however, is certain: The Democratic convention just signaled that the Veterans Affairs Department is going to be the federal government's newest flashpoint of controversy.

Over the past decade, national elections have proven unusually consequential for Cabinet-level agencies such as the VA. The 1994 congressional elections, for instance, were disastrous for four different departments-Commerce, Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development-since they swept into office a large class of Republican freshmen who were determined not simply to reform but to abolish those bureaucracies.

By the 2000 election, though, after two successive election cycles had humbled and pared back the Republican majority, almost no one was talking about eliminating departments anymore. If anything, the opposite was true. On the campaign trail, GOP candidates were actually embracing the Education Department, thus serving formal notice that efforts to dismantle it were at an end.

The VA, by contrast, never has been on either party's hit list, even as the number of lawmakers with military service plummeted to 31 percent-down from 75 percent in 1971-and even as it became apparent that veterans were a distinctly Republican voting bloc. Since there is no organized, ideologically hostile opposition to the agency (unless you count the Office of Management and Budget), the department has never had to face gale force political winds of any kind.

While Congress generally smiles on this unusual federal creature, it would be an exaggeration to call it a generous benefactor. In recent years, for example, the dictates of fiscal austerity have left a yawning gap between demand for VA services and actual funding for them. To date, Republicans have not been held politically accountable for this state of affairs: They currently hold nine of the top 10 congressional districts ranked by percentage of military veterans, and 38 of the top 50.

In an attempt to alter this landscape, Democrats have pointedly accused the president and the GOP congressional majority of talking tough on defense but shortchanging veterans benefits, a stinging charge at a time when those in uniform are risking their lives in military theaters across the globe. House Republicans argue the opposite is true-that spending per veteran has nearly doubled since they won control in 1995 and that total spending on veterans programs is up 58 percent over that period.

Either way, early evidence suggests that the Democratic theme may have some bite. The House Democratic Caucus has been energized by a February special congressional election in which Kentucky Democrat Ben Chandler captured a Republican-held seat in part by promising to fight for additional veterans benefits and to vigorously defend the local VA hospital from pressures to close it.

Chandler's win was merely the first punch landed this year. At the national convention, Democrats followed up his special election victory with a 2004 party platform that leaves no doubt that they view the VA as a rallying point.

The platform document doesn't offer any groundbreaking news, but the contrast between the 2004 platform and the one that Democrats adopted in 2000 provides a revealing insight into the VA's politically pivotal new role.

In 2000, the party buried veterans issues on page 42, at the end of an uninspiring section titled "Recruiting, Training and Retraining Our Troops." This year, veterans received star treatment. Within a section dedicated solely to veterans, the party outlined how the Bush administration "has broken its promises" to veterans and how a Kerry administration "will keep faith" with them.

That wasn't the only mention of veterans. The other reference appeared on page 1, just after the preamble.