How many Congressmen have sons or daughters who serve in the U.S. military?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s usually people from the lower socioeconomic ladder that join the military, so I imagine not many. Why have your kid join the military when you can send them to college.

@Blackberry You’re correct. The answer to what I understand is none, but I wonder if there are any. Furthermore, I think the fact that it is lower socioeconomic society that join reveals a lot about who’s really in power in the Republican party. Especially since Congress is largely Republican. I imagine them sitting together and saying, well? Who’s going to do our dirty work and fight in our unjustified wars? And someone goes, “Oh I know! Let’s just have the poor do it, and call tell them they are doing the Republican and Patriotic thing to do! However… We don’t want our own kids to join! For they must get a Eurocentric education in college, and truly learn how the world works, so we can continue this process.”

I’m running on memory here but around 2004 there were around 8 children of CongressVermin in the military. It is pretty safe to say that number has declined since there are actually wars now.

So yeah. Cannon fodder is a apt term.

Vice-president Biden’s son is in the army and served in Iraq before his father became veep. So, there’s at least 1.

‘Bout a dozen, I’d expect. Keep in mind that a lot of Congress is staffed with older people, whose kids – if they had any, and if any had been in the military – would likely be discharged by now.

Here’s an article from 2007:

Lawmakers have loved ones in combat zone – ...At least nine members of Congress have sons or daughters who have served in Iraq.. link

From The Congressinal Research Service: At the beginning of the 112th Congress, there were 118 Members (21.8% of the total membership) who had served or were serving in the military, 2 fewer than at the end of the 111th Congress, and 8 fewer than in the 110th Congress.35 According to lists compiled by CQ Roll Call, the House has 92 veterans (including 1 female Member, as well as a Delegate); the Senate 26. These Members served in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo, as well as during times of peace. Some have served in the Reserves and the National Guard. Three House Members and two Senators are still serving in the Reserves, and three House Members and one Senator are still serving in the National Guard.

As noted above, one Senator is a former Secretary of the Navy.
The number of veterans in the 112th Congress reflects the trend of a steady decline in recent decades in the number of Members who have served in the military. For example, there were 298 veterans (240 Representatives, 58 Senators) in the 96th Congress (1979–1981); and 398 veterans (329 Representatives, 69 Senators) in the 91st Congress (1969–1971).

Another thing to consider when asking about the children of members is the age of the member themselves. “The average age of Members of the 112th Congress, although lower than that of the previous Congress, is among the highest of any Congress in recent U.S. history.6 The average age of Senators at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 62.2 years. This is approximately nine-tenths of a year lower than that of the 111th Congress (63.1 years) but half a year higher than that of Senators in the 110th Congress (61.7 years).”

I couldn’t find anything on personal choice of members to not have children, members who were not able to conceive or mortality stats on children of Congressional members, stats on the personal beliefs of the children of Congress regarding volunteering for US military service, et al.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/R41647.pdf

The military is one of the last places for a middle class kid to find a decent job. I suspect that is by design.

I suspect that there are more children of Democratic leadership in the military than Republican offspring.

I notice that the more a person is favor of war, the less likely they are to have experienced it.

Look at Bush Jr. and Cheney, both were draft dodgers and they started two wars. Even Bush’s father limited the war he started, of course, he was actually in the military.

There are some interesting statistics regarding the military that while not directly addressing the off-spring of congressional leaders, helps to put this in perspective. @jaytkay‘s article is very good and should help to understand the attitudes in congress. @bkcunningham gives a good account of congressional participation in the service.

A little background is in order. During WWI we put 12 million men in uniform. Since that time our military has shrunk considerably. The peak during Vietnam was a quarter of that number and we have been reducing the size since then. It is only natural that fewer and fewer congressional leaders would have military service. In 2004 Charlie Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft, arguing that the poor and minorities were disproportionally represented. And if the more affluent risked the draft, there might be less inclination for war. A study was done to test that theory.

The study found “There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistees.” They also found that “98 percent of all enlisted recruits who enter the military have an education level of high school graduate or higher, compared to the national aver­age of 75 percent.”

The truth is, the decision to enlist is a decision by the individual, not the parent. The re-enlistment numbers have gone up substantially since the war on terror began. And the enlistment numbers for the more affluent have increased substantially. The idea that the military is the last resort for the ignorant or minorities or the underprivileged, is simply not supported by the facts.

@Jaxk I never implied that the military was the last resort for the ignorant or the underprivileged. Just the opposite, the ambitious high school or college graduate is finding the military to only way left to progress. This is especially true for the college graduate that doesn’t want to be burdened with a hundred thousand debt when he is just starting out in life. The children of the well to do can live off their trust fund until something interesting comes along. The children of the middle class are destined for a future of indentured servitude until their debts are paid. Society has been engineered into a two tiered class structure. The rich have a wide number of career choice, the diminishing middle class has diminishing choices and the military is better than working your way up at McDonald’s.

@Ron_C

I wasn’t responding to your post but I suppose I should since it is a little more than erroneous.

FDR took us into WWII. He was never in the military.

Truman took us into Korea. He fought in WWI and retired a Colonel. It should be noted that he initially enlisted in the National Guard. I know you don’t consider that military service.

Kennedy took us into Vietnam. He was a lieutenant in the Navy. Remember the PT 109?

Johnson escalated Vietnam to a full military engagement. He was in the Navy during WWII. Left the service as a full Commander.

H.W.Bush took us into the gulf War. He was a Lieutenant during WWII.

G.W.Bush too us into the current wars. He was a lieutenant in the National Guard during Vietnam.

Overall it would seem your premise is misguided at best. A few minor engagements aside, our wars have been decided by ex military presidents with the exception of FDR. And the only draft dodger I can think of, that made it to president, was Clinton.

@Ron_C Nothing strange about the military being “one of the last places for a middle class kid to find a decent job.” It’s not a jobs program, it’s a military.

@Jaxk I would agree with all your descriptions of presidents but not GW. He spent his military time ducking duty and eventually being assigned to what was called the Texas flying club. Even then he shirked his duties. Further GW and Clinton involved us in wars that should have never been. Iraq was especially egregious.

I would say that neither G.W. Bush or Clinton had any real military experience.

The last justified war was WW2 the others were posturing for the American Imperialists. You forgot to mention Reagen was in the Army as part of their propaganda branch. He supported many wars in South America and is responsible for many atrocities.

@Ron_C I dunno if the Cold War and its conflicts could be considered imperialist posturing.

@Nullo I would say that most of the cold war was imperialist posturing, on both sides.