Trending
One of the most absurd claims being made this campaign cycle concerns the race for Congress.
For the second election in a row, incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Jack Bergman is being challenged by Democrat Callie Barr.
For much of the campaign, Barr seemed largely absent outside Democratic rubber-chicken dinners and occasional social media appearances. Then the national political winds shifted, money began pouring into the district and the race changed.
Barr, a Traverse City Democrat, has expensive TV ads targeting Bergman, of Watersmeet in Gogebic County, with something other than the usual partisan talking points.
I suppose this is a lesson in how you can say almost anything in a political campaign if you say it with a straight face. But indicting Bergman's commitment to veterans requires considerable disingenuousness.
The retired Marine lieutenant general is the highest-ranking combat veteran ever elected to Congress. As a veteran of the Vietnam War, Bergman understands the challenges veterans face better than most people, including veterans of later conflicts.
Unlike many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Bergman isn't a fixture on television. He is an unabashed Republican, but much of his work takes place on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, where the issues are consequential and the proceedings seldom glamorous.
He has helped advance bipartisan legislation to prevent veteran suicide and expand home-based care for aging veterans. That work rarely produces a viral clip. It matters nonetheless, especially to the veterans and families who call Northern Michigan home.
Barr's attack centers on Bergman's introduction of the Certified Help Options in Claims Expertise for Veterans Act, better known as the CHOICE for Veterans Act.
The bill, officially H.R. 3132 and backed by 60 cosponsors, would open benefit claim processing by allowing veterans to hire help, while regulating those services and capping the fees they charge. In other words, veterans who want to hire a professional to represent them during the claims process could do so.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars and Disabled American Veterans oppose the bill, arguing that veterans shouldn't have to pay for help securing benefits they have earned. But taking the position that veterans shouldn't be allowed to pay is not the same position as veterans shouldn't have to pay.
Bergman's bill rests on that distinction. A veteran who wants free assistance could continue receiving it. A veteran who prefers to hire someone could make that choice under rules governing fees and conduct.
Like other special interests, the VFW and DAV are advocacy organizations with institutional priorities that can run counter to the best interests of the constituency they claim to represent. This is no different than what we have seen with the AARP opposing issues that help senior citizens.
Another issue is that the veterans service organizations aren't what they used to be. There are fewer veterans today than in years past, and these organizations and their local chapters are shrinking. The same is true for the civic clubs and fraternal organizations that used to define communities.
Instead of confronting that reality, those with a stake in the status quo are trying to preserve their relevance. Today's veterans shouldn't have to rely on a volunteer at the local VFW to receive the benefits they rightfully deserve.
By pointing to the VFW and DAV's misguided opposition to a bill that, admittedly, has zero chance of passing Congress before the end of the year, Barr is implying that the organizations oppose Bergman and support her instead.
That isn't just absurd. It's disingenuous.
Veterans deserve an honest debate. They shouldn't be reduced to a partisan talking point.