Much of John McCain's strength as a presidential candidate, and part of the reason why so many Democrats are worried about facing him in November, is that he is widely perceived as "strong on defense." However, some of McCain's positions belie this reputation and hence could be used by Democrats to chip away at McCain's positives on national security. One such issue has been little discussed since the very first Republican debate, where McCain, along with the nine other Republicans on stage, voiced his adamant opposition to even discussing the issue. I'm referring to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (hereafter referred to as DADT) that currently bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. On this particular issue, McCain's position, in addition to being intellectually bankrupt, is politically vulnerable. If either Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., were to emphasize McCain's view on DADT in the general election, he would be stuck between a very large rock and a very hard place - defend the policy and risk tarnishing his reputation as "strong on defense," or reverse his stated position and face a massive rebellion from the Republican establishment.
DADT is, at this point, an indefensible policy. At a time when the military is so desperately in need of soldiers that it has begun admitting members of neo-Nazi groups previously barred for promoting violent racism in the ranks, thousands of otherwise qualified soldiers are being barred solely on the grounds of their sexual orientation. 12,000 service members have been discharged under DADT since its institution in 1993, and, according to one statistical analysis, a whopping 41,000 people would enlist if the policy was overturned. Further, 800 of the discharged soldiers were specialists whose skills were in short supply. Of these specialists, 323 were linguists, including 55 proficient in Arabic.
The main conservative argument against eliminating DADT - allowing gays to serve would somehow damage military readiness - is no longer credible. Several top retired generals, including John Shalikashvili, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time DADT was introduced who had previously supported the policy, have recently come out in favor of open service. Every internal study done by the Pentagon has concluded that gays ought to be allowed to serve openly, in part because all 24 countries that have allowed open service have seen no recruitment or morale problems. The claim that the United States is different because our military is "more conservative" is not supported by the evidence - in a recent poll, 73 percent of soldiers reported being "personally comfortable" around gays and lesbians, and only five percent said they were "very uncomfortable." Finally, even if this poll data is wrong, the fact that the Israeli military, where very religious Jews make up 30 to 40 percent of combat troops, has not experienced any problems stemming from open service suggests that soldiers' views on homosexuality don't affect how they relate to gay service members.
Evaluating the viability of DADT as a political issue requires more than just examining the arguments on the issue, as public perception of an issue is far more important than the truth about it in political strategy, and it is possible that the public hasn't quite caught up to the facts in this case. However, polling evidence actually shows that the public has long been ahead of the curve - since 2003, polls have shown that between 60 percent and 80 percent of the population supporting open service. The most recent poll, done in May 2007, was at the upper end of that range - it found that 79 percent of Americans are in favor of allowing gays to serve openly.
It is unlikely that anything like that number will vote solely on the basis of a candidate's view on gays in the military, but the fact that such high numbers approve of eliminating DADT suggests that most Americans believe the policy actually does harm the military's effectiveness, which is why the issue would be such a potent political weapon against McCain. The Democratic nominee could use the issue to cut into McCain's principal strength, being perceived as strong on national security issues, by painting his stance as one that prioritizes political concerns over national security. This message could be hammered home in the debates, where either of the very articulate potential Democratic nominees could use the arguments made above to embarrass McCain. His line on the issue ("My friends, it [DADT] is working. The current policy is working.") would be laughably inappropriate when faced with evidence that the military is losing Arabic translators, an absolutely crucial resource in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism in general. While attacking McCain on this issue may not by itself win over undecided voters, it will hurt his credibility on national security issues, which indirectly may result in a fair number of voters going Democratic.
But can't McCain just change his position? Not really, as it would subject him to endless charges of flip-flopping (which have been the centerpiece of his attacks on Mitt Romney) and a torrent of criticism from the conservative wing of his party. Conservative support for the status quo is unlikely to hurt a Democrat emphasizing change, as they already know and expect that Democrats are in favor of ending DADT. Furthermore, "values" voters, the type likely to be energized by DADT, are outnumbered 10 to one in this election by those concerned with Iraq and terrorism, suggesting that the potential benefits for the Democratic nominee far outweigh the risks. Hopefully, the Democratic candidate employs and benefits from this strategy and then makes eliminating this unjust and counterproductive policy one of his or her top legislative priorities.
Zack Beauchamp '10 knows why they call it the "Straight Talk Express."
is a member of the 
