Split Why is MIlitary Service Deemed Useful for Elected Office

[ideologyhunter]

Not sure a military resume opens doors readily anymore. The last President we had with actual military experience was Bush I, wasn't he? In the recent past, candidates (sticking with the Presidency) with widely touted military pasts lost: Dole lost to Clinton by almost 9 points in '96; Kerry to Bush II by 2 points in '04; McCain to Obama by about 7 points in '08. Also, the GOP tried to make a huge stink about Clinton's letter as a college student stating that he abhorred the military, and of course Trump's draft evasion is comically obvious. Neither Clinton nor Trump seemed to suffer much from the exposure, which they undeniably would, back in the 50s or 60s.
I'd like to see more variety in Presidential backgrounds. How about a President who had been:
>on the prosecution team, in any Trump case -- putting him/her on the very cutting edge of preserving this country and its democratic system
> a telephone solicitor -- facing public rage and criticism but still calmly doing his/her job
> a prostitute -- having basic business sense; working with every class of American; dedicated to human welfare and the 'pursuit of happiness'
> an abortionist -- facing a problem head-on, or head-first, and expeditiously solving that problem
> a DMV desk clerk -- no, skip that one, I must have been momentarily crazy

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

John McCain was mentioned in the thread. I don't find much useful at all about his military experience if you compare him to a different candidate, say, for example, Obama. I completely agree that we might consider military experience useful, provided though it was put to good use in its time and that upon reflection, useful things were learned.

 

[Elixir]

John McCain was mentioned in the thread. I don't find much useful at all about his military experience if you compare him to a different candidate, say, for example, Obama. I completely agree that we might consider military experience useful, provided though it was put to good use in its time and that upon reflection, useful things were learned.

I think we have lately learned that forceful, professionally delivered clear speech accompanied by hypnotic hand gestures and completely devoid of content, can overcome even the best ideas delivered in concise, accurate monotone.

 

[ZiprHead]

n theory, military service could show courage and an ability to carry out a plan under immense pressure. These are desirable traits for someone in high office, whose every move is scrutinized and whose decisions can have an impact on the lives of a lot of people.

I think it's more a sign that the candidate is a "patriot."

 

[Emily Lake]

Not sure a military resume opens doors readily anymore. The last President we had with actual military experience was Bush I, wasn't he? In the recent past, candidates (sticking with the Presidency) with widely touted military pasts lost: Dole lost to Clinton by almost 9 points in '96; Kerry to Bush II by 2 points in '04; McCain to Obama by about 7 points in '08. Also, the GOP tried to make a huge stink about Clinton's letter as a college student stating that he abhorred the military, and of course Trump's draft evasion is comically obvious. Neither Clinton nor Trump seemed to suffer much from the exposure, which they undeniably would, back in the 50s or 60s.

I don't personally think that the election results are a very good indicator of what the citizens as a whole want. Independents are larger than either Republicans or Democrats by a fair margin, and within some fluctuation, Independents have been growing over time. Who gets fielded as presidential candidates is controlled by the parties, and in many states, you can only vote in primaries if you're registered R or D, and then you can only vote for YOUR party's primary. This leaves us in a situation where the idiots who finally make it through to the end have been chosen by partisan die-hards, and really don't represent what the average person wants at all.

Biden vs Trump is about the worst possible slate I can envision - outside of their dedicated party panderers, they're both pretty strongly disliked, having the lowest approval ratings we've seen in ages and ages. No normal rational person wants EITHER of them to gain the office again.

I'd like to see more variety in Presidential backgrounds. How about a President who had been:
>on the prosecution team, in any Trump case -- putting him/her on the very cutting edge of preserving this country and its democratic system
> a telephone solicitor -- facing public rage and criticism but still calmly doing his/her job
> a prostitute -- having basic business sense; working with every class of American; dedicated to human welfare and the 'pursuit of happiness'
> an abortionist -- facing a problem head-on, or head-first, and expeditiously solving that problem
> a DMV desk clerk -- no, skip that one, I must have been momentarily crazy

You have a very hollywood view of prostitutes. Women who are so desperate to survive that they'll submit to rape in order to get money aren't in that position because they want to make people happy. It's sheer desperation - and johns are some repulsive exploiters who think that giving someone cash means it excuses their violations and makes rape okay.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In modern democracy, the big problem for voters is that candidates are lying liars who lie. Military service demonstrates (as well as anything can) a genuine and difficult to fake commitment to risking ones life for (or at least devoting ones efforts to) ones country; It also suggests that a person is disciplined and has experience both in teamwork to achieve goals larger than any individual could attempt, and in delegation to subordinates of key tasks to achieve those goals.

There's also the fact that an awful lot of major fuck-ups wouldn't have gotten through military service to an honorable discharge.

I thought I covered that under "disciplined"

I read that as "learned to behave properly" and I'm saying that many of the worst cases wouldn't learn and would wash out instead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In theory, military service could show courage and an ability to carry out a plan under immense pressure. These are desirable traits for someone in high office, whose every move is scrutinized and whose decisions can have an impact on the lives of a lot of people.

I'm currently reading a biography of Winston Churchill, who served in four wars prior to winning public office. During the second Boer war, he was in a train that was stopped, then ambushed, by Boers. He was able to get a lot of civilians to safety before surrendering, then he escaped from prison and got safely to British territory, crossing 300 miles of land controlled by the enemy where he did not speak the language.

That's the most striking story from Churchill's service, but there are others. Overall, I think his exploits in the military were a legitimate reason why people were, at least, more likely to vote for Churchill than they would otherwise have been.

Yup. Meaningful combat says a lot about how someone will perform under pressure. While I don't think it should be a requirement I would consider remaining functional in active combat to be on the plus side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not sure a military resume opens doors readily anymore. The last President we had with actual military experience was Bush I, wasn't he? In the recent past, candidates (sticking with the Presidency) with widely touted military pasts lost: Dole lost to Clinton by almost 9 points in '96; Kerry to Bush II by 2 points in '04; McCain to Obama by about 7 points in '08. Also, the GOP tried to make a huge stink about Clinton's letter as a college student stating that he abhorred the military, and of course Trump's draft evasion is comically obvious. Neither Clinton nor Trump seemed to suffer much from the exposure, which they undeniably would, back in the 50s or 60s.

I don't personally think that the election results are a very good indicator of what the citizens as a whole want. Independents are larger than either Republicans or Democrats by a fair margin, and within some fluctuation, Independents have been growing over time. Who gets fielded as presidential candidates is controlled by the parties, and in many states, you can only vote in primaries if you're registered R or D, and then you can only vote for YOUR party's primary. This leaves us in a situation where the idiots who finally make it through to the end have been chosen by partisan die-hards, and really don't represent what the average person wants at all.

True. I remain registered Republican so I can try to vote for the not-crazy ones in the primary. It's been a while since I have been able to find any such not-crazy to vote for, though. It's still useful because the campaign mailers tell me a lot about who not to vote for in the non-partisan offices. I do not like either party but I fear the Republicans far more than I fear the Democrats.