fox | when we grow up

some day -- i assume when the major elected officials are less with the baby boomers and more with their children -- when, in other words, people are running for office who may not even have been born, much less of age, during vietnam -- when someone my age defeats someone my father's age in a presidential election and we know we've taken another generational step -- do you think then, maybe, possibly, the question of whether a candidate served in the military might stop coming up?

there are just huge numbers of people my age (old enough to run for representative, but not for senator) who have never even considered military service, much less done any. are we, the lot of us, unfit to be president of the united states? (most of my friends wouldn't want the job, which very likely makes them more fit for it than a lot of other people, but that's beside the point.) the military tends to howl about having a commander in chief who's never worn a uniform. but, dudes: civilian control of the armed forces. isn't that why there are chiefs? and joint chiefs?

i suppose the next generation's Big Military Issue will be did he or didn't he register for the (defunct) draft -- or, when the day comes that women are serious candidates, how come she didn't register. setting aside the fact, of course, that -- unless something's changed since i filled out my last FAFSA -- she can't whether she wants to or not. but that's another issue entirely.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm with you. This has always struck me as a *really* weird quirk about this country we're from. I can't think of another country where military service is even regarded as a positive attribute in an elected official, much less practically mandatory.

There was Clinton, at least! We can take heart in that.

-J

I suspect that it has to do with the fact that most men of a certain age (around the time they are running for office) _should_ have served in the military, between WWII and Vietnam, both of which utilized the draft. It's as much about fufilling your obligations as military knowledge.

right. right. i meant to include that, and i didn't. grr. of course, the question of whether a candidate has historically done what was expected of him (along with the question of whether he's a rotten stinking liar) ought to keep coming up.

hey, if you want to edit the post and delete my comment, it'll be our little secret :)

do you think then, maybe, possibly, the question of whether a candidate served in the military might stop coming up?

No.

Two reasons:

First, the culture of many Southern states is still strongly militaristic. In that region "military" is the first default values of "public service." I do not think this will go away in the next century.

Second, the US still keeps getting into wars, dammit. I think a lot of us, including many Republicans, don't think it's coincidence that (a) W is the first President in 150 years to start a war, (b) he never really did military service, and (c) he had a father who was a real war hero to live up to. He is, in fact, a chicken hawk, and that's why Kerry -- a peacenik decorated veteran -- look so "electable" next to him.

Basically, this is one of the ways the US keeps the military out of politics: by implicitly promising to elect veterans, who are presumed to favor the military.

I am dying of your icon. Candidates I support, and the whole gays in the military thing pretty much down the drain too...

W is the first president in 150 years to start a war??

Who started all the other dozens of wars (big and small) the US has been involved in in the past 150 years?

To be honest, I think it has less to do with whether or not a person served in the military and more how they handled getting *out* of not serving in a war.

Although I have to say that I don't know how much someone's behavior at age 18 or 20 (when they're trying to avoid an unpopular war no less) tells us about the same person at age 45 or 55.

when we grow up

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject