| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| -Election 2012 | |||
| Does Military Service Still Matter for the President? | |||
| 2012-05-27 | |||
| In every presidential election since 1992, the candidate with the less distinguished military résumé has triumphed. Bill Clinton defeated war heroes George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole; National Guard pilot George W. Bush beat Vietnam veterans Al Gore and John Kerry; So this is not always a bad thing.
In 2012, we won't have the chance to test this trend: For the first time in modern American history, neither major candidate for the presidency has any military experience. This is a dramatic change. The crucible of combat not only created these United States but has also given us many of our most successful presidents. But today, the connection between service in war and election to the highest office in the land has been severed. How we got here is difficult to ascertain. The sample size of presidential elections is small, and military service is far from the only factor that voters consider. Yet the 2012 White House hopefuls reflect a broader truth: Even in a country waging what seems to be a forever war, military service is increasingly limited to a small swath of volunteers, widely admired but little known.
Still... Wars have given the United States many of its most important political leaders, and we can expect those who have led this country's sons and daughters in the sands of Anbar province and the mountains of the Hindu Kush to turn their sights to the highest office in the land in years to come. When they do, these veterans will lead the nation back to its foundations. Forged in war, they will work to build a better peace. | |||
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #10 When Ronaldus Maximus defeated Jimmah in November 1980, we on active duty at the time, felt the yoke being lifted from our backs. Carter was such a loser while Reagan was always so inspiring. We could care less that he was in his seventies. Besides, why would a "nuclear engineer" have his sights set on peanut farming, hut building and US national appeasement policy statement development? |
| Posted by: canalzone 2012-05-27 23:01 |
| #9 draft no. 97 |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-05-27 17:06 |
| #8 Many of us will never forget that on 21 Jan 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter granted an unconditional pardon to hundreds of thousands of men who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War. Klik |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-05-27 15:37 |
| #7 RiV it's volunteering for service, and sticking throughout that makes a citizen in "Starship Troopers". There is a discussion there about draft---and why it never works, P2K. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-05-27 14:31 |
| #6 Rambler, before there was Heinlein, there was the Militia Act of 1792, one of the very first acts passed by Congress per their authority of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. A the very start, it enrolled all free white males from around 18 to 45 to be members of the militia. In other words, you had 'skin in the game' if you had the franchise. The Act was amended in 1862 to add males of African decent which would be followed by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution extending the franchise to the same group. That linkage ended with the 19th Amendment. What has stayed on the books is the current application of the Militia Act through incorporation via Title X USC, subparagraph 311 which still defines the militia as all males 17 to 45 with two classes being the National Guard and all others as the unorganized militia. That is the basis of 'selective service' or the selective activation of the federal militia. Men still have 'skin in the game' whether they want to or not. In the past avoiding the draft usually entails a felony conviction which in most states nullifies one's franchise. Since the new agenda to alter the military after the repeal of DADT is to remove the prohibition of women in combat units, that will logically lead to the militia definition to be rewritten from 'males' to 'citizens' as the 14th Amendment will come into play. As long as Congress exercises its authority per Section 8, it can by prohibiting women in combat justifying their exemption from the militia obligation. Once that prohibition is removed, there is no rational argument that if you draft males, you must also draft females. It's then no longer a prerogative or choice. Then we'll all have 'skin in the game'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-05-27 12:35 |
| #5 For the record, I did not serve in combat. Many, perhaps most, veterans do not actually engage in direct combat, even in an all out war like WWII. There are many, many important and difficult jobs in logistics, maintenance, and other places where you don't have someone shooting at you. Although the line troops complain about the "REMFs", they really like having their food/ammunition/fuel/working equipment. None of which would be there without the support troops. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2012-05-27 12:06 |
| #4 Bingo, Matt. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2012-05-27 12:03 |
| #3 Since I am a veteran, I like Robert Heinlein's dictum that only veterans can vote. I realize that this is totally unrealistic: those politically connected (like Al Gore) would get cushy safe jobs (yes, I realize that Gore was a combat reporter). Some people aren't physically able to serve. And of course, it would somehow be racist/sexist/homophobic to only allow veterans to vote. I still like the idea, however. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2012-05-27 12:02 |
| #2 Just a thought, but maybe the connection has been strained because organizations like the WAPO have spent the last forty years characterizing veterans as psycho-killers one loud noise away from mass murder. |
| Posted by: Matt 2012-05-27 10:53 |
| #1 But today, the connection between service in war and election to the highest office in the land has been severed. Not entirely or irreparably severed. Not if Allan West becomes the VP pick. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-05-27 08:18 |