Split Why is MIlitary Service Deemed Useful for Elected Office

[Toni]

This Thread is SPlit from What Positions Should I hold to get into public office

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is interesting, it is alwayd military, never firefighters, people that are often in a position of imminent danger for the general populace.

Seems no gun, no one cares in politics.

 

[Toni]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

My point was that until recently, military service seemed to be used as a screening tool to keep out women.

Normally, being a politician is not a dangerous undertaking. If one was interested in electing those with a proven record of public service, I would think there would be a bigger effort to recruit nurses, teachers, doctors, public defenders, firefighters and EMTs.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

It is interesting, it is alwayd military, never firefighters, people that are often in a position of imminent danger for the general populace.

Seems no gun, no one cares in politics.

One of the more important things politicians have to help decide is how, when, and where to deploy the US military. I would definitely prefer someone who has been in the suck to do that.

Contrariwise, no one votes on how and where to put out fires. But if we started doing that, then yes, I'd prefer someone with firefighting experience in the role.

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

My point was that until recently, military service seemed to be used as a screening tool to keep out women.

Normally, being a politician is not a dangerous undertaking. If one was interested in electing those with a proven record of public service, I would think there would be a bigger effort to recruit nurses, teachers, doctors, public defenders, firefighters and EMTs.

I cannot sanction this. I was in Bosnia in 2000 and there were women at every level and branch of military service (US and across countries) making tactical, strategic, and operational decisions. That was 24 years ago - an entire military career, and it's been like that for at least another 20 years prior. I don't know what 'until recently' is supposed to mean, but another reason why someone with military experience might be considered is that they have a handle on what the current military is and not some outdated perception from WWII.

aa

 

[Toni]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

My point was that until recently, military service seemed to be used as a screening tool to keep out women.

Normally, being a politician is not a dangerous undertaking. If one was interested in electing those with a proven record of public service, I would think there would be a bigger effort to recruit nurses, teachers, doctors, public defenders, firefighters and EMTs.

I cannot sanction this. I was in Bosnia in 2000 and there were women at every level and branch of military service (US and across countries) making tactical, strategic, and operational decisions. That was 24 years ago - an entire military career, and it's been like that for at least another 20 years prior. I don't know what 'until recently' is supposed to mean, but another reason why someone with military experience might be considered is that they have a handle on what the current military is and not some outdated perception from WWII.

aa

I also know female service members, a couple of whom are my age ( retired) or older.

I DO think that traditionally, military service has been used as a screen to keep out women.

I do NOT understand WHY military service is seen as somehow more qualifying for elected office than any number of other public service jobs/background. The government has many important functions not related to military.

I do have service members/vets in my family, including my son, as well as friends who served or are serving. At one point, I was a civilian employee of the Army. I have tremendous respect for the military.

 

[bilby]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Traditionally, it was the other way around - being a part of the ruling class implied an obligation to fight for the country you ruled. The medieval model split society into those who work (peasantry), those who guard their physical safety (aristocracy), and those who guard their spiritual safety (clergy).

The people in charge stayed in charge by dint of their prowess as fighters (and their ownership of all the expensive weapons). Historically, "government" and "military" were synonymous (though today that's only true in backward shit-holes like Myanmar).

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.

If nothing else, a former member of the armed forces is likely to have had "asking naïve questions to inappropriate audiences" beaten out of them in Basic Training, which puts them head and shoulders above some people I could mention.

 

[bilby]

It is interesting, it is alwayd military, never firefighters, people that are often in a position of imminent danger for the general populace.

Seems no gun, no one cares in US politics.

FTFY.

I agree that there should be more firefighters in politics; But they probably wouldn't want to be in Congress unless it was on fire, so obviously we should attempt to burn the place to the ground, in order to attract them*






* Have any of the Jan 6 insurrectionists offered this as a defense? If not, they should sack their lawyers.

 

[Toni]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Traditionally, it was the other way around - being a part of the ruling class implied an obligation to fight for the country you ruled. The medieval model split society into those who work (peasantry), those who guard their physical safety (aristocracy), and those who guard their spiritual safety (clergy).

The people in charge stayed in charge by dint of their prowess as fighters (and their ownership of all the expensive weapons). Historically, "government" and "military" were synonymous (though today that's only true in backward shit-holes like Myanmar).

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.

If nothing else, a former member of the armed forces is likely to have had "asking naïve questions to inappropriate audiences" beaten out of them in Basic Training, which puts them head and shoulders above some people I could mention.

I’m sorry for the confusion: I was only writing of elections in the United States of America, which has always elected its leaders, rather than have them seize power through dint of force. Older, more traditional ways of coming to power did not typically involve free elections by the general population or even that portion of the general population which was considered to be fit and competent to make decisions. Generally, people came to power because of accidents of birth and/or political machinations pr by force: conquering a population.

It was understandable that George Washington was elected as first president as his skill as a military leader was integral to establishing the USA as a free nation, separate from the chains of England. Other presidents were not typically military leaders, although there have been exceptions: US Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and JFK being notable exceptions.

Rather I was referring to any number of more modern day political leaders, particularly since 9/11.

Many individuals do enlist in various armed forces out of a desire to serve their country. A significant portion of those who enlist do so to earn educational benefits and also because they really do not know what to do with themselves and are not academically motivated. I am not criticizing any one for their motives nations for joining the military. Indeed, I am grateful to those who choose this path, for whatever reasons they choose to do so.

I was simply pointing out that there are multiple reasons for deciding to enlist in the military and not all of those reasons gave anything to do with a desire to serve, any more than everyone who becomes a doctor or a police officer decides to do so out of a desire to serve anyone other than themselves.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

My point was that until recently, military service seemed to be used as a screening tool to keep out women.

Normally, being a politician is not a dangerous undertaking. If one was interested in electing those with a proven record of public service, I would think there would be a bigger effort to recruit nurses, teachers, doctors, public defenders, firefighters and EMTs.

I cannot sanction this. I was in Bosnia in 2000 and there were women at every level and branch of military service (US and across countries) making tactical, strategic, and operational decisions. That was 24 years ago - an entire military career, and it's been like that for at least another 20 years prior. I don't know what 'until recently' is supposed to mean, but another reason why someone with military experience might be considered is that they have a handle on what the current military is and not some outdated perception from WWII.

aa

I also know female service members, a couple of whom are my age ( retired) or older.

I DO think that traditionally, military service has been used as a screen to keep out women.

I do NOT understand WHY military service is seen as somehow more qualifying for elected office than any number of other public service jobs/background. The government has many important functions not related to military.

I do have service members/vets in my family, including my son, as well as friends who served or are serving. At one point, I was a civilian employee of the Army. I have tremendous respect for the military.

The question in its original deposit was 'why do people think military service is a good qualification?' I mentioned a few reasons and can think of no fewer than 50. Somewhere that question meandered into the 'according to Hoyle' hierarchy of public service - something of complete disinterest. I know of no one engaged in discrediting other forms of public service nor ranking them on some hypothetical scale of accretive to dilutive with respect to political life.

I also never said that you didn't have respect for the military, but honestly would you rather have someone like John McCain or Donald Trump determining the fate of your son's military career?

aa

 

[Toni]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

My point was that until recently, military service seemed to be used as a screening tool to keep out women.

Normally, being a politician is not a dangerous undertaking. If one was interested in electing those with a proven record of public service, I would think there would be a bigger effort to recruit nurses, teachers, doctors, public defenders, firefighters and EMTs.

I cannot sanction this. I was in Bosnia in 2000 and there were women at every level and branch of military service (US and across countries) making tactical, strategic, and operational decisions. That was 24 years ago - an entire military career, and it's been like that for at least another 20 years prior. I don't know what 'until recently' is supposed to mean, but another reason why someone with military experience might be considered is that they have a handle on what the current military is and not some outdated perception from WWII.

aa

I also know female service members, a couple of whom are my age ( retired) or older.

I DO think that traditionally, military service has been used as a screen to keep out women.

I do NOT understand WHY military service is seen as somehow more qualifying for elected office than any number of other public service jobs/background. The government has many important functions not related to military.

I do have service members/vets in my family, including my son, as well as friends who served or are serving. At one point, I was a civilian employee of the Army. I have tremendous respect for the military.

The question in its original deposit was 'why do people think military service is a good qualification?' I mentioned a few reasons and can think of no fewer than 50. Somewhere that question meandered into the 'according to Hoyle' hierarchy of public service - something of complete disinterest. I know of no one engaged in discrediting other forms of public service nor ranking them on some hypothetical scale of accretive to dilutive with respect to political life.

I also never said that you didn't have respect for the military, but honestly would you rather have someone like John McCain or Donald Trump determining the fate of your son's military career?

aa

I would not willingly entrust the wellbeing of cockroaches to Trump and I think that John McCain was an honorable man separate from his heroic military service.

I’m guessing you and I are not terribly far apart in age and likely we both know wonderful members of the armed forces and some who are pretty despicable as well as those who are significantly mentally and emotionally impaired at least in part due to their military service. Some former service members were at the January 6 insurrection along with a lot of wannabes. And of course, there were heroic, admirable people defending the capitol on that same day.

There are wonderful police officers—and there is Derek Chauvin. There are wonderful teachers, and then there is my 8th grade social studies teacher who was utterly incompetent and tried to look up his students’ skirts ( we were not allowed to wear jeans to school). There are terrific doctors and nurses and then there are those who abuse patients. And so on..

I’m sorry—I don’t mean to be combative. But I seem to be. Nothing personal—just a bad day.

 

[Emily Lake]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

I think it's viewed as being indicative of civic duty, dedication to one's nation above oneself, and disciplined. At a minimum, it increases the likelihood that they'll show up where they're supposed to be, when they're supposed to be there.

 

[Emily Lake]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

My point was that until recently, military service seemed to be used as a screening tool to keep out women.

Normally, being a politician is not a dangerous undertaking. If one was interested in electing those with a proven record of public service, I would think there would be a bigger effort to recruit nurses, teachers, doctors, public defenders, firefighters and EMTs.

I think there's a nuance here. It's called "public service", but political positions aren't really service positions. They're leadership, not support roles.

I personally think that having more nurses, teachers, firefighters in politics could be a good thing. But generally speaking, the personalities that often gravitate to those fields aren't necessarily the personality types that flourish and shine in political work.

I think politics would benefit from having more "normal average everyday people" in it... but I also know that pretty much every normal average everyday person I know would probably lose their minds and set some lobbyists on fire within their first month of office. I know I couldn't do it - I don't have the tolerance for the kind of bullshit that politicians are expected to deal with while smiling. I'd be the one that kicked the baby instead of kissing it.

 

[Ford]

Just curious/quibbling but why is it that people think serving in the military is a good qualification to serve in public office?

Is it just a traditional way to limit the field of candidates to males? I realize that women have always served in the military, even when they had to conceal their gender to do so. For the record, I have many relatives including one of my children who served/are serving in the armed forces.

Service to country would be the first thing that comes to mind. Responsibility for other people’s lives is another. It doesn’t seem to have prevented many women who aren’t veterans from being elected, and it probably helped the women in Congress who are veterans.

People who want to limit the field to men can come up with any number of reasons.

My point was that until recently, military service seemed to be used as a screening tool to keep out women.

Normally, being a politician is not a dangerous undertaking. If one was interested in electing those with a proven record of public service, I would think there would be a bigger effort to recruit nurses, teachers, doctors, public defenders, firefighters and EMTs.

I think there's a nuance here. It's called "public service", but political positions aren't really service positions. They're leadership, not support roles.

I personally think that having more nurses, teachers, firefighters in politics could be a good thing. But generally speaking, the personalities that often gravitate to those fields aren't necessarily the personality types that flourish and shine in political work.

The thing about those positions you mentioned is that they're - to a certain degree - stress tests. A nurse dealing with a patient coding in an ER is very stressful. So is a firefighter running into a burning building. So is (to a great degree) a teacher dealing with a bunch of unruly students in an underfunded school room. Remaining calm in a stressful situation is one aspect of leadership. I spent part of my work day sitting across from one of our crisis management people (who was previously an intelligence analyst at the Pentagon) as she navigated her way through meetings revising our procedures for handling emergencies. I've never felt so out of my depth. But I listened, and I learned.

Stress can also come in many other forms. I asked our intrepid interloper what the biggest crowd he'd spoken in front of for a reason. Public speaking can be extremely stressful, and it takes a certain kind of person to do well. For some reason, I'm one of those people, and can get up onstage in front of hundreds or even thousands of people without freaking out. If I took that experience, coupled it with my time dealing with stressful situations at work, added a genuine desire to help people (which I think I have) and threw in a bit of learning from that analyst I work with, I might - if I had access to an expensive tailor and some good hair and makeup people - be able to get elected to the local city council. Or maybe even a state representative if I so chose. I wouldn't, but I could make an attempt if I wanted to.


Buzz can't even handle commenting on an anonymous internet forum without losing control and lashing out. And he thinks he deserves to be a member of the US House of Representatives.

Seriously.

I agree that we need more nurses, teachers, firefighters, etc. in elected office, and if they have a nuanced understanding of what it means to be a public servant, so much the better. Yet handing a seat in Congress over to some 24 year old with an associates degree that "hates teh gays" with a passion? Not so much.

 

[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.

 

[bilby]

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"

 

[Elixir]

he thinks he deserves to be a member of the US House of Representatives.

I must have missed where he lowered his sights. Last I heard, he wanted to be dictator, deporting, executing and imprisoning people while making laws by pronouncement.

Whoever wrote his program obviously knew zilch about American government.

 

[TV and credit cards]

First off, is the military service out of need or want? Many join the military because they have few opportunities. But if you're smart, monied, and your family is well connected, what can be said of a person who joins? To me this is patriotism. If you could breeze through college, come out the other side debt free, and you're pretty much guaranteed a promising career trajectory, why join the military? Financially it doesn't make much sense. Military officers, the ones capable of making it to the higher ranks (O-5 and above) are special. Not only are they highly intelligent, they are capable of achieving their full potential. They are self-actualized. From this, they have the ability to be great leaders. They are inspirational leaders, not self-serving or overly critical of their subordinates. In the upper ranks, they will lead hundreds if not thousands of people. They are in this sense, presidents or CEOs of large companies with one critical difference, there is no financial motivation. They are paid well but no where near as well as they might have been had they taken the civilian route back in their twenties. Sure, there are the Flynns of the world and a few who make it through the system for reasons other than merit but even here you'll usually find them in positions where they can do the least harm.

 

[Torin]

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.