All other things the same, does military service of a candidate affect your vote? To be clear, we're not talking about specifics, but simply veteran status. Would you prefer a political candidate have military experience?
In the doubt the poll is intended to be "American only" I tend not to express my vote. Anyway, since the question is stimulating, I submit some thoughts to the attention of the participants to the discussion. Political candidate for what? Ministry of Defense? Well, a bit of military experience could be appreciated. Chief of government? In this case military experience is not that pivotal [to govern a great country is something well different from leading an Army]. So my general opinion [and in Italy it's the rule, so this influences me] is that politics is something wider and in a certain sense too complicated for a narrow minded soldier. But a certain military experience can form a more assertive attitude in a politician [we are just discussing how Obama is not showing great military leadership in building his coalition against ISIS].
I prefer a candidate with experience. We've seen now what happens with a candidate without experience. Whether it's military, management, working, running his own business isn't critically important to me.
I prefer someone with military experience, but that's getting more difficult to achieve. Someone with successful business and/or managerial experience would be acceptable.
I consider Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton to be the two best presidents this nation has had during the last fifty years -- one Republican and one Democrat -- Reagan had military experience and Clinton did not serve and was an actual draft avoider/evader of some sort. The three worst presidents of the last fifty years are -- again in my opinion and listed in the order in which they were president -- Jimmy Carter, G.W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Carter served, Bush served, and Obama did not serve. Looking over their records it would seem that military experience or lack of it thereof is a non-issue. Yet being ex-military myself, I am slightly more comfortable with a president who's at least worn a uniform once upon a time, was required to salute, and say "Yes sir and No ma'am" and at least experienced what it can be like to be ordered to do things that you really don't want to do, things that could cripple or kill you and that you have no choice about in the matter. But then that's me. Now would I make a selection for president based on whether or not someone has served in the military? No. More important to me is how much experience a politician has had making hard decisions in his or her life before taking that oath of office, period. Have they been seasoned enough at a national level of cut throat high stakes national politics? Have they a substantial record of wheeling and dealing with other cut throat politicians and have they been stubborn when necessary and willing to compromise when being stubborn was foolish? Unfortunately even 'adequate' experience is no guarantor of presidential competence. As former governors both Carter and Bush had plenty of telling experience and both were (again, in my opinion) bad presidents. Out of all of those mentioned, only Barack Obama had no meaningful national level experience, and also what state level political work he was credited with essentially amounted to a joke. On top of that he had no military experience. But what he did have was an extensive background of being exposed to and even mentored by a series of far Left radicals. He was almost certain to turn out to be a really bad president . . . and he has been just that so far.
I fall into the "slightly more comfortable" end of the spectrum. I'm more comfortable with a candidate with military experience. There is some accountability in military service, and I think the mere act of volunteering to serve says to me that the person, at least at one point in their life, made a decision for the protection of the community.
Gatewood: "I consider Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton to be the two best presidents this nation has had during the last fifty years -- one Republican and one Democrat -- Reagan had military experience and Clinton did not serve and was an actual draft avoider/evader of some sort. The three worst presidents of the last fifty years are -- again in my opinion and listed in the order in which they were president -- Jimmy Carter, G.W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Carter served, Bush served, and Obama did not serve." I think President Clinton's reputation rests on the fact that for all of his time in office he had a Congress that kept him from going off the deep end. Even the first two years, with Democrat control of both houses, they were Democrats and not left-wing nuts. For Democrats, my respect goes to President Truman although he was outside your 50-year window. The only thing I respect President Clinton for was working with Congress. Something President Obama is totally incapable of doing.
That's pretty much why I give Clinton kudos. Instead of pulling a Jimmy Carter or a Barack Obama and digging in his heels in regards to indulging in radicalism, Bill was willing to compromise and reach equitable deals. Plus I do give him credit for being a different version of Ronald Reagan's Great Communicator as a president. Both men approached speech making and just 'talking' to the nation differently but both men managed to convey to the nation a sense that they were (for the most part) reasonable men and politicians who were far more interested in the health and safety of their nation than in shoving radicalism sideways down the nation's throat. What surprised me about Clinton, though was that he turned out to be a pretty good president (despite problems with his libido, cigar, and a blue dress of a certain intern) despite not having served in the military at all whereas Jimmy Carter who had actually qualified to serve as a diesel submarine captain (had he been willing to do so) went on to become a nuclear trained engineering officer for a nuclear submarine. Very impressive! Yet he was (again in my opinion) stink on a stick as president.
No, although military experience might be beneficial, it's not critical. There are plenty around him/her that have military experience and can advise. What is critical is a leader that can get his/her head out of his/her ass long enough to listen. Plus, I know someone that put in 20+years and retired as a Major. (an 04 rating.) obviously he wasn't too successful in his military experience.
George Washington - Continental Army, Virginia Regiment French and Indian War and American Revolution John Adams - None Thomas Jefferson - Virginia Militia - Did not see action. James Madison - Virginia Militia - Did not see action James Monroe - American Revolution - He was wounded at the Battle of Trenton. John Quincy Adams - Did not see action. Andrew Jackson - American Revolution, War of 1812, Creek War, Seminole War Martin Van Buren - None William Harrison - U.S. Army -Northwest Indian War and the War of 1812 John Tyler - U.S. Army - War of 1812 James Polk - Tennessee State Militia - never saw action Zachary Taylor - U.S. Army - War of 1812, Black Hawk War - Second Seminole War, Mexican American War Millard Filmore - New York State Militia, American Civil War Franklin Pierce - U.S. Army - Mexican-American War, wounded at the Battle of Contreras James Buchanan - Pennsylvania State Militia -War of 1812 Abraham Lincoln - Illinois State Militia- Black Hawk War (Commander in Chief during the American Civil War) Andrew Johnson - U.S. Army-American Civil Ulysses S. Grant - U.S. Army - Mexican-American War, and American Civil War Rutherford B. Hayes - U.S. Army - American Civil War he was wounded at the Battle of South Mountain. James Garfield - U.S. Army - American Civil War Chester A. Arthur - New York State Militia - Quartermaster General during the American Civil War. Grover Cleveland - None Benjamin Harrison - U.S. Army - American Civil War William McKinley - U.S. Army - American Civil War Theodore Roosevelt - U.S. Army - Spanish-American War (Only President to receive the Medal of Honor.) William Taft - None Woodrow Wilson - None Warren Harding - None Calvin Coolidge - None Herbert Hoover - None Franklin D. Roosevelt - None (Commander in Chief during WWII) Harry Truman - U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserve - WWI Dwight D. Eisenhower - U.S. Army - WWI (Served in U.S.) WWII (Served as Supreme Allied Commander) (Commander in Chief as President.) John F. Kennedy - U.S. Navy - WWII He received the Purple Heart and Navy and Marine Corps Medals. Lyndon B. Johnson - U.S. Naval Reserve - He was in an airplane when it was attacked in WWII.) Richard Nixon - U.S. Naval Reserve - WWII Gerald Ford - U.S. Naval Reserve - WWII Jimmy Carter - U.S. Navy - Served during WWII at the Naval Academy, served in U.S. during the Korean War. Ronald Reagan - U.S. Army Reserve - WWII served in U.S. George H. Bush - United States Naval Reserve - WWII Combat Pilot. He won the Distinguished Flying Cross. Bill Clinton - None George W. Bush - Texas Air National Guard - Served in U.S. during Vietnam War. Barack Obama - None
Off-topic. I wanted to interject here regarding the comment above in bold. All officers are initially commissioned as Reserve Officers, and compete among themselves for appointment to regular officer at the time they are considered for promotion to major (O-4). Major-selects who also win appointment to Regular status receive the advantages of being a Regular Officer. This means: By law, Regular Officers promoted to lieutenant colonel (O-5) may serve for 28 active commissioned years, while those promoted to colonel (O-6) may stay for 30 active commissioned years-unless earlier retired by other provisions of law. By policy, Reserve Officers are limited to 20-years of military service; however this may be extended as needed to meet specific service requirements. Seems to me like your acquaintance did not win appointment to Regular status, and thus was obligated to retire after 20 years. I am a fellow member of the LDM...League of Disgruntled Majors, having left the service (resigned commission) at the rank of O-4 This does not necessarily imply these (we) are bad officers. End of off-topic reply.
Could be, but this guy is sorta special. First, he wasn't reserve. 20 years active duty and only attained the rank of Major He had a life script. (he and his wife) Do the 20 and retire (pension 1), Then go to work in a government position entering that 'service' with an automatic G8 rating and work for 10 years (Pension 2) then secure employment as a teacher (pension 3) and, of course, SS (pension 4) His wife was also military (pension 5) and worked in the private sector long enough to qualify for a small (pension 6) and draws SS (pension 7). Now I ain't sayin' that this guy wasn't smart. He surely figured out how to game the system. But I doubt he was 'hellfire' in his military career.
It is an up or out system. Often times promotion boards give greater merit to performance reports which are more often than not political, rather than a true measurement of success. It's not a system without flaws, and accounts for a significant "brain drain" of otherwise competent officers who are shown the door, or who simply become disenchanted with the process and leave for greener pastures in the civilian sector.
I think you're confused. I'll say again. All officers are commissioned as reserve officers...and compete among themselves for Regular officer status. It has nothing to do with being in the active or reserve component. At the time of selection to O-4 (Major)...they may also win appointment to Regular status. It does not matter if your acquaintance was active duty or not...an officer is either reserve or regular status. Initially at commissioning, ALL officers are considered in reserve status. They have to win appointment to regular status, and it's competitive. I realize it's confusing for the uninitiated.
Interesting question. For me, it just depends. If they served, and then went on to do other things in civilian life, I consider their service a plus. If they served and they play it up like that alone qualifies them, then it is a huge minus. If they served to full retirement, I usually won't vote for them at all because those people tend to be know-it all prats who could care less what anyone else thinks once elected.
I was off-topic earlier so to get back on course. We can see by the chart above that following a peak in WW2 wherein approaching 1 in 10 citizens had military experience, to the current trend with less than 1 in 100 citizens. What this translates to is that fewer politicians will have military experience as the vast majority of the citizenry, taken as a whole, has never served. I don't think it's a prerequisite, but it doesn't hurt either. There's sometimes a mythos associated with it among those who have never served into one of either extremes...negative or positive. The mere fact someone has indeed served will not guarantee my vote. They had better offer something along the lines of a similar ideology above and beyond military service to earn my vote.
Depends on exactly what they did in the military and even the branch. I only know a couple of people from the Air Force and the Navy so I can't really comment on them but I know enough people from the Army and the Marines that I have formed a generalization. Whether or not its accurate is obviously up for debate but it is what it is. I have found the Marines to be more consistent and reliable than the former Army people I know that have just as much chance as being a (*)(*)(*)(*) up as the average civilian. So if the candidate was either in the Army Special Forces (I assume they do a fairly good job of weeding out jack offs) or the Marines I would give them a bit more consideration but if it is just some rank and file grunt I wouldn't give any added weight to them. All that being said I am far more interested in their organizational acumen such as running a business or governing a state or large city since those are the skills most important to being a President.
Well.... not so sure. Take a look at who served over the long term. The vast majority of Presidents before ww2 served, but the vast majority of citizens didn't.
We could develop more this point: for a candidate of the past [let's say in 60's, 70's, 80's] who were around 20 in 1940, it was quite probable that he served in WW II. So that there was no particular differentiation [and considering the context of a World War, no particular merit in serving in itself and there was a certain probability that the experience was "common" ... and if the graphic makes reference to total US population, not only male population, the value of that curve for men is double]. In Italy, where military service has been compulsory until the middle of 90's, such an aspect has got no political value [I wonder if it will gain some interest in the future, when candidates who didn't serve will appear at the political horizon].
I voted other. 26 years, still serving. 10 active, 2 mobilized and the remained TPU reservist. Military experience typically means little. look at Reagan, he was a flim actor making army video's. thus no real experience. Bush jr, LT...no real experience. Many of the others who served in the last 100 years, served short enlistments with little real exposure to high levels of leadership. IKE being a exception. besides what real difference does it make? Congress and Generals have a lot of say. War is a small almost unimportant part of the job.
I voted against but for one wild reason. A person who was in the military and gained some rank might begin to enjoy the ability to have people jump when he said so. This, IMO, is a very, VERY bad characteristic in a pol if the nation he serves under is in any way a free one. OTOH some of my favorites were generals, so it's not really that much of a thing.
You know far more than I do about how it all works. So it would seem that I am confused as you noted. That doesn't negate the guy's talent for gaming the system, but that's the stuff for some other thread. But I believe that with your assistance, I understand how the 'officer' thing works.
It's not a deal breaker for me in either direction, but given the choice I would prefer a president who has served alongside other men and women in combat situations. It is my hope that having that experience will instill a necessary hesitance to jump to military solutions unless they are absolutely necessary. Obviously that wasn't the way things worked out with George W. Bush, although whether he actually served(in reality as opposed to on paper) was never quite nailed down to begin with. In a more general sense, I think any experiences(beyond just military) which give you some insight, empathy, and understanding of the reality for the poorer folks in the country are going to be good. They are the ones most at risk from government policies and military actions(since our military is comprised mainly of middle and lower class folks). When we get these presidents in office who've had a silver spoon their entire lives, like Bush did, you've got someone in there who has no working point from which to judge things. The buffer zone created by being part of a wealthy family shields you from having to live "at risk" from things and I think not having that experience can lead to indifference. Obviously these aren't absolute rules and exceptions will most definitely exist. But I think in general it's true.
I was in the military but do not use it as a litmus test. Presidents are not supposed to just come from the military but from civilian life.
