Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I have the time, I'll look up the over hundred members of Congress who served to see their status as either enlisted or officer. I looked at some briefly and some only said they served but didn't say a rank or officer. Some gave a rank, some enlisted but most so far officer.
When I have the time, I'll look up the over hundred members of Congress who served to see their status as either enlisted or officer. I looked at some briefly and some only said they served but didn't say a rank or officer. Some gave a rank, some enlisted but most so far officer.
I would rather see real numbers rather than just a general statement.
Your statement "Most military service members who go into national politics aren't junior enlisted when they left the military. Most are officers or high level enlisted." is very vague. And that's all I'm going to say.
I would expect to see a slight rise in those numbers in 10-15 years as the slight War on Terror bulge progresses.
I'm certainly prejudiced in favor of the military, so I wouldn't mind seeing a constitutional amendment that would require federal office holders to have put in a few years active duty. It wouldn't do much for the military but I think it would do something for the government...a better understanding of what people at or near the point of the saber they're rattling is going to experience.
I would rather see real numbers rather than just a general statement.
Your statement "Most military service members who go into national politics aren't junior enlisted when they left the military. Most are officers or high level enlisted." is very vague. And that's all I'm going to say.
The overwhelming majority of former military who are now politicians were commissioned Officers.
In my opinion, that fact has less to do with the rank they held in the military and more to do with the personalities of people who are attracted to becoming Officers versus the enlisted troops.
Generally speaking, a person interested in running for elected Office (and having a chance at winning) wouldn't be interested in enlisting in the military.
Do you think an individual member of the military has much knowledge of how things work in the greater scheme of things? I think members of the Armed Services Committee have much more information at their disposal than most military personnel.
I have had stock in many defense companies over the years. On night I was at a bar, sitting next to a guy on leave from the Navy. I asked him a question and he had no clue what I was talking about. I am sure a member of the Armed Services Committee would have had no problem answering my question. That sailor did not seem to have "any real understanding of our military services."
I could understand if you said none of our politicians have held commands such as Wesley Clark or Martin Dempsey have, but you said " served in the military in some capacity."
If a veteran would be elected and then serve on the Armed Services Committee, do you think 3 years service, from 18 to 21, would be all that relevant when discussing funding a new main battle tank, scrapping the littoral combat ship, or base closures?
I would probably be inclined to vote for a retired general or admiral, but someone serving 3 years 30 years earlier, would never be a factor to my vote.
WW2 vets are dying off. There will never be a time that such a high percentage of the population have served in the military. Right now I think it is less than 1% of the population that are in the military.
This is spot on.
Honestly, the active duty military is there to fight wars. Being a competent war fighter does not mean you understand national policy or economic issues.
The overwhelming majority of former military who are now politicians were commissioned Officers.
In my opinion, that fact has less to do with the rank they held in the military and more to do with the personalities of people who are attracted to becoming Officers versus the enlisted troops.
Generally speaking, a person interested in running for elected Office (and having a chance at winning) wouldn't be interested in enlisting in the military.
I think there is a corollary that an officer will have had particular experiences that would more likely (compared to an enlisted troop) encourage him to run for office after service even if he had not considered it prior.
My suspicion is that this would probably be more true of an officer that ended his service at O-5 or less. I think officers who get to military retirement are more likely to consider their public service done. Obviously there are exceptions, but it sure seem more to me that those politicians who are prior military were most often O-3 to O-5 when they separated.
That's because until recent years, there was a draft and in times of war young men had no choice whether or not to serve in the military. I agree that military service is an asset to many candidates in terms of winning, but since this is not a military dictatorship it shouldn't be a prerequisite to seeking public office. The voters obviously don't think so.
In recent presidential elections they have repeatedly chosen candidates with no service over candidates who were war heroes (Obama vs McCain, Clinton vs both Dole and Bush Sr.). Both John Kerry and Al Gore served in Vietnam while George W. Bush spent the war in Texas. This doesn't seem to mean much in Republican primaries either. Not one of Mitt Romney's sons has served even though they are of age to have supported our country's adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Women are 51% if the U.S. population. When they are even close to being half of the U.S. Congress, I'll start worrying about how many people are conversant with military service.
According to the Pew Research Center, only 7% of the current U.S. population are veterans. Post WWII, the most recent high was 13.8% in 1970 (War in Vietnam). So the percentage of members of Congress who have served (20% in the Senate and 20.5% in the House) is still, in spite of its commensurate decline, greater than the general population. Most members of Congress have little direct military experience | Pew Research Center
I think we place way too much importance on a person's military service or lack of it. I guess some people feel that serving somehow makes you a better, more qualified person, but I'm not sure that is entirely true. So it doesn't bother me that some of our leaders didn't serve, people serve their country in different ways, and being a Senator or Congressman can be considered service IMO.
.........I'm certainly prejudiced in favor of the military, so I wouldn't mind seeing a constitutional amendment that would require federal office holders to have put in a few years active duty. It wouldn't do much for the military but I think it would do something for the government...a better understanding of what people at or near the point of the saber they're rattling is going to experience.
Then who would be able to run?
While saying that one served in the military might be an honorable statement, FACE IT, there are a whole bunch of things that one does in the military which does not make for a good election campaign.
Essentially at that point we'd probably be looking at the Bligh of a Shark who got the job done often at the expense of his troops marriages (the loser) vs. the nice guy (or the Cad who looks good on paper) who managed to get away from his post before the disaster caught up with him (the winner).
Who would vote for me, a USN Security Officer (ie, Provost Marshal) who used mental deception tactics against the general public to achieve goals?
In the military, one does not fight fair, they fight to win. To a civilian with the vote, I doubt that they will always see that kind of person as the one to put their trust in, the one who will look out for their interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
