[ Post a Response | AG and MM Board ]
Posted by Ron Carlson
on November 5, 2008, 8:39 am, in reply to "Re: Be sure to vote today!"
134.67.6.11
Not a bad idea but unlikely to happen, as Mike acknowledges.
Of course one could also argue that a President should have banking experience to understand economics, and teaching experience to understand education, and have worked in a hospital to understand health care, all of which are important issues for a President to understand. (Or, to salvage Mike's potential Presidential prospects, to have corporate experience so as to understand business.) And on and on.
In any case, military experience may not be a good indicator of presidential success. Some of our Presidents with military experience arguably had less than successful presidencies: Grant, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter come to mind. On the other hand, some of our better Presidents had very little or no military background: Jefferson, Wilson and FDR had none, Lincoln had only 90 days of military experience. (And with his physical handicaps, FDR would never have qualified for the military.) In fact the great majority of our Presidents have had military experience, but their performances as President have been all over the map.
I do like Fran's suggestion about a national service requirement. At the least we would know that our Presidents, at some point in their lives, rolled up their sleeves, got their hands dirty, worked shoulder to shoulder with the average Joe, and contributed something worthwhile to their country. That's useful experience for any citizen.
Just my two cents -- and probably not worth even that much.
Ron Carlson, Webmaster
Responses: