So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[2jakes]

Bush Snr would have been the one I'd expect to notice it - wasn't he the only one since Eisenhower who was in the military - at least as a pilot?

I don't know enough about the other Presidents to say for sure.
My brother's little boy had been corresponding with President Bush Sr. for sometime.
When the President came to visit our city, he asked to meet with the family.
After greeting the delegation from the city, the President and the family got together
by the wing of Air Force One.

My brother arranged for me to join them.
I collect baseball cards. The Desert Storm Collection includes a card of President Bush
wearing a G-1 leather jacket.
I gave the card to the boy so that the President could sign it.
I recall taking video of the event. Afterwards, I chatted with the President.
Nothing to do with politics.
Sadly, the little boy lost his life to cancer.
I now have the card to remember when a
President came to our town and stopped
to spend sometime with my family and just talk about things in general like old friends.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bush Snr would have been the one I'd expect to notice it - wasn't he the only one since Eisenhower who was in the military - at least as a pilot?

Gerald Ford was in the Navy.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Monty's Irvin jacket features the much longer Devon fleece. Eastman Leather makes a reproduction currently that will set you back 1600 quid. $2,257.00 at today's rate of exchange. A little rich for my blood, especially when I've read that it can be kind of scratchy.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Bush Snr would have been the one I'd expect to notice it - wasn't he the only one since Eisenhower who was in the military - at least as a pilot?

Well, as far as I know:

1. John F. Kennedy: Navy Officer

2. Richard Nixon: Navy Officer

3. Gerald Ford: Navy Officer

4. Jimmy Carter: Navy Officer (USNA grad)

5. Ronald Reagan :Army Officer (made movies, but still held a commission)

6. George W. Bush : Air Force Officer.

Both Bushes were pilots. JFK commanded a PT boat. Nixon was a surface fleet officer, as was Ford. Carter was a submariner.

If I'm wrong on any of these, I welcome correction.

 

[2jakes]

Well, as far as I know:

1. John F. Kennedy: Navy Officer

2. Richard Nixon: Navy Officer

3. Gerald Ford: Navy Officer

4. Jimmy Carter: Navy Officer (USNA grad)

5. Ronald Reagan :Army Officer (made movies, but still held a commission)

6. George W. Bush : Air Force Officer.

Both Bushes were pilots. JFK commanded a PT boat. Nixon was a surface fleet officer, as was Ford. Carter was a submariner.

If I'm wrong on any of these, I welcome correction.

Great info!

 

[Just Jim]

The amount of vulgar humour that schoolboys have over the name of Bates. How grateful I am that I didn't have to tolerate the endless ribbing by, as a schoolboy, being called: Master Bates.

Could be worse: I had a high school teacher named "Bader".

 

[Edward]

Well, as far as I know:

1. John F. Kennedy: Navy Officer

2. Richard Nixon: Navy Officer

3. Gerald Ford: Navy Officer

4. Jimmy Carter: Navy Officer (USNA grad)

5. Ronald Reagan :Army Officer (made movies, but still held a commission)

6. George W. Bush : Air Force Officer.

Both Bushes were pilots. JFK commanded a PT boat. Nixon was a surface fleet officer, as was Ford. Carter was a submariner.

If I'm wrong on any of these, I welcome correction.

Interesting, more than I'd realised (though to be fair to myself, it's not a period of American history I've ever studied). Reagan I didn't recall having a military record at all - he's the first POTUS I remember, though I must have been alive during Carter's term and part of Nixon's. I did recall Bush Jnr trained as a pilot, but there was some grey area about what happened after that (probably best not for discussion on these pages). It seems there has been a much more direct military connection between the US presidency and the military than would typically have been the case for our (elected) UK leaders during those decades.

I remember Bush Junior wearing a G1 a lot casually; if memory serves, he wouldn't have been issued one by the branch he trained with, but his father must have had one in his day as a USN pilot.

 

[sheeplady]

Culturally, there's always been a debate if military service is necessary to seeking the presidency. Given that the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, there are people who (strongly) feel military service should be a requirement, even if it's an unwritten one.

 

[GHT]

Culturally, there's always been a debate if military service is necessary to seeking the presidency. Given that the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, there are people who (strongly) feel military service should be a requirement, even if it's an unwritten one.

If you follow that argument, then as the ultimate head of every department, (the buck stops here,) the President should serve time getting familiar with those respective departments.

 

[sheeplady]

If you follow that argument, then as the ultimate head of every department, (the buck stops here,) the President should serve time getting familiar with those respective departments.

There's also those who think that the president should have a law (lawyer) background. That's a new argument I've just started to see emerge.

My father held the military stance and was always critical of anyone who didn't serve in Vietnam (who was of the age to have served). My father didn't serve himself. My mother, whose first marriage imploded after her 1st husband served in Vietnam (a long story) thought that military service shouldn't be a requirement.

I always thought it was interesting that the person with more military experience (granted, as a military wife) argued against military experience being an unwritten requirement.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, all of those above named Presidents with the exception of W were alive and of conscription age during WWII, and W was subject to the Vietnam-era draft if he hadn't finagled himself into the National Guard.

With no conscription in the US since 1973, however, it's doubtful that we'll ever again have a situation where military service is a given for a presidential candidate unless a "National Service" type of draft is reinstated.

Reagan had actually served as a reserve officer in the Cavalry before the war -- he enlisted as a private in 1937 and received a commission less than a month later. He was still on the reserve list when WWII came along, and was activated in 1942, spending the war years as a Captain in the 1st Motion Picture Unit at Fort Roach. The official record states that he was invalided out of combat service by poor eyesight.

Nixon spent most of his service sailing a desk in the Pacific Theatre, as a cargo operations officer supervising the loading and unloading of supply planes. He also gained a reputation as a poker player of epic skill, a pastime which left him well suited for his later career.

Kennedy, Ford, and GHW Bush are the only ones on this list to have seen actual combat. Harry Truman saw combat as a Captain in WWI, while FDR served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during that conflict.

 

[Harp]

There's also those who think that the president should have a law (lawyer) background. That's a new argument I've just started to see emerge.

Criminal Law as a specialty.

 

[ChiTownScion]

There's also those who think that the president should have a law (lawyer) background. That's a new argument I've just started to see emerge.

My father held the military stance and was always critical of anyone who didn't serve in Vietnam (who was of the age to have served). My father didn't serve himself. My mother, whose first marriage imploded after her 1st husband served in Vietnam (a long story) thought that military service shouldn't be a requirement.

I always thought it was interesting that the person with more military experience (granted, as a military wife) argued against military experience being an unwritten requirement.

I don't know that it should be a requirement of the Presidency per se, but I lose patience with those who are Pavlovian flag wavers and first in line for military aggression within the safe confines of middle age who, in their own youth when it was their rear end that could be thrown in the meat grinder, never assumed the risks of combat. Especially during time of declared war.

And to alienate even more people: I have an issue, more in the line of wary suspicion, with those who have the privileges of affluence and higher education who by choice serve in the enlisted ranks and do not seek a commission. Now, it can be that such an individual really isn't officer material and that placing him in the position of responsibility for the lives of subordinates would be idiocy: I accept that. However, under the general principle of, "...to those to whom much has been given, much is expected," I don't think much of slackers who are in the enviable position of privilege and avoid the burdens of leadership. In my mind, a good officer's concern for the welfare of subordinates always comes first: that means, for example, that those in the ranks will be fed, sheltered, and clothed before those who hold a commission. And anyone who has ever served will tell you that there are a lot of officers who are only concerned with the benefits of rank: but those who truly lead know that they must earn the trust of those whom they expect to lead. "Gentlemen rankers" may hold romantic notions for Mr. Kipling, but they always make me suspicious.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Criminal Law as a specialty.

Arguably, in a true meritocracy, all who hold public office would either have an advanced degree in a field which holds relevance to their duties, or a law degree and admission to the bar. That could make things more equitable (in the sense of, "..if you want it then earn it") on the one level, but it could preclude a lot of talent that would be beneficial to the commonwealth. What is "fair" isn't always really fair, in the macrocosm.

 

[sheeplady]

I don't know that it should be a requirement of the Presidency per se, but I lose patience with those who are Pavlovian flag wavers and first in line for military aggression within the safe confines of middle age who, in their own youth when it was their rear end that could be thrown in the meat grinder, never assumed the risks of combat. Especially during time of declared war.

I agree.

I remember one distinct argument over a candidate between my parents:
Father: Where was so-and-so during Vietnam?
Mother: Probably avoiding the draft just like you!

Mother 1
Father 0

(To note, my mother was not a hawk, in fact, her experience made her very much a pacifist. She never held any ill will towards anyone avoiding the draft... She was more pointing out my father's hypocrisy.)

 

[Harp]

"Gentlemen rankers" may hold romantic notions for Mr. Kipling, but they always make me suspicious.

Gentlemen rankers out on a spree,
damned from here to eternity,
God hath mercy on such as we,
Bah, ya, bah.

Rank is something of a nebulous concept: subject to caprice, mercurial fate or the luck of the draw. And then there's the lordly First Sergeant topkick,
company first shirt whom considers all teenagers suspect, even Green Beret teens. Life inside a two team detachment of twenty four men stuck in the boonies.

 

[ChiTownScion]

My favorite pacifist is also my favorite Marine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

 

[Fading Fast]

In our Republic, the voters get to decide if they care if the middle-aged or older men and women we vote to elected office have

• Served in the military
• Finagled away around it

Although, with the draft gone, most of that stuff will disappear in a generation or so. Voters had an option to say no to Bill Clinton's or George W's service behavior at the polls - we might not like the results, but there was and is a vetting process to the general election.

The same goes for educational achievement, success in private life (Truman - a successful president, IMHO - and many others would have been excluded), general intelligence, etc.; the importance of these things are decided by the voters starting with the primaries and running through the general election.

Of course, we could always change any of that through a Constitutional Amendment adding in or taking out requirements - just need to get enough support to pass the Amendment.

My point is not to argue one side or the other of the above criteria (I have strong opinions and express those at the voting booth), but am just pointing out that there is a vetting process to the election process. There was a time when, despite there being no laws against it, a Catholic couldn't get elected president because the public wouldn't have it (sadly, I bet that holds for a Jewish person today - hope I'm wrong). It once held for blacks, but thankfully, we know that isn't the case anymore. Just examples of the public vetting process in action and changing over time.

Since politicians tend to be middle aged to older (for good and bad reasons), the people fighting the wars aren't the ones deciding on starting or engaging in them. That said, we are a Republic, so - and this has happened - if the politicians can't maintain general public support for a war, they usually get voted out of office (or change their views). Also, with a volunteer army, there is some control there as, if the soldiers believe their service is being abused, they will not re-enlist and new recruits will not join.

Basically, our culture (maybe not quite the right word) determines the criteria as that determines how people vote. There was a time when a divorced person would struggle to get elected president - that clearly isn't the case anymore. Hence, if someone really wants to change the outcome of elections, they have to influence enough of their fellow citizens to see the world their way and, IMHO, to do that at a impactful level, one would need to change the culture - say, to be less accepting of divorce (not my view, just an example).

Another example - if one wanted an educational meritocracy of some sort (not my personal view), then it could be achieved through convincing enough of the people to change the Constitution or to vote only for candidates with the "desired" degrees. To do that, IMHO, you would need to change our culture to where higher eduction was considered a necessary requirement for political office.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think we'll see a Jewish president in my lifetime, given how well a Jewish candidate did last time without much of a fuss being made about it. As far as educational attainments go, Truman was the last president we had who never set foot in a college, and was one of only two in the 20th Century not to have a college education, so it's pretty clear that the days of the non-collegiate president are over.

Interestingly we've only had one PhD president, Woodrow Wilson.

As for the military, I understand why the draft was eliminated, but I think the rise of an American "military cult" in its place has not been a positive consequence of that. A conscripted military is a demystified military and one in which "The Troops" are not so easily waved in the faces of the public, bloody-shirt style, by cheap politicians..

 

[Edward]

Culturally, there's always been a debate if military service is necessary to seeking the presidency. Given that the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, there are people who (strongly) feel military service should be a requirement, even if it's an unwritten one.

I can certainly see the logic in that, even if it's not an argument by which I'd necessarily be persuaded.

If you follow that argument, then as the ultimate head of every department, (the buck stops here,) the President should serve time getting familiar with those respective departments.

This is true - and, indeed, it is a debate which has rumbled on throughout my lifetime in the UK. The difficulty of doing so in the UK would, of course, be that the relevant expertise to run a government department is not necessarily going to be what is necessary to get elected to Parliament as (most) cabinet members are (it is also possible to be in the Lords and in cabinet; we currently have both ministers and shadow ministers in the Lords. As memory serves, John Major raised to the Lords a colleague who lost her seat in the 1992 general election in order to be able to keep her in his cabinet). Under the US system, where the executive exists outside the legislature and is, as I understand it, instead composed of those selected for office by the elected President, it would be much easier to appoint those with expertise in the role should the president chose to do so.

There's also those who think that the president should have a law (lawyer) background. That's a new argument I've just started to see emerge.

I would firmly believe that legal training -specifically, in law as an academic discipline, as distinct from vocational training to be a practising lawyer - is an excellent background for a wide range of professions. Of course, as an academic lawyer who feels a particular vocation for teaching, I may be a touch biased.

On that note, though, I do often find myself frustrated when all sorts of people, including our elected representatives, display strong signs of ignorance as to the importance of such basic concepts as rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty, independence of the judiciary and so on. I may be incorrect, but I do get the impression that more effort is made in the US to educate the average person on the basics of how the system of government works than has been my experience here in the UK.

My father held the military stance and was always critical of anyone who didn't serve in Vietnam (who was of the age to have served). My father didn't serve himself. My mother, whose first marriage imploded after her 1st husband served in Vietnam (a long story) thought that military service shouldn't be a requirement.

I always thought it was interesting that the person with more military experience (granted, as a military wife) argued against military experience being an unwritten requirement.

Certainly chimes with my experience that the use of military force is more often called for, in general, by those who have never served.

Arguably, in a true meritocracy, all who hold public office would either have an advanced degree in a field which holds relevance to their duties, or a law degree and admission to the bar. That could make things more equitable (in the sense of, "..if you want it then earn it") on the one level, but it could preclude a lot of talent that would be beneficial to the commonwealth. What is "fair" isn't always really fair, in the macrocosm.

It could certainly deprive us of those who might make fine leaders without ever having amounted to much academically. The one thing I am certain of more than most else after all these years in the academic sector is that when we assume superiority as a matter of course for our own kind, we can be as narrow-minded as those who dismiss the value of tertiary education out of hand.