Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I have zero military experience so I am perhaps speaking out of turn. But I find the requirement that the president have a minimum two-year military term to not have much value.
But imagine a president who has had active duty in a war zone. Perhaps then s/he would be less zealous to send in the troops and the constituency would be more trusting of the motives behind the action. It seems most who come back from war do not push the glorious aspect most WWI and WWII movies try to push on us. More likely to hear "war is hell"...
GWB is an imperialist seeking glory and who the hell knows what else. Maybe if he had participated in combat, instead of whatever he claims he did he, wouldn't be so excited to go on the offensive.
Or am I giving him too much credit?
(I do see the impracticality in this as a requirement, but an interesting discussion, perhaps.)
Garrison has a screw loose.
Bush has "military experience". The ambitious sons (and maybe, to some degree) daughters of the upper and professional classes and political classes -- the sons and daughters of senators and congressmen and federal judges and lobbyists -- would have the same "experience" created for them, just as the old machine did for GW Bush.
I am also trying to imagine the enormous ego boost this is giving to a former friend of mine, who developed her alcoholism and personality disorders more fully by serving three years getting paper cuts as Captain Butterbars, JAG officer. Like many deskbound one-tour-and- out "veterans", she already believes she is more of a citizen than those of us who didn't have the federal government buying our work clothes for the first couple of years of our careers. I, for one, don't want that sort of thinking institutionalized. That's how fascism begins.
While I have been a fan of Mr Keillor for many years and generally agree with his views on a wide range of topics, I have been somewhat disappointed recently with some of his comments. For example, in this current piece, he makes the case for requiring military service to become president. I have served in the military and I can tell you that it is made up of real human beings, just like those who have never served. Occasionally, those in the Services (a small percentage, I might add)experience the hell of combat and that can certainly create "focus". However, regardless of whether military service adds to one's development, the fact is that if this requirement had existed previously, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt would not have been president. The country would not have been made better had we followed this course.
In a previous column, he laments that old Joe McCarthy was right about those Communists in our government. We liberals should feel, as a result, ashamed because we rejected that notion. Unfortunately, Mr McCarthy never uncovered a single Communist in the government, despite all of his rhetoric. Further, the examples of our country being sold out by actual Communists are extremely rare. Most of those involved in espionage in our government, have overwhelmingly been in it for the money.
I mention these two examples because they point to a common element - those of us of the Liberal persuasion want to have a decent, intelligent, adult conversation with those we oppose in the political arena so that we can work together to create a better society. And we're going out of our way to find some common ground, some shared area where we can make a connection with these folks.
The problem is: this won't work! It is no different than trying to argue with a drunk. The drunk just wants to argue, they don't want to reason. In this case, Conservatives are drunk with power. It's their turn to try all of the stupid things that you had hoped would remain isolated on those rabid radio talk shows.
Sad to say, there is no common ground. When being a Conservative means signing on to torture, fraud, wiretapping, and fiscal irresponsibility, it's no longer time to talk. They are the enemy.
We no longer require that the franchise be limited to property owners, even though the idea that only those who actually own a piece of the country have a real stake in the process. We no longer limit the franchise to males of a certain race.
As a female property owner, I suddenly feel part of a really bizarre subset of the population.
I don't think it makes any more sense to limit eligibility for the presidency to a certain arbitrary subset of the population. Is the ability to make war properly the defining capability of most administrations? And while Bush may be extraordinarily bad at it, Clinton didn't seem to do a half bad job. And hey, if Clinton had been excluded on this kind of ridiculous premise, who might we have elected--or reelected?
Entertaining premise, but really, really bad public policy, Mr. Keillor.
But your monologue on Cheney last week? That, sir, was Comedy.
Wasn't Hitler also an impressive war vet with combat experience? Many European WWI vets returned from the trenches feeling entitled to rule the countries for which they had fought and bled. Their political participation didn’t necesarily result in better-run democracies. In some places it lead to fascism and WWII.
I don’t want to detract anything from all those Democratic candidates for public office that are running for the ’06 elections who are recently back from Iraq. I think their hearts, values and ideals are in the right place (some of whom I will be donating money to). And the other side of the coin is someone like Eisenhower, a military man with combat experience who was also a great democratic leader.
But I am very uncomfortable with the idea that someone’s citizenship is somehow less meaningful because they didn’t serve in the military. I'd like to say that militarism is un-American, but I'm not sure that that is true anymore.
By contrast, I'm sure the Republicans would not hesitate to embrace war vets willing to play their games, transforming them into an unreproachable class of special citizens entitled to lord it over the rest of us.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
