every time I read one of his pieces. First, he's impressed by the "focus" and "bearing" of present and former military people. He must be talking about a very select group. I can introduce him to former military people who have about as much focus as a 6-month-old puppy on LSD. I can take him to meet large numbers of former soldiers who have no clue about how to live in society, who have drug and alcohol problems, who can't hold jobs, who live on the streets, etc. Why does Keillor think military people have greater mental acuity than others? Has he conducted a study? No, he just reflects (apparently uncritically) the continuing militarization of american culture. Too bad he's not a more skeptical thinker himself.

And if a person does have the focus Keillor values so much, it means one thing above all others - that he or she is ignoring a lot of pertinent information. I know the type of person Keillor is talking about; I've talked to some, and it's amazing the mental gymnastics it takes to filter out all the facts which contradict their "focussed" point of view.

Certainty is easy. Give me the man or woman who sees the shades of gray. Give me the unsure, the doubter, every time. They may not be as effective a leader, but they're invariably more humane.

More guilty white liberal BS. So now you ain't no man fit to be president 'less you have military experience, huh? A gross oversimplification. I would hate to re run WWII without FDR as our president. Leave stupid simplifications to the simple, that is our dishonorable opponents, by which I mean the "conservatives", Garrison.

And when liberals learn not to be sucker punched by their little tricks, we might win a few elections, huh?

At first, I was simply annoyed with Mr. Keillor's proposal. Then, I thought about it for a while. Why don’t I like the idea? What do I think should be mandatory for a president? It’s a very interesting question. It touches on big ideas, such as “What makes a good person?” In the end, I still disagree. However, I thank Mr. Keillor and Salon.com for giving me a topic that produced an hour of thoughtfulness on my part.

OK, so why don’t I like the idea? While it sounds nice and "honors our military," I don't think it would make any difference in the quality of presidents we elect. There have been lousy presidents who were in the military (our current president was active duty reserve) and good presidents who were not (Clinton). Further, I think that military service could actually be detrimental to future presidents.

I agree that many of those who have served successfully in the military have a certain ability to be direct and to get things done. On the other hand, I've seen this directness of purpose that Mr. Keillor finds so admirable in many young men and women who did not serve in the military. (I teach at a university.) I've also met plenty of former military folks that were uncomfortable with the many decisions that everyday life requires. They are also sometimes unable to make a logical argument and/or defend a point of view.

Military training is designed to enhance specific personality traits in military personnel. For example, the main goal of basic training is to get you to follow orders in the heat of a battle, even if those orders endanger your life. Some other goals of military training (directness, task orientation) are probably good for an 18-year old with no direction or purpose in life.

However, I want something different in a president. I want someone who didn’t need basic training to become responsible and productive. I want thoughtfulness along with decisiveness. I want a person who will get the job done, but who will also consider the ramifications of the methodology employed for the task. I want a leader, not a follower.

Also, let’s not forget that military training does not always produce desirable results. How about the fine folks that brought us the Abu Ghriab incident? They were the products of military training.

Finally, sometimes just sitting and thinking (or even daydreaming) is useful. To encourage military service on the part of everyone (which is one of your arguments), is to belittle this idea. I find this surprising from a writer and storyteller. One could argue that the lack of this ability on the part of certain members of the administration is one reason why we are currently involved in Vietnam Part 2, The Iraq Years.

How about, instead of required military service, make education to a certain level mandatory? Perhaps literacy would be a good requirement. There are certainly plenty of good arguments to be made in favor of a high school diploma or even a four-year college degree being required.

However, in the end, I don’t think any other requirements than the ones already in place are needed. The reason is that we have elections. During an election, you get the opportunity to learn about a candidate. You weigh the pros and cons of the various candidates and you make your choice. Other good attributes can outweigh a candidate’s lack of military service or higher education. Every person is different.

-Mike

P.S. The idea that lots of students headed for ivy league schools are suddenly going to sign up for a two-year stint in the Marines digging ditches, peeling potatoes, and sweating in Iraq is laughable. My experience is that students who are creative, motivated, well-educated, and wealthy enough to get into one of those schools wont care if they are out of the running for POTUS. Most of those students view a career in politics or the federal bureaucracy as a waste of ones intellect and life.

Robert Heinlein had a strong feeling (Starship Troopers) that some kind of service should be required, if not military, then a social service, a sacrifice making it more apparent to the citizen that that right to vote or to stand for public office was a valuable and treasured thing. It struck me at the time I read that that requiring service to your country was a valid requirement not just to stand for public office but even to effectively vote at all. Might extend the survival of this experiment another couple of centuries. WIthout some change we are truly doomed.