gonzomax, I’m going to try as hard as possible to keep this from getting personal, but I am getting really, really sick of your political hyperbole which tends to be totally detached from any actual facts of reality.
If what you’re saying has any grounding in truth, how in God’s name did Bill Clinton ever get elected? Twice?
While I hesitate to step into a gathering pissing match (especially sans raincoat), gonzomax does, in fact, have some actual reality behind his little march ditty. Among the generals who have gone on to become president are Washington, Jackson, the first Harrison, Polk, Taylor and Grant (who apparently cured us of that proclivity for eighty years).
Although not as prominent during the Civil War as Grant, R.B. Hayes, James Garfield and Benjamin Harrison all rose to the rank of general.
We live in very different times, guys. It used to be that huge numbers of people served in the military. When we had a draft, during the time of the “great generation,” everyone and his brother spend a little time in WWII or Korea. There was more familiarity with the military among the civilian population, and more respect for it.
Now, there are fewer veterans in the general population, the “great generation” is dying off, and there are more people who are apathetic about military service or military heroes.
This is one of the things that accounts for Clinton’s success and for Obama’s so far. Hell, even Kerry lost to Bush. Fewer people care if a president served or not.
Wake up no reason to be tired.
I can read it for you. All but 8 prrezs were up in the military. Not just privates but replete with generals and hyped war heroes.
How about other democracies? How do they fare by comparison?
I’m a bit reluctant to condemn America as overly militaristic without such a metric.
I did not condemn it. I simply stated we reward our generals. Teddy was a war hero in newspapers from Cuba and San Juan hill. Grant was the civil war hero . Jackson was a big time famous general. Washington led America in the revolutionary war. Many others were generals. Just a fact.
That is not why I think we are imperialists. I am not sure it matters much in that regard. As a matter of fact former generals seem more reluctant to leap into endless wars.
As far as I can tell, the only war hero to be a Prime Minister of the UK was the Duke of Wellington. Neither Canada nor Australia have - again, as far as I can tell - had a war hero as Prime Minister.
Mexico’s presidents have not had war heroes. Well, since the time when they had many war heroes, in succession, as the war hero of the moment was succeeded by the war hero who won the revolution against the previous war hero.
France had Charles Petain, and Germany had Adolf Hitler.
Then why did the party take the nomination away from him and give it to Stevenson in '52?
Harold Holt, John Gorton, William McMahon and Gough Whitlam (all Australian PMs) served in various arms of the military in WWII. I don’t think any were ever considered ‘heroes’ as such.
I think it’s useful to distinguish between military service and war hero/general officer. The latter is the sort of factor that itself brings a person to public attention (e.g - Wellington, Washington, Grant, Eisenhower), while military service may “look good on the résumé”, particularly for a young candidate, but doesn’t by itself get the candidate the nomination or the election.
I do think the US skews to valuing military service more than other western democracies. The wiki list linked to by gonzomax shows that all but 10 of the US presidents had some sort of military service. Of those who served, 12 reached the rank of general officer, and three (Washington, Grant and Eisenhower) reached the highest possible rank, General of the Army. Plus, the US President is ex officio the Commander-in-Chief, which automatically tends to make military service one of the qualifications for election to that office.
For the UK, in addition to Wellington, I would be inclined to add Churchill to the list - his exploits in South Africa, getting captured by the Boers and then escaping from them, certainly brought him to public attention (he was there as a war correspondent, but according to wiki he was considered for the VC for his exploits there). Offhand, I can’t think of another British PM who was noted for his military exploits.
For France, we’d have to add De Gaulle to Pétain, but are there any others? My fuzzy recollection is that after the two Napoleans, the French from the Third Republic onwards were suspicious of “the man on the horse” - the mythical charismatic war-leader, because of the fear of a military coup d’état.
In Canada, I think that Prime Minister Macdonald may have served with a local militia. The only two other PMs with military service that leap to mind are Diefenbaker and Pearson, who were both WWI vets. No veteran of WWII served as PM - the natural timeslot for a WWII vet to serve would have been the sixties and seventies, but that was when Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau (born 1919) were in office.
Trudeau definitely didn’t serve, being more of an anti-militarist, which played well in the late sixties. He dominated federal politics until the early eighties, when younger men like Turner (born 1929) and Mulroney (1939) came to power.
Plus, in Canada, the Commander-in-Chief is Her Majesty, not the PM. In summary, I would say that personal military experience is not considered part of the qualifications for the Prime Minister, as is shown by the fact that the last vet to serve as PM was Pearson, a veteran of WWI.
As for the three other G7 nations (Italy, Germany and Japan), well, considering the role the military played in those nations in WWII :eek: , I’d be surprised if military service is considered a strong factor in favour of a politician nowadays. Can anyone who’s more familiar with their post WWII history comment?
Eden had won the MC at Ploegsteert in 1917, but, in political terms, that only counted as looking-good-on-his-CV.
How did I forget him? :smack:
Coty fought in WWI, Mitterand in WWII, and Chirac in the Algerian War.
Trudeau actually did serve. He was conscripted (much against his will) during World War II. Some of the 19th century PMs had been millitia members. Not MacDonald, I don’t think, but Mackenzie, Abbot, and Bowell had been.