After WW2? Very important. But no longer.
(Note that Truman served in the Great War) Ike and JFK were war heroes.
It carries with it a mild negative, but definitely not a dealbreaker.
Some military-experienced people are not very democratic in their worldview, having been heavily inculcated into that whole chain-of-command mentality, not to mention the inherently coercive nature of a military response to anything. Hence mildly worrisome.
Either will work.
Some experience is fine, but folks who do careers in the military tend to see things in black and white, which is not what I want in a politician. For some reason, a lot of people seem to think that being a military officer automatically qualifies someone to run a city/state, etc., when in actuality the two jobs couldn’t be farther apart. A case in point is the present mayor of Anchorage, AK, who has stepped on his dick so many times in his tenure he’s probably got “Nike” stamped on it.
It doesn’t seem to matter to the public at all anymore, is my observation. The ridiculously crowded GOP primary in 2016 didn’t have a single veteran in the running, and that’s the party that seems to venerate the military the most. In 2020, the two veterans in the Democratic party, Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard, won 2.5% and .7% of the vote respectively. Both of them did have a cult following but not enough to move the needle. I liked Buttigieg a lot but it was mostly because he had a great speaking style.
My feeling is that the American public by and large does not really care about the military or about someone’s status as a veteran. It was very different 50 years ago, when military service had been a rite of passage for a larger percentage of the population, but today the military is more niche and its activities more obscure and abstract to the public. It might be very different in state and local elections, depending on the kind of community, but when considering the country as a whole, it seems to not affect someone’s electability.
Zero. That’s how important any political candidate’s military service or lack thereof is to me.
If they served or not, is not entirely important. Considering the extremely wide variety of experience that service can entail. Military service ranges from the mundane to the horrendous. One can specifically volunteer with the knowledge that they will more likely experience the mundane. One can be drafted and not know what fate awaits.
I would give great consideration to a candidate who experienced the horrendous and came away with an extremely sober, realistic, objection to war. Not a total objection to military force. But seeing it as a last resort.
I would also give much consideration to a conscientious objector, who accepted some penance for that. But who also realized that at some point military action is required.
The actual act of service is not so important to me, as the candidates explanation of how they think the military is one of several aspects of a country in it’s actions. Offensive and defensive. As well as the stick behind the talk.
I fear that the sheer size of the U.S. military can warp the representatives concept of how they can deal with the world.
I want a candidate that considers that power, last.
Without reflecting too much on the immediate past failure, any candidate should be on top of a range of things that are not going to be part of a normal career trajectory - military power, economic theory, people skills, diplomacy, administration etc.
Ultimately any quality time they spend in uniform or business or governorship honing that skill will reduce their competence in others, so what you’d hope for is that they develop a few core skills of being able to listen to and integrate expert advice from others, managing priorities in complexity and chaos and keeping a focus on the important things.
Military service [as a people commander rather than driving a tank or a boat] seems a good opportunity to learn those skills, so its probably not a bad thing. Certainly would leave you in a better position as a more competent and fit presidential candidate than developing property in NYC.
Personally, I’m just glad we’re reaching the point where we’ll never again have to hear about what a presidential candidate did or didn’t do in Vietnam.
That’s about what I was going to say. If you want me and my loved ones to go to war, then you should have been willing to go yourself. Other than that, it’s not relevant, unless they were extremely high-ranking like Eisenhower and that’s their primary experience.
As a Canadian it does not apply. I would say “somewhat helpful”. It shows some discipline, real exposure to different people and places, some ability to lead and handle stress, probable lack of coddling and silver spoon syndrome, possibly planning and strategic skills, maybe even some heroism (in limited cases). But this (military service in politicians) is more uncommon and maybe less respected in Canada. There can be some negative correlates too. Some poorer politicians seem to emphasize their service in the US.
I voted, I don’t care. FWIW, here’s a list of all 16 presidents that never served in the military.
Exactly. The most important skills Eisenhower brought to the Presidency were managerial, not military.
This is why I marked “it’s helpful.” Not in that the service itself is helpful as a qualifier, but the fact of the service is helpful as an additional data point incorporated into the analysis.
(Assumption: they served in a volunteer force, not a conscription one)
It’s a negative. I do not want a President who has been conditioned to a military-style command structure. That’s not the kind of managerial style I want in a President.
It’s a negative for me, America is already far too militaristic and fascistic.
But is there evidence that a president who had served in the military would be more likely to take us in that direction than one who had not?
I’m thinking, for example, of General Eisenhower, who warned us about the military-industrial complex, vs. Donald “Cadet Bone Spurs” Trump, who wanted a big military parade.
Colin Powell, while not president, was in the military and helped sell America the invasion of Iraq, but then he felt bad about it, or something.
I’d like for any President to have at least some service as a military officer, even a short time in a noncombat or reserve role would be fine. But if they don’t, that’s OK.
However, for all the war hawks and wannabe macho men out there, I would like to see active duty service in a combat arms branch, preferably in an active combat zone. If you talk the talk, you should walk the walk.
That is a reason I’m not a huge fan of general or flag officers going into politics, and particularly the executive branch. Many of them are not nearly as good of leaders as they imagine, having been bolstered substantially by their pronouncements having force of law under the UCMJ, and often directed at people not in a position to scrutinize and provide feedback on ideas there lawful but awful.
Otherwise, I don’t see military service as much of a positive or a negative. I don’t care that someone is a hypocrite as a hawk, I care that they are a hawk, which is bad. I also don’t care if someone on either side spent time turning a wrench in a motor pool, or for that matter even engaged in extraordinary heroism in combat. A short military career doesn’t really teach you much of anything about how to hold high office. A lengthy military career is liable to teach you all the wrong ways to do it.
That said, I think there may be a sweet spot at 10 to 15 years of service where, if someone realizes the military is a flawed organization and not something they want to continue serving in, and consciously chooses to seek a new profession, well… they’ve got every qualification to be President in my mind. 