Kerry attacks Bush’s service record. Bush attacks Kerry’s service record. Dopers and other Americans spend countless hours debating which of them is more of a “leader” based on how they spent some time a few decades ago. Why are their military backgrounds important when there are other ways of proving leadership? And if these military records are so worthy of praise or condemnation, are they in fact necessary background – not legally but in the minds of voters- for a leader of the US?
If so, what about a female presidential candidate? You hear all about the men running for president, and how their experience on “the front lines” proves that they’re fit to lead the country, or conversely how they didn’t really lead at all so we shouldn’t trust them to lead the country. They’ve only allowed women to be on the frontlines in the US military for a decade now, which, given that most non-career military people tend to serve when they’re young, makes the percentage of women who have both served as commanders in combat and are old enough to even run for president quite small.
If a woman were to run in 2008, would her likely lack of combat experience be held against her? If not, why wouldn’t that issue be subject to attack like it is amongst male candidates?
The President of the United States is also the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. A military background is not a necessity and we have Clinton to look to at as a shining example of that. I would prefer a President to have had experience in the military but it isn’t a requirement of mine before I vote.
I would think that it could conceivably even be an advantage in the future. Look at this election, military service is clouding the real issues and is really neither a positive or negative for either candidate, except among people who probably had their mind made up before hand anyway. Anymore, the majority of people have not served anyway, so it’s less of a litmus test. There are even those who distrust “the military” (esp. post-Abu Ghraib) and would see non-service as an advantage.
As MGibson pointed out, Clinton didn’t have service experience (nor did Reagan).
So no, lack of military service wouldn’t hurt a woman candidate. Lack of a penis, however, is probably a fatal flaw for at least the next 20 years.
It’s only important if at least one of the candidates has some military background. If neither candidate has it, the issue will never be raised, obviously. It certainly didn’t stop Reagan or Clinton from being elected, twice apiece.
What’s less obvious is that, with the draft long gone, I think it’s going to become less and less common for a Presidential candidate to have a military background. Would GWB have joined the Guard if he wasn’t facing the prospect of being drafted? Probably not. Would Kerry have ended up in Vietnam if there had been no draft? That’s less clear, since he volunteered.
While it’s true that the privileged often managed to avoid getting drafted, that isn’t always the case, and having the possibility of being drafted looming in the background may prompt those kinds of people to volunteer for something like the Guard, if for no other reason than to have some control over where they end up. With an all-volunteer military, I think the only candidates we’ll see who do have a military background will be those who have made a career out of the military, rising to the highest ranks (e.g., Eisenhower, Wesley Clark, Colin Powell).
I think that honorable military service can help a candidate in swaying votes from the middle ground for reasons already espoused - the President is, after all, Commander in Chief of the armed forces. I think this applies to either sex, in running for elected office.
But I don’t believe that a woman candidate would be questioned for lack of service the same way a man would.
If a man doesn’t serve, there will always be the question of why, maybe less so as smaller and smaller percentages of the population serve, but still it will be a question that’s asked.
But for women, I don’t think there is a societal expectationn of military service. Women who do serve are frequently much more of a minority than men. Therefore, I don’t think the question will be asked of a woman candidate at all, or if she has served it could only help her cause.
I don’t see why it would make a difference. As Early Out commented, we are heading into a period when it is going to be less common for a candidate to have served in the military.
I found this page at wikipedia. It’s interesting to note that a long string of non-military presidents was replaced by a long string of WWII vets. I wonder if the Cold War created an atmosphere that required a serious candidate to have served in the military?
It was probably just more that the WWII generation came of presidential age and WWII was such a big thing that a lot of people served. If you look at your list, you’ll find the same thing was true of the presidents in the end of the 19th century and the Civil War