Ok well I’m allowed one exception :smack:
I’d submit you fell prey to a common lack of understanding of current military culture not poor wording. The stereotype isn’t entirely baseless. Some do manage to be successful while living down to it. At it’s simplest the stereotype paints a quite inaccurate picture. Washington was in a different military culture than we currently have. Aspects of our current culture fit better with Ike, but military culture has continued to evolve as we continue to pursue a more Prussian style mission oriented leadership culture since 1982. (I’d also submit that Ike’s teething problems adjusting to being a leader in a new environment also have some parallel with Clinton’s early teething problems bringing a team largely from a small state government to a federal level.)
Some quick points that don’t fit the stereotype:
- Army doctrine lists three reasons to violate a direct order - the order is unlawful, the order no longer supports accomplishing the objective, and the risks associated with following the order are not worth the benefit of doing it. Really those last two are part of our written core doctrine.
- Officers spend most of their career in staff positions where they don’t have command authority. The most successful learn to influence without having formal authority to directly task (aka issue orders).
- In recent years the Army implemented a 360 style evaluation for officers and NCOs (anonymous input from superiors, peers, and subordinates). One of the major categories is-** extend influence beyond the chain of command.** Influencing people that you don’t have hierarchical power over it a key part of what the Army says it’s leaders must be able to do.
- Points under some of the other major categories for leadership in the 360 review include things like staying informed of geopolitical issues, being culturally aware, encouraging (not just accepting) open and candid communications, listening actively, and being open to diverse ideas and points of view. If an officer is truly developing themselves during a long career in line with those goals, that’s a good set of skills for any leadership position including President.
There are those that have successful careers focused more on the minutiae of bureaucracy and regulation and strcitly directive control. Some of those just get lucky to not have it bite them and keep moving up. Some of them get lucky to have a subordinate to fill in the gaps by living up to the leadership trait ideals. There are also some that live up to the doctrinal ideals of what an Army leader should be. Most are somewhere in the middle. Even that middle is different than the stereotype though.
Keep breathing until age 35.
I assume this was addressed to me. It may be stating the obvious but that’s because it’s true.
There have been many suggestions about what life experience might be useful or most useful, and they are all useful to some degree, but persuasiveness is the only one absolutely necessary. I’d say that is the precise answer to the OP. An exceptionally persuasive candidate could convince some people that some things in their own history that might otherwise be seen as a negative is instead irrelevant or maybe even a positive. The people with the most impressive resumes can’t win if they put voters off more than their opponents do.
I don’t think it’s that simple though. Having a good biography, which includes your experiences, is a big part of it. It seems that it’s best to come from humble beginnings, make something of yourself, and have a record of getting things done. There are always exceptions to that rule, but only in the case of ultra charismatic candidates that can get the public focused on what they WILL do rather than what they’ve actually done.
I would throw out Sarah Palin as an example where someone didn’t meet the minimum bar. I am not sure what that bar is but she didn’t make it on the back of
- Small town mayor.
- Small population State with enough oil revenue to kickback money to citizens.
- supersized ego and ambition
It’s kinda like the supreme court justice on pornography “i can’t define it, but I know when I see it.”
Her paper qualifications were adequate. She just couldn’t answer even the most basic questions coherently.
So you’re saying she’s not … persuasive … enough. 
To put it mildly. She was okay with a prepared speech, actually quite good. But you need a friendly press to coddle a candidate like that and obviously that was only going to happen with the other side.
[Quote=YogSosoth]
You know, one thing I could really get behind is if our leaders weren’t all lawyers and majored in things like history, philosophy, and the sciences more.
[/Quote]
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
Our last history-major president decided against law school, earning a completely different graduate degree from Harvard instead; folks call him Dubya.
[/QUOTE]
Near as I can tell, the most recent one before Dubya to fit the bill was a geology major who didn’t go on to a career in lawyering – specifically, Herbert Hoover.
Well, you know those geology majors, all rocks in the head and sand in their pockets.
Ronald Reagan and Ike were both non-legal majors. Neither was JFK. Seems that we definitely do better with non-lawyer Presidents.
Put a little more effort into this, please – this is incredibly lazy analysis. George W Bush was also not a legal major. Lincoln was a lawyer. You’re capable of doing better if you put more than 30 seconds of thought into it.
Reagan was the second worst president in history. Try again.
All right then. We have had good Presidents without a legal background. Not all of them, but enough that it’s clear we don’t have to send legal majors to the White House.
That’s a reasonable statement. “Seems that we definitely do better with non-lawyer Presidents” is not.
That was my opinion, based in part on the facts. Three of four examples I found were pretty well liked Presidents. And by my count, we’ve had exactly four popular Presidents in the post-war era: Ike, JFK, Reagan, Clinton. Only one was a legal major.
Not “the facts”, certain cherry-picked facts without any actual effort expended to find more comprehensive facts (which would not be hard).
A very small slice of data from a much larger set, and it ignores the other non-lawyer presidents.
It’s just very lazy thinking, and it’s not useful for anything.
It’s a cherry picked fact, but a fairly compelling one. Only one legal major has been a popular President in the post-war era. Three non-legal majors have been popular Presidents. Of the unpopular Presidents, one did not have a college degree, three had non-law degrees, and three had law degrees.
So to sum up:
Non-law, 3 popular Presidents, 3 unpopular Presidents
Law, 1 popular President, 3 unpopular Presidents.
So while it was my opinion, it wasn’t entirely pulled out of my ass.
I’m not at all worried about strictly political experience in a president. In order to be president, most of the time you have to run for the office and win. Anyone who can do that has at least enough political chops to handle the job.
But what I do worry about is experience leading something. Being a Senator or a diplomat is good political experience, but it’s not a job that involves running a large complex organization.
I don’t care if this leadership experience is in government or not. A private sector background is fine, as is the military.
No more community organizers, please. Let’s have a Governor. A CEO. A General. Someone who has actually shown capability as a leader of a large organization.