Military Service and The Presidency
We have heard a lot in the past few weeks concerning the military records of the two candidates for president. Both served in the military but only one saw combat. George Bush served in the National Guard for a period of three years but never saw combat. John Kerry served in the Navy for approximately three and a half years but was only in combat in Vietnam for four months.
George Bush ran for president on his record as a two term governor of Texas. He never used his military service for political purposes. John Kerry, however, stays clear of his nineteen year record in the Senate and is putting forth his four month tour in Vietnam as the main reason that he should be elected President of the United States. This poses several legitimate questions which deserve an honest answer.
First, is service in the National Guard somehow less honorable and patriotic than service in the active military. I spent four years in the navy as a young man, but never saw combat, and my son-in-law has spent the past 17 years in the National Guard and in December his unit is scheduled to be deployed in Iraq for 12 months. Neither of us would say he has a stronger claim on honor and patriotism and I can assure you, without any doubt, that neither of us is qualified to be President of the United States. I have had several friends who served two twelve month tours in Vietnam and none of them consider themselves to be qualified to be president either.
The second legitimate question is, Is there any correlation between military combat experience and the ability to be an effective president? If combat experience, no matter how short, makes one a better and more effective president, then we should look to the military to provide men to be president. History, however, does not support this contention. I thought it might prove interesting to look at our past presidents and see which ones had combat experience. I then took this information and compared it to the ranking of presidents as to their effectiveness. The results prove very interesting.
Of the forty-one men who have served as President of the United States prior to George Bush, twenty-six have had combat experience. In 1999 C-SPAN did a comprehensive ranking of U. S. President based on ten specific aspects of the presidency. The rankings were different within each of the ten categories but then the ten various rankings were combined to come up with an overall ranking. The overall ranking closely matches a ranking done by the Siena Research Institute. Based on these two studies the following statistics become very interesting.
Of the ten most effective presidents six had combat experience and four did not. Of the ten least effective presidents, six had combat experience and four did not. Of the twenty-one mediocre presidents, fourteen had combat experience and seven did not. Of the six presidents who are also considered to be among the founding fathers, three had combat experience and three did not. Of the ten wartime presidents, seven had combat experience and three did not. Finally, of the six most effective presidents, only two had combat experience.
Several conclusions can be reached from the above data. First, military combat experience has little or no effect on a mans ability to be an effective president. Second, twenty-six or 77% of the presidents with combat experience were ranked in the middle and bottom categories when it came to presidential effectiveness. Finally, those presidents with combat experience were more likely to take the nation to war by a ratio of seven to three.
Two of the ten categories used in ranking the effectiveness of a president were moral authority and vision/setting an agenda. Of the top ten presidents in each of these two categories, eight were also in the top ten in overall effectiveness. The two categories are closely related. It is one thing to have a vision for the nation and set an agenda. It is something else to have the respect of the nation, i.e. moral authority, which will cause the people to follow the agenda. Our greatest presidents have possessed both of these qualities. Moral authority is a by-product of moral clarity. Does the person set an agenda based on conviction and stand by it, or flip-flop on issues depending on the political winds? This is clearly the question that determines the effectiveness of a president, and a test which all of our greatest presidents have passed.
The bottom line is, that when it comes to choosing a president, combat experience should not be a factor unless you are looking for someone who is likely to take the nation to war. Much more important are personal qualities like honesty, ideology, moral authority, and governing experience. Much more can be learned from a candidates voting record than can be learned from his military record. Bush has a record as Governor of Texas and three and half years as president of the United States. Kerry has a record compiled during three terms in the U. S. Senate.
George Bushs record establishes the fact that he is a conservative but not radical. On the other hand, Kerry has clearly established a voting record as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate today. This puts him even to the left of his mentor, Teddy Kennedy. The choice between these two men is very clear and the intelligent voter will see the difference and cast his or her vote accordingly.
Political rhetoric is cheap and there is more than enough of it during a presidential election. The intelligent voter will tune out the rhetoric and look to the character and voting records of the men running. Is the man running on his voting record or away from it? Incidentally, the least intelligent method of selecting a candidate is by voting for the party rather than the man.
May God give us, as Americans, the wisdom to choose the candidate who has the moral authority, vision and agenda that will best lead this nation during the difficult days ahead.
We have heard a lot in the past few weeks concerning the military records of the two candidates for president. Both served in the military but only one saw combat. George Bush served in the National Guard for a period of three years but never saw combat. John Kerry served in the Navy for approximately three and a half years but was only in combat in Vietnam for four months.
George Bush ran for president on his record as a two term governor of Texas. He never used his military service for political purposes. John Kerry, however, stays clear of his nineteen year record in the Senate and is putting forth his four month tour in Vietnam as the main reason that he should be elected President of the United States. This poses several legitimate questions which deserve an honest answer.
First, is service in the National Guard somehow less honorable and patriotic than service in the active military. I spent four years in the navy as a young man, but never saw combat, and my son-in-law has spent the past 17 years in the National Guard and in December his unit is scheduled to be deployed in Iraq for 12 months. Neither of us would say he has a stronger claim on honor and patriotism and I can assure you, without any doubt, that neither of us is qualified to be President of the United States. I have had several friends who served two twelve month tours in Vietnam and none of them consider themselves to be qualified to be president either.
The second legitimate question is, Is there any correlation between military combat experience and the ability to be an effective president? If combat experience, no matter how short, makes one a better and more effective president, then we should look to the military to provide men to be president. History, however, does not support this contention. I thought it might prove interesting to look at our past presidents and see which ones had combat experience. I then took this information and compared it to the ranking of presidents as to their effectiveness. The results prove very interesting.
Of the forty-one men who have served as President of the United States prior to George Bush, twenty-six have had combat experience. In 1999 C-SPAN did a comprehensive ranking of U. S. President based on ten specific aspects of the presidency. The rankings were different within each of the ten categories but then the ten various rankings were combined to come up with an overall ranking. The overall ranking closely matches a ranking done by the Siena Research Institute. Based on these two studies the following statistics become very interesting.
Of the ten most effective presidents six had combat experience and four did not. Of the ten least effective presidents, six had combat experience and four did not. Of the twenty-one mediocre presidents, fourteen had combat experience and seven did not. Of the six presidents who are also considered to be among the founding fathers, three had combat experience and three did not. Of the ten wartime presidents, seven had combat experience and three did not. Finally, of the six most effective presidents, only two had combat experience.
Several conclusions can be reached from the above data. First, military combat experience has little or no effect on a mans ability to be an effective president. Second, twenty-six or 77% of the presidents with combat experience were ranked in the middle and bottom categories when it came to presidential effectiveness. Finally, those presidents with combat experience were more likely to take the nation to war by a ratio of seven to three.
Two of the ten categories used in ranking the effectiveness of a president were moral authority and vision/setting an agenda. Of the top ten presidents in each of these two categories, eight were also in the top ten in overall effectiveness. The two categories are closely related. It is one thing to have a vision for the nation and set an agenda. It is something else to have the respect of the nation, i.e. moral authority, which will cause the people to follow the agenda. Our greatest presidents have possessed both of these qualities. Moral authority is a by-product of moral clarity. Does the person set an agenda based on conviction and stand by it, or flip-flop on issues depending on the political winds? This is clearly the question that determines the effectiveness of a president, and a test which all of our greatest presidents have passed.
The bottom line is, that when it comes to choosing a president, combat experience should not be a factor unless you are looking for someone who is likely to take the nation to war. Much more important are personal qualities like honesty, ideology, moral authority, and governing experience. Much more can be learned from a candidates voting record than can be learned from his military record. Bush has a record as Governor of Texas and three and half years as president of the United States. Kerry has a record compiled during three terms in the U. S. Senate.
George Bushs record establishes the fact that he is a conservative but not radical. On the other hand, Kerry has clearly established a voting record as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate today. This puts him even to the left of his mentor, Teddy Kennedy. The choice between these two men is very clear and the intelligent voter will see the difference and cast his or her vote accordingly.
Political rhetoric is cheap and there is more than enough of it during a presidential election. The intelligent voter will tune out the rhetoric and look to the character and voting records of the men running. Is the man running on his voting record or away from it? Incidentally, the least intelligent method of selecting a candidate is by voting for the party rather than the man.
May God give us, as Americans, the wisdom to choose the candidate who has the moral authority, vision and agenda that will best lead this nation during the difficult days ahead.
