This question has been a subject of debate for both the conservative and conflict theorist depending on the party. All political parties have either made this an eliminator or a necessary attribute for public office. As an informed citizenry (specifically Wrongthinkers) we should look at their service for what it was: Honorable. But, we should not think it to be inevitable to combine an officer or NCO’s service equitable to serving as our elected official (i.e. city council member to President of the United States). I assess we must look at each candidate on their policy positions alone and remember the officer corps’ education is limited on an understanding of how the private sector views money, the role of government and how a free-market economy is supposed to work in a republic. I discovered 31 out of 45 presidents served in the military in some form or fashion and most of them served during times of war. Does this mean their military service translated into a successful presidency? No. Does this mean their military service negated their presidency? No. The US has had presidents (and candidates) within the past 40 years whose policies and their outcome did not equate to their military service.
President Jimmy Carter is a wonderful humanitarian who has provided homes which superseded any failed government program or private sector developer. He served honorable as a Navy lieutenant but was an abject failure as a president. His domestic policies damaged our economy and his foreign policy was weak. He was probably one of the weakest presidents in US history. But again, that had nothing to do with his military service but as a public figure warrants critique on how he handled economic policy and foreign policy (Iran).
President Obama never served in the military. He, like Carter, was an Marxist activist. His worldview and policies are closely aligned with most “despotic princes who have nothing to regulate either their own passions or those of their subjects” (Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu). He will be known as the president who took a JV team (ISIS) and allowed them to become a domestic and international threat. Additionally, he expanded the national debt paying ($17 trillion) supporting the donor class of the DNC. His lack of military service did not contribute to his actions while in office.
The late Senator McCain ran a failed campaign for president, but, was a RINO when he was elected. Constantly berated by the Marxist media class as a Nazi, racist, etc., he was praised by the Senator Chuck Schumer as the hero who saved the abomination known as Obama Care. Yet, he was a POW who served honorably and protected his men while imprisoned. Nonetheless, he was a failure and can never be considered a conservative. Any criticism of his Nazi-like stance on Obama Care would draw fire from his family, RINOs, and loyalist in Arizona who always provided the disclaimer “Senator McCain was a war-hero!”.
President Reagan served stateside in the Army Reserves as a captain. He is considered the anchor of conservative presidents in the past century by Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, RINOs, and conservatives. His policies destroyed the USSR’s military and economy which ended the Cold War. Our economy grew and was respected internationally (not liked which isn’t important). But, we must take his military service and separate that with his policies and actions in office.
Military academies and most universities today ascribe and teach the religion called socialism. So, any majors in business and are economics are taught from the slant of Marx, Keynes, and Hitler. After graduating, the officer might be indoctrinated into this religion and may lack any grasp of wealth generation or how the economy works. During military service, everything is provided (healthcare, housing allowance, food allowance, housing, training, etc.) Officers are usually provided with a budget and must work within that budget. After years of service, some have the tendency to see the benefits they receive as rights [forgetting those benefits are from seized wealth that has been distributed to them, so they can serve honorably] that all citizens should be given for free.
We can see this in the recent failed DoD audit. I’ve often asked the question, “If you had a business and had a million dollars in revenue, would you spend that money on something you did not have a requirement in your business? Most people would say no. But, when it is other people’s money (OPM), the appetite to do what you think is “good” (Friedman) can be corrupted due a worldview built on a failed economic doctrine. None of those officers deserve to hold an elected position if they cannot account for OPM in my opinion.
Aaron, Alan, others and myself are all veterans. Most of us have served in a combat zone several times. However, that does not qualify us for an elected position. It is our economic, domestic, and foreign policy convictions that must define the campaign and time in office. We are not anti-DoD or anti-military. If any veteran desires public office, their desires are admirable. But, the campaign should be focused on their policies that will affect our security, wallet, and children.
Author: Josh Garber is a contributor and author of the articles “Local Governance – Local Sheriff an Insider Threat to the Citizenry? Sheriff, Colleton County, SC” and “Why did the Religious Right Vote for President Trump. Josh is an evangelical Christian who has studies the effects of Marxist theorems and their effects on liberty.