A thought that came to me as I watching and reading about Trump's latest outrage. Many of his critics have noted that his comments on military men and women come from a men "who has never served in uniform." Now, I get that complaint, especially in regard to someone who used a specious thing like "bone spurs" to beat the draft and then suggested that anyone who couldn't find a way to avoid the Vietnam era draft was "stupid". (Full disclosure: I also avoided the draft on a medical issue, the result of a broken arm when I was five. But mine was discovered when I went in for my physical; I had no idea it would make me 4-F.)
But I am concerned that there are those--especially on the right wing--who seem to think military service is a prerequisite to sitting in the Oval Office. And, yes, a majority of our Presidents were in uniform. (26 out of 45, for the record). But there's nothing in the Constitution that says a President must have a military background...and if you think there should be, there's a remedy: amend the Constitution.
Personally, I prefer a candidate who did not serve...not because I think that's a bad thing...but because it means he probably sees every conflict through the eyes of a soldier--and especially if he was a high-ranking officer. I'd rather have a diplomat than a soldier as President--and, apparently, so did our founding fathers: three of the first five Presidents were Secretary of State.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment