Jake Tapper writes in today's New York Times, a paper who's delivery staff I might add, are apparently deterred by a few inches of snow (SNOW DAY! SNOW DAY! SNOW DAY! and this time I thought to buy enough cigarettes in advance!) that Americans do not have a history, at least recently, of seeing military service, even heroic military service, as a trump card in elections. And he notes that this seems to hold even post 9/11.
Yes, but that only gets half the story. If you've been reading this blog you know that I have enormous respect for military people, I like them, and I like the values the majority of them hold. But being in the military, especially at the lower levels that most politicians tended to get out at, is not de facto proof of good judgement on foreign policy (much less on every issue we judge a president on.) Why is outstanding service as a platoon leader automatic qualification to make judgement on military budgets for the other services, on counterterrorism policy, on international treaties, on the structure of government, on intelligence gathering -- much less health care policy, guidance to the FCC, free trade, or agricultural policy?
We vote for politicians based on our belief in their judgement, and if we were talking about a 30-year old running in his first House race I'd say, yes, knowing he was a military hero tells me alot about his judgement, given that I have little other evidence. Come on -- the rest of these guys have actual, you know, track records. And post 9/11, I think people want to see proof of sound judgement on national security affairs in today's world and in the sphere we would be placing leaders in -- in other words, policymaking -- not in the kinds of decisionmaking involved in military leadership. It tells you some important things about a man or a woman. But it doesn't tell you everything.
Military service, I've heard over and over from folks, passes on life lessons, critical skills in character and judgement. That's why knowing someone has served is useful. But by the time they're 50, there should be some evidence of how good they are at applying those skills.
