Hacker News Reader

Comment by dageshi | Hacker News Reader

"Are we going to see candidates for the highest posts raised from toddler-dom in hermetically sealed media bubbles by their dynastic political parents"

In the UK I'd say this is pretty much the case now. Ed Miliband the current leader of the labour party was a SPAD (Special Adviser) and so I'm pretty sure was David Cameron (Prime Minister).

These people are very obviously taking a predefined career path destined for high political office and avoiding any incriminating evidence of having a past will be part and parcel of that.

View on HN

"predefined career path destined for high political office"

At least the Romans and with their cursus honorum actually required things like military service:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_honorum

The US required it too, out of tradition, until Clinton's term. Why did we stop?

Military services was never required for Congress or the President of the US:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Besides, as soon as the President is sworn into office, he's the Commander In Chief of the armed forces, so if he wasn't already in the military he is at that point.

Military services was never required for Congress or the President of the US

It was an unwritten requirement because nobody took non-veterans seriously as presidential candidates.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_Unite...

According to the table on that page, 11 US Presidents had no prior military service. This goes all the way back to John Adams, President #2 and our first Vice President. That's a full 25% that were not in the military. Many of the others were in the militia or national guard, which until fairly recently was not the same thing.

I think this effect was largely due to the draft. Since the US military became all voluntary in 1973, it has become more difficult to find candidates with a military background. Notice that military service has not been a talking point in the 2012 Presidential elections at all, because it can't be.

I wonder if a 10 year long war will change that in 10-15 years. Probably.

Well, members of Congress and their children are still something like ten times as likely to have served in the armed forces than the general population.

Yes but what positions in the armed forces are they likely to have taken?

It was never required as a tradition. Of the first several presidents, only Washington even served in the armed forces. In modern times, William Taft Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover did not serve in the military.

Military service was simply a huge political boost. Soldiers like Grant and Andrew "Stonewall" Jackson used the popularity generated by their military successes to launch political careers. During the 2nd half of the 1950s, the constant state of warfare (real or cold) generally meant the American public preferred candidates with military experience over those without. Once the Cold War ended, that preference died.

I stand corrected.

The UK's well defined path to democratically elected leadership is somewhat unique though. http://80000hours.org/blog/22-how-hard-is-it-to-become-prime...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com