Comparing the Soviet Union to the USA is not really that useful. One party states in which everyone has to vote for one or other Party nominee are not quite the same as liberal democracies. Also, there is more to democracy than voting.

Wasn't comparing the USSR to the United States. I think you missed the point. But there are similarities between all systems of government, unless you really feel like looking at it in a two-dimensional aspect.

Also, would you mind explaining your statement that "there is more to democracy than voting"? or expanding on that a little, perhaps? Because I totally agree with it (and that's partly my whole point in supporting Heinlein's meritocracy as a valid theory of government!)

hacker

If that's what your asking, the answer would be revolution, etc. Not necessarily "revolution" like the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution whatever....but usually constitutions change in response to some sort of socio-political change. Not the other way around (socio-political change is not caused by constitutional changes).

democracies evolve. I already made that point much earlier.
The US evolved and changed because the concept of liberty became more greatly defined to include a larger and larger share of the public. And yes, in some cases the US constitution changed to reflect that. But in others, like the recognition and protection of inter racial and later same sex marriage didn't. It is the accepted interpretation of "equal protection under the law".

A meritocracy, originally a Napoleanic trait, does NOT mean you earn rights (like the franchise) through membership in a specific organization. It means, your continued and continuous contributions are rewarded And the more accomplished one is, the greater they rise.

Heiinleins world would be like modern day Burma where the generals rule....Or some South American Junta of the 30s and 40s. They lasted only so long as the US supported them militarily and some of them not even that long. Because popular revolutions eventually toppled them And popular will is a phrase that is synonymous with democratic expression....

Heiinleins world would be like modern day Burma where the generals rule....Or some South American Junta of the 30s and 40s.

No, no, no...we are not talking about a junta. It would not be in the interests of the veterans/citizens to allow their former superior officers to have control over them. Just as in a democracy, the military is under the control of a civilian CINC, in order to separate the armed forces from the "political" structure; so in a Heinleinian (to invent a word) meritocracy, the armed forces must also be separated from the political structure, because the President (prime minister, whatever the head of state or government ends up being called) is not an active duty member of the military, yet is their CINC. Reason: no one can be a judge in his own cause, nor can any organization (the armed forces being no exception). Again, Heinlein said that the members of the military were NOT citizens: you had to be EX military, to be a citizen. If you decided to stay in longer than the minimum required two-year enlistment, you still couldn't be a citizen until you resigned (or did not re-enlist, whatever).

For example, look at all the men who have served as President from 1901 to present:Let's see how many of America's presidents since 1901 have been former military officers. Then consider how many of these were actually fascist dictators.

Barack H. Obama: none
George W. Bush: TX and AL Air National Guards, 1968 to 1974 (the air wing of our state "militias" are referred to as the Air National Guard) but some question of favoritism from his father, a congressman at the time
William Jefferson Clinton: no military service
George H. W. Bush: Lieutenant J.G., USN, 1943 to 1945; naval aviator (they do not call themselves mere "pilots") who won the Distinguished Flying Cross and several other honors
Ronald Reagan: Captain, USAAF, 1937 to 1945
James Earl Carter: Lieutenant, USN, 1943 to 1953
Gerald R. Ford: Lt.Cmdr., USN, 1942 to 1946, naval aviator, several honors
Richard Nixon: Lt.Cmdr., USN, 1942 to 1946, several honors
Lyndon Baines Johnson: Lt. Cmdr., USN, 1941 to 1942, several honors incl. Silver Star
John F. Kennedy: Lieutenant, USN, 1941 to 1945, bunch of medals/honors (6 are mentioned)
Dwight David Eisenhower: Gen. of the Army (5-star), SACEUR in WWII; a shitload of honors are mentioned
Harry S Truman: Major, U.S. Army, 1905 to 1919 (2 periods); Colonel, USAR, from 1920 to 1953 (interestingly enough: the only case of overlap in recent history, but that's the reserves; and after asking my father he said, no, you cannot 'call up' the CINC, so that's the only conflict, ever)
Theodore Roosevelt: Colonel, New York National Guard & U.S. Army, 1882-1886, 1898

I went from Harry Truman to Teddy Roosevelt (skipping Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and FDR) because no military service is mentioned for those 6 presidents. Could have been because of FDR's polio, but that's rather a shocker that our war leader from 1941-1945 did no military service. Nor Wilson. But I honestly think it is possible they just skipped that for 6 presidents, perhaps.

Summation: our last 12 presidents, 10 have had military experience, usually in actual wartime. Have they all been fascist dictators? [Though I know someone will joke about Nixon thanks to his "imperial presidency" and bombing the shit out of Cambodia & North Vietnam.]

Personally I think if you are going to be the actual CINC of the armed forces, it certainly more than helps to have done some time in the military yourself, even if during peacetime, and even if not for long or not very high-ranking. Just because, if you're going to send people out to die on your orders as CINC, maybe you ought to know what a war really looks like at its most gruesome levels, or in the very least, have shared in its hardships.

A meritocracy, originally a Napoleanic trait, does NOT mean you earn rights (like the franchise) through membership in a specific organization. It means, your continued and continuous contributions are rewarded And the more accomplished one is, the greater they rise.

Well, first of all, It was Louis XIV who created the "modernized" (meretricious) French Army, not Napoleon (though he did it more for political survival than national security). Yes, like having to show merit and pass exams to get in, and rise higher, in the civil service of most modernized countries I am aware of. The military itself is the same way (and you wouldn't want it any other way).

I just didn't know a better word to use than "meritocracy" to describe this. It's kind of like a republic or democracy anyway: it's still rule by the people. The United States was referred to as a republic, but there have been lots of republics in which the whole population was not necessarily eligible to vote, Venice, Florence and others in Italy and of course the Republic of Rome itself. Athens was called a "democracy" though it lacked universal suffrage. So let's call this a......er......actually I do not know if there is a more accurate term to describe a Heinleinian Republic (maybe that?) than "meritocracy". Heinleinianism?

Hell, Canada or even the UK could go Heinleinian, so I maybe we cannot call it a Heinleinian Republic: Queen Elizabeth II has done military service, as did King George VI, as have more than several members of the House of Windsor (including future king, H.R.H Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, and his brother Prince Harry). So, the basic principle intact, there could actually be a pretty good range of government types that would work with Heinleinian [whatevers].

I'm sure a bunch of Canadian or UK prime ministers in the last century have done military service. Winston Churchill comes to mind (Boer War, WWI, etc.) but I can only name about a dozen or so British PM's in the 20th to 21st centuries, and 3 or 4 Canadian PM's since Federation in 1867, (John A. MacDonald.) Anyone know? I have no way of finding out, I don't think it showed military service of various prime ministers on Wikipedia. But I'll keep checking.

My point? This is not a junta we're talking about, here. And with so many American presidents in the last century or so being vets, does this make us a junta?

The US evolved and changed because the concept of liberty became more greatly defined to include a larger and larger share of the public. And yes, in some cases the US constitution changed to reflect that. But in others, like the recognition and protection of inter racial and later same sex marriage didn't. It is the accepted interpretation of "equal protection under the law".

So are you saying that, whatever the size of the electorate, there is only freedom/liberty for those who have the right to vote? All things being equal I would say that that is true, but I think there are notable exceptions.....these notable exceptions could prove the rule that democracy (universal suffrage) is not always a guarantee of liberty

So are you saying that, whatever the size of the electorate, there is only freedom/liberty for those who have the right to vote? All things being equal I would say that that is true, but I think there are notable exceptions.....these notable exceptions could prove the rule that democracy (universal suffrage) is not always a guarantee of libert[y/quote]

If one set of citizens has rights or privileges different than another set .... then the set with fewer privileges or rights is freer.

Do you have the right to vote? Someone who says no, is not free to vote.

hacker

Could have been because of FDR's polio, but that's rather a shocker that our war leader from 1941-1945 did no military service.

He was a corporate lawyer before he entered politics. Then he was appointed assistant secretary for the Navy.
Why does it shock you?
What exactly does military service provide that is so meaningful?
12 US presidents did not serve....at all. John Adams for instance...
a couple, were only privates. Lincoln was one and he never saw action.He's generally considered tops of all, no?
Some of the highest ranking (Grant, Hayes, A Johnson) were horrible presidents...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... itary_rank

I honestly can't think of who the last British PM to do military servive might have been. I assume that maybe Wilson or Heath would have served in some capacity in WWII because they were of an age to and pretty much every able-bodied man did, but if so it was certainly never a big deal on their CV.

edit: Actually, it seems that Callaghan was in the Royal Navy during the war. Heath served in the war as well. Wilson passed the war in a cushy job as a research assistant to an MP though.

If one set of citizens has rights or privileges different than another set .... then the set with fewer privileges or rights is freer.

Uh, judging by your counterarguments, don't you mean that the other way around? I thought you were trying to argue that not having suffrage means you have less civil rights.

Well, that means that Britons were sent off to fight and die in a war they did not want to really be in, judging by what I'm told of the opinion polls at the time, by Tony Blair, who did not have to share in their hardships, even in a minor way. Do you see my point?

What exactly does military service provide that is so meaningful?

Are you kidding?

12 US presidents did not serve....at all. John Adams for instance...a couple, were only privates. Lincoln was one and he never saw action.He's generally considered tops of all, no?

Meaning that 31 of them did. And you named three. Lincoln was popular once the war was won, yes. And we look at some of these presidents through the 20/20 vision offered by hindsight.

I am certainly confident that the four of us who have commented on this thread so far do not need such a government. We certainly seem interested enough to vote more carefully than some of our peers. But even a voter turnout rate isn't revealing of a "problem". Winston Churchill said the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Maybe some of our neighbors DO need a form of government where the suffrage is earned, as opposed to falling in our laps?

In a way it would still be rule by the People. It would not be a "military elite" (especially if another option was offered). It is an accessible one: anyone can do the two years national service who wants to. And it's not the same as the expansion of the electorate to minorities in the United States. Look at the chronology: the civil rights marches were actually PRIOR TO the passage of the civil rights legislation (including the 1965 voting rights act). We're not talking about excluding people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. The 1965 voting rights act did not spark the civil rights movement; it was the other way around right? Speaking of which, African Americans have a higher rate of voting consistently than the majority Caucasian Americans. Why? Because many of them had to FIGHT for their rights to vote, not have to use a separate bathroom, etc.

Would the government care only about the current citizens, and the military you say? Probably not, because a lot of the civilians out there, especially the younger ones, are potential citizens (or have family who are, or friends, who would be pissed off if they were mistreated). There's a difference between a "caste" or an "elite" and an electorate that's only restricted insofar as you don't jump through the necessary hoops to join it.

Has anyone considered that, with a smaller electorate probably, PACs and corporations (as we were speaking of in another thread) might have a harder time penetrating such a group, or "buying" their votes? Especially if the votes of those electors and the congressmen had to be earned instead of just given. Remember, those donations are for the purpose of controlling OUR votes, the large, universal electorate. Do you not think a congress or parliament elected by a smaller electorate (the size might vary from time to time) would be more difficult to "buy off" or pressure (by non-monetary means).

It sounds to me like democracy already has its elite. And it's not the kind of elite that you or I can voluntarily join! They're in the "smoke filled backrooms". Ever notice, also, how an election is won or lost over the last week before the election? Instead of on issues, it's what happens last that can throw an election one way or another, and sometimes it is something inane, or something that had absolutely nothing to do with the candidates' original platforms.

hacker

Are you kidding?

No.
If you seriously think that a military career offers some kind of training or experience that is unique, and invaluable then you should be able to enumerate those advantages.
If so why then did military experience fail to deliver a competent President Grant, when he was such a successful General?
In what way was FDR hampered by his lack of military experience? He over came the greatest domestic calamity and an existential military threat with zero military career.
Indeed, arguably the greatest President was Lincoln. Although a private in a volunteer regiment, in the Black Hawk wars he never saw action. And yet, he ended slavery and won the Civil War.
Without serious military experience...
So I'm not sure what it is you think a military career is supposed to add...
Many conservatives think Ron Reagan was a great president. His military career consisted primarily in the production of training films.

So, no. I'm not kidding... What does military service provide that is irreplaceable? (And since many Presidents didn't have any military service, its obviously not irreplaceable...)

My response to:

hacker

Are you kidding?


No.
If you seriously think that a military career offers some kind of training or experience that is unique, and invaluable then you should be able to enumerate those advantages.

and:

So I'm not sure what it is you think a military career is supposed to add... So, no. I'm not kidding... What does military service provide that is irreplaceable?

is only to ask, how many people do you know in the military, Ricky? Answer me that, whilst I prepare my answer, carefully.

JimHackerMP wrote:I am certainly confident that the four of us who have commented on this thread so far do not need such a government. We certainly seem interested enough to vote more carefully than some of our peers. But even a voter turnout rate isn't revealing of a "problem". Winston Churchill said the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Maybe some of our neighbors DO need a form of government where the suffrage is earned, as opposed to falling in our laps?

Churchill also said

"Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" House of Commons, 11 November 1947

"If I had to sum up the imme­di­ate future of demo­c­ra­tic pol­i­tics in a sin­gle word I should say “insur­ance.” That is the future—insurance against dan­gers from abroad, insur­ance against dan­gers scarcely less grave and much more near and con­stant which threaten us here at home in our own island." —Free Trade Hall, Man­ches­ter, 23 May 1909

"At the bot­tom of all the trib­utes paid to democ­racy is the lit­tle man, walk­ing into the lit­tle booth, with a lit­tle pen­cil, mak­ing a lit­tle cross on a lit­tle bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or volu­mi­nous dis­cus­sion can pos­si­bly dimin­ish the over­whelm­ing impor­tance of that point." —House of Com­mons, 31 Octo­ber 1944

"How is that word “democ­racy” to be inter­preted? My idea of it is that the plain, hum­ble, com­mon man, just the ordi­nary man who keeps a wife and fam­ily, who goes off to fight for his coun­try when it is in trou­ble, goes to the poll at the appro­pri­ate time, and puts his cross on the bal­lot paper show­ing the can­di­date he wishes to be elected to Parliament—that he is the foun­da­tion of democ­racy. And it is also essen­tial to this foun­da­tion that this man or woman should do this with­out fear, and with­out any form of intim­i­da­tion or vic­tim­iza­tion. He marks his bal­lot paper in strict secrecy, and then elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives and together decide what gov­ern­ment, or even in times of stress, what form of gov­ern­ment they wish to have in their coun­try. If that is democ­racy, I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it.” —House of Com­mons, 8 Decem­ber 1944

My favourite Churchill quote is his putdown of Lady Astor.

Astor: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea !
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I would drink it.

There's a more famous one along similar lines.

Astor: Winston, you're drunk, disgustingly drunk.
Churchill: I may be drunk, but you are ugly, disgustingly ugly. In the morning I shall be sober...

The latter quote is probably apochryphal though.

Sassenach wrote:My favourite Churchill quote is his putdown of Lady Astor.

Astor: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea !
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I would drink it.

There's a more famous one along similar lines.

Astor: Winston, you're drunk, disgustingly drunk.
Churchill: I may be drunk, but you are ugly, disgustingly ugly. In the morning I shall be sober...

The latter quote is probably apochryphal though.

Alas, both are misattributed. The first is from humourists in the USA in 1899, and the second was debunked in the 1970s. But they are quite easily attributable to WSC due to his wry sense of humour and love of causing offence.

hacker

is only to ask, how many people do you know in the military, Ricky?

Several.

Ricky: I would have carefully replied earlier but several attempts via my iPad over the last day or so rendered my responses....well, it f***** up.

Several

And there is nothing unique about these individuals you know? Like what they were trained in?

I have a cousin just commissioned as an officer in the army, one in the Navy (so is his wife); both of the latter's parents were in, his father, in fact, was captain of two different ships (at different times of course) and recently retired with the rank of Captain. Father was in the Army during Vietnam, his father fought in Europe in WWII and was present at the famous Ardennes Offensive (Aka "battle of the bulge"). Other grandfather retired marine Lt Col, was in pacific during WWII. (I myself tried to join the National Guard, or Air Force, but was turned down for medical reasons---scoliosis surgery, and must take betablockers or whatever they are called on a daily basis.) In addition to family, the friend I mentioned who was PA in the Army (now air national guard) and another best friend in Navy who just made Senior Chief.

Your questions about:

If you seriously think that a military career offers some kind of training or experience that is unique, and invaluable then you should be able to enumerate those advantages.......So I'm not sure what it is you think a military career is supposed to add...What does military service provide that is irreplaceable?

Training or experience that is unique: hell yeah I'd say so. John (navy cousin) does nuclear engineering. Best friend in Navy does cryptography and lotsa computer shit (the majority of his work he will not share with me as I do not have the same sort of security clearance he has....well, none at all actually.) Army cousin? Not a clue what he's doing, nor do I know what both of his parents did whilst in the Air Force, which is where they met. Navy cousin's wife? Not a clue but she's on board some ship and she's also an officer. Uncle (his father) started out as enlisted man, but went to Annapolis & became an officer, then commanded a destroyer and, later, an amphibious assault carrier. (I will not say which ones for the sake of privacy.) His wife/my aunt was a nurse, retired with rank of Commander.

Dad was enlisted, and in signal corps. After returning to the United States, worked under a mountain up north, one of those ones that could withstand a near-direct (or even damn near direct) nuclear blast, some sort of communications thing. (Just as an aside, he once told me the nickname for the shelter under the White House was the Fuhrerbunker.) I believe my dad's father (died in 1952) was infantry, and probably other grandfather, having been a marine in the pacific theater, did something similar. And I probably mentioned my other best friend, the Army medic originally, who became a PA and officer.

What do their military careers bring them? What do they have in common?

I cannot say dad's dad or---I hate to say this about a WWII marine---my other grandfather the Lt.Col. would have been taught anything "technological" or specific that would have carried over into civilian life. But the U.S. (and most others) military is now well beyond killing people with only rifles (or spying on people the same way as it used to be done). So:

In the case of Navy Cousin, he works with the *multiple* nuclear reactors on board one of the newer carriers (i will not say which), and he's an officer. I can tell you that he will come out of the navy, whenever that day will be, with a first-hand knowledge of nuclear physics, especially as it applies to power stations...or anywhere...ya think? In the case of Navy friend, he knows more about computers, especially cyber-security, than most IT departments at civilian companies, whose CEOs will very likely climb over each other just to grab his resume. That cousin's father, now that he retired recently, is a consultant, for what or whom, I won't say. And as I said, the Army friend is a PA still, but as a civilian now (being in the air natl guard, or natl guard, is kinda of analogous to reserve status).

That's point one, specialized knowledge that can and does carry over into a civilian career. Any job application in the United States asks if you were in the military, if you were discharged honorably or whatever if so, and what did you do in it. Also, probably a shitload of self-confidence (something employers especially HR departments seem to like). Ability to withstand a hell of a lot of stress in ways we as civilians can only guess at. (Isn't the presidency an extremely stressful job?) Leadership skills as well, and organizational skills.

Also in my opinion, they were nice enough to put their own lives, limbs and sanity at risk for my safety. They know more than violence: they know how and when to use it, and when NOT to use it, which personally, I think is a great skill for someone in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or House Armed Services committee...or Secretary of Defense....or in the White House (or Downing Street, or Sussex Drive, or Elysee Palace, or the "Federal Washing Machine"...etc.)

I am not trying to brag who knows personally more people in the military; and I'm sure Canada's armed forces are as well trained as ours is. They'd have to be: Canadians were at the Normandy landing, in the Pacific, in Korea, etc., just as we were there and kicked ass just as hard. So ask your friends who are in your military what they think carries over to civilian life and may contribute to a political career, especially one "at the top" (but ask them that before mentioning this discussion.)

None of those things make ex-military people uniquely qualified for politics though, which is the premise of your argument. There are far more people with specialised engineering knowledge, IT skills and experience of leading teams of people in the civilian sector.

I know a guy who was kicked out of the Royal Marines and then went off to join the French Foreign Legion before also getting kicked out of there (for fighting would you believe). I Used to share a house with a very charming ex-forces man who was the laziest and most deceitful guy you could ever have the misfortune to come across. He spent his whole time bumming around, smoking weed and leeching off the back of impressionable women who hadn't known him long enough to realise that he was a deadbeat (and before he eventually got kicked out of the house he ripped me off for hundreds of pounds that I've never gotten back). Back in the town I grew up one of the straight-up dumbest men I ever met joined the army and served several tours in Iraq. He's a nice enough guy but thick as pigshit with it. Frankly I don't see what any of these men have done to be deserving of greater political rights than the rest of us.