Every holiday shopping season, an "it" toy emerges that captures the hearts and imaginations of children across the country. Three months before Hannukah or Christmas, that "it" toy has already emerged with back-orders established for every new shipment produced.
What is bound to make a child's eyes light up Dec. 25 after she tears thorough the wrapping paper? G.I. Bush, of course. Featuring the likeness of our president, Elite Force Aviator: George W. Bush comes fully equipped with a "fully detailed cloth flight suit, helmet with oxygen mask, survival vest, g-pants, parachute harness and much more."
And what parents wouldn't buy their child G.I. Bush? An action figure of the president would encourage impressionable children to become future leaders. I can see it now: Timmy, engrossed in play, holds in one fist G.I. Bush and in the other evil menace Saddam Hussein. Imitating G.I. Bush in combat, Timmy commands: "Fine, Saddam. Bring it on!" G.I. Bush then promptly destroys the dictator, and Timmy turns happily to his beaming parents to declare, "Mommy and Daddy, when I grow up, I want to be president!"
But then again, at some point in our own childhoods, didn't we all tell our parents that we were going to be president of the United States someday? We did; however, the idea of "being president when I grow up" meant something totally different for us than what it does for Timmy. Indeed, when we were kids, being president meant assuming a position of diplomatic, not military, leadership.
Military knowledge has always been an essential element of the presidency. After all, the president has always held the title of Commander in Chief of the military. After Sept. 11, however, the public demanded a stronger president who would make the United States feel more secure. That's when the concept of the G.I. President emerged, and the role of the president could no longer be discussed without some sort of military framing. The weight of military leadership rose dramatically in defining the presidency.
Our demands for a president with leadership are nowhere as evident as in the current presidential race. President Bush plans to capitalize on his military background in his campaign by marketing himself landing on the U.S.S Abraham in a naval jump suit.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry continually emphasizes his military contributions in Vietnam. With a military band playing "Anchors Away," he announced his candidacy standing in front of an aircraft carrier and eight Vietnam veterans.
Furthermore, despite the fact that Gen. Wesley Clark has not yet presented a substantive presidential agenda, the presidential hopeful nevertheless vaulted to the front of the Democratic presidential pack within days after his declaration of candidacy. Clark's four-star credentials and military career were enough to gain and, so far, sustain huge popularity.
Considering the serious implications of terrorism and the fear that it generates, perhaps demands by the American people for security and a strong president are warranted. The danger emerges, however, when presidents are elected primarily for their military backgrounds or perceived military strength. For two major reasons, military background should not and cannot define the presidency.
First, a military background is not an indicator of a candidate's presidential abilities. Military training does not generate only leaders; rather, soldiers, officers and generals are all trained in accordance to their own respective roles. Most soldiers are taught total deference in taking orders, while officers are molded into commanding leaders.
United States presidents have represented a wide range of military experiences. Historically, however, the specifics of a president's military background have not been indicative of his presidency. For example, despite being depicted as a man of resolve, President Bush was trained as a fighter pilot who was on the receiving ends of orders during his military tenure. Jimmy Carter and Nixon, both traditionally questioned as presidential leaders, both cultivated military leadership in their respective naval offices. Both Reagan and Clinton lacked military backgrounds, yet both are currently heralded by their respective parties as great presidents. Clearly, military background is a weak indicator of presidential leadership and probably distracts from more important indicators of good presidents, such as economic expertise.
The second danger of a military experience requirement is that it causes the number of potential presidential candidates to drop significantly. Only a tiny fraction of the United States' educated population has served in the military. At Duke, for example, roughly only 100 students participate in ROTC. If the public stipulates that military experience is necessary, without even considering other essential presidential qualities, only 1.5 percent of all Duke undergraduates would ever be eligible to become president.
Although most of us eventually forget our childhood dreams of "becoming president when I grow up," military restrictions, nevertheless, narrow the field of talented individuals who can run for president. In essence, capable individuals are turned away from the prospect of seeking the most important office in the U.S.
Military restriction becomes even more unsettling when considering its effects on the potential for a woman to occupy the Oval Office. Because only 20 percent of all military recruits are women and their attrition rate is almost twice as high as men's, military stipulations on the presidency would eliminate the viability of almost all possible female presidential candidates.
Therefore, military background cannot serve as a litmus test for judging presidential candidates. Instead, military experience should be viewed simply as one of the indicators of love and dedication to country. Consequently, the 2004 presidential election needs to become more multi-dimensional and overcome its obsession with a G.I. President. Indeed, on my wish list for Christmas and 2004 are Diplomat President, Politician President and Economist President, who all come equipped with much more than a flight suit and parachute.
Tammy Tieu is a Trinity sophomore. Her column appears every third Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.