I had rather have “served in the military” as a pre-political life qualifier than “I was a community organizer.” Big Whoop!

I can see that objection, and understand why you make it. And I must say, I’m actually a bit conflicted on this. I suppose it depends just how much military experience one has, and how recent it is.

I should be clear in stating that I don’t think military experience of any sort is a conflict of interest. I think having a military guy is a conflict of interest. A quick, albeit not perfect, litmus test would be this: prior to becoming a politician, what did the person do? If the only answer is “served in the military,” that would raise an eyebrow for me. Less so if the military service was a long time ago (as in McCain’s case), because at that point the politician has a record that can be examined to see whether or not they’re a homer for the military.

And even with all these “ferinstances,” it’s sloppy of me to say that having a career military guy as president is a conflict of interest. It’s more accurate to say that it represents a potential conflict of interest, and one of which we should be very highly skeptical.

Let me put it another way: Given two equally-qualified candidates, with identical policy positions, where the only difference is that one is a military person and the other isn’t, I’d strongly prefer the non-military person. This isn’t to say that I’d never vote for a military person over a non-military person. Policy is, after all, important. It’s just that all other things being equal, I’d rather have a lifelong civilian.

I would certainly want someone who has investment experience at a level greater than just a stockholder.

My main problem with your statements is that you take military experience as a negative in a CinC. (Before you respond that you have said no such thing, read the first sentence in the last paragraph of your last response where you refer to military experience as a “conflict of interest.”)

Not in recent memory. Ike, maybe. (You could argue that W is this way, considering how much he likes to play military dress-up, but I digress…)

I should clarify, however, what I mean by “considers himself a civilian.” Again, it comes down the what I said earlier about the attitude that you never really leave the military even after you leave. A lot of ex-military guys I know consider themselves “civilians” only in the most technical sense, but view themselves as being considerably different than your typical civilian by virtue of their service. And for this type, given a conflict between civilian interests and military interests, the overwhelming bias will be not with the civilians but with the military.

The bottom line is that the CinC has to be able to put that part of their life behind them, and be willing to go against what the military wants when doing so is in the best interests of the civilian population of the country. I’m cynical about the ability of a career military man to do that.

Has anything McCain done indicated that he has the attitude that he is not a civilian?

Well, as indicated here, he has previously touted his military experience as if it’s his primary qualification (or, at least a primary qualification) for the job of president. But military experience is about as relevant to the job of president as it is to the job of CEO of a major company — not very.

In other words, he needs to agree with you in order to be qualified to be Commander in Chief.

I haven’t argued any such thing, and I defy you to show me where I’ve said anything of the kind. There are doubtless lots of people who buck the military establishment with whom I would find very little to agree on.

But whatever, you’re obviously never going to see any sort of conflict of interest, so there’s not much point in continuing this any further. Then again, you probably wouldn’t see any problem with putting a career investment banker in charge of the SEC, either.

Have we had a president who hasn’t considered himself a civilian? Has anything McCain done indicated that he has the attitude that he is not a civilian? Can only those who have never served be considered a true civilian or is it only those with liberal policies?

“Now if you had a career military man with a long history of reform and/or of bucking the military establishment, that would indeed be a different matter.”

In other words, he needs to agree with you in order to be qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Which is why I wouldn’t go as far as codifying it into law. But all other things being equal, we should be considerably more skeptical of a military man as CinC than a civilian in that position. The military is supposed to be answerable to civilians. If you have a president that doesn’t really consider himself a civilian — i.e. he feels more like one of “them” than like one of “us” — then that short-circuits that important protection.

Now if you had a career military man with a long history of reform and/or of bucking the military establishment, that would indeed be a different matter.