Should Politicians Face the Same Risks as Soldiers in Harm's Way?

  • Thread starter BicycleTree
  • Start date
In summary, this is an idea I've been entertaining this morning: every Congressman or higher politician would be subjected to a random lottery of mortality, so that each politician at that level had a 10% chance of being honorably executed every year. This would make power-grabbers less likely to run for office, and our politicians would have to really believe in their cause in order to be respected. The downside is that 10% of our politicians at that level would be executed, but when you think about the important decisions they make that have impacts on millions of people, that might not be such a bad trade.
  • #1
BicycleTree
520
0
This is an idea I've been entertaining this morning:

With all the politicians drawing connections between themselves and our soldiers "in harm's way," the politicians themselves aren't risking anything and the soldiers who are risking their lives don't get much for it.

What if every Congressman or higher politician was subjected to a random lottery of mortality, so that each politician at that level had a 10% chance of being honorably executed every year?

I think we'd have more honest politicians. Mere power-grabbers wouldn't see it as a good deal, so they wouldn't run for office. Our politicians would have to really believe in their cause. The nation would respect its political leaders more, because each of them would be a potential martyr for their country.

The downside is that 10% of our politicians at that level would be executed. But when you think that important politicians' decisions have impacts on millions of people, that might not be a bad trade.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
how bout let's not kill them randomly, and make them fight in wars instead, that way the tough ones survive.

just a thought

fibonacci
 
  • #3
You can't physically fight in a war and be a good politician at the same time. Besides, why would you particularly want physically tough politicians?
 
  • #4
What good is executing random people? And the skill set necessary to fight a war is radically different from running a nation. But of course as implied... the current skill set to be a politican is rather sickening to think of lol.
 
  • #5
Quite a few of our past presidents had been in the military.
 
  • #6
Quite a few of our past presidents had been in the military.
So they were risking their lives then--it's quite a different thing to be risking your life for your political station now.
 
  • #7
TheStatutoryApe said:
Quite a few of our past presidents had been in the military.

Yah but military vs. war is a different thing mind you. Too bad we're pretty much 'out' of WW2 vets capable of running for office. Wouldn't mind hearing some story out of Iwo Jima as part of the state of the union address lol. "I got shot in the leg by a jap patrol boat and you people are *****ing about unemployment!"
 
  • #8
What good is executing random people?
I have already argued what good executing people randomly might be, in post #1 of this thread, so why are you asking the question as if the point had not be proposed?
And the skill set necessary to fight a war is radically different from running a nation.
I agree.
 
  • #9
BicycleTree said:
So they were risking their lives then--it's quite a different thing to be risking your life for your political station now.
They took more or less the same risk that any person who joined took. The only difference would be people who join during war then ofcourse the risk is all the more apearant and they have less reason to complain.
 

1. What is the purpose of the study "Politicians in Harm's Way"?

The purpose of the study is to examine the risks and challenges faced by politicians who are in physically dangerous situations or conflict zones. It aims to understand the impact of these risks on politicians and their decision-making processes.

2. How was the data collected for this study?

The data was collected through a combination of surveys, interviews, and case studies. Politicians who have experience in conflict zones were surveyed about their experiences and decision-making processes. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with select politicians to gather more detailed information. Case studies of specific politicians and situations were also analyzed.

3. What are the main findings of the study?

Some of the main findings of the study include the psychological and emotional toll that being in harm's way can have on politicians, as well as the ways in which it can affect their decision-making processes. The study also highlights the importance of support systems and training for politicians in these situations.

4. What are some of the limitations of the study?

One limitation of the study is that it relies heavily on self-reported data from politicians, which may be biased or incomplete. Additionally, the study only focuses on politicians in harm's way and does not account for the experiences of other individuals, such as journalists or aid workers, who may also face similar risks.

5. How can the findings of this study be applied in the real world?

The findings of this study can be applied to inform the development of support systems and training programs for politicians who are in harm's way. It can also help policymakers and organizations understand the unique challenges faced by politicians in these situations and develop strategies to better protect and support them.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
121
Views
10K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
29K
Replies
133
Views
24K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top