Send Congress to boot camp? That's a coup.

Posting this after reading two opinion pieces. The first one, by a retired US general, says that this latest fiasco over the debt ceiling shows that Congress needs something to force them to work together:

It was quickly followed by another editorial, this one by a retired US Colonel, accusing the retired General of violating the Constitution:

So. I fully admit, the idea of throwing my assorted Congressional members into boot camp*

is highly appealing. But I do understand the Colonel's fears, that the moment we start allowing one group to decide acceptable behavior for our lawmakers, we have stopped being any kind of democracy*

^{or republic, for you nitpickers}

, and have moved straight to some kind of limited oligarchy instead.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I don't understand: why not simply change the qualifications needed to be a Congressman?

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Remember boys and girls, equivocation is the enemy. Equivocation is WHY they can't just "work together". It's because equivocation rewards extremism and stubbornness.

edited 4th Aug '11 9:33:48 AM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I'm all for it, that Colonel needs to grow a pair and realize that while the General wasn't being serious, he was salivating at the idea of being able to.

I'm not saying force them, but I think we should put the offer out there. Skip a bunch of the physical requirements since they are too old to even join in the first place (35 is the cutoff) but they need a little adversity.

Put them in tents, make them fold and roll clothes into perfect little creaseless shapes if they want to eat, the works. If an 18 year old dumbass in the Army can do it, then surely, our best and brightest leaders should be able to accomplish it post-haste? ;)

Not like they've been doing anything worthwhile with their time lately anyway.

To be a little ad hominem here, Yingling is a professor for the military now, he doesn't exactly do a whole lot. General Honore is about as decorated as it is possible to be in our generation. You don't see many Generals who actually manage to almost serve out their max possible term, in military terminology, that means they stayed useful the entire time up to 37. Honore may be sounding a tad extreme, but at least someone with some clout is thinking about people who can't really speak out.

This would be a great idea though, the concept. We need to put congressmen from different parties together to go on some little trips where they have to accomplish mundane tasks involving teamwork. Let's let Harry Reid and Boehner have some quality time learning how to efficiently row a boat together or some shit.

edited 4th Aug '11 9:37:55 AM by Barkey

Actually, I've heard about how some people in congress sleep in their offices for one reason or another. What if that was mandatory? Maybe being roommates would teach them to get along with each other.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

Simply dare them to and see who bites the hook. Though, while all the politicians are away at boot camp, who's running the country? The effects of Americas government have been very telling through their temporary absence.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Eh, this is the wrong kind of tough love. If you want to force people to work together, you have to reward compromise. Alternately, you could punish extremism instead and simply not punish compromise - for example, by forcing Congress to cut their own salaries once they've reached a predefined time period of inactivity, filibustering and/or stonewalling.

The whole 'You're all behaving like children and deserve to be treated as such' attitude is what helps populist loonies like the TP get into power in the first place, which obviously takes government further away from compromise, not closer to it.

GC: No one would bite the hook, any more than a rich executive voluntarily sells their private jet just because someone dared them to do so. Anyone who's able to get anywhere in politics or business has long since mastered the ability to avoid basic guilt tripping, because the opposition is guilt tripping you all the time anyway, so you HAVE to learn to ignore it.

edited 4th Aug '11 10:07:55 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Aside from constitutionality - yeah, the General never proposed that as a serious option, so complaining about it being advoacacy of a coup d'etat is silly indeed.

However, either way the attitude is militarist bullcrap.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Actually, Colonel Yingling is dead flat wrong is equating it with a coup d'etat. That requires the overthrow and replacement of the legal government, not simply requiring that the members of it do something unpleasant.

edited 4th Aug '11 10:16:37 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

THIS. Entirely.

"This thread has gone so far south it's surrounded by nesting penguins. " — Madrugada

I wouldn't mind some members of parliament going paintballing.

The problem is more inherently based around the fact that only the wealthy tend to get very far in politics, and such people appear to be very rarely basing any of their policies on anything except "what is best for me".

Err, that depends on who sets that requirement, doesn't it? If Congress itself passed such a law it would be fine. If the military simply load them into planes as the dear General wrote, then it most assuredly would be a coup d'etat.

edited 4th Aug '11 10:21:10 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

@OP: This reminded me of team week; I'd pay good money to see Harry Reid and co try to move a broken jeep through the sand.

No, a coup requires the OVERTHROW of the elected government. This isn't removing them from power, it is simply moving them temporarily.

And nations can function fine without "governments" just make sure the civil service is still getting paid and you can work for a couple of months, perhaps even a year, without any significant problems.

Or they can make a TV show out of it and milk it for all its worth.

It would be called Congress Boot Camp.

Is there a pool at that training site? I'm all for taking them to the edge and making them do flutter kicks while we hose them down.

No. The military exerting any kind of authority over the government is a coup.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

No, a coup is a deposition of the government. And if it didn't mean deposition of government, why would it be a bad thing?

edited 4th Aug '11 10:48:00 AM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Are you kidding me? Given any authority to the military over the democratically elected government is obviously a bad thing. Because the government is democratically elected while the military, well, is not. The government has legitimacy. The military doesn't.

We can maybe argue the semantics of "coup d'etat". But it doesn't matter. What matters is that the military shouldn't ever hold any form of political power.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Ah. That objection I can understand, yeah.

But like you said, it was never a serious proposal.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

...Except in the case of an emergency, as is, I believe, laid out in the Constitution?

edited 4th Aug '11 11:07:49 AM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

No, it isn't, a coup is "is the sudden, extrajudicial deposition of a government". Prussia was not a nation being "couped" even though it was a nation mainly run for the military, because it simply HAD to be.

And why precisly is letting people who have proven themselves actually good at their jobs, over people who have won a popularity conquest?

Because, for the most part why shouldn't the military hold some form of political power? Merely as a devils advocate because I think that a nation shouldn't be RUN by its military, but its just ridiculous to suggest that THIS is a coup.

I think the military should have a great deal of power over its inner workings, particularly acquisition and R&D.

Fight smart, not fair.

^

This.

I don't see what all the opposition is about, we tend to be pretty good at our jobs, while politicians tend not to be. Maybe they should follow one of our recommendations for once.

You know why lots of coups happen? Because a nations military gets tired of being the fucking whipping boy to a bunch of incompetent retards. This isn't even a coup, this would be like a one week reality check for a bunch of senators.

You know how most of our nation is becoming very dissatisfied with our government? We're a part of it too you know, and we get just as dissatisfied.

edited 4th Aug '11 11:25:08 AM by Barkey

Or because one general is confident and charismatic enough to be murderous enough to kill everyone in his path.

A Coup is not always best for a country Barkey.