Yes, I would agree with that.
Oooh, great choice! (That's from Bakula's guest appearance on "Boston Legal.")
So does this mean President Archer sings, too?
Last edited:
Picture of Archer as UFP President in 2184!
- Thread starter STAdventures
- Start date
So does this mean President Archer sings, too?
Sage advice.Yeah, let's not bring real-world politics into this, please.
You think by that age Archer should have some jowls?
The years sneak up on us all.
It does not, and I never said it does. What I did say was that the symbolism of having the commander-in-chief wearing a military uniform undermines the idea of civilian control of the military. It implies that the true loyalty of the head of state is to the military apparatus of the state rather than to the state and its people. It undermines the idea that the head of state is above the military.
I'd like to see that cited, as I've never heard of that, but if he did, that was bloody stupid of him.
It would be interesting if the Federation inherited the Latin American tradition of presidential sashes.
Yes, but we've already seen that the political leaders of the other Federation founding worlds did not wear military uniforms when acting as political leaders. Soval did not wear the uniform of the Vulcan military, nor did the Andorian Ambassador to United Earth wear the uniform of the Imperial Guard. It seems highly improbable that such a custom would spontaneously develop.
Actually, there already would have -- there would have been twenty-three years' worth of Presidents before him, and their precedents would almost certainly have been binding.
But even if they weren't, the very fact of how new the Federation was would have been exactly why Archer would never have wanted to be addressed as "Admiral." Archer would be aware of the simple fact that holding an election and holding an office are not enough for democracy to actually function; habits of deference towards democratic offices have to be cultivated. Only by having people give respect to the presidency itself can the presidents of a nascent state cultivate the respect for democratic authority that a new democracy needs to function.
As a diplomat and politician, Archer would understand that from the very beginning. He would recognize that if you ask people to address the President by a prior military rank, you are in effect telling people that that person's authority comes from his military status rather than his status as the democratically-elected President. Archer would never want to undermine the Office of the President that way, even if he chose to be addressed as "Admiral" upon leaving office.
Yes, and President Washington chose that style of address to convey his status as a civilian leader of a republic rather than a military dictator or king. That's why he was not addressed as "General" or as "Your Majesty."
And Archer was not the first Federation President; he would not have the authority to set precedent.
Negatory. In both Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and the "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" two-parter from DS9's fourth season, we saw the Federation President setting policy. President Ra-ghoratreii was in clear control of Federation foreign policy in TUC, and President Jaresh-Inyo was the person setting Federation domestic policy in DS9. It's pretty clear that the Federation President is not ceremonial, but is both head of state and head of government, as in the American model.
Nerys Myk for the win!
STAdventures, nice pic! Thanks for doing that.
Nah. Only in Federation office buildings, like your Federation Social Security Administration office.
Republika Hrvatska.I see y'all like neckties, so here's one trivia question for you. What country does the necktie originate from?
It was originally called the cravate, named by the French for the Croatian mercenaries who first wore them.
But as I said, Archer - as a Starfleet officer - is entitled to wear his Starfleet uniform. Usually at formal occasions.
Maybe, but I doubt he would have done so while he was still in office. It would have been bad form.
Very well done. How about some more, like an aging Trip, T'Pol, Malcolm or Hoshi. Or a Tucker/T'Pol offspring?
Probably not in his regular duties as president, no. But as I said, at formal get-togethers and other such ceremonies, I believe *any* former Starfleet officer who is present is entitled to wear their uniform.
But it would still have been bad form for him to do so. And I don't buy for one moment that he would willingly undermine the presidency that way. He'd wear the uniform before and after holding office, but not while holding office.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill on his return to Downing Street after a visit to troops in the Middle East in 1943
He was Prime Minister 10 May 1940 – 26 July 1945.
The photo and identifying caption are half way down this arrticle.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094521/General-Gordon-does-Churchill-But-Winstons-enraged-grandson-says-arent-fit-lick-boots.html#ixzz0uB9NhqHN
I'm not entirely sure of the date of this photo Sci, but Roosevelt's physical condition should be some indication.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Winston Churchill was created an honourary Air Commodore of a squadron in Scotland during World War II, and wore his RAF uniform on many notable occasions during the war, including a state visit to meet Josef Stalin.
He also appeared at one point, at the Yalta conference with both Stalin and Roosevelt, in the uniform a colonel of Hussars.
Even though the Prime Minister appeared in military uniform, the elected British government never lost control of it's military. So apparently the head of government's wardrobe that wasn't what was keeping them under civilian control in the first place. You don't think the actual control might have come from patriotism or the troops self-respect?
What happen to the undermining of the idea of civilian control of the military? It never happen.
But if that isn't the case here, perhaps that was never the case.
Is it possible that your interpretation of what it means for a elected leader to appear, on occasion, in a military uniform and what it implies is in fact a misinterpretation? Appearing in a uniform could just as easily imply confidence in the very control that some might think in so precarious that a certain form of dress is necessary to maintain it.
President Obama's appearing in a business suit in no way implies he has true loyalty to the business apparatus of America, that implication on my part would be absurd.
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6508/50711968.jpg
This picture of Charlies De Gaulle, in an actual uniform, is from Jan. 01, 1960, he had been the president of France for about one year at this point. I think we all recall how France utterly lost control of it military shortly after this photo appeared in Life Magazine.
President Jonathan Archer is a former Starfleet Admiral, he would know better than anyone the the true reason Starfleet members follow orders isn't because they've been legally subordinated, Starfleet is (I assume) a completely volunteer service. these people have chosen to place themselves in the chain of command, they swore to follow the order of their superiors, both those in uniform and those out. Archer would know that for the Federation President to appear occasionally in uniform is a complete non-issue.
I'll remind you that the only time we saw a Federation government even begin to lose control (Homefront) ...
President Jaresh-Inyo wasn't wearing a uniform.
.
.
Last edited:
That's CHEATING! I mean ANOTHER offspring. Like a little kid, and not Elizabeth.
You sure? I've never heard of the guy.
Also: Churchill was also Prime Minister from 1951 to 1955. If you're going to patronizingly list commonly-known information as though the person you're talking to has never heard of it, be complete about it!
Of course, there are other factors you're not taking into consideration.
First and foremost, the United Kingdom had existed at that point for 140-some years. And its predecessor states, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, had existed as far back as the 10th Century. By contrast, the Federation of Archer's time would have existed for only about 25 years. So you're talking about a much older culture than I am.
Why do I make it a point to bring that up? Because the Federation's age means that its institutions are by definition going to be weaker and less respected by its citizenry during the 2180s than Chuchill's Britain. Symbolism therefore becomes much more important, and the potential to undermine democratic institutions much greater, as a result of the Federation's age -- it hasn't had the opportunity to cultivate a respect for Federation institutions the way 1940s Britain had.
Secondly, you need to remember that Churchill was the head of government, but not the head of state. One of the problems with a head of state appearing in military uniform is that it implies that the head of state is not above military authority (as a uniform means subordination to the military hierarchy). Churchill, by contrast, was not the King, but merely the Prime Minister -- which means that seeing the head of government in uniform does not imply that the head of state is him/herself under military authority. The Federation President, by contrast, is both head of government and head of state -- they are not merely the political leaders (as with heads of government such as Prime Ministers), but most also represent the unity of the nation itself in their role as head of state.
I'm sure it did. But a young nation like the Federation would need time to cultivate that sense of patriotism; it wouldn't just be reflexive, and bad symbolism can undermine it.
After all, bear in mind that one of the founding worlds of the Federation, Vulcan, had itself been under the control of a military dictatorship only a few years before the Federation's founding. Democracy does not come easily. There would be factions that would fear that seeing the Federation President in military uniform would mean that Vulcan's prior military domination was starting to infect the UFP as a whole. There would be other factions that would simply see it as inappropriate given Vulcan's history. Others may well react by wanting to encourage the kind of military government Vulcan had had through such symbolism.
Bottom line: The Federation of the 2180s would be inherently less politically stable, with a far more immature political culture, than the U.K.'s.
Except that the term "business suit" is an inaccurate colloquialism. A more accurate term would be lounge suit.
Bad example. Charles de Gaulle came to power in part because the French military undermined the authority of the civilian government.
And bear in mind that I did not say that wearing a uniform is the same thing as military usurpation of the government or that not wearing a uniform prevents such things. What I did say was that it sends the wrong message.
Yes, and he was very nearly overthrown by a Starfleet Admiral who wanted to install himself as military dictator of the Federation. And he would have been ruling the Federation while wearing a uniform.
The Head of Government wearing a uniform in no way implies that the military's leadership hierarchy has any level of authority over someone who isn't in the their chain of command. A raw recruit in uniform can openly laugh at a general from a (non-allied) foreign nation who attempts to give him an order, because the recruit isn't in that general's chain of command.
I do remember that Churchill was the head of government, you need to remember that the British Head of State herself regularly appears in uniform to this day. And no she doesn't run the show.
Now, I'm not attacking you, I'm questioning your position, I feel that there is no validity behind what you are saying.
So prove it, historically. I've documented (w/pictures) two western style, liberal democracies, where democratically elected civilian leaders wore military uniforms, in public, and it had no negative effects upon the civilian control of that nation's military.
So now it your turn. How about two clear-cut cases of where in western style liberal democracies, two different elected heads of government wore actual military uniform (no quasi/semi-uniforms) and it harmed the control of the military by the civilian government. Oh, and let make it in the last seventy years, shall we?
I don't think you can do it, I believe that the objections that were posted [edit]. If the President of the Federation choose to wear a a uniform, or maybe just a insignia on their formal wear, good. A acknowledgment that the Federation's people's safety and freedoms do not solely come from a document. Of America's forty-three Presidents, thirty-one were prior military. If the Federation Presidency is loosely based upon the American model, the Federation President's might possess a similar ratio of prior service.
The Vulcan high command was shown to be more of a Meritocracy system, not a military dictatorship. At least by Ambassador Soval description. Run by Administrators, not Admirals and Generals. Years later, although headed by T'Pau, there no indication the system had been completely replaced.
Last edited:
Kids... this thread is about a picture. A very pretty picture (either version) of a fictional character from a made-up sci-fi TV show. Whipped up by a talented photoshop artist for fun. You know... fun? Ring any bells?
Perhaps you can stand down from brandishing your facts, photos, and claims at twenty paces? You're offering your opinions, which is fine, but there is no need to toss around accusations of irrationality or patronizing or lack of validity, or any of your other assorted barbs. Getting personal only weakens your position. Not to mention, you're not mentioning the aforementioned picture anymore.
All opinions are valid to the person making them. And a duel of opinions can have no "winner." No one knows how leaders will dress in 150 years, or why, or if there will even be a "Federation."
It's a PICTURE. Okay? Kindly dispense with the sniping and get back on topic.
Perhaps you can stand down from brandishing your facts, photos, and claims at twenty paces? You're offering your opinions, which is fine, but there is no need to toss around accusations of irrationality or patronizing or lack of validity, or any of your other assorted barbs. Getting personal only weakens your position. Not to mention, you're not mentioning the aforementioned picture anymore.
All opinions are valid to the person making them. And a duel of opinions can have no "winner." No one knows how leaders will dress in 150 years, or why, or if there will even be a "Federation."
It's a PICTURE. Okay? Kindly dispense with the sniping and get back on topic.
A wise dude once said: "One picture is worth a thousand words"...
Similar threads
