It’s easy to be fascinated by Royalty when they represent figureheads one ocean away.  Lots of pomp.  Cool swords and uniforms.  The secret thoughts about how nice it would be to have people jump at your command.  As if…

It was a curiosity how the boys of Charles, grandson’s of Elizabeth, Queen of England and plenty of other places as well, could be trained for the military.  Do you scream at a potential future king in boot camp?  What do you call him?  How many push-ups must he do for having a royal hair out of place? 

Some of my questions were answered this week when  Drudge outed Prince Harry as 2d Leftenant [ph] Harry Wales, Afghanistan.  I understand why he did so; I think it was misguided.

Chris Cuomo announced on GMA that the reason Harry was in Afghanistan is that he’s “expendable”.  Prince William is the heir to the thrown.  Prince Harry is the spare.  It’s not bad to be the spare, though I doubt anyone really thought of Harry as expendable.  More likely that William could not be put in harm’s way, while Harry had to fulfill the role of showing the world that the Royals would not ask their subject to do that which they would not.

There is much to admire in this idea that those who are charged with the responsibility of leadership, even if only by example, should be required to suffer the indignity, the discomfort, the pain of those who will live with the product of their choices.  If Prince Harry was treated as a real soldier, and there’s no reason to think otherwise, then he will know what it means to be in combat.  What a critical lesson for anyone who could ever be in a position to send another person into the line of fire.

Americans are so much better than everyone else.  We keep saying that, over and over, in the hope that the mantra becomes truth.  How many of our “leaders”, and I use that term very loosely (very, very loosely), have put their children in the line of fire.  How many have been in the line of fire themselves?

Line of fire is used metaphorically.  It’s not about being in the military.  It’s about experiencing life the way the rest of us do.  It’s about the petty annoyances that we all suffer.  It’s about trying to figure out what we are supposed to do to make our children’s lives better than our own.

In college, there is a field of study called “political science.”  Some take poly sci to become profs or researchers.  Most do so because they want to become politicians.  We know these students.  They were the ones who ran for class president in high school.  I have an image of a kid wearing an Argyle vest.  It wasn’t fashionable then either.

This course of study leads to a career path of politician.  It often passes through law school on the way.  Remember  Paul Caron’s post about the Kaplan study. The  flip side of the money issue was that “42% (52% of men, 34% of women)” want to go to law school to prepare them for a political career.  The ability to know and understand the law is very important for people who are asked to write and vote on whether something should be a law or not.  It’s a pretty good skill to have.

But there should be no such thing as a “political career” where young people decide that they want to grow up to be part of the cadre of decision-makers who control the lives of others.  What hubris to think that they have the capacity to lead, or serve.  What have they done in their lives to give them the breadth of understanding necessary to fulfill this role?  Absolutely nothing.

Harry put on a uniform and saw what life was like for a soldier in the field.  This was an experience that will impact on his understanding of life.  He didn’t get to choose his role in life by picking courses from a catalog.  He was born to it.  But at least he learned something.  Can our politicians say that?