Tradition of US Military Officers Not Voting or Engaging in Partisan Politics

[cptau 169]

When I was in the military the 1970s, the older commissioned officers spoke of this tradition of not voting in elections.   It was not strictly followed by all commissioned officers then as some did vote.  What was strictly followed was encouraging enlisted personnel to engage in voting and for commissioned officers to not discuss publicly political issues or show any preferences.   That included keeping campaign bumper stickers off their cars and no political signs posted in their yards.    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/i-fight-for-your-right-to-vote-but-i-wont-do-it-myself.html?utm_content=bufferd8602&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&_r=0

Tonight, like millions of Americans, I will be glued to my television, watching the third and last presidential debate. But unlike them, and millions of others, whatever I hear tonight, I won’t be taking it with me into the ballot booth. I am a major in the United States Army, and I believe it is my professional duty — and that of my fellow officers, in all branches — not to vote.

To be clear, I strongly believe that officers, like all citizens, should have the right to vote. But because military officers have a special responsibility to prevent politics from dividing our troops and separating us from society, it is all the more important for us to choose not to exercise that right (this is my belief, of course, and not necessarily that of the Department of Defense or the American government).

Especially when our elected officials routinely make fateful decisions about where and how we are deployed, it is vital that we maintain the constitutional division between the civilians in charge and the men and women who execute their orders. Anything that erodes that division is a threat, however small, to our democracy.

The military’s guidelines on voting are fuzzy. Officers, we’re instructed, are encouraged to “carry out the obligations of citizenship,” yet we are also strongly cautioned not to “engage in partisan political activity.”

This ambiguity recognizes that we have two identities: I am a citizen. But I have also sworn an oath as a commissioned military officer. One came by birth and coincidence, the other by belief and commitment. In certain circumstances, my identity as a military officer should take precedence. Voting is one of them.

Friends and family often tell me I’m not fulfilling my “patriotic duty,” that I’m “robbing the electorate of an educated voter.” They ask why I can’t just quietly walk into a voting booth, pull the lever, and silently slip back out. What’s the harm in that?

The trouble is I will have exercised a personal, partisan choice, committing myself to a candidate, party and set of beliefs and policies. I would like to believe that I can separate my political and professional views, but I worry that, years from now, my decision could undermine my military judgment.

This is principled abstention, a silent form of speech as serious to me as the actions of those athletes who choose not to stand for the national anthem. By not voting, I am saying as loudly as I can, as quietly as I am able, that I will never make my political preference an obstacle to the best military decisions for the defense of our nation.

“I am in the pay of the United States government,” Gen. George S. Patton once put it. “If I vote against the administration, I am voting against my commander in chief. If I vote for the administration in office I am being bought.”

And it’s not just about me, or officers individually. Militaries require rigid cohesion to function amid terrifyingly violent circumstances, and they require society’s trust to fill and fund critical needs. But people are inherently prone to social tribalism and political factionalism, and so the military has adopted a deliberate nonpartisan stance to support soldier solidarity and maintain the public’s trust.

Unfortunately, an unacceptable number of military officers who vote in this election will publicly express their political preferences and pressure others to follow. One 2010 study found that over a quarter of military officers reported that another officer tried to influence their vote; my experience suggests this figure would be even higher today — like everyone else, officers are inundated and politicized by 24-hour news and social media. To vote, and then rely upon a culture of secrecy to prevail, is not a successful strategy in the Facebook age.

Political abstention is the simple solution: With no vote, there’s no need to convey partisan ideas. There’s no quicker way to extinguish inflammatory political small talk than to say, “I’m a military officer; I don’t vote.”

By not voting, I am countering the alarming number of retired officers who damage the traditional political neutrality of the Profession of Arms by vociferously endorsing presidential candidates and being used as campaign props. I am recording my vote of confidence in America — after all, trust must flow two ways, and purposeful restraint affirms the faith I place in my fellow citizens with the selection of our commander in chief.

By not voting, I am walking in the boot prints of our greatest officers: George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Patton, to name a few who didn’t vote while in uniform, and those of the modern era that tread the same path — David H. Petraeus, Martin Dempsey and, by all appearances, Mark A. Milley, the current Army chief of staff. Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant is an especially instructive case, because he faced the grimmest temptation to tamper with the election of 1864 during the Civil War. And yet, crucially, Grant chose not to vote.

These giants lived in different times, but they all agreed: Military officers shouldn’t vote in national elections. As a profession, we’d do well to follow their lead. I know I will.

M. L. Cavanaugh is a major and Army strategist.

 

[homersapien 11,812]

"Officers, we’re instructed, are encouraged to “carry out the obligations of citizenship,” yet we are also strongly cautioned not to “engage in partisan political activity.”

To me, that suggests it's OK to vote, just keep your mouth shut about who you favor - including bumper stickers, signs, etc.

[Mims44 1,958]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Officers, we’re instructed, are encouraged to “carry out the obligations of citizenship,” yet we are also strongly cautioned not to “engage in partisan political activity.”

To me, that suggests it's OK to vote, just keep your mouth shut about who you favor - including bumper stickers, signs, etc.

Pretty much, everyone voted when I was in, but no one really ever talked about politics. Except in the sense of telling others to go out and vote. This carried over even to the Iraqis, we were told to push all of them to vote in their elections but to NEVER mention a candidate by name, and the Iraqis def asked us hundreds of times who they should vote for.

[quietfan 233]

Yeah, I'd think it's okay to vote, just not to endorse, campaign for, or public discuss your political leanings.

But if some are led to abstain from voting because of their own conscience or beliefs, I can certainly respect their choice.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Sounds like a Sir Robert Peel philosophy.

[Mikey 16,781]

The policy of voting but keeping your mouth shut is not unique to the military. When I was employed by the USDA I was frequently required to use my private vehicle for official duties. I could not have bumper stickers or other political messages on the vehicle while using it for official travel, and could not discuss politics with clients no matter how hard they pressed for such a discussion. I also was forbidden by law to organize partisan rallies or participate in any partisan activity for candidates above county level.

I know that this is not exactly the same as the officer's 'don't vote' thing but it's along those lines.

[japantiger 4,077]

It was Reagan v Carter....we were encouraged to vote and it was explained in excruciating detail to us why voting for Carter was something only a Squid would do....  

[homersapien 11,812]

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

It was Reagan v Carter....we were encouraged to vote and it was explained in excruciating detail to us why voting for Carter was something only a Squid would do....  

Whoever "explained" that was unethical.

[homersapien 11,812]

And I bet the 241 Marines that died in Beirut would have liked a second chance to vote.

[cptau 169]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And I bet the 241 Marines that died in Beirut would have liked a second chance to vote.

They might vote to never try and stop groups of moslems, arabs, and Iranians from killing each other.   

 

[homersapien 11,812]

4 minutes ago, cptau said:

They might vote to never try and stop groups of moslems, arabs, and Iranians from killing each other.   

 

Especially if that attempt consisted of checking into a hotel with unloaded weapons.  Brilliant strategy by Reagan!

[japantiger 4,077]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Whoever "explained" that was unethical.

Please explain what is unethical about 2 citizens discussing an election? 

[homersapien 11,812]

1 hour ago, japantiger said:

Please explain what is unethical about 2 citizens discussing an election? 

Excuse me, I got the impression you were talking about an active officer advising active troops:

"....we were encouraged to vote and it was explained in excruciating detail to us why voting for Carter was something only a Squid would do....  "

See why?

 

[Guest NC1406]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

And I bet the 241 Marines that died in Beirut would have liked a second chance to vote.

Maybe 240.... I knew one that would not change their vote given the option.

The family he has left would be pissed that you and I are bantering over this on a message board.  I will give his sister an extra hug when I see her in a couple weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,812]

11 hours ago, NC1406 said:

Maybe 240.... I knew one that would not change their vote given the option.

The family he has left would be pissed that you and I are bantering over this on a message board.  I will give his sister an extra hug when I see her in a couple weeks.

I was not "bantering".  Sorry you took offense, but none was intended.

Tell the sister I am very sorry for her sacrifice and I, for one, haven't forgotten it.

 

[Guest NC1406]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I was not "bantering".  Sorry you took offense, but none was intended.

Tell the sister I am very sorry for her sacrifice and I, for one, haven't forgotten it.

 

No offense taken.  Will pass it along. Thanks.

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,246]

My dad was 33 years in the US Navy He graduated from Naval Academy in 1944 he voted in every election. What he did not do was share his political views with people on board his ships as he wanted them to vote their own conscience.