Posted on Feb 5, 2014
Should active duty military personnel be allowed to join a political party?
17K
141
87
9
8
1
This has been a controversial one. First a caveat, I am chairman of the Hawaii GOP and a member of the RNC so I clearly have my opinions.<div><br></div><div>But there has been past controversy of soldiers speaking out in uniform and getting in trouble. There are laws where there is clear separation, but where does it interfere with our first amendment rights?</div><div><br></div><div>Should military personnel be able to express their personal political views? Should the active component hinder political involvement? </div><div><br></div><div>*I am adding some comments below as an edit to clear up any confusion there may be on why I am asking this questions. </div><div><br></div><div><span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;">...My question was whether or not speaking at all while on active duty should be allowed in order to prevent mistakes from happening where military get caught like General McCrystal did. He was an awesome general and could have offered much more but some political off hand comments he made makes it on the front page of rolling stone and he was out. From what I understand what he said was in confidence and not in his capacity.</span><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;">I am in the guard so I can hold the position I do now, but when on orders, my staff and state cmte know that I will not respond or do things that violate my orders. I will not mix the two up. <br><div><br></div><div>I am a big believer that the lines between the military and civilian sector should be separate and the civilian side with the authority over the military like our constitution grants. This is why Lincoln fired McClellan and Truman fired MacArthur, both generals were out of line regardless of what you think of their military strategy.</div><div><br></div><div>My question had nothing to do with being in uniform, but how much we can get involved to prevent any mistakes from slipping out. When I was a cadet at West Point, there was a vocal minority that active duty military personnel should not get to vote at all. They had a debate that we all had to attend as part of the class and of course we were all against it. </div></div><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;">I am firmly against this but they did bring up a good point. Military officers historically tend to be Republican, libertarian, conservative (not all). When Clinton was in office, his staff was known to routinely speak against the military and one senior staffer told one of the top generals that "we don't speak to military personnel." (From Colin Powell's biography). Many liberals historically have disliked the military because it tended to skew towards conservatives, and the nature of national defense itself. The minority that said military should not be able to vote was to prevent any perception that officers were politically skewed one way or another because of their votes.</div><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;">It is not about exploiting for political gain, but about maintaining a system where we promote that the military is apolitical, and its members may have to give up that right because of it. If they do have to give up the right, where is the line drawn? Right now the line is when not in uniform, you can do what you can do, but in uniform you can't. I think that is good. However one marine got in trouble because he spoke out against POTUS on facebook and wouldn't take it down when asked to by his chain of command. He argued he did while not in uniform and got court martialed. But if active can't say anything at all, then this wouldn't even be an issue. It would open up others though and I don't think we want to go down that route.</div></div><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;">That is the basis of my question. Whew, sorry for the long response!</div>
Politics
Law
Edited 12 y ago
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 39
21
21
0
Join a political party - yes. Express their political views, while in uniform, no.
(21)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Yessir!! Especially when those views are outside the work environment and in public. I do not care for President Obama but I respect him as a person and the office.
(2)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) In my opinion they only have to respect the office not the person. LTC (Join to see) Sir shouldn't you be able to discuss your views between your peers if asked your views. Or did you mean to the media. I agree in uniform to media.
(1)
(0)
14
14
0
Sir -<div><br></div><div>I believe that if someone wants to express their personal political opinion it needs to be on their own time and not in uniform. At the end of the day regardless of your political views and personal opinions, these should not effect you at work. It is when people involve their personal opinions/political in their work that things get difficult. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's just that opinion has a time and place.</div>
(14)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I remember at the end of the Carter Administration it was almost a consensus that President Carter sucked as President. The feelings were so intense that servicemen were becoming more open about it.
Barring harassment and the Rush Limbaugh Show is not harassment then the ability to voice your feelings is a right. I would opt to be quiet on duty because it is possible that your boss directly over you might feel upset and that might make your life miserable.
Plus being respectful is always the right thing.
(2)
(0)
SSG Matt Murphy
I like your post with one exception: everyone is NOT entitled to their opinion.
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning. Seco...
Excerpts from a DC Airline Ticket Agent [cont.], About.com Urban Legends
(2)
(0)
12
12
0
<p>The military is apolitical. It has to be that way. We cannot show or favor political sides while in uniform or while on official duty. Thus, IMHO, active duty service members need to avoid overt political involvement because that is a direct conflict of interest. What you do politically OFF duty is your business as long you don't use your military status for political gain. National Guard and Reserve should have no restrictions as long as their political actions don't interfere with their military duties and like AD, don't use their military affiliation for political gain.</p><p><br></p>
(12)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I'm more worried that if the military became a political entity, we would go the way of the Banana Republics or even the Roman Republic (the fall of the Republic was a direct result of the legions loyalty being supplanted to would be emperors vs to the nation)
.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
<p>I concur and like I mentioned earlier, that even with President Carter we were still relatively mute about politics. It was a kind of bizarre time then. President Nixon left, President Ford followed and he was unremarkable. I was in Arkansas when the Clintons were in the Governors Mansion in Arkansas.</p><p><br></p><p>And President Carter alienated everyone. That is where the politics seemed to reach it's peak. No one believe President Carter was corrupt but the Missile Complexes were under scrutiny and a hostile Congress.</p><p><br></p><p>So naturally politics would follow and for the Military today who bash him you should remember this. President Reagan gave us large pay increases of 13% across the board. So politics cannot be taken away from us but should be respected.</p>
(2)
(0)
SSG John Karr
I was working as a Defense Contractor and after having spent a year and a half in Iraq I was asked to speak at my county's political committee. I was still in the Guard but in civiees and I made sure to preface my speech with "In no way does what I'm about to say have anything to do with official policy of the United States of America", just wanted to cover my bases.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
MAJ Chang,
Without leveling any criticism at the current DoD policies concerning political participation by Active Duty Military, including Reserve and Guard Soldiers on active status (because doing so is frowned upon in this establishment), I would welcome greater freedom to contribute to the political process. I don't, however, anticipate a change to the regulations occurring any time soon.
I am not complaining; I fully realized what I was signing up for when I came back on active duty nearly two decades ago. Our position and responsibilities preclude us from participating fully in many activities that the public takes for granted. I do, however, intend to make up for lost time after I retire!
For any military who aren't clear on what they can and can't do in the political arena, here is a very well written article that breaks it down:
I receive a lot of questions about what military members are allowed and not allowed to do when it comes to politics. Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD...
(6)
(0)
(3)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
I think that political activities are fine, but you should also never discuss politics at all with anyone that can be legally punished for telling you to shove your opinion up your rear.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
<p>I think this administration only wants freedom of speech for themselves and that conservatives viewpoints are wrong. Therefore Freedom of Speech is only allowed for their party. I can't begin to tell you how dangerous that this kind of thinking is.</p><p><br></p><p>Being in uniform and endorsing a party is wrong and SSG Pawel is 100% correct that we work for the current administration. (while on activity). This doesn't mean that we have to like certain things but we do have the right to be active in politics just not as an active duty service personal.</p><p><br></p><p>imho</p>
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Your point about the 'group think' mentatlity and intolerance for alternate viewpoints is dead on, SSgt Olson. Unfortunately, it applies to the previous administration also. Since 9/11 I have watched this nation go from ultra-patriotic to ultra-anti-government. In the years immediately following 9/11 I seemed to be constantly telling people that it is NOT un-American to criticize the government. Now I seem to be constantly telling them that the NSA/CIA/FBI/TSA is NOT out to steal all their freedoms and lock them up. What a crazy fricken world! LOL
(6)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt. M.
I believe that both party's leaderships are polarizing. I have to remind people that President Bush was called a 'monkey' and I think this nation is going the wrong with all the hyperbole. Likewise hate talk against the president differs from just saying you do not like him or disagree with his views.
It is like we need civics classes to remediate and teach people to work together. If anything the differences are light years apart and increasing proportionately.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Sir, I don't think the active component hinders political involvement much at all. I can donate money to any candidate I want, I can attend a political rally when off duty and out of uniform, and I have a voting assistance officer to help me get my absentee ballot sent off in time. Obviously I can't make official endorsements using my rank and position because when I wear the uniform I represent not just the Army but the United States of America itself. In my opinion, the law is clear and I don't believe there should be politicians in uniform. It reminds me too much of the Soviet "political officers" they had in each unit to ensure all the Soldiers were good communists. I don't think politics needs a uniform. But I have always encouraged my Soldiers to exercise their right to vote and to do so "in accordance with the dictates of your own conscience."
(4)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
No SSgt, the regulation specifically states we cannot take active part, only passive observation.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG McCulley, out of uniform I can do pretty much what I feel is right. In uniform you cannot.
(1)
(0)
SSG Tim Everett
SSG Kevin McCulley
Per FM 27-14 "Legal Guide for Soldiers", page 2, section entitled "Participating in Political Activities":
You may vote and express your opinions on politics privately and informally. You may
attend political rallies and political club meetings and may even join political clubs, but you must never wear your uniform when participating in political activities. The reason is to prevent the public from incorrectly assuming that your participation represents the Army.
You may not—
Seek election to a political office.
Campaign for a political candidate.
Speak to political rallies or clubs.
Hold office in political clubs.
Per section entitled "Demonstrating" on the same page (2):
Your uniformed attendance at a public demonstration may also give the appearance that the Army approves of or sponsors the demonstration. To preclude this appearance, you may participate only when you are off duty. You may not wear the Army uniform at any demonstration, and you may not—
Attend a demonstration held on a military post.
Attend a demonstration in a foreign country.
Participate in a demonstration where law and order might be breached, such as traffic
being blocked or police being assaulted.
Per FM 27-14 "Legal Guide for Soldiers", page 2, section entitled "Participating in Political Activities":
You may vote and express your opinions on politics privately and informally. You may
attend political rallies and political club meetings and may even join political clubs, but you must never wear your uniform when participating in political activities. The reason is to prevent the public from incorrectly assuming that your participation represents the Army.
You may not—
Seek election to a political office.
Campaign for a political candidate.
Speak to political rallies or clubs.
Hold office in political clubs.
Per section entitled "Demonstrating" on the same page (2):
Your uniformed attendance at a public demonstration may also give the appearance that the Army approves of or sponsors the demonstration. To preclude this appearance, you may participate only when you are off duty. You may not wear the Army uniform at any demonstration, and you may not—
Attend a demonstration held on a military post.
Attend a demonstration in a foreign country.
Participate in a demonstration where law and order might be breached, such as traffic
being blocked or police being assaulted.
(0)
(0)
SFC Thomas Butler
SSG Kevin McCulley - Then just do it in civilian clothes! Why do you feel that you have to be in uniform? No regulation states that you can't participate in the political process. You just can't be seen to promote an image that your political thinking is endorsed by the DoD. How is that a problem?
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Major, I've been a Republican since I first registered to vote. I don't think that being a part of a party should affect a person's ability to serve. Now when it comes to actions while wearing the uniform that is the area that goes too far. While wearing the uniform personal opinion shouldn't be expressed. I don't feel it interferes with our freedom of speech if we express our opinions out of uniform and do not do or say anything that could affect good order and discipline of the chain of command. Other government officials face similar limitations in how they can express their political opinion through their official capacity as employees and office holders.<br>
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
tl;dr - Humans are horrible and we must avoid conflicts of interest.
I remember reading a very interesting 1970's piece on the Military as a profession similar to doctors and lawyers. The core idea was non-productive specialization that provided an essential service to society and which featured profession-internal education systems and quality control.
One thing the article pointed out is that 1950's Officer would not exercise their right of citizenship at the polling booth out of principle. The same ideal applies to "service earns citizenship" in the novel Starship Troopers: the right to vote begins with the termination of service.
I have a hard time when I vote as I tend to vote along the lines of my personal beliefs and switch party allegiance based on perceived candidate quality and larger strategic ramifications (single party controlled legislative and executive, etc). I don't have a hard time choosing, but I have a hard time justifying my choice.
Is it SSG Beutler that wants the hawkish post-imperialist President and Congress or is it Carl Beutler? Does Carl Beutler believe that entitlement spending must be reformed before it swallows up the entire budget or is it SSG Beutler's fear that his career will be curtailed by reduction in military spending in response to entitlement growth?
I am but one voice in a sea of citizens, so my personal struggle to do what I think is right with my ballot is unlikely to affect the larger outcome.
However, if I cannot differentiate between what is right for America (my number one priority in my definition of service) and what is right for me & the DOD; should I be trusted to use the stature given to me by virtue of service and servant-leadership in connection to the political agenda of one party or another?
There are historical and contemporary examples of high ranking officers assuming the mantle of a specific party and using their credentials to fend for their vision of America. I will not judge them. However, each of those is after retirement. Before the exit from honorable service in uniform, my political action must be subordinate to the civilian leadership as long as they are in compliance with the Constitution I have sworn to uphold & defend. Agitation on behalf of ideology not inherent to my obligations of service dilutes the purity of my action.
I remember reading a very interesting 1970's piece on the Military as a profession similar to doctors and lawyers. The core idea was non-productive specialization that provided an essential service to society and which featured profession-internal education systems and quality control.
One thing the article pointed out is that 1950's Officer would not exercise their right of citizenship at the polling booth out of principle. The same ideal applies to "service earns citizenship" in the novel Starship Troopers: the right to vote begins with the termination of service.
I have a hard time when I vote as I tend to vote along the lines of my personal beliefs and switch party allegiance based on perceived candidate quality and larger strategic ramifications (single party controlled legislative and executive, etc). I don't have a hard time choosing, but I have a hard time justifying my choice.
Is it SSG Beutler that wants the hawkish post-imperialist President and Congress or is it Carl Beutler? Does Carl Beutler believe that entitlement spending must be reformed before it swallows up the entire budget or is it SSG Beutler's fear that his career will be curtailed by reduction in military spending in response to entitlement growth?
I am but one voice in a sea of citizens, so my personal struggle to do what I think is right with my ballot is unlikely to affect the larger outcome.
However, if I cannot differentiate between what is right for America (my number one priority in my definition of service) and what is right for me & the DOD; should I be trusted to use the stature given to me by virtue of service and servant-leadership in connection to the political agenda of one party or another?
There are historical and contemporary examples of high ranking officers assuming the mantle of a specific party and using their credentials to fend for their vision of America. I will not judge them. However, each of those is after retirement. Before the exit from honorable service in uniform, my political action must be subordinate to the civilian leadership as long as they are in compliance with the Constitution I have sworn to uphold & defend. Agitation on behalf of ideology not inherent to my obligations of service dilutes the purity of my action.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Jason Goodman
SSgt Olson: You say the stifling of speech would make an administration dictatorial, and I agree with that statement. However, it is not a soldier's place to question the politics of their leadership while in uniform. When you aren't representing the military in any way, do whatever you want. While in uniform you are a representative of your CoC, all the way up the the POTUS.
(4)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
MacArthur was 100% correct about the need for a larger troop presence, nuclear attack on southern China, and aggressive posture to end the Korean War with a capture of the whole peninsula. The inherent risk of involving the USSR directly by using nuclear force outside of the UN mandate for restoration of the previous border aside; he forgot his place.
Even the Chief of Staff doesn't make foreign policy or set the aim for the war effort; the CoS advises the CinC and then executes whichever policy the POTUS then adopts. MacArthur pretty much called out his own commander.
The three-branch division of government requires that the monopoly of force rests with the executive as authorized by the legislative and is then employed by means of the military. Once the military is officially involved with setting the legislative policy we create a situation in which the system is no longer balanced.
Even the Chief of Staff doesn't make foreign policy or set the aim for the war effort; the CoS advises the CinC and then executes whichever policy the POTUS then adopts. MacArthur pretty much called out his own commander.
The three-branch division of government requires that the monopoly of force rests with the executive as authorized by the legislative and is then employed by means of the military. Once the military is officially involved with setting the legislative policy we create a situation in which the system is no longer balanced.
(3)
(0)
LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU®
Everyone has great points here. Ultimately we are a civilian led government, and our founding fathers did not want a system where a general with a army (like the Roman days) could march in and become president.
We have had two high-profile instances where a top general and president have clashed and the president ultimately used his authority to remove that general: McClellan and Lincoln; MacArthur and Truman. Recently we had McCrystal and Biden with the rolling stone article but not as big as the other two.
Regardless of what people think (I believe that militarily McClellan was wrong, and MacArthur was right), it was in appropriate for the generals to openly flaunt their disagreement with the president. When MacArthur and Truman were going to meet in Japan during the war, protocol is that MacArthur land first to greet Truman. But both were circling overhead because MacArthur refused to land first.
Insubordination sets bad precedence. macArthur was wrong to do so. He ran for President afterwards and that was the proper place to state his opinions as a candidate and civilian, but not as a general. Eisenhower (who I think was one of the best generals we had) became the next president. He was aptly able to balance politics from the military.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSgt Goodman. You do NOT while in UNIFORM make comments detrimental to your superiors. PERIOD. However criticisms in confidence are none of your business or anyone else in private. Unless that criticism is threatening. Otherwise that is being a dictator. We fought against that.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google