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
0
0
0
Join? No problem. Vounteer? Even better. Speak out in any fashion that could be mistaken in any way to be supported by your service, no. If a person is on active duty, then be active in politics if you wish, but simply do not attempt to use your rank or service to gain any sort of "edge". The rules are there to prevent people from attempting to persuade others by making them think a particular branch or the military in general supports a certain candidate or party.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I haven't read all the post. However I feel it is a fundmental right that you get to pick you political party! I lean towards the right but am a registered Democrat. That's what I have been since I registered to vote. My family members were die hard Democrates and I followed suit. Niw when it comes to voting. I vote for the candidate I feel most qualified regardless of political party. That said. While in uniform, you should not campaign, discuss or show your political affilation.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
My family were Chicago Democrats. I still have a brother who believes that if Obama wasn't legit, the GOP would have done more to see to it that he didn't get to be (p)Resident. He has never stopped living in the Chicago area. When you leave, it opens you up to other perspectives and ways of doing things. Unions, which dominate Chicago politics, have outlived their purpose. They serve their own Union political interests moreso than those they purport to serve... whose dues they collect and lavishly line their pockets with.
Our Founding Fathers were not Democrats in any way, shape or form... at least what's left of what once was the Democrat Party. It has now gone socialist and its free spending policies, and open border policies are aimed not at taking care of the people of America, but at serving their own political and special interests.
The only way forward for America, is to adopt a less is more approach when it comes to government. Our politicians can't keep borrowing to pay for their lavish spending. All they do is redistribute income from one group to another and this practice has to STOP! You aren't going to have a country left if 1/2 the people are working to support 1/2 who don't work. That's CRAZY! The half of entitled Americans that are sucking the blood out of working Americans have to start contributing or they are going to run this country bankrupt. We're already in debt up to our eyeballs and saddling the next generation with the cost of things we felt entitled to but couldn't afford.
A fiscally conservative approach, which holds gov't accountable for its spending, and cuts entitlements to those who can but refuse to work is the only way this country can move forward and get itself out of the mess it's in.
Our Founding Fathers were not Democrats in any way, shape or form... at least what's left of what once was the Democrat Party. It has now gone socialist and its free spending policies, and open border policies are aimed not at taking care of the people of America, but at serving their own political and special interests.
The only way forward for America, is to adopt a less is more approach when it comes to government. Our politicians can't keep borrowing to pay for their lavish spending. All they do is redistribute income from one group to another and this practice has to STOP! You aren't going to have a country left if 1/2 the people are working to support 1/2 who don't work. That's CRAZY! The half of entitled Americans that are sucking the blood out of working Americans have to start contributing or they are going to run this country bankrupt. We're already in debt up to our eyeballs and saddling the next generation with the cost of things we felt entitled to but couldn't afford.
A fiscally conservative approach, which holds gov't accountable for its spending, and cuts entitlements to those who can but refuse to work is the only way this country can move forward and get itself out of the mess it's in.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Jeff S. Captain, if you think that the Democrats are "socialists" then you should look at America's northern neighbour where the Democrats would fall into the "Traditionalist Wing" of the "Conservative Party of Canada". ("Traditionalist" are somewhat more progressive than "Reactionaries" but less so than "Moderates".)
PS - As far as "taking care of their own political and special interests" is concerned BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats place that extremely high on their priority lists (frequently ahead of "doing what they are being paid for and governing the country in the best interests of ALL Americans").
PS - As far as "taking care of their own political and special interests" is concerned BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats place that extremely high on their priority lists (frequently ahead of "doing what they are being paid for and governing the country in the best interests of ALL Americans").
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
There's not much difference between the Establishment GOP and Democrats. They talk about each other, but vote with each other. The only real GOP conservatives are those on board with likes of Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindahl, Trey Gowdy, Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert, Tim Scott, etc.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® In this day an age, yes to some, no to others. You, like I are conservatives so no. Now if you were a good little lemming and spouted his BS then by all means join one.
Honestly I don't think it proper for active duty to be politically active as it can be taken wrong and reflect on the service. You should be able to, but it way to sensive anymore.
Honestly I don't think it proper for active duty to be politically active as it can be taken wrong and reflect on the service. You should be able to, but it way to sensive anymore.
(0)
(0)
SrA David Jensen
Neither of your scenarios have anything to do with the Obama Administration. I would like to verify your claim about the guitar maker, but since you don't know the name, I can't. I did do some research on my own and found nothing.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Packy Flickinger
Martin guitars. Yes it has everything to do with the Obama administration. Took me 3 seconds to pull up a dozen articles on it on the first page alone. Google.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Richard Graziano
The wood you are speaking of is illegally imported from rainforests, which is against the law under the Lacey Act. Gibson knowingly imported this wood and labeled it to avoid discovery. Martin Guitars has not used wood from these sources since before it was made illegal. The only evidence of any targeting by the Obama Administration is what some talking heads who benefit by spreading some idea that conservatives and especially Christian conservative are being persecuted. There's plenty of other crap going on within our government with corporate interests completely suborning our legislative process than to worry about how a company that knowingly broke the law had to pay for it.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Packy Flickinger
They both used the same wood. The point is why did obama only have the republican maker shut down and not the democrat supporting one??
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes, I believe that soldiers should be allowed to be members of political parties. After all it is hard not to form personal opinions about the individuals who will or may wind up running this country and possibly being on a military oversight committee. And as such should also be able to vote for our leadership.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Your headline is quite different from the content of what you wrote.
Answer to headline - Yes Military Personnel can and should be allowed to join a political party
Answer to the content of your comments - No. Military personnel, especially senior officers like GEN McCrystal, should not express their poltical views. Not sure the GEN McCrystal sitiuation is a good example of what you are talking about anyway.
If you want to see what happens when Military Leaders openly express their political views and become a part of the political process while in uniform, there are many thrid world countries who do this and have periodic Coup d'etat.
The US has a strong history of the Military staying out of politics while on active duty, but then being very successful after they leave the uniform. Let's keep that tradition strong.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Every American has the right to join whatever political party they desire, and Service Members are definitely no exception. As Federal employees we are governed by the Hatch Act. Service Members also has other restrictions involving political activity. You must never participate in political activity while in uniform, and use your military affiliation for political purposes. I believe that our Governmental bodies always benefit when they contain veterans and Reservists/Nation Guard members.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Everyone seems to be on the right thread of thought. The UCMJ is very clear on individual behaviors within the political arena
(0)
(0)
TSgt Karl Kurtz
There is nothing prohibiting a military member from joining the political party of choice. When I was a supervisor I encouraged my subordinates to do so. The caveat was they could not represent them selves as a member of the military for the endorsement of a political party, could not wear their uniforms to political functions and no political activity while on duty.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You bring up a number of good points. Will answer them in parts, since one hand-wave doesn't address them all.
1) of course military personnel should have their own political opinions, and they should base them in something other than just national media or an idea they pulled out of their fourth points of contact. Broad-spectrum reading and media use help mold a real opinion. "That's bs," and "They're stupid," are not informed opinions, but rather diahrrea of the mouth. If you read counter-proposals (not just the talking heads of opposing media stations which live to inflame -- not inform -- a debate), we should be able to identify where we our viewpoints diverge, and that is where the debate lies.
2) having an opinion and voting -- absolutely. The caveat is that once the vote is cast, our duty is to support and defend the Constitution, and enlisted also swear obedience to the POTUS and officers appointed. That's the point where we get to McChrystal.
3) having an opinion does not mean we share it at any time and place. We've all had individuals we can't stand, but who's personality or behavior don't fly in the face of what is moral, legal, and ethical. We still can't stand them. It is against good order and discipline to discuss one's opinion about that person (whether an officer, NCO or enlisted, or the POTUS). If someone can't figure out the right and place time to speak on this topic, then yes, they will and should be disciplined. As our organization exists, those with much influence have a higher requirement to maintain professionalism.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"we don't practice democracy, we protect it"...... heard it, said it, lived it
Your question is in regard to military personnel joining a political party. This is far removed from speaking out about their personal views in uniform.
To answer your question, YES they can and should be able to JOIN a political party. They can vote just like every other eligible citizen and have the right to form their own opinions. Being a member of a party and being active and publicly outspoken in the party are two totally different things.
In response to your comments below your question, NO they should not share their political views while representing the military. If you have a concern on something going on in the military you need to run it up the chain, if you have a concern about something going on outside the military within the government, vote in the next election. At no time should any military personnel publicly speak out about anything, political or otherwise. If you want to be outspoken in politics, get out of the military.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google