Posted on Jul 31, 2016
Why is it so important for retired leaders to stay out of politics?
14.9K
184
104
9
9
0
With the recent bold public statements by retired generals in support of political candidates, I think it is good to discuss why this is a bad idea. They should know better. But I'm interested in why more junior folks think it is wrong, or perhaps why they think it's ok.
Politics
Election 2016
Ethics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 70
Suspended Profile
I'm very curious to hear why you think it's a bad idea sir? History is full of retired GOs in politics, they understand the DIME better from living it that most of the career politicians and aren't we often complaining that there aren't more military people in political positions? This is point in our history where we have the fewest military people in congress and the senate. I think they have a lot to offer and even when I disagree with their point of view, it's easier for me to respect it because they've served.
17
17
0
I think they have as much right as anyone to express their beliefs. They are private citizens now.
(17)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Maj John Bell - (JOKE ALERT) personally, I really like pols, stats and sound bites that confirm my bias. It's just easier that way.
9
9
0
I am not junior, served 1977 to 1986, and I think the exact opposite of you. Citizenship is not a box where you make a check mark. I served, I am done. America needs an engaged citizenry, and professional soldiers offer a view and experience found nowhere else in the society. So, you and I disagree. On a personal note, my service ..my decision to be an officer revolved around a belief in America as a nation doing God's Will. If that nation, as it is now, is not doing God's Will, rejecting the Providential view of life...I would not serve, and would not recommend anyone to serve. To serve a state blindly is what the Germans did, and so many others.
(9)
(0)
7
7
0
Sorry Sir,
I wish we had more retired and current military leaders to step into the debate. Our country needs the expertise of our military leaders with the both domestic and international affairs. With the rise of terrorism and global destabilization it would be foolish to have "yes men/ women" advising our "leaders" instead of surrounding them with people with experience. Our future leaders need to be interrupted when they are making stupid comments of other countries or on military matters.
I wish we had more retired and current military leaders to step into the debate. Our country needs the expertise of our military leaders with the both domestic and international affairs. With the rise of terrorism and global destabilization it would be foolish to have "yes men/ women" advising our "leaders" instead of surrounding them with people with experience. Our future leaders need to be interrupted when they are making stupid comments of other countries or on military matters.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
I think it should be the other way around myself. As a few others have stated, they are more then qualified especially having been in both worlds. I'm just guessing that once you make 1 star it's a lot of politics anyway from there until you retire. Also I think they get to see the good and the bad of politics which puts them in a unique position that very few others get to see until they're actually in political arena.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
The military has always been apolitical. We serve to support and defend the constitution of the United States, not for a political party. As members of the military, we must maintain the public trust. If a senior officer (who, as a retiree is still "in the military" so to speak) endorses one party over another, he could alienate that public trust. In particular, as these senior officers espouse their views it targets that fact that they have strong political opinions and therefore as a representative sample of the military, must be bias for or against their commander in chief. Of course it is not prohibited for a retiree to express their opinions, but at that level, I think the potential for harm ,against a military under constant scrutiny, demands some restraint.
Personally, I think that the majority of these talking heads are bucking for cushy civilian jobs.
Personally, I think that the majority of these talking heads are bucking for cushy civilian jobs.
(6)
(0)
CDR Derek Reeves
My sentiments exactly. When I see *military title* Joe/Sally Blow on the new channels, I just shake my head and wonder how good that money must be for them to get on national news channel blowing out the garbage they are spewing. I guess I'm simply too recently retired, or that I'm retired and on I'm half-pay. I certainly have my political opinions and leaning, but there is a certainly level of decorum and civility that IF retire/former military personnel want to partake in the discussion, they should do so with the appropriate level of respect, if not for the individual, then certainly for our system.
(1)
(0)
SPC Norman Merritt
Sir I respectfully disagree. Once they retire they are private citizens and have the same rights that everyone else has. Hell, they dedicated their lives to defending those rights for others. It would dishonor the service of many top deny that right.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
They are subject to recall, but really not "in" anymore. I do agree that if they chose to use their retired rank in their title, they need to be a little more careful about what they say because of the weight their words have with the general public, more so if they are either a federal civilian or contractor who can benefit directly from the policies/candidates he supports.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I am Retired and active in local and State politics. I served 26 yrs for the Right to Free Speech. Because of my former profession I should be silenced?
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
With all due respect, the officer class hooks each other up when it comes to post-service employment, so they are rather insulated from the ramifications of the policies of candidates they speak for. Post-service employment for enlisteds is a bit more uncertain and when officers speak for "all of us", there may be conflicts they won't be evident to the recipients of the public statements.
And when was the last time you ever saw an enlisted man be the go-to by a cable news channel? It's almost always an officer and they don't all speak for me.
And when was the last time you ever saw an enlisted man be the go-to by a cable news channel? It's almost always an officer and they don't all speak for me.
(5)
(0)
PO1 Scott VanBoskirk
I think it is more that the msm and the general, non-military, public see an officer rank as someone with education and the enlisted ranks they generally write off as being uneducated
(2)
(0)
SN (Join to see)
TSgt Anthony Elmer - Most enlisteds don't have "degrees" so they aren't deemed informed or important enough to the media's liking.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I got to second Sgt Reynolds on this. Retired generals have a unique offering here because at that level, they've dealt with military life, then politics, and now private sector... these folks are a data bank offering so much to bring light to many issues.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
I have to agree with the majority of my fellow veterans and currently serving troops. Lets ask this a different way. What DISQUALIFIES them in any endeavor be it politics or otherwise?
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
Unfortunately actors and actresses like Eve Longoria or a Sean Penn are propped up on the same soapbox as if they had the same credibility. History has shown actors and generals are NOT contemporaries.