Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military Officer Politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Military Officer Politics

    One of my history professors made a statement that loss of the old tradition of military officers not voting is bad for America. I know Eisenhower didn't vote until he ran for President and George Marhsall supposedly never voted in his life, but are they exceptions or the rule?

    What are your thoughts on this? Is it bad for our democracy that our military officers exercise the very right they fight and die to protect? Would people say this if the military voted as overwhlmingly Democratic as it now does Republican?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Wraith601
    One of my history professors made a statement that loss of the old tradition of military officers not voting is bad for America. I know Eisenhower didn't vote until he ran for President and George Marhsall supposedly never voted in his life, but are they exceptions or the rule?

    What are your thoughts on this? Is it bad for our democracy that our military officers exercise the very right they fight and die to protect? Would people say this if the military voted as overwhlmingly Democratic as it now does Republican?
    Coupla quick thoughts:

    1) I don't know whether your statement about Ike or Marshall are even remotely true, but the bottom line is that military service does not erase one's franchise in this country. I don't think it ever has here, nor do I think it should.

    2) I suspect that the average military voter votes for candidates who believe in the same things they do - a strong and independent America with a vibrant economy, and opportunity over equality. I would be likely to emulate that vote whether the name of the party providing those values is "the Republicans" or "the Bendover Faerie Dust Red Wing Haters".

    You vote for the product, not the name.

    -dale

    Comment


    • #3
      I've heard that several places but I can't find anything off hand to confirm it so it may be false.

      Comment


      • #4
        What is the assclown professors rationale as to why it's bad to have Officers voting?

        I just gotta know...

        LOL

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wraith601
          One of my history professors made a statement that loss of the old tradition of military officers not voting is bad for America.
          What is his rationale for this opinion? Does he think military officers like war? Does this apply to enlisted men or just officers? What about NCO's?

          Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of national service as a pre-requisite for the franchise. It wouldn't have to be military, but some sort of service, be it peace corps, CCC, etc. Just something to highlight that the franchise has a value that should be respected.
          "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            What is the assclown professors rationale as to why it's bad to have Officers voting?

            I just gotta know...

            LOL
            He hasn't clarified why, he's only mentioned it in passing to make a point about the influence of Nazi politics in the German military in WWII and the fairly apolitical nature of the US military. He doesn't strike me as the typical liberal professor as he taught at the Air Force Academy for several years only teachs military and the occasional French history courses.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by highsea
              What is his rationale for this opinion? Does he think military officers like war? Does this apply to enlisted men or just officers? What about NCO's?

              Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of national service as a pre-requisite for the franchise. It wouldn't have to be military, but some sort of service, be it peace corps, CCC, etc. Just something to highlight that the franchise has a value that should be respected.
              I'm not sure if he's against officers voting in general or the fact that military personnel are overwhelmingly Republican, not that I blame them given the Democratic track record with the military but I digress.

              Comment


              • #8
                Why don't you ask him?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Anyone read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein? Great book.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I see no issues with military officers voting. However, becoming politically active through campaigning for candidates or other activities which intertwine one's military role and one's political views would be bad, which is why such activities are prohibited. This helps to maintain the civil-military separation and prevents the slippery slope (which would have to be very slippery here in the US) that can result in military regimes.
                    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There may be a grounding of reasonableness about that position. Here's two of 'em:

                      1. In 1864, Lincoln furloughed MASSIVE numbers of troops to leave the front in order to go back to their districts to vote (there was no provision made for absentee voting). It was done with some...selectivity. Oddly enough, not many Democrats or close friends/supporters of McClellan - Democratic Party nominee, and, coincidentally, their former commander - got that ole furlough. So, it seems that ONE rationale for not allowing the military to vote is not the military's role in politics so much as it is the politician's machinations in the military.

                      2. Voting for one's chain-of-command has been tried, and has been proven in battle as a potential for disaster. The Confederate Army made limited experiments with this, and found that slack disciplinarians or popular peacocks that knew how to cut a dashing figure but not much else were usually chosen by the rank-and-file. If the pernicious idea that the TOP is selected that way takes hold, then why ever should we not extend it all through the command structure? Philosophically speaking, not doing so is indefensible. Therefore, the military should not have a voice in selecting ANY member of the chain.

                      NOTE: I would NEVER consent to lay down my right to vote, uniformed or not, and the above is merely presented as possible points of discussion, devil's-advocate-like.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shek
                        that can result in military regimes.
                        True, on a greater point most people seem to either don't appreciate the 'difficulties' militaries face and say they're a bunch of savage-minded incompetents for friendly fire or spending too much, or glorify them too much, as ultra-heroic super-soldiers who can do no wrong.

                        The training and experience of the UK's troops, for example, could just as well be used for oppression as for national self-defence. Indeed, Tony wanted to put uniformed but unarmed soldiers on some of Britain's troubled streets to crack down on anti-social behaviour. Simply another term for martial law.

                        (Or look what happened in New Orleans with firearms seizures.)
                        HD Ready?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gunnut
                          Anyone read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein? Great book.
                          Personally, I like the idea of a selectively-earned franchise. If you have no stake in this Grand Experiment, you should not have any role in shaping its character. If you're not pushing the wagon, you should not be allowed to steer it, either.

                          I can't remember who said it, but this is a true statement, as we are seeing more and more every single day: "When the People figure out that they can vote themselves largesse from the Treasury, that is exactly what they'll do." And so we have a child-like electorate, addicted to pork and subsidies and benefits, that operates like a ratchet: ever upward, never back. To even sugggest that entitlements be means-tested is to all but commit political suicide.

                          Therefore, I think one's say in the government should be in proportion to what you're worth to the rest of us. Taxes paid (no vote for net consumers of resources), or services rendered. And NO, I'm not prepared to say exactly how it would work. But just as there is no justice in 'Taxation Without Representation', neither is there in representation without staking something on the success of the nation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In India the military is entitled to vote, but cannot actively or otherwise show any indication of choice since we are apolitical.

                            The military has to stay apolitical or else it will not be able to deliver with a clear conscience and zeal the orders of the democratically elected govt, which need not be the choice of the military individual concerned.

                            This is an excellent system inherited by the Indian armed forces from the British and it has worked very well in India.

                            Politics, women, religion and shop cannot be discussed in the Mess since it can cause flare ups and bad blood - another good system inherited from the British.

                            The violation of these issues inherited from the British has kept India far from any threat of military takeovers and it has been seen in other country's where violation of these principles inherited from the British resulting in coups has placed such countries in thick soup!

                            Military men are citizens first and then military men and so they should enjoy the privileges of being in a democracy, but owing to the fact that they have the wherewithal to hold the govt at ransom if they wish, the rule of their being apolitical in public and at work is an excellent thing.


                            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                            HAKUNA MATATA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bluesman
                              Personally, I like the idea of a selectively-earned franchise. If you have no stake in this Grand Experiment, you should not have any role in shaping its character. If you're not pushing the wagon, you should not be allowed to steer it, either.
                              Precisely. I have never served and voting to me is a privilege rather than a right and I take it very seriously. The Starship Trooper model is very interesting and feels very Roman to me.
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X