To Support and Defend. . .What, Exactly?

I had planned to dedicate my 2nd entry to a different subject, but something that happened over the weekend prompted me to write this.  While commissioning the USS Gerald R. Ford, President Trump urged the audience - many of whom were active-duty military - to contact their Congressmen on behalf of his legislative agenda: "Trump promised to try to restore higher levels of military funding but also urged the crowd of about 6,500 - many in uniform - to help him push this year's budget, in which he said he will seek an additional $54 billion in defense spending, through Congress.  'I don't mind getting a little hand, so call that congressman and call that senator and make sure you get it,' he said, to applause. 'And by the way, you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care.' "

Here's why that's kind of significant.  There's been a long-standing political norm that the military is supposed to remain politically neutral.  Servicemen and servicewomen are supposed to give their loyalty to the country and the rule of law (aka the Constitution) instead of any elected official.  The military takes it more seriously than that.  DoD Directive 1344.10 lists several common political activities that active duty personnel are prohibited from doing, and violations are punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  On the politicians' side of the house, it's more informal but no less important.

The obvious reason for that norm is to prevent the military from becoming an instrument of tyranny, and a look at history gives plenty of examples why.  A military is a good source of "muscle" because it already has training, weapons and equipment, and an organizational structure.  Countless dictators, kings, and emperors co-opted their nations' militaries, or formed their own, as part of their rise to power.  Mussolini's Brownshirts.  The Nazi SS.  Caesar's Legion.  

America's Founders went to great lengths to structure the government to avoid just such an occurrence.  They gave Congress the authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution), as well as govern many administrative and logistical aspects of the military (its budget and overall size, for example).  The Founders established a standing military, but reluctantly; see the Third Amendment for an example of the Founders' wariness.  Here's one of the earliest oaths of military service, for one more example:  

"I, (name), do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.  

I, (name), do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers [sic] whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." 

This is the US military's two-part oath of service, that was enacted in September 1789.  Do you notice anything interesting about the wording? The very first sentence obliges the oath-takers to uphold the Constitution.  The next sentence pledges loyalty to the country.  The President, as the Commander in Chief, requires a certain level of obedience, so there's an acknowledgement of that; but do you notice that the President is mentioned after the Constitution and the United States? That is almost certainly deliberate.  It's a way of showing the President's place in the list of importance.

Now, we have Trump casually remarking that military personnel should help with his domestic agenda.  This is a far cry from turning the military loose on his political enemies or creating a private mini-army, of course.  Truthfully, it's probably another instance of Trump's clueless buffoonery.  He hasn't understood the importance of his words in the past, and he doesn't now.  But Trump is also the person who has insulted the Judicial Branch, who has expressed a desire to restrict the freedom of the press, who hinted at declaring martial law in Chicago, who lies at almost every turn, who has delegated important work to unqualified family members, and who is actively seeking to impede an investigation into his ties to a foreign government.  Taken together, these may all be signs of someone who sees himself as above the law and has little respect for America's political institutions.

Trump's remarks are probably more of his typical clueless bluster.  But given his track record, they might also be worth viewing as an indicator of an authoritarian mindset.

Sources:
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/22/trump-denounces-illegal-leaks-in-new-accounts-of-his-campaigns-contact-with-russia/?utm_term=.8d05727af193
* http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
* https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i

Loki and the Leviathan

"Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power.  For identity.  You were made to be ruled.  In the end, you will always kneel." - Loki, The Avengers

Who should rule over a population? Why do people create societies? How do people behave when there's nobody in charge? Loki alludes to these three questions while he gives the usual "I'm a megalomaniacal villain" speech; he doesn't answer the last two, and his answer to the first one is (of course) "me." His little spiel is a throwaway scene that firmly establishes him as an over-the-top bad guy, in case the audience missed everything he did up to that point.  But let's look closer at what he said in this scene, along with those three questions at the top of this paragraph.

Loki's basically saying, "People are a pack of uncivilized animals who can't be trusted to rule themselves.  Leave them to their own devices, and they'll spend their time fighting each other for a higher rung on the social ladder.  They need someone to control them, and deep down they all know it." He's saying all this because he's the bad guy and wants to be in charge, but he's copying his ideas from a 17th century philosopher named Thomas Hobbes.

One of Hobbes' biggest contributions was Leviathan, the work that most people know him for.  In Leviathan, Hobbes argued that:

1. People were basically warlike and self-interested
2. Because of #1, people were constantly fighting each other (for food, land, resources, etc)
3. People eventually formed societies because they got tired of the constant fighting
4. A sovereign with near-absolute authority was appointed to run society, to keep citizens safe from external threats and to prevent them from reverting to their warlike natures

Sounds a lot like Loki's speech, right? Almost like something Hobbes could have written himself.  This concept comes up a lot in pop culture, especially sci-fi: some entity with extraordinary abilities takes control of society, or tries to, on the premise that people aren't able to rule themselves.  Here are a few other examples: I, Robot, Demolition Man, Equilibrium, and The Hunger Games.  It's also a common plot gimmick in cartoons and comic books: the heroes develop authoritarian attitudes for one reason or another, and make themselves absolute rulers.  Marvel and DC have both made stories about it, and it's even shown up in a Simpsons episode.  

So why does this all matter? Well, honestly, this is something I wrote for fun - to make a classic philosophical idea relatable by linking it to something most people are familiar with, and to get people thinking about deep political questions.  Those three questions mentioned earlier have been at the center of a lot of political writing over the centuries.  Thinking about them is supposed to change how you think about society, government, and the world in general.  Hobbes gave just one perspective; there were political theorists before and after him who had different takes on those questions.  We'll get to them in time.  For now, I want to restate the three questions I raised earlier, to you think about them as you finish this blog post.  I'll be revisiting them in the future.

Who should rule over a population? Why do people create societies? How do people behave when there's nobody in charge?