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
No comments:
Post a Comment