Robert Simpson: Freedom vs. restraint

It’s a deceptively simple question when viewed briefly. And what discussion it has garnered recently has been mostly drowned out by the unusually raucous and rancorous tone of the current national election campaign. But when you look more closely, the matter does not lend itself to a clean-cut, uncomplicated solution.

The issue surfaced clearly when each of the two major party political conventions put forward a retired senior military officer to stake out loudly partisan positions in support of their candidates for President of the U.S. The Republican convention showcased a retired Army lieutenant general who offered a blistering partisan attack and joined the crowd in chanting that the Democratic candidate should be locked up. The Democratic convention put forward a retired Marine Corps full general who shouted support for the Democratic candidate and suggested the Republican candidate was not up to the job.

Whether you agree with the political views of one or the other is beside the point. What matters is whether a retired general or admiral, those ranks holding exceptional power on active duty and retaining considerable residual authority in retirement, should take publicly partisan positions in favor of a candidate or a party. It isn’t so much a matter of personal right as it is a question of propriety and possible damage to our national fabric.

General Martin Dempsey, retired former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly stated his regret that the two generals had allowed themselves to be used, in effect, by the two political parties for partisan purposes. Other retired senior officers disagreed with him. That people either in or so close to the arena can hold diametrically opposed views on the matter illustrates its complexity.

While retired military officers are still subject to provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the restrictions that connection implies are minimal, and retired officers have the freedoms that American citizenship provides all of us. No one can deny my rights as a citizen. And like other citizens, I am free to make an obscene gesture at my neighbors each time I meet them on the road if I wish. But such actions may not only earn me a punch in the nose, they will undoubtedly help to destroy whatever unity exists in our neighborhood. The fact that I can do something doesn’t necessarily mean that I should.

The line of demarcation, though, is murky. Does an argument against partisan participation mean a retired officer should not run for public office? Following that position would have denied us a pretty solid leader in the past, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, although it would have saved the country from a few less stellar ones in earlier times. General Dempsey points out that, in running for public office, the retired officer is answerable to the voting public, while in taking a partisan position in support of a candidate, he or she is answerable to no one but the candidate. That may seem a fine distinction, but I believe it is valid.

As for my own thought, I was bothered by the appearance of the two officers acting as partisan hucksters. They had every right to do that if they wished, but to me it put the two services they still represent in the minds of the public in the position of seeming to be possibly partisan arms of government instead of staunchly non-political servants of all administrations, no matter the party concerned. To refrain from endorsing a candidate they personally favor is certainly a restriction of actions other citizens can take for granted, but I believe all military officers, not just those of flag or general officer rank, should hold themselves to a higher standard than that required of citizens at large. And if this means refraining from public partisan acts, so be it. In my opinion, the reputation of the armed forces as instruments of power untainted by political allegiance is worth far more than the right to shout from the stage of a political convention.

This story was originally published August 20, 2016 at 6:36 PM with the headline "Robert Simpson: Freedom vs. restraint."