Humans, mere mortals

What do we tolerate for our public servants and why?

Timing is one of the most precarious of things in the human experience as we with such short term memories continue thinking we are “seeing novel problems” while the world rarely has much truly new. Yet as we see recurrences of problems, every new instance is within a new context which may lead us to treat the same question differently. My question today is whether we should think about how we are judging these differences rather than simply about the question itself.

I saw a report this morning that the Navy will name its newest carrier—and never kid yourself about the never diminishing lead time this involves—after former president Bill Clinton. Turning 79 later this year with up and down health, Clinton’s tenure ended fully twenty-four years ago next Monday when George W. Bush assumed the Oval Office. Elected to two terms, Clinton is now the senior of the surviving five presidents. Let that sink in for a moment.

It’s hard to recall, for those of you whippersnappers of more recent vintage, how hated Bill Clinton was by the military while serving; imagine Democrats discussing Donald Trump today. The day after his election in 1992, a Navy captain came into my office almost in tears. This fellow said “The president-elect cannot even get a security clearance yet he’s been voted as Commander-in-Chief”. This individual reflected an extremely common (but not universal) view that persistent allegations of extra-marital affairs, admitting he “smoked marijuana but did not inhale”, his draft dodging, and pretty much everything about him to include his wife irritated those in uniform.

On our annual Gettysburg staff ride a couple of weeks before the vote, one of my seminar students was an exceptionally junior officer who had just come out of serving in the Bush White House (not an insignificant reminder that military officers serve in all administrations in advisory capacities on rotating bases). He promised we would soon hear that Clinton had fathered a child with a black woman because this student had heard from others he knew in the Bush White House that the candidate was assuring people it had not happened: rumors about despicable behavior ran rampant, in other words. My aforementioned colleague the day following Clinton’s defeat of Bush and H. Ross Perot was, in other words, far from the only person virtually despondent regarding the results. But the voters chose otherwise.

Things only went downhill, of course. Within days (perhaps it was merely hours as it seemed) of the results, Clinton boxed himself in on another infuriating topic for those who distrusted him: Clinton supported allowing gays in the military. In typical Clintonian fashion, the incoming president ultimately compromised in the summer of 1993 by issuing policy called “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: if a gay service member didn’t overtly show her or his sexual partners to others, then no one would pursue actions to oust the person from service. Neither the gay/lesbian (we didn’t tend to speak of other communities back then) who had expectations of his endorsement of their participation in military service nor those adamantly opposed to the question of serving with queers who could attack them in the shower (a slur I heard often) approved. Ultimately, DADT just became the practice and further Clinton controversies arose such as Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen ultimately supported ending the policy a generation later by asking how we could require those from whom we demand honesty in uniform to lie about their lives to stay in service.

The military in which I never served but spent most of my 37 years teaching is an instrument for you and me that we take for granted today but ought ponder a bit more. We grant the responsibility to those in uniform to use lethal force on our behalf; we do the same with police, of course, but the armed forces are a huge body with incredibly important responsibility as the military arm of the United States (that is not the same as one keeping law and order at home). We expect those in uniform to adhere to ethical behavior set forth under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ imposes clear limits on any military officer‘s behavior with regard to countless activities, including following the legal chain of command in this country when presented legal orders, adhering to “good order and discipline” to include drunk driving, illegal drug consumption, limits on fraternization within the ranks, and a variety of social mores that tend to be conservative in nature. Put another way, we ask the military to act for us within some broad boundaries that the civilian authorities establish. With the creation of the All Volunteer Force in 1973, those who sign on to service accept those rules.

As we saw in the 1970s when order and discipline boundaries eroded a bit, the ranks descended a times into some ugly stuff as racial riots and massive drug use following the Vietnam experience. We hope never to return to that environment but it’s a constant struggle. After all, these are the people we authorize to use violence on our behalf.

The enlisted, non-commissioned officer, and commissioned officer cadres proudly take their oath to the Constitution to defend us against enemies foreign and domestic. The overwhelming majority of those I have ever interacted with take that oath seriously (as do, in my experience, the civilians who swearing to almost all of the same words, with the exception of saying that take the responsibility without mental reservation) and work to protect it throughout their careers, whether that is a five year enlistment or a forty year career. This is the basic step to service; a security clearance is a further step of trust with specific information following an exhaustive investigation to assure one’s fidelity with society’s trust.

The U.S. military historically was a fraternity, including few women for the majority of its history. It was slow to welcome African-Americans or to treat other minorities, such as Filipino-Americans, with equal respect. The imperative to rely the person on the right or left of you in a battle meant we had armed forces looking like the earliest western Europeans who predominated our political and economic system. The military gradually has evolved to a more inclusive stance among those serving but still viscerally rebels at the idea that anything other than proven merit justifies someone commanding because that is believed the most effective manner to assure success—in missions and in saving lives of those who serve.

Americans, however, are humans across the board. We neither elect perfect people to the presidency nor do we enlist perfect men and women in national service, as bus drivers, teachers, AI specialists or anything else. Our presidents make mistakes (name me one who hasn’t), we have military personnel who make errors in their lives or in their assignments, and we appoint individuals to cabinet offices with flawed backgrounds. All because there are no perfect people. I have known one woman, as saintly as any person I have ever known, but I doubt she would ever see herself perfect. Perfection is a chimera, like it or not.

Yet even a meritocracy mandates evaluating candidates for any position based on the expertise they bring to the table along with their commitment to adhere to the rule of law. That law often includes stipulations about equalities, whether it’s gender, race, ethnicity or religion. I know I harp on the rule of law but I have lived in places where its selective application destroys societal cohesion faster than the fires are destroying Los Angeles. Latin American militaries, in particular during the Cold War, arrogated to themselves the right to decide what views were acceptable in society while attempting to purge those who held “subversive” views. Argentine and Chilean armed forces, in particular, notoriously “disappeared” thousands whose views the military found odious while democratic governance gives everyone a voice in that discussion. The Argentine and Chilean militaries simply suspended the rule of law because it did not meet with their preferences, not a position that is either sustainable or they way we use the armed forces as an instrument of national power in the United States.

But asking whether we are adhering to those laws is increasingly fraught in our system. Republicans fear we are too concerned about minorities to the detriment of merit and proven success while Democrats argue that the system too long excluded options to offer women and minorities access to the system. Each side wants to assure its interpretation of the problem and a solution wins.

Are we ignoring too much because someone’s politics are the same as our or are we too critical of someone who has different affiliation than our own?

Meritocracy is so important to Americans yet we are allowing partisanship alone to decide whether someone is a desirable candidate or an unqualified one. It turns out that general officers, Congresswomen, presidents, and enlisted Airmen all make mistakes (some pretty egregious) yet we seem increasingly to look only at one’s partisan affiliation rather than judge on the evidence of adherence to the law, overall capacity or proven merit to lead an organization. That will rot the foundations of our system if we continue endorsing it. Both sides of the aisle are doing it so let’s not be naive about it.

Oddly, I see this taking us back to Bill Clinton’s tenure, hardly an unmitigated failure though he managed to be the third of four presidents ever impeached. It’s hardly a badge of honor, of course, though the Senate did not convict him as it has never convicted any impeached president. Curiously, we forget that Clinton won national elections twice (as of course has the man who will take office Monday). Despite the odds and his behavior, Clinton brought some closure to the budget deficit (which in turn exploded again with the War on Terror), and he was the president who got NAFTA ratified which has benefited many while definitely hurting others. His legacy included doubts about judgement and his administration’s grasp of both a changing global terror threat. His 1996 decision to send two carrier battle groups into the Taiwan area is often cited sparking Chinese humiliation which in turn opened the door to PLAN modernization yet his is remembered for being so soft on China. Clinton negotiated hard to bring China into the World Trade Organization, which many Americans rue today as we forget we are donning cheap Chinese-made clothing. He spent most of the summer of 2000 futilely negotiating a deal to bring peace to the Middle East. In sum, he was flawed and certainly left an interesting legacy but no one ever achieves perfection except in our dreams.

But the assessment of his administration, like that of successors, seems so dependent on one’s partisan affiliation. That strikes me a dangerous as we are all Americans.

The irony today is that the doubts about Clinton’s moral failures are not all that different from the concerns about those of the proposed Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hegseth is appearing before the hundred members of the Senate for hearing today while the remaining 340 million of us will evaluate him from afar. The questions will remain the same as ever: does he have the quality, the experience, the temperament to serve as Secretary over the largest defense enterprise in the world? Do the allegations of his personal “character failures” outweigh the need for integrity essential to give him credibility in the position? Will we hold him to a higher or a lesser standard than others? Would confirming him contribute to problems of “good order and discipline”?

I fully understand that the voters made the decision in 1992 to grant Bill Clinton the “security clearance” that my colleague bemoaned the day after the November election. Mr. Hegseth’s decision is, of course, based on satisfying only 52 people: the POTUS-elect and the majority of Senators.

The implications for the force, however, will be the same. The integrity of our civil-military equation means that uniformed personnel will follow legal orders yet we see partisan frustration that “the other side” is getting treated more easily and held to lesser standards. Those are worrisome arguments because they can erode the rectitude and incorruptibility of a system based on law. The armed forces need retain confidence in their leaders while society absolutely must be comfortable in the equal application of standards for all who serve. This sounds so easy but if can go awry too rapidly, I fear.

We will have a USS Bill Clinton somewhere down the line, likely to the disappointment of some and celebration by others. Clinton’s foibles are sadly ensconced in history as will be those of so many of the rest of us. But the reality of his case and Mr. Hegseth’s nomination remind all of us that our national aspiration to enshrine perfect people at all levels of our government leadership is impossible. The unavoidable question is how much damage can we tolerate to the desired norms to undercut the system beyond repair? I don’t profess to know—I really don’t—but am worried about it.

I welcome your thoughts for this deeply worrisome topic. You may see none of the concerns so I would appreciate knowing why. You may think I have understated things so that matters as well. Please feel free to chime in.

I appreciate your time today and any other day.

Be well and be safe. FIN

“Enlistment Oath”, U.S. Code 10 ARMED FORCES, Section 502, retrieved at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap31-sec502.htm

“Public Service Oath of Office”, U.S. Code 5, Section 3331, retrieved at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331