The Major's position seems deeply rooted in his sense of honor, but he should not attempt to foist his misguided morality on his peers. His is not a standard to be admired or emulated by his comrades in arms, active or retired. I was an active duty officer for over twenty years. I voted, sometimes for the candidate who became the CINC, sometimes against. I was aware of the rules and did not publicly advocate for candidates or political positions. I watched with disgust when serving officers, most often senior officers, expressed their political opinions by openly criticizing the elected leadership. My private political beliefs never had the least impact on how I carried out my duties as an officer. As a retired officer I see no reason that I should not actively participate in our democracy, albeit as a private individual and without overt reference to my military service. Professionals must be able to separate their public duties from their private opinions. If someone is willing to die for an ideal, they ought to be willing to participate in its perpetuation. If Major Cavanaugh's world view does not allow him to separate these activities then he is making a good personal choice. However he is wrong to present his choice as the most ethical option for serving or retired military officers. It is exactly this sort of overblown sense of rectitude that has led some members of the profession astray.
13
I think you are missing a few points.. Number one, which should be quite obvious, is that even though you don't vote, you do have an opinion, as made very clear here on "The Opinion Pages". Number two, you chose to join the military, which is an expression of support for something (think of the many who join the forces during wartime). Joining the military is not a neutral stance, unless we have conscription. Number three, you misconstrue what voting is. You are not committed to fight to your dying breath for the opinion you expressed by voting. You can, and I think it is a quite reasonable position, consider your vote as advisory. If you fail to convince your superiors of your opinion, does that suggest that you never should have offered it? If there is no opposition, just think how little nuance there would be in any election. Finally, advocating for your fellow officers to not vote, in this outsized forum, is suggesting that you have the power you wish you didn't have. Let's just leave out your comparison of "our greatest officers" with yourself. I'm certain you could pull up some of "our greatest officers" who did indeed vote while in uniform.
4
Major Cavanaugh, publishing this article did more harm on a larger scale than pressuring someone to vote for a candidate or developing an independent opinion about a candidate ever could. We're not special by being a Military Officers. We get paid handsomely and treated very well for simply graduating college and raising our right hand. It doesn't even matter what degree we have or our GPA, we'll never apply it. The UCMJ doesn't tell us not to vote, so why would you feel you have to hold yourself to any higher obligation.
I won't disclose my rank or name in this forum. As an active Military Officer with 14 years of service, an extensive background in political science and nation-building; I disagree wholeheartedly with this article and would encourage citizens, either active duty or civilian, to exercise their constitutional right in every election. Especially when aware of the issues. We should absolutely vote in our State and Federal elections because those laws directly affect our hometowns and nation. We should vote for our State and Federal elected representatives because they can be bought. In every instance where a Service Member says they won't exercise their Constitutional right they quote General Patton. I respect the man's memory as much as anyone else, but two lines of his gospel won't convince me that I should not exercise my right to vote for what I feel is right. Service members should set the example, educate themselves on the issues, and vote!
I won't disclose my rank or name in this forum. As an active Military Officer with 14 years of service, an extensive background in political science and nation-building; I disagree wholeheartedly with this article and would encourage citizens, either active duty or civilian, to exercise their constitutional right in every election. Especially when aware of the issues. We should absolutely vote in our State and Federal elections because those laws directly affect our hometowns and nation. We should vote for our State and Federal elected representatives because they can be bought. In every instance where a Service Member says they won't exercise their Constitutional right they quote General Patton. I respect the man's memory as much as anyone else, but two lines of his gospel won't convince me that I should not exercise my right to vote for what I feel is right. Service members should set the example, educate themselves on the issues, and vote!
6
Your argument applies equally to all those in federal law enforcement. That included me, and I would never have refrained from voting. Your rationale is that, as you say, "I would like to believe that I can separate my political and professional views, but I worry that, years from now, my decision could undermine my military judgment." If that's true for you, then more power to you. But I found it easy to separate my political and professional views. My job was to prosecute white collar criminals. I voted Democrat, but I know a crime when I see it. Republican or Democrat, it didn't matter to me who I was prosecuting. Who I wanted to run the government and who had committed crimes were easily separable. I believe you could separate the professional and the political too. After all, that's what being a professional is all about.
7
" but I worry that, years from now, my decision could undermine my military judgment"
How is that precisely? I presume you would obey your oath and follow all legal orders of the President and all officers appointed over you. That's more than the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee (who took a very similar oath) can say.
How is that precisely? I presume you would obey your oath and follow all legal orders of the President and all officers appointed over you. That's more than the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee (who took a very similar oath) can say.
4
"There’s no quicker way to extinguish inflammatory political small talk than to say, 'I’m a military officer; I don’t vote.'"
That is also a quick way to extinguish the idea among your fellow citizens that most officers in the armed forces are able to separate casting a vote from being able to perform military duty.
If the major doesn't want to vote, fine. But my own personal opinion is that the major thinks much to highly of himself. He has a very important job. But officers follow orders from the Commander in Chief. They don't make policy or political decisions for the rest of us to follow.
That is also a quick way to extinguish the idea among your fellow citizens that most officers in the armed forces are able to separate casting a vote from being able to perform military duty.
If the major doesn't want to vote, fine. But my own personal opinion is that the major thinks much to highly of himself. He has a very important job. But officers follow orders from the Commander in Chief. They don't make policy or political decisions for the rest of us to follow.
5
I disagree profoundly with Major Cavanaugh. I was an NCO in the mid-1970's in a top-secret intelligence-gathering "shop." During this time we discussed and argued about the Watergate hearings and other Nixonian issues. We got our information over Armed Forces Radio and the "Stars and Stripes," which we read avidly, particularly "Doonesbury." All of us took our oaths of allegiance to the Constitution seriously, and part of the Constitution stipulates the right to vote for commissioned, enlisted, or civilian citizens. So, we voted. And we also followed orders, whether we agreed with the President or not.
9
In a lab where I 'learned how to learn' I recall the professor mentioning that it didn’t bother him if others questioned an experimental result or hypothesis, as others will attempt to replicate findings and theories are acknowledged to change based upon new findings or just better explanations for existing ones, but it did bother him if anyone questioned his scientific judgement or the attitudes that supported it. In this respect the officer is similar to the professor in desiring to maintain the objectivity needed for his military judgement.
In the examination of rights and liabilities judicial judgements rely upon precedent and interpretations of legal systems, which ends up providing some latitude for what may end up being opinions split along partisan lines. Again the officer is wishing to avoid this. I applaud the officer for doing everything possible to keep his skills, attitudes, and judgement sharp, as lives literally depend upon it.
In the examination of rights and liabilities judicial judgements rely upon precedent and interpretations of legal systems, which ends up providing some latitude for what may end up being opinions split along partisan lines. Again the officer is wishing to avoid this. I applaud the officer for doing everything possible to keep his skills, attitudes, and judgement sharp, as lives literally depend upon it.
3
I'm going to bring back an old phrase - cop out! I was brought up to believe that who I voted for was no ones business but my own. And who you vote for is confidential and never necessary to reveal to anyone.
Military officers, much more than others, understand the importance of who is our Commander in Chief. Failing to do your obligation to vote is cowardly!
Military officers, much more than others, understand the importance of who is our Commander in Chief. Failing to do your obligation to vote is cowardly!
2
I agree, in many respects, with the major and have not voted while in uniform for many of the reasons cited. However, I am often tempted to vote for candidates who I believe will act in the best interest of national security and more expertly wield the military element of national power. And while I've not even registered to vote in years, this election cycle has seen me succumb. I registered. However, after reading the major's piece I'll seriously reconsider abstaining.
3
Major, you are exactly the sort of voter we need going into the voting booths, every election day.
You are thoughtful and well aware of the big picture. You recognize the possible
conflicts inherent with your career choice and responsibilities.
How many voters bring potential conflicts into the booth with them but either don't realize it or pretend they don't or allow their biases to dictate their votes.
You have the opportunity to set an example for all of us by casting your vote and fulfilling your responsibilities regardless of the election outcome.
You are thoughtful and well aware of the big picture. You recognize the possible
conflicts inherent with your career choice and responsibilities.
How many voters bring potential conflicts into the booth with them but either don't realize it or pretend they don't or allow their biases to dictate their votes.
You have the opportunity to set an example for all of us by casting your vote and fulfilling your responsibilities regardless of the election outcome.
2
My US Army Ranger father taught me how precious the vote is. He took me with him to vote. He was an immigrant and valued his private choice in our government. He told me it was my duty to vote as an American citizen. He emphasized that a democracy can only exist with a literate, informed citizenry that took voting seriously. He fought in WWII and Korea so that ALL citizens can vote and be free and that included service men and women.
5
Agree with Major Cavanaugh's decision or not, but you have to admit you have read the words of an ethical and trustworthy man. The officer corps of the armed services of the United States have become exemplary in putting duty first. They protect us. I am grateful.
3
Nope. This argument doesn't hold water. Enlisted and officers should never forget that they are citizens as well as soldiers. There is already a widening divide between civilians and the military; we don't need to encourage the idea that service members somehow have a different level of citizenship from anyone else. They don't.
Obviously, officers and NCO's should not discuss politics in uniform and they should absolutely not discuss politcs with their soldiers at any time. As an NCO I was careful to keep my political opinions to myself. But voting thoughtfully is the obligation of any citizen, military status not excepted.
Obviously, officers and NCO's should not discuss politics in uniform and they should absolutely not discuss politcs with their soldiers at any time. As an NCO I was careful to keep my political opinions to myself. But voting thoughtfully is the obligation of any citizen, military status not excepted.
3
If only our elected officials had such integrity...
3
As a Retired US Army Officer, I find the Major's opinion curious. During my service 1968-1989 I was at times selected as the unit voting rights officer, delegated the responsibility to provide absentee ballots to all the members of my unit. Often there was competition among sister units within the command to see which unit voting rights officer had the highest percentage of voter participation. No, that was not the Brown Shoe Army of my dad. It was the Army that I knew. I believe strongly that my service was to protect the "right to Vote for all Americans"
3
As a Navy veteran, I think this is a little over the top. Unless one is unable to accept the outcome of the election or acknowledge that "the other side" won. There is no reason the most folks would have a conflict between being a supporter of the opposite party on the one hand, and giving full faithfulness to the new Commander-in-Chief on the other. While I do not approve of officers attempting to influence the vote of those under them, I see nothing inappropriate in any officer voting.
7
Does anyone else see it as ironic that someone so concerned with being professional military officer and non-political writes an op-ed piece in the NY Times?
4
What are you saying, that someone more in- tune with the security of our Nation is exempt from the 1st Amendment Rights guaranteed to all citizens? I guess libs support Freedom of Speech when it only supports their agenda?
1
I think the real problem with officers participating in the civic discourse, whether through voting or as commenters on TV is when the impression comes across that the officer corps is aligned with a particular political ideology.
When the armed forces start being perceived as supportive of one side or the other in our civilian political arguments, that is when they begin to lose the respect that large sections of the society will show them and that is when the security of the nation is put at risk.
One can't help feeling that the current officer corp leans heavily to the right. That is not good for the armed forces or for the society. This would also be true if the perception existed that they leaned heavily to the left.
When the armed forces start being perceived as supportive of one side or the other in our civilian political arguments, that is when they begin to lose the respect that large sections of the society will show them and that is when the security of the nation is put at risk.
One can't help feeling that the current officer corp leans heavily to the right. That is not good for the armed forces or for the society. This would also be true if the perception existed that they leaned heavily to the left.
5
..and guess why most military service members lean right? It's because under Democratic leadership, the military has be reduced to pre WWII readiness levels. This happened under Carter, Clinton and OBama. Yes, historically, the liberal leadership (CINC) has signed off nminimal
Pay raises and has intoduced see: "forced") " social experiment into military ranks affecting moral Ang causing PC mania never seen in this Nation's history. Pretty simple to see why (military) lean is to the Right. Conservatives build a powerful military, whereas, Liberals want to reduce it to bare bones levels ( current readiness status supports this) and populate it with special groups who demand they get the spotlight on them, causing consternation and diviseness within the ranks. How do I know this? Well it's because over 3 decades on active duty serving this Nation. I got a front row seat on the military's roller coaster ride..Pull up..pull up...brace for impact-
Pay raises and has intoduced see: "forced") " social experiment into military ranks affecting moral Ang causing PC mania never seen in this Nation's history. Pretty simple to see why (military) lean is to the Right. Conservatives build a powerful military, whereas, Liberals want to reduce it to bare bones levels ( current readiness status supports this) and populate it with special groups who demand they get the spotlight on them, causing consternation and diviseness within the ranks. How do I know this? Well it's because over 3 decades on active duty serving this Nation. I got a front row seat on the military's roller coaster ride..Pull up..pull up...brace for impact-
2
You just made my point. The military is supposed to be subservient to civilian authority composed of the duly elected representatives of the people whether they are Democrats, Republicans or god-forbid, communists and WHATEVER policies they wish to institute, so long as they do not violate the US Constitution.
Your comments indicate that some (too many, perhaps) in the military do not understand this simple arrangement and have their own ideas on what that civilian authority ought to look like and how it should behave and what policies it should promulgate. This line of thinking has been the cause of coup d'etats in numerous third world countries. I hope it does not come to that here, but I would not give it zero chance, unfortunately, with thinking like yours.
Your comments indicate that some (too many, perhaps) in the military do not understand this simple arrangement and have their own ideas on what that civilian authority ought to look like and how it should behave and what policies it should promulgate. This line of thinking has been the cause of coup d'etats in numerous third world countries. I hope it does not come to that here, but I would not give it zero chance, unfortunately, with thinking like yours.
1
I've never heard of members of the military not voting. Sort of makes sense, but can't you support or not support someone and still obey/serve them if they become Commander in Chief? I have often worked for a boss I didn't like or thought was a fool. I still did my job.
4
No one seems to be mentioning here that on Sept. 6, Donald Trump announced the support of 88 retired military leaders for his Republican campaign. This is a far larger violation of military and national ethics than an individual officer casting his or her support for the actual ballot. I was surprised there wasn't more public outrage about this at the time.
Military officers should not be publicly supporting any candidate, much less a madman who openly wants to destroy the Western world order of the last 70 years. These officers, once again, should vote as they please, but they should not be openly supporting a demagogue like Trump.
This is like some drug company announcing the support of 200 physicians for their latest cancer drug, when the concoction hasn't even been tested yet. That would not be ethically sound for the physicians.
Military officers should not be publicly supporting any candidate, much less a madman who openly wants to destroy the Western world order of the last 70 years. These officers, once again, should vote as they please, but they should not be openly supporting a demagogue like Trump.
This is like some drug company announcing the support of 200 physicians for their latest cancer drug, when the concoction hasn't even been tested yet. That would not be ethically sound for the physicians.
2
We may or may not agree with Major Cavanaugh's decision to abstain. However, I think his thoughtful consideration of his options sets an example for anyone who does vote.
7
And Air Force One isn't a political prop, so to speak, for our current resident top-of-the-pole DNC Politburo member? What hypocrisy.
If colonel or corporal wants to affirm his right under the First Amendment, while in uniform or not, what right does the NYT have to question it? (Hillary not popular with most as military papers suggest?) No political discussions off base while in uniform? Can't exercise the right to vote while in uniform? So our military is filled with agnostic priests and nuns? Generals don't curry political favor while in uniform, as members of the military, e.g., Powell?
Just responsible for dying for whichever party in power who sends them off to war--but always in uniform, of course?
If colonel or corporal wants to affirm his right under the First Amendment, while in uniform or not, what right does the NYT have to question it? (Hillary not popular with most as military papers suggest?) No political discussions off base while in uniform? Can't exercise the right to vote while in uniform? So our military is filled with agnostic priests and nuns? Generals don't curry political favor while in uniform, as members of the military, e.g., Powell?
Just responsible for dying for whichever party in power who sends them off to war--but always in uniform, of course?
2
As a retired Air Force Colonel, I would have serious doubts about an officer who would be concerned that, "years from now, my decision could undermine my military judgment." Really? Is the gravity of voting one way or another using a secret ballot really going to "undermine" your judgement? If that is the case, please get out of the Army ASAP. I, along with other parents, don't want to entrust our sons and daughters to an officer who would let a constitutionally protected right upset their judgement.
3
While I respect Major Cavanaugh's position, I must disagree with it. We are citizens as well as soldiers, not a priesthood or military caste, and to not vote divides us from those not serving. I served for over 36 years (Active and Reserve) and always voted. What is crucial that when we, as officers/leaders/soldiers do vote, we keep our choice to ourselves and never do anything that might be seen as trying to influence our subordinates in their choice. I find it very disconcerting and painful to see retired officers using their rank to endorse candidates of any party or persuasion, and any respect I might have had for those who do so is greatly diminished.
2
The military represents the BEST of our citizenry, and the ''lifers'' are the best of those.
There ought to be a law that all these officer not only vote, but should have more votes than the rest or us - perhaps five, or ten votes in federal elections. Their knowledge and experience needs to be taken advantage of on our behalf.
There ought to be a law that all these officer not only vote, but should have more votes than the rest or us - perhaps five, or ten votes in federal elections. Their knowledge and experience needs to be taken advantage of on our behalf.
How exactly did you "fight" for my right to vote?
1
I was a Lt(jg) in the US Navy serving on a destroyer on deployment in the Mediterranean in the fall of 1972. I can distinctly remember the day that my absentee ballot arrived on board. My sense of citizenship was reinforced as I was able cast my vote for Senator McGovern while serving in the military in the midst of a war I personally opposed. If I had felt unable to vote, I would have felt that service to my country deprived me of the right of citizenship I hold most dear. Vote!
3
Major, this former Marine Corporal has an idea for you: Vote, and keep it to yourself. Pretty simple, don't you think?
No wonder that I joined the Corps!
No wonder that I joined the Corps!
4
The military is unlike any other occupation or profession. It is the sword-bearer of the government. It alone has the capacity to impose its will through force. That is an ominous power. Even a hint of political leaning can have a chilling effect on the political arena.
I am glad to see a strong voice for military officers (active and retired) staying completely out of the public flogging that passes for electioneering now. I cringe every time hear a retired general criticize or support a position, regardless of how the comments line up with my own views. Even comments by retired officers strike me as a departure from the neutrality the military must present to the citizenry.
As far as voting is concerned, I certainly respect the Major's position. However, I think the answer to his concerns lies in the secrecy of the ballot box. His vote is not a public comment. It is a private act.
He has every right to vote but no more duty to do so than any of the rest of us.
Keep up the good work.
I am glad to see a strong voice for military officers (active and retired) staying completely out of the public flogging that passes for electioneering now. I cringe every time hear a retired general criticize or support a position, regardless of how the comments line up with my own views. Even comments by retired officers strike me as a departure from the neutrality the military must present to the citizenry.
As far as voting is concerned, I certainly respect the Major's position. However, I think the answer to his concerns lies in the secrecy of the ballot box. His vote is not a public comment. It is a private act.
He has every right to vote but no more duty to do so than any of the rest of us.
Keep up the good work.
2
I am intrigued by Maj Cavanaugh's logic in the voting process, I don't agree with it but I appreciate that he certainly has thought about the ramifications of both voting and non-voting. I am not a member of the military but I am a federal employee entrusted with a high degree of public trust. We are covered by the Hatch Act, which expressly does *not* prevent a federal employee from voting, but makes it wrong and de facto illegal to openly use your position of public trust to help influence others. However, if I vote for the losing candidate (and I have), it does not mean that the orders emanating from the White House are any less valid to me - my oath is to the Constitution. When I vote, I look for the person who I believe will best protect and live up to the ideals of the Constitution.
3
Admirable! Difficult decision, but insightful.
1
I disagree with you. Not choosing to vote does not mean that you can completely shut off your thoughts and your brain and not have any preferences. You'll still continue to prefer one candidate over the other but would support whoever becomes the President regardless of your preferences. Then I don't see how it is different than someone who casts their vote but still support whoever is the president. I think it's better to make your voice heard by voting but not letting the choice that you make affect what is expected of you as a profession soldier.
1
I am glad the officer takes his responsibility so seriously. Fortunately for him, he has a choice in the matter. What I have found horrifying in this election campaign is the use by both major political parties of deceased service members as political weapons.
1
Very thought-provoking. Thoughtful and sober.
As an Infantry Officer I have to disagree; I would never try to influence the vote of another person in uniform but my duty as a citizen is to make my voice heard to achieve the most broad consensus possible about our leadership.
Whoever the Commander in Chief may be, I will obey any lawful order and lend all my resources to achieve the end behind the order.But that doesn't mean I don't have a responsibility to select the civilian officer holders whose orders I will obey.
As an Infantry Officer I have to disagree; I would never try to influence the vote of another person in uniform but my duty as a citizen is to make my voice heard to achieve the most broad consensus possible about our leadership.
Whoever the Commander in Chief may be, I will obey any lawful order and lend all my resources to achieve the end behind the order.But that doesn't mean I don't have a responsibility to select the civilian officer holders whose orders I will obey.
2
Not engaging in partisan activity means not telling the troops under your command how to vote.
Presidents do a lot more than act as Commander-in-Chief of the military. So even IF you want to take that aspect out of the equation, look at their policies on health care, social security, taxes, trade agreements. To fail to do this is an abdication of responsibility.
ON the other hand, I'd just as soon irresponsible people don't vote.
Presidents do a lot more than act as Commander-in-Chief of the military. So even IF you want to take that aspect out of the equation, look at their policies on health care, social security, taxes, trade agreements. To fail to do this is an abdication of responsibility.
ON the other hand, I'd just as soon irresponsible people don't vote.
2
No , you don't fight for my right to vote. Spare me.
2
I'm not sure the prohibition needs to be so stringent that active duty officers should not vote. However, Major Cavanaugh's basic point is well-taken. A politicized military leadership is a dangerous thing. Besides compromising the democratic process, politicized military leaderships, at least in modern times, are also often incompetent because political reliability becomes more important than actual leadership abilities. You can see examples of this politicized incompetence from Soviet military leadership in the early stages of World War II, to various military juntas and dictators today.
2
Thank you for your thoughtful article. I agree on your abstaining from your vote for president.
1
Major Cavanaugh, you're skittish about casting a secret ballot, but you're okay with writing an essay for the Times' op-ed page?
3
How misguided.
3
Your argument doesn't hold water when you think about it critically. You can abstain from making political pronouncements, but voting or not voting won't change your opinion about the candidate who is eventually elected. He or she is still your Commander-in-Chief.
1
Absolutely ridiculous...the line between "carrying out the obligations of citizenship" and "engag[ing] in partisan political activity" is very clear. There is a huge distinction between casting a ballot and using your rank or uniform to support a political party, group, or measure. Generations of Officers, NCOs and Soldiers have been able to exercise sound military judgment while exercising the right to vote. In addition, you somehow made the logical error that if you don't vote, then there won't be a need to express partisan ideas...absolutely ridiculous arguments on every level.
2
I think the column makes sense.
I support your desire not to vote. Be safe.
I wouldn't be surprised if his essay doesn't get Major Cavanaugh (if that's his real name) in trouble with his commander. He's an Army officer, someone in a leadership position, and he's written to the NYT to advocate for military members not to vote. That is not going to go over well.
2
I would guess that in elections where the president is a Democrat, the official D.C. line would go against military voting. In Florida in 2000, the entire Democratic party bar was mobilized to destroy or throw out as many military votes as possible.
Every Democrat politician I have heard address the military sounds opposed to our even having one.
Every Democrat politician I have heard address the military sounds opposed to our even having one.
3
That is the craziest shyte I've ever read. Of course military people should vote. The prohibition against engaging in partisan political activity does not apply to voting, which is a private activity.
And for the record, that Patton quote is stupid. The thing that makes you "paid for" is that you are literally getting a paycheck.
Clover,
MSgt (Ret)
USAF
And for the record, that Patton quote is stupid. The thing that makes you "paid for" is that you are literally getting a paycheck.
Clover,
MSgt (Ret)
USAF
4
Two weeks after the NYT editorializes that felons should be given the right to vote, they post an opinion piece discouraging military officers from voting. This is what a media that rigs the elections looks like.
3
Next week: Why Illegals Should Go Ahead and Vote Anyway.
3
Just vote Major, you are way overthinking this. There's no honor in not voting. We are commissioned by the state but that doesn't mean we are separate from it. How does voting undermine your military judgement? If you're a professional, you'll obey lawful orders no matter who the commander is. I've been an officer for 17 years.
5
Whew! Perhaps the author would like to explain how enlisted personnel fit into all this. If it's about responsibility and following orders, I would like to introduce the Major to a few Chief Petty Officers and Sergeants. The vote is sacred and secret...get off your high horse.
6
In today's version of "anything to make Clinton win" we see an attempt by the NY Times at voter suppression. Having been in the military, and gotten shot at in two of Bill's wars, I'm not at all interesting in electing Hillary the Hawk.
3
I was surprised to read this. The DOD Directive on Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces explicitly states, 'It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces to carry out the obligations of citizenship"
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html
I served as an officer for two years but have always relished my right to vote. I would not consider giving that up.
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html
I served as an officer for two years but have always relished my right to vote. I would not consider giving that up.
3
As a retired Army officer, let me offer this: It's a secret vote. Don't ask, don't tell. It's very simple.
Your troops don't know. Hillary doesn't know. Donald doesn't know.
And when a soldier separates himself so completely from the society he or she defends, what's the point in serving?
Sorry, major, but this is nonsensical.
Your troops don't know. Hillary doesn't know. Donald doesn't know.
And when a soldier separates himself so completely from the society he or she defends, what's the point in serving?
Sorry, major, but this is nonsensical.
6
I applaud your principled stand during these grimly partisan times. I can only hope it resonates with those in uniform up and down the chain of command.
1
Thank you Major for your thoughtful words. You address your reasons for not voting for President, who is also your Commander-in-Chief. But what about the many other things citizens decide on voting day? The non-partisan elections for judges, the ballot initiatives and legislative initiatives? These are civilian decisions that also need to be made.
Everyone, please don't forget to fill out the sections of the ballot that are not covered if you only check the box to vote for a specific party!
Everyone, please don't forget to fill out the sections of the ballot that are not covered if you only check the box to vote for a specific party!
2
Hmm. Perhaps an interesting question for The Ethicist. http://www.nytimes.com/column/the-ethicist
1
I'll forgive him for being a little head strong and poorly informed. When I was in no one cared who we voted for and yes, we were encouraged to vote (Ford Vs Carter). Whether in CONUS or OCONUS we all paid attention via the stars and stripes or whatever media we could get our hands on (No TV, Armed forces radio, no internet). If he's a strategist, whatever that might mean, I would guess he's probably in a higher level HQ somewhere which makes his comments especially surprising. Perhaps he's fresh out of a battalion.
1
“I am in the pay of the United States government,” Gen. George S. Patton once put it. “If I vote against the administration, I am voting against my commander in chief. If I vote for the administration in office I am being bought.”
I respectfully disagree. The military is being paid by the citizens of this country through our tax dollars. The government is simply writing the check. So while you shouldn't be taking your your political views to the mess hall, or the battlefield, you are certainly entitled to take them to the voting booth.
I respectfully disagree. The military is being paid by the citizens of this country through our tax dollars. The government is simply writing the check. So while you shouldn't be taking your your political views to the mess hall, or the battlefield, you are certainly entitled to take them to the voting booth.
6
The author states that the article doesn't necessarily reflect DOD's position. I wondered what DOD's position actually is. My Internet search turned up a DOD Directive which states: "It is DOD policy to "encourage members of the Armed Forces ... to carry out the obligations of citizenship." The document states that DOD's official position is that a member of the the armed forces on active duty may vote, express a personal opinion on political candidates, and promote and encourage others to exercise their voting franchise. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf. This is consistent with descriptions of the requirements that govern all federal employees, as described here: www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/resource_library/elections_guidance_201.... Federal government employees are subject to specific restrictions on political activity, but "political abstention" is not considered necessary for government employees to be neutral and committed on the job. It is a little strange to see the author arguing that military members are somehow less able to put their biases and personal opinions aside than are other government employees. After all, people have biases and strong personal opinions on many matters, not just political candidates.
2
Military officers do not possess the requisite intellect to cast sensible ballots, period.
I think you are wrong, Sir. While I agree that you have a duty as a soldier to acknowledge the legal authority of the President through the chain of command, you still have a duty as a citizen to vote. Just as you do not permit your support of one candidate -- though it may not be expressed through the ballot box -- to affect your eventual recognition of the winning candidate's Constitutional authority, so to are you able and required not to permit your vote to affect that recognition.
Vote. Just keep that vote separate from your actions as a soldier and as an officer. It may be a difficult thing to ask, but we ask our armed forces to do many things that are much more difficult.
Vote. Just keep that vote separate from your actions as a soldier and as an officer. It may be a difficult thing to ask, but we ask our armed forces to do many things that are much more difficult.
5
Point of clarification:
Does the major never vote at all? Not even for his local Congressman or Senator? Not even for State Representatives? Not even for City Councillors or local School Boards? Does he never participate in choosing his local judges or coroner or dog catcher?
Would his choosing anyone to represent him in any civic position constitute a expression of bias that violates his sense of duty to the military? Just asking.
Does the major never vote at all? Not even for his local Congressman or Senator? Not even for State Representatives? Not even for City Councillors or local School Boards? Does he never participate in choosing his local judges or coroner or dog catcher?
Would his choosing anyone to represent him in any civic position constitute a expression of bias that violates his sense of duty to the military? Just asking.
2
Usually have an immediate opinion, but not on this. I support your right vote and in your non-duty times being political just like anyone else. My reason for not wanting the military to engage in politics is bias to weaponry, military/DOD funding, military violence with for many wanting to get their fee ton the ground to prove themselves. I truly believe our military industrial complex helps to ignite military conflict (I don't have proof-Just know based on all our companies that supported Hitler's war machine).
Because we irresponsibly spent on our military and continue to do so, we weaken ourselves as a society because we aren't funding 'we,the people' social programs and our future, e.g., climate change. It is truly the analogy of the carpenter. America has been in one or more violent military conflicts every 10 years of its existence. That's just wrong, but the hammer we have which many are so proud of. We spend 6 times the next largest military spender and more than the next 18 countries combined on our military. So with so much money in the military and money following power, the military should not be politicized as you say, but that does't mean military people don't vote or don't work issues politically, e.g., demanding better support of Vets.
Because we irresponsibly spent on our military and continue to do so, we weaken ourselves as a society because we aren't funding 'we,the people' social programs and our future, e.g., climate change. It is truly the analogy of the carpenter. America has been in one or more violent military conflicts every 10 years of its existence. That's just wrong, but the hammer we have which many are so proud of. We spend 6 times the next largest military spender and more than the next 18 countries combined on our military. So with so much money in the military and money following power, the military should not be politicized as you say, but that does't mean military people don't vote or don't work issues politically, e.g., demanding better support of Vets.
1
I feel reassured that the military not only protects our security but also our democracy.
1
I read the headline and the first paragraph and was all fired up to write a scathing response.
I read the rest of the article and feel very differently. I'm not entirely convinced -- are you considering the fact that many if not most of your fellow officers will vote? -- but you make a very strong case, a case that must be heard by all. Thank you.
I read the rest of the article and feel very differently. I'm not entirely convinced -- are you considering the fact that many if not most of your fellow officers will vote? -- but you make a very strong case, a case that must be heard by all. Thank you.
2
I fail to see how using a secret ballot equates to endorsing a candidate in public.
2
Major, you're a citizen first, an officer second. There is a big difference between exercising your franchise, and using the power of your rank for electioneering. Your proposal amounts to civic anorexia, a condition we all know is unhealthy--and, frankly, has the effect of electioneering. Please reconsider your position.
16
Sir, you have earned the right to vote far more than most. I may be a one percenter, but my son served and came home significantly disabled by his four years in the USMC Infantry. I understand his sacrifice and yours, and I would be very disappointed if, after thoughtful reflection, you did not vote your conscience. I've spent time at Camp Lejuene and I know that many of the fine men and women based there have a predilection for a certain craven clown who will say anything that panders for votes, but I stand for your privilege to participate. Please do not squander your enfranchisement!
14
Former Marine here to say that service in the military, at this point, does not give any more validity to a citizen's vote. I am all for military service, but my above point stands.
1
As a former Marine Corps officer, I disagree with this. You are allowed to have an opinion, you are allowed to disagree with your commanders and even your commander and chief. As officers, our (abridged) oath is to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which we are about to enter. It doesn't state anything about obeying the president, like our enlisted counterparts.
You can easily vote your conscious, but as a member of the armed forces you can't use your opinion to sway others. As long as you don't use your position to influence others or as a representation of the army, there is no issue.
What I think is a totally separate and much larger issue, is former military officers appearing on cable news networks, using their former positions in partisan politics. Or former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates writing a book about his experiences while the current administration was still in office.
You can easily vote your conscious, but as a member of the armed forces you can't use your opinion to sway others. As long as you don't use your position to influence others or as a representation of the army, there is no issue.
What I think is a totally separate and much larger issue, is former military officers appearing on cable news networks, using their former positions in partisan politics. Or former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates writing a book about his experiences while the current administration was still in office.
22
This was never a problem or a concern until the era of standing armies. Which is also the era of foreign wars of aggression, as opposed to wars of self-defense.
Standing armies have a serious deficiency: A weapon unused is a useless weapon. This leads to the Progressive idea of war: we go out and impose our Divine Progressive Will upon people who just want to be left alone. This was as evident in the Spanish-American War, at the start of Progressivism, as it is in the current Libya and Syria wars under Obama.
Standing armies have a serious deficiency: A weapon unused is a useless weapon. This leads to the Progressive idea of war: we go out and impose our Divine Progressive Will upon people who just want to be left alone. This was as evident in the Spanish-American War, at the start of Progressivism, as it is in the current Libya and Syria wars under Obama.
An interesting and thoughtful piece to be sure but perhaps too narrow in scope. Taken to its logical limit would Maj. Cavanaugh also abstain from practicing his faith while in uniform?
As any member of the armed services will attest, over your period of service you will have to work for and with many others with whom you agree and disagree with. Following the orders of any superior is not neither supporting or resisting their ideologies under any circumstance, it is doing your duty.
Furthermore I submit that any officer not willing to offer his opinions on matters of military import at the appropriate time, whether it be at the ballot box or in the field, is not serving his country to the fullest extent.
Vote. Be professional. These ideas are not opposed they are extensions of the same principle of service to ones country.
As any member of the armed services will attest, over your period of service you will have to work for and with many others with whom you agree and disagree with. Following the orders of any superior is not neither supporting or resisting their ideologies under any circumstance, it is doing your duty.
Furthermore I submit that any officer not willing to offer his opinions on matters of military import at the appropriate time, whether it be at the ballot box or in the field, is not serving his country to the fullest extent.
Vote. Be professional. These ideas are not opposed they are extensions of the same principle of service to ones country.
2
I don’t know about officers, but if enlisted thought about who their Commander in Chief would be or how much confidence they have in the decision-making of politicians when they signed up, they would think very carefully before choosing a combat specialty.
1
This person is entitled to an opinion, just like you and I are. But I too was an Army major and can assure you that Presidents don't consult majors regarding global strategy. I also took an oath in which I swore I would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. In this oath, there was no clause that gave me the right to rescind my word if I didn't agree (or vote for) the Commander in Chief.
3
There is not difference between a contemporary soldier and a Jannissary. Beholden to whoever is in office, apolitical. ... Maybe we should ask that our soldiers be castrated too. Then they won't undermine our social order by choosing to exercise their personal freedom to procreate -- an activity that those on the moral right (Billy Graham evangelicals) find displeasing, in any case -- since the sexual act can cloud judgment. And, in a standing army, in a democratic nation, we wouldn't want our soldiers' judgment to be clouded by such fluffy issues like free speech or freedom of association. Wouldn't we?
I served on active duty for 27 years! During that time, I am proud to say I never missed the opportunity to vote. Also during that period I never discussed let alone tried to influence another soldier in his or her voting choices. Your reasoning doesn't track any more than the comment that the military shouldn't vote because they have an "enormous right wing bias." We are citizens and it is our right and responsibility to vote. Your choice but I just don't understand and you haven't convinced me.
4
Interesting perspective here and one might wonder what if they held an election and no one came what would happen. Suppose no one voted what would be the result? Well I guess each candidate might vote but what would we have then? I have never been tired of an election before but I am tired of this one. Actually I might have been tired of it before it really got going. Yet this one I have some primordial fear that if I don't vote and I didn't like this result although I am not sure I am really going to like any result that I really couldn't look myself in the mirror. I have been through an fair number of these and never have felt this way. Well I persevere and now I have something more shocking than Gore Vidal calling William F. Buckley a Crypto Nazi to use as a standard for shock in a presidential election.
2
This Op-Ed piece brings to mind a discussion I recently had with a retired member of the military who served in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion of Iraq. He offered insights arising from this experiance. (Specifically, he believed that the administration acted foolishly in going into Iraq, which diverted badly needed resources from Afghanistan, just as we were on the cusp of success. Perhaps more importantly, he learned from discussions with officers from militaries of other coalition partners that our invasion of Iraq alienated many of these partners.) What this discussion showed me, to the extent that I had not already known it, is that persons in the military can be better informed about certain things than the rest of us. It follows that we are more apt to get a good result if people in the military vote.
3
Thank goodness the federal soldiers during the Civil War did vote, or Lincoln may not have been reelected! The vote is one of the most important, if not THE most important privileges we have as US citizens. I am the daughter of an immigrant who taught me that I should vote in every election, no matter how small because all elections are important and have consequences.
3
Sorry Major, but perhaps you should consider resigning your commission. Surely as a professional Soldier, you have the strength of character and discipline to separate your personal/partisan beliefs/feelings from your duties as an Army Officer. The rules aren't "fuzzy". I didn't have a problem following the military's guidelines and not violating the Hatch Act in my 20 years of active federal commissioned service. As a retired Army Officer, I take great pride in the fact that I voted in every election, including primaries, during my 20 years of active service. As a Political Science major I take great pride in the effort it took to ensure I was a well informed, educated voter in each of those elections (mostly by absentee ballot), before the days of the internet. Not everyone followed those rules, but then not everyone follows every rule. That did not mean I had to part of the problem, but rather the solution. When I heard other Soldiers talking partisan politics, I would remind them of those not so "fuzzy" rules...and it would shut down. I am still an "unaffiliated" voter (as it's called in North Carolina), perhaps because of my training in the military, not to focus on a party, but on the message of a candidate, and not to publicly share my political leanings. This is a most basic right and responsibility as an American. If you can't do it while working in your chosen profession, perhaps it's time you find another profession.
7
Voting and Endorsing a candidate are truly two different things. If as a soldier, you let your fate be decided by those who might praise your service but not honor it. Endorsing a candidate while in the military should be not encouraged since as mentioned, it will affect morale. Soldiers do talk amongst themselves but that cohesion we seek when they are in combat or following their leader could be affected by each soldier declaring their political view. Exercise your view loudly when you are no longer a soldier serving but not while on duty. This similarly applies to any current FBI Secret Service Agents. Unfortunately, everyone has an agenda and use that to promote or use military personnel for their own gain (this includes Private business enterprises and Politicians).
2
I recall many years ago having a discussion with my father, at that time an active duty US Air Force officer, as to who he might vote for n the upcoming election. His reply was very much in line with Major Cavanaugh's viewpoint. At the time, I was very surprised and not very supportive of his actions. However, after thinking about it and his reasoning, I came to understand and support his opinion. After his retirement he never failed to vote (generally Republican). I had great respect for my father in this regard, and now also for Major Cavanaugh.
2
This is ridiculous. I've been a federal employee for 25+ years, bound by the Hatch Act. That means I cannot run for office as a partisan, nor can I solicit funds for any partisan election, even when off-duty. Needless to say I also cannot use my title or government resources (phones, email, printers, computers, office space, time) to advocate for a partisan candidate. But like many adults, I strive to have good boundaries. While I don't believe there's any point lecturing my spouse or friends about which candidate to support, or which if any god to believe in, that does not mean I cannot exercise these choices myself.
I wish the author of this piece would do more to ensure all service members, including other officers, comply with existing federal laws against partisan activity while on duty, and would spend less energy angsting about exercising his rights as an adult citizen.
I wish the author of this piece would do more to ensure all service members, including other officers, comply with existing federal laws against partisan activity while on duty, and would spend less energy angsting about exercising his rights as an adult citizen.
4
There is a difference, though, between being a federal employee and in the military. Namely, that as an employee, you are always free to walk away from the job if the government asks you to do something you don't agree with. In the military, even if you don't agree, you are obligated to follow the order, unless it is an unlawful order, with severe criminal repercussions if you do not. The government is literally in charge of your very life and death if and when you are sent into combat, with no choice on your end once you enlist. That is a gigantic difference when your ultimate boss can literally order you into the line of fire.
2
Thanks Major, primarily for your service, secondarily for your thoughtful essay. It all seems reasonable but I am puzzled by this scenario. What is the difference between an officer having a privately held opinion (and perhaps a strong one) about the election versus an officer submitting a secret ballot? I can't see the difference, but would be happy to learn that there is one.
3
Major, thank you for a thoughtful column. As a former Air Force Sergeant, I appreciate the write-up. I also considered, and then abstained from voting in the presidential election of 1988, for similar reasons, although I did not understand the historical precedent at the time. I felt that by casting a vote it could lead to a bias in how I perceived decisions coming down from my Commander-in-chief, and my duty to that individual and those decisions. I also felt that other members I was serving with took sides that were too political (at the time mild compared to when my son was serving), attitudes that are inappropriate given the duty in front of us.
I see it as inappropriate, when veterans are trotted out and used as tools for someone else's cause is selling an agenda, pick-up trucks or patriotism or fear of an attack by terrorists.
Robert A. Heinlein made a point of the importance of service to country. In his novel "Starship Troopers" only veterans were allowed to vote, considering the investment those individuals had made in their country by serving. I would say my political perspective is now shaped by my service (and it is a shame we do not have more veterans in Congress), but at the time it was right to abstain from voting for my future Commander-in-chief.
In this election, I'm for HRC.
I see it as inappropriate, when veterans are trotted out and used as tools for someone else's cause is selling an agenda, pick-up trucks or patriotism or fear of an attack by terrorists.
Robert A. Heinlein made a point of the importance of service to country. In his novel "Starship Troopers" only veterans were allowed to vote, considering the investment those individuals had made in their country by serving. I would say my political perspective is now shaped by my service (and it is a shame we do not have more veterans in Congress), but at the time it was right to abstain from voting for my future Commander-in-chief.
In this election, I'm for HRC.
5
A completely ridiculous position. People have preferences, whether they vote or not. Voting is a constitutional right - being in the military doesn't abrogate that right. Voting is a societal responsibility - and being in the military doesn't abrogate that either. The author proposes he can say "I'm a military officer; I don't vote". How about "I'm a US citizen - my ballot is secret and my political beliefs are personal".
5
I was raised in a Patton-revering Army Officer's family and culture.
I volunteered for the Navy as a Seaman Apprentice.
The absentee ballots for the 1970 midterms somehow went missing for us Democrats on board the USS Ranger, that year!
I encourage this "Zero" to vote when given the chance!
I volunteered for the Navy as a Seaman Apprentice.
The absentee ballots for the 1970 midterms somehow went missing for us Democrats on board the USS Ranger, that year!
I encourage this "Zero" to vote when given the chance!
1
I definitely appreciate the author's position but feel those in the military shouldn't feel bad about exercising their democratic right to vote. I don't really see how exercising that right can "divide our troops". It's secret. What does bother me however is when military figures take public stands in support of candidates. For instance General Flynn's very vocal support of Trump and the Generals and Admirals who recently signed the letter of support for Trump. This is wrong. Our miliary has a duty to stay out of politics. I want a military that is apolitical and unbiased and who will obey orders no matter what party is in charge. Even the perception of political leanings in the military is inappropriate. It's a slippery slope.
3
The major has a point worth considering. IMO, a servicemember should avoid voting based on his narrow self-interest, ie should not vote for a certain party because they will avoid military action and spare the soldier risk and hardship, or vote for another party just because they might increase compensation for military members.
I think a servicemember should apply some critical thinking, understand his own motives, and try to vote in federal elections based on larger principals. At least that's what I try to do. Since the Feds control the military and foreign policy, non-federal elections are fair game. Concern for my child's education experience drives my vote for school board members, has nothing to do with my military affiliation.
But I would absolutely not condone banning service members from voting, very slippery slope.
@Richard in Bozeman...by your logic all of Academia should be banned from voting as well, since students and academics as a group are clearly off-the-chart lefties. What about federal civil servants? Same thing there.
I think a servicemember should apply some critical thinking, understand his own motives, and try to vote in federal elections based on larger principals. At least that's what I try to do. Since the Feds control the military and foreign policy, non-federal elections are fair game. Concern for my child's education experience drives my vote for school board members, has nothing to do with my military affiliation.
But I would absolutely not condone banning service members from voting, very slippery slope.
@Richard in Bozeman...by your logic all of Academia should be banned from voting as well, since students and academics as a group are clearly off-the-chart lefties. What about federal civil servants? Same thing there.
1
Upon reflection, I disagree with Maj. Cavanaugh's position, but I believe he makes a thoughtful and reasonable case for it. More importantly, I am glad to hear such a thoughtful opinion from a member of our active-duty military. Sobriety of mind has been less present in this season's politics than most of us have hoped for.
2
Something I'd never really thought about.
I applaud, and salute (I was enlisted a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away during a political war...) Major Cavanaugh for his reasoning and resolve. When the major retires, I trust he will then vote as often, and as carefully as he wrote this essay.
Ave
I applaud, and salute (I was enlisted a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away during a political war...) Major Cavanaugh for his reasoning and resolve. When the major retires, I trust he will then vote as often, and as carefully as he wrote this essay.
Ave
4
WIth all due respect, I strongly disagree with Mr. Cavanaugh's reasoning, which I think demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of both voting and (improper) partisanship. First, mere voting for a party or candidate is not a "partisan" political activity. That is not what "partisan" means; I respectfully suggest that he look the term up. Second, if an officer is genuinely worried that voting one way or another might eventually cloud his/her military judgement, then I would be worried about both their military judgement capabilities and their level of self-confidence to make proper decisions as a military officer, regardless of whether they vote.
16
As a current military officer with more than 20yrs of service, I superficially agree with Richard from Bozeman's comments, but similarly I also would prefer that the party I disagree with not vote either... (a flippant joke).
Taking a stand against voting is not the right answer although I appreciate the principled stand in making yourself a political eunuch. Having military personnel not vote is akin to castrating harem servants. Ardently suppressing overt political activity in our actively serving military is entirely appropriate. We only have to look at Turkey's military and recent (and past history) to see the danger in political factions within a nation's armed forces.
Taking a stand against voting is not the right answer although I appreciate the principled stand in making yourself a political eunuch. Having military personnel not vote is akin to castrating harem servants. Ardently suppressing overt political activity in our actively serving military is entirely appropriate. We only have to look at Turkey's military and recent (and past history) to see the danger in political factions within a nation's armed forces.
8
While Major Cavanaugh is certainly free to exercise his right to abstain from voting (as I fear many Americans may do this election cycle) I could not disagree more with his argument that serving military officers cannot separate their military duty from their personal beliefs. That many choose not to do so is unfortunate. In my 30 year career as a Naval Aviator I had the privilege of teaching Leadership and Ethics to future officers of the USN & USMC. I was always proud when a student would come to me after class to ask my opinion on the course material (which I would decline to give) because that meant I successfully kept my personal beliefs to myself. To me, while voting is an obligation of citizenship, nonpartisanship is not only an obligation, but a legal requirement of military leaders. Good military leaders should not have an issue with this.
18
I'm fascinated by Major Cavanaugh's opinion, but I can only partially agree with him.
First, I respect our service members as having a unique perspective on being an American. They serve all of us. They also have special knowledge of what it is like to serve and carry out missions in support of our democracy. To that extent, I value their opinions and I think their votes should matter as much as everyone else's.
Second, I do think they should restrain themselves from political activism, speaking out, organizing, etc., as that has the potential to undermine the chain of command now or in the future. But I think activism can be separated from exercising the individual right to vote.
The company I work for has similar ethics. It won't engage in lobbying, and it won't support political activism in the company's name. But I am encouraged as a citizen to be involved, take time off if needed to be active, and of course vote.
First, I respect our service members as having a unique perspective on being an American. They serve all of us. They also have special knowledge of what it is like to serve and carry out missions in support of our democracy. To that extent, I value their opinions and I think their votes should matter as much as everyone else's.
Second, I do think they should restrain themselves from political activism, speaking out, organizing, etc., as that has the potential to undermine the chain of command now or in the future. But I think activism can be separated from exercising the individual right to vote.
The company I work for has similar ethics. It won't engage in lobbying, and it won't support political activism in the company's name. But I am encouraged as a citizen to be involved, take time off if needed to be active, and of course vote.
12
I'd argue that the (intended) beauty of our democracy is that millions of people with a diverse range of values are able first to express said values and beliefs via a vote for a specific candidate representative of a particular party and later to put aside those very values for a much larger one: the understanding that the outcome of our elections is the fair outcome. Military officers are more than capable of doing the same. Take, for example, local-level government employees who vote in mayoral elections, but understand that they must respect the outcomes of said elections and remain in service to the victor.
With that said, the stakes are never higher than they are for military officers who must, as Mr. Cavanaugh so chillingly but appropriately put it, "function amid terrifyingly violent circumstances." Many of us whose lives are not on the line have deeply intense political preferences; I can't imagine how much more intense those preferences would be if I knew that my life very well depended on actual outcomes of the political system. Would I be able to separate my political leaning (and thereby tangible expression of my hopes and interests) from my ability to best and most effectively and cautiously carry out my duty to the nation and to the men and women with whom I serve? I don't know. I never will. Because other men and women every day make these considerations so that I don't have to. On that alone, I respect Mr. Cavanaugh's sound argument.
With that said, the stakes are never higher than they are for military officers who must, as Mr. Cavanaugh so chillingly but appropriately put it, "function amid terrifyingly violent circumstances." Many of us whose lives are not on the line have deeply intense political preferences; I can't imagine how much more intense those preferences would be if I knew that my life very well depended on actual outcomes of the political system. Would I be able to separate my political leaning (and thereby tangible expression of my hopes and interests) from my ability to best and most effectively and cautiously carry out my duty to the nation and to the men and women with whom I serve? I don't know. I never will. Because other men and women every day make these considerations so that I don't have to. On that alone, I respect Mr. Cavanaugh's sound argument.
3
You could make the exact same argument for any profession - doctor, lawyer , electrician, plumber, and especially a teacher - professional integrity prevents them from voting as the result of the election might have an influence on the purity of their career. That is why we have a secret ballot; so you can clenaly separate professional life from private life. The argument makes no sense.
4
My objection to soldiers voting is that I perceive an enormous right wing bias in the military. I remember shuddering just before they announced the overseas military vote in the state of Florida in November 2000.That cooked the election as much as Nader or the Supreme Court ever did.
9
So just so everyone here is clear, your objection to members of the armed forces voting is because you think they might disagree with your opinions? Does this extend to other groups of people? That doesn't sound particularly democratic.
I'd also challenge you to try and think outside of whatever echo chamber it is that formed such a baseless opinion, and perhaps you may realize that those in the military come from diverse backgrounds, are largely reflective of American society as a whole, and have ideological beliefs that span the political spectrum.
I'd also challenge you to try and think outside of whatever echo chamber it is that formed such a baseless opinion, and perhaps you may realize that those in the military come from diverse backgrounds, are largely reflective of American society as a whole, and have ideological beliefs that span the political spectrum.
Richard are you saying that a right wing bias should exclude someone from voting?
Do you object to people in New York and California voting because there is an enormous left wing bias in both states?
Pardon me, Mr. Cavanaugh, when I say your position is preposterous. You say, "Anything that erodes that division is a threat, however small, to our democracy." The most important thing in America is OUR right to each vote. One person, one vote. You are alone in the voting booth and no one knows what you do unless you tell them. Your not voting is the real threat to democracy in America. VOTE!!!
20
Voting is a right, not an obligation. You obviously did not comprehend Major Cavanaugh's argument. Perhaps those who do not serve in uniform can understand the special form of citizenship required when a soldier takes the oath to defend the Constitution.
1
Absolutely ridiculous. Not voting doesn't mean you don't have an opinion.
16
Secret ballot. That is a tried and true mechanism that allows you to maintain neutrality, and avoid political involvement while at the same time exercising your right and your civic duty to vote.
12
@Nanx
A secret ballot exists to prevent your neighbor from knowing your vote, not one's conscience. That's the definition of 'principled action'; the equivalent of doing the right thing even when no one's looking, or doing the opposite would be to your advantage. But one doesn't because of 'conscience', that little voice in your head that will always know the truth.
A secret ballot exists to prevent your neighbor from knowing your vote, not one's conscience. That's the definition of 'principled action'; the equivalent of doing the right thing even when no one's looking, or doing the opposite would be to your advantage. But one doesn't because of 'conscience', that little voice in your head that will always know the truth.
1
Maybe it's just me, but this opinion piece struck me as a little bit preening and self-righteous. The Major seems to be obstinately disregarding that he can fulfill his rights/obligations as a citizen by voting, and still adhere to the military's policy against campaigning. It seems to this retired Warrant Officer that he is placing his profession over his country. Please, Major - get out and vote!
13
The ballot is secret. There is no compelling reason to abstain from voting at all unless someone might benifit from supressing the military vote. Why is the author publicising and back door politicizing this fake issue two weeks before an election in a major newspaper? I'll give you 3 guesses and being neutral isn't one of them.Hillary's always talking about the 1% and I predict that wii be her tally from servicemen and women. The other 99% probably feel at this point what difference could it make. Nice try Agit Prop Dept. NYT.
3
I do not believe they will throw out your ballot, Major Cavanaugh, if you omit a vote for president and commander in chief on your ballot, and still vote for those who will decide the quality of your child's education on the school board.
This satisfies your conflict, yet allows you to help decide who will be appointed to the many additional posts, and be heard on the many critical issues also being decided upon this November 8th.
This satisfies your conflict, yet allows you to help decide who will be appointed to the many additional posts, and be heard on the many critical issues also being decided upon this November 8th.
9
Well, it's pretty obvious that one thing they aren't teaching in officer training classes is critical thinking.
26
Well, you know, KC, officer training classes are public schools. But, as a critical thinker, you already knew that.
1
"I Fight for Your Right to Vote." Not sure about that. It's arguably been more than 70 years since the US military waged a war to protect us from a threat that in any conceivable way would have jeopardized our right to vote. That is to say, not a single active service member today has ever fought for my right to vote. They've fought for other interests -- some worthier than others -- yes. But that? No.
Aside from that, likely the result of an overzealous headline writer, this piece is very interesting and a point well taken. An interesting issue is that voting is simply the political expression of the social, tribal, or political affiliations that Mr Cavanaugh says are a danger to military coherence. Just because soldiers don't vote doesn't mean that they don't have these affiliations/allegiances, does it?
Aside from that, likely the result of an overzealous headline writer, this piece is very interesting and a point well taken. An interesting issue is that voting is simply the political expression of the social, tribal, or political affiliations that Mr Cavanaugh says are a danger to military coherence. Just because soldiers don't vote doesn't mean that they don't have these affiliations/allegiances, does it?
15
Why is Major Cavanaugh so very wrong:
1. the military chain of command requires all personnel to follow orders
2. who's atop the chain of command pecking chain? the President
3. does it what party the President is from? No
4. does it matter whether someone in the military voted for that President? No
5. public endorsement of politicians by military personnel. rightly should be prohibited
6. but if military personnel cannot separate out their political beliefs or votes from their military duties, they should leave the military
7. just like military personnel are not expected to ignore family obligations, why should we expect them to ignore citizen voting obligations
8. any military personnel, especially officers, should be expected to be able to clearly separate their political leanings and votes from their military obligations and duty to the chain of command
1. the military chain of command requires all personnel to follow orders
2. who's atop the chain of command pecking chain? the President
3. does it what party the President is from? No
4. does it matter whether someone in the military voted for that President? No
5. public endorsement of politicians by military personnel. rightly should be prohibited
6. but if military personnel cannot separate out their political beliefs or votes from their military duties, they should leave the military
7. just like military personnel are not expected to ignore family obligations, why should we expect them to ignore citizen voting obligations
8. any military personnel, especially officers, should be expected to be able to clearly separate their political leanings and votes from their military obligations and duty to the chain of command
19
All well made points - separating your personal opinions from professional execution is a hallmark of an effective team player.
1
My guess is that there's a lot of political locker room talk among most officers, at least in the Army and Marines, and associated not-so-subtle messages and peer pressure sent to their troops on which candidate to support, just as there is a lot of not-so-subtle messages and peer pressure to prefer a certain religion and to be religious.
2
What makes democracy great (and functional) is that the citizens (including military officers) can weigh relevant issues and candidates' stands on those issues, vote for the candidate whose views are most aligned with their own, then accept the outcome of the election even if their candidate did not win. The idea is that after the election, we put aside our differences and work together to achieve a common good. This obviously isn't the democracy in America right now where obstructionism in Washington has replaced collaboration. But for our people in uniform, they have no choice but to embody the idealized version of democracy because it's their job to do so. And that's not a bad thing! By doing so, they demonstrate to the rest of America, and to its leaders, that it is possible to have a particular political view yet continue to work with and for those of opposing views. Because it is in the best interests of the country to do so. Those in the military should exercise their right to vote and then go on to demonstrate to the rest of the country (who desperately needs role models for this) how democracy functions after the election.
15
I hope you are still committed to high minded collaboration for the good of our country if Trump wins.
Mr. Cavanaugh, although I disagree with your plan of action, you certainly have that right. I spent more than 20 years in the militaryI never missed a chance to vote. A non-vote is a long-term destroyer of our whole political system. I am concerned about today's attitude of the military, as demonstrated by the General who is ostensibly advising Donald Trump - he is a frightening example of high-ranking military officers believing themselves more knowledgeable than our politicians, who have spent lifetimes in advising and running our military activities and foreign relations. That general shames me and all retired military - he should stick to military matters, if he can recognize where the line is drawn. Officers of my generation had a distinct knowledge of their position in relation to civilian matters, and would not interfere with election processes, no matter their personal opinions. He should remove his uniform if he wishes to be a politician. As was learned the hard way by Hitler's third Reich in the last century.
19
Are you ashamed of all the retired generals voicing their political opinions in this election cycle, or just the retired general who is advising Trump? I would hate to think you were playing politics with your patriotism.
There's historical precedent underlying your position, Major, but whether that precedent supports your position or not is hard to decipher.
I'm referring to the "soldier vote" in the election of 1864. By then it was clear that the Union was going to win our Civil War, but President Lincoln faced stiff opposition from George McClellan, once the commander of the Army of the Potomac and much loved by his troops during his tenure in that command.
It was an "unlovely" election in that Lincoln made a significant appeal, through various means, to turn out what was called "the soldier vote". It was a smart move on his part, because with victory almost in sight, it seemed unlikely that the soldiers would want leadership to "change horses in the middle of the stream", no matter how fondly many of them remembered McClellan.
The strategy worked. The soldier vote was overwhelmingly in favor of Lincoln. But alas, in many instances their officers all but ordered their men to vote for the President.
Does that mean soldiers - or officers, at least - should refrain from voting? I honestly can't say, but you make a sound argument.
I'm referring to the "soldier vote" in the election of 1864. By then it was clear that the Union was going to win our Civil War, but President Lincoln faced stiff opposition from George McClellan, once the commander of the Army of the Potomac and much loved by his troops during his tenure in that command.
It was an "unlovely" election in that Lincoln made a significant appeal, through various means, to turn out what was called "the soldier vote". It was a smart move on his part, because with victory almost in sight, it seemed unlikely that the soldiers would want leadership to "change horses in the middle of the stream", no matter how fondly many of them remembered McClellan.
The strategy worked. The soldier vote was overwhelmingly in favor of Lincoln. But alas, in many instances their officers all but ordered their men to vote for the President.
Does that mean soldiers - or officers, at least - should refrain from voting? I honestly can't say, but you make a sound argument.
8
The sentiment expressed here is no doubt sincere and well intended. But, it fails to recognize the critical nature of down-the-ticket voting. While the nation currently must face two seriously flawed candidates for President, this is not broadly true of other candidates vying for a myriad of important offices that are arguably even more critical to federal, state and local governance. This veteran knows that our sacred honor and love of Country is well expressed at the ballot box.
29
Where the argument against voting falls apart is where it equates not voting with having no preference regarding the outcome of the election. Major Cavanaugh is paying rapt attention to the candidates, to the debates, and to the issues, and no doubt he or she will conclude that one candidate will make a better President than the other. Declining to vote will not make the preference go away.
15
I think the writer is grossly overinterpreting the ethics rules of the military. My father and mother were both in the Army when I was growing up. They explained that they had every right to vote however they chose, but that they were obligated to be respectful toward the Commander-in-Chief at all times publicly and privately, and that they were not to express any political opinion while in uniform. Those are simple and easy ways of separating the demands of your job with your personal rights as a citizen.
36
Of course the NY Times would print this opinion piece. Everyone should vote, well except for a major voting block that votes overwhelmingly Republican. We want to discourage them from voting.
6
Once again, it's the mainstream (liberal) media plotting against the much maligned republican candidate. I'm tired of hearing about it when you've got Fox, hate radio, Breitbart and internet-enabled conspiracy-theorists spewing falsehood 24x7.
Why not just provide a critique the Major's highly indefensible opinion? And in case you didn't notice, it was published in a section clearly labeled "The Opinion Pages."
Why not just provide a critique the Major's highly indefensible opinion? And in case you didn't notice, it was published in a section clearly labeled "The Opinion Pages."
9
The Republican Party discourages minorities from voting, both by words and laws. That's a far larger voting bloc.
1
When you objectively examine the qualifications and temperment of the candidates, the fact that any retired military general staff officer could endorse Donald Trump markedly diminishes their stature and reputation. If they oppose Hillary Clinton they should certainly articulate that opinion, but endorsing a bombastic demagogue like Donald Trump, who displays a complete ignorance of military affairs, can't help but indelibly stain the reputation of all retired staff officers
8
I believe that the officer who wrote this op-ed should vote for the person whom they believe is the best to rule this nation.
7
It's ironic, but true. Anybody thoughtful and principled enough to write this article is thoughtful and principled enough to choose a good president.
1
"... vote for the person whom they believe is the best to rule this nation."
-------
Ummmm, Presidents don't "rule," they "govern." There's a difference.
-------
Ummmm, Presidents don't "rule," they "govern." There's a difference.
Rule? I'm sure it was unintentional, but we haven't been ruled in over 240 years.
I am a retired Naval officer (Active Duty 8+ years, and Reserves for 13 years), and I disagree with Major Cavanaugh. I do believe that military officers should NOT actively engage in political commentaries, and should keep their political views private.
Voting, however, is an important duty that all citizens should do.
Voting, however, is an important duty that all citizens should do.
27
American military personnel do not give up their right to vote or freedom of speech when they put on the uniform, and should vote in all elections. However, since the President will be their commander in chief, it would not be politic to engage in public debate or campaign rhetoric until they have finished their military service, but if they choose to do so, let them proceed at their own career risk.
8
Yeah like Gen. Petreaus, his emails destroyed his career but at this point what difference does it make? Only suckers obey the rules.
That is not entirely true in regards to freedom of speech. Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice states: Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
1
Petraeus knowingly and deliberately passed classified information--in the form of notebooks, not e-mails--to his mistress and then lied to the FBI when they questioned him about the matter. Nice try.
1
Very interesting. As a UK citizen, I've never come across this attitude. British officers certainly don't get involved in politics, but I'm unaware of any taboo on voting. Does this apply in other democracies, or is the US exceptional, possibly because the President is also the Commander-on -Chief?
The article is written around presidential elections; does the self-denying ordinance apply to other posts, such as city mayor or school superintendent?
The article is written around presidential elections; does the self-denying ordinance apply to other posts, such as city mayor or school superintendent?
8
The views of the Major Cavanaugh, with regards to voting, are not representative of American military officers.
1
The oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I don't see any way you can rationalize away not voting from that oath. Trying to influence the votes of others, however, is a completely different dynamic. I think we all should vote; we shouldn't all "politic".
11
Patton, Marshall and Eisenhower "rationalized away not voting". Guess they weren't true American patriots.
1
But what is the extension of this philosophy? What about other public servants; should they not vote? What about in countries like France, where there is a dominance of public servants in service, because this is one of the best jobs around? Who's gonna vote?
6
Cops, teachers, parks workers all should not be allowed to pick who will lead them nor who will sit across the table from them when they conspire with their unions to place their hands deeper into our pockets.
if the citizens with the weapons and training decide they're above the politics of democracy, they put democracy at risk. You were a citizen when you took the oath "without mental reservation," so you should have known you might have to vote on policies affecting your life. Your loved ones face the same choice: would you disqualify them?
9
While I respect your right to not vote I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are confusing the right to vote with the right to promote a candidate. While the argument can be made that you shouldn't hoist a placard on the wall, voting is a private matter and does not need to be disclosed to anyone.
22
Well done and said to Maj. Cavanaugh.
As a former Marine, one regret I have is that I voted while in uniform. The outspoken politics of active officers never sat well with me, and I wish I could stand up with the major and my other betters and say I never voted. I cannot.
Our system of checks and balances is, in part, an acknowledgement of human frailty: the desire for power, factionalism, avarice, and pettiness. Hence we have a civilian commander in chief of the armed forces and a congress that controls the purse and the power to declare war. There is nothing so special or superior about Americans that we can afford to forget this.
A politically active officer corps is fundamentally at odds with democratic government. Just ask the Turks. Our founders knew the same could happen here, and we risk thinking too highly of ourselves if we think otherwise.
Maj. Cavanaugh’s case for voting abstention is not hypocrisy but an important public advocacy for a tradition vital to our freedoms. When an officer votes, he may feel he is merely exercising his constitutional right and fulfilling a civic duty. But underpinning this is the idea that political action by an officer, however brief or quiet, is acceptable. This is an idea that needs to be acknowledged and defeated. Voluntary abstention from voting by officers is a powerful weapon in that battle.
As a former Marine, one regret I have is that I voted while in uniform. The outspoken politics of active officers never sat well with me, and I wish I could stand up with the major and my other betters and say I never voted. I cannot.
Our system of checks and balances is, in part, an acknowledgement of human frailty: the desire for power, factionalism, avarice, and pettiness. Hence we have a civilian commander in chief of the armed forces and a congress that controls the purse and the power to declare war. There is nothing so special or superior about Americans that we can afford to forget this.
A politically active officer corps is fundamentally at odds with democratic government. Just ask the Turks. Our founders knew the same could happen here, and we risk thinking too highly of ourselves if we think otherwise.
Maj. Cavanaugh’s case for voting abstention is not hypocrisy but an important public advocacy for a tradition vital to our freedoms. When an officer votes, he may feel he is merely exercising his constitutional right and fulfilling a civic duty. But underpinning this is the idea that political action by an officer, however brief or quiet, is acceptable. This is an idea that needs to be acknowledged and defeated. Voluntary abstention from voting by officers is a powerful weapon in that battle.
16
Tom in Virginia - to vote is not a political action. It is a civic responsibility to which all citizens of our country are - or should be - subjectt.
Very thought provoking, but it seems, with all due respect and admiration for your military service, you don't have confidence in your ability to serve objectively regardless of the political views and policy decisions of the person elected as commander in chief nor trust the strength of the oath, disconnected from any political party, he or she takes to defend our country. Your abstention also means that other elected offices, state & local, that have nothing to do with the department of defense, are robbed of your opinion on how they should best serve their constituencies and give you no grounds on which to praise or criticize their work as your representatives. Service is mutual.
10
A well reasoned and articulate stance, but looked at another way, it could be seen as a willingness to put allegiance to the commander in chief above personal ethical choice. The question has arisen in the current campaign of whether members of the military would follow illegal orders (targeting families of suspected terrorists, torture, etc.). We put an entire nation on trial after WWII to say that "I was only following orders" is not an excuse for inhumane behavior. Notwithstanding the importance of military discipline, we should be careful that obedience not become more important than moral responsibility. While I admire the major's dedication, I hope he will reconsider his civic duty.
18
While, as former military, I disagree with Mr. Cavanaugh, I would like to point out one thing:
Many of you are saying that we, as citizens, have a DUTY to vote. No, we do not. We are PRIVILEGED to vote, but we are not duty-bound to do so. See, that's the beauty of America; we have the privilege and freedom to do something, but we are not REQUIRED to do it in order to maintain our citizenship. So, while many of us may feel honor-bound to venture into the voting booth, that sense is self-inflicted and is not a requirement of citizenship.
I would prefer that all informed citizens exercise their rights, but fully support those who choose to exercise them by not exercising them.
Many of you are saying that we, as citizens, have a DUTY to vote. No, we do not. We are PRIVILEGED to vote, but we are not duty-bound to do so. See, that's the beauty of America; we have the privilege and freedom to do something, but we are not REQUIRED to do it in order to maintain our citizenship. So, while many of us may feel honor-bound to venture into the voting booth, that sense is self-inflicted and is not a requirement of citizenship.
I would prefer that all informed citizens exercise their rights, but fully support those who choose to exercise them by not exercising them.
8
There have been similar arguments as to why journalists also shouldn't vote. But I don't agree. The only people who shouldn't vote are those who fail to educate themselves about the candidates - which unfortunately is a large number. When name recognition and celebrity status are major factors is who gets elected you know we have a problem.
11
I am a retired military officer and I proudly served for over 30 years. Your argument is wrong. Voting like military service, paying taxes and jury duty is a responsibility of citizenship. Officers and NCOs are non partisan because of the influence and power conferred by military rank. Military service does not disenfranchise us, that is an absurd position to hold and is certainly not non partisan.
13
I would agree that as a member of the armed forces, one has an obligation to refrain from publicly endorsing any particular candidate, no matter how much one may like one or dislike another. I disagree with the assertion, however, that one should not "just quietly walk into a voting booth, pull the lever, and silently slip back out."
The former is using the just respect due to those who put their lives on the line in defense of our country to influence others. The latter, however, is taking a reasonable interest in the current and future direction the country will take, an appropriate concern for any citizen.
The former is using the just respect due to those who put their lives on the line in defense of our country to influence others. The latter, however, is taking a reasonable interest in the current and future direction the country will take, an appropriate concern for any citizen.
5
your position begs the obvious response: what is appropriate if one candidate were an ideological extremist, or even insane? If that person were elected, at some point of course, everyone would have to decide how to respond.
If the POTUS gave an order to first-strike a target with strategic nukes, the military commanders would have to make such a personal decision. Where were the top German military brass when Hitler finally consolidated absolute power? Why were the military commanders on trial at Nuremberg not granted immunity from prosecution because they were "just following orders"? You say you trust your fellow citizens not to hand the highest office to anyone not able and qualified. I believe about half of our citizens wouldn't do that, but apparently the other half would. You are only deferring the necessity of taking a stand, not absolving yourself of the responsibility. As the son of a WWll Army Col., and a senior ROTC cadet, I found it agonizing to have to decide in 1969 to remove myself from College and ROTC when the truth about Vietnam became clear to me. I lived with that family rift for 32 years but I've never regretted taking a stand. I hope you'll consider taking responsibility for the choice of your Commander in Chief as seriously as I do.
If the POTUS gave an order to first-strike a target with strategic nukes, the military commanders would have to make such a personal decision. Where were the top German military brass when Hitler finally consolidated absolute power? Why were the military commanders on trial at Nuremberg not granted immunity from prosecution because they were "just following orders"? You say you trust your fellow citizens not to hand the highest office to anyone not able and qualified. I believe about half of our citizens wouldn't do that, but apparently the other half would. You are only deferring the necessity of taking a stand, not absolving yourself of the responsibility. As the son of a WWll Army Col., and a senior ROTC cadet, I found it agonizing to have to decide in 1969 to remove myself from College and ROTC when the truth about Vietnam became clear to me. I lived with that family rift for 32 years but I've never regretted taking a stand. I hope you'll consider taking responsibility for the choice of your Commander in Chief as seriously as I do.
5
I find it curious that every BTL comment I have looked at so far assumes that Major Cavanaugh is a 'he.' I do not see any clue in Major Cavanaugh's comment that leads us to that conclusion.
1
It's probably as much the photo of the man saluting as it is our numerous additional biases.
5
Or the fact that statically speaking a military officer IS more likely to be a male. Some things are not biases, they are just educated guesses based upon the information we have at hand.
3
I admire this man's integrity and respect him for placing the cohesion and integrity of the military above partisan politics, whatever his personal belief. It gives me hope in the future of America to have military leaders with ethics and morals that can't be bought. To subsume one's ego for the good of the whole is worthy of respect in this day and age.
1
Thought provoking? So we are supposed to applaud him giving up his RIGHT to vote? I guess "Mr. Military" has forgotten about the word DUTY. Is there any doubt as to why the military in America is viewed by most as incompetent?
2
The article was rife with the concept of duty. "Mr. Military," as you sarcastically call him, sees his duty as being to his country, not transient political choices. It seemed amply apparent
2
• To be clear, I strongly believe that officers, like all citizens, should have the right to vote. But because military officers have a special responsibility to prevent politics from dividing our troops and separating us from society, it is all the more important for us to choose not to exercise that right (this is my belief, of course, and not necessarily that of the Department of Defense or the American government).
Ridiculous oxymoron! If anyone SHOULD vote it's the military whose lives are directly impacted in a presidential election (• Especially when our elected officials routinely make fateful decisions about where and how we are deployed....) depending on who becomes their Commander-in-Chief and what that candidate's international policies and intentions might be.
To not actively campaign or otherwise try to influence those troops under their command is altogether a different matter. Like religious beliefs, political opining to the troops should be shunned.
Since there is so little of interest left to report on about Mrs. Clinton's e-mails and Mr. Trump's gropings, The Times must have run out of things to write about in this brainless, policy deficient, absurd, disgusting election!.
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” ~ MARK TWAIN
Ridiculous oxymoron! If anyone SHOULD vote it's the military whose lives are directly impacted in a presidential election (• Especially when our elected officials routinely make fateful decisions about where and how we are deployed....) depending on who becomes their Commander-in-Chief and what that candidate's international policies and intentions might be.
To not actively campaign or otherwise try to influence those troops under their command is altogether a different matter. Like religious beliefs, political opining to the troops should be shunned.
Since there is so little of interest left to report on about Mrs. Clinton's e-mails and Mr. Trump's gropings, The Times must have run out of things to write about in this brainless, policy deficient, absurd, disgusting election!.
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” ~ MARK TWAIN
5
Thought provoking. Especially this year. The military should stay out of politics. It amazes me to see veterans hating on the Obama administration. It baffles me that those on the right have demeaned the presidency by sarcastically annoiting Obama king for using executive powers; while not thinking twice when applauding Trump for his Comments about appointing his own judge and locking Hillary up for good. Trump supporters seem to want a dictatorship and no dictatorship can run without the military in tow. Democracy is not easy when people are not voting your way. Polls and attitudes seem to show that the last eight years have been frightening for white guys in power. Cooler minds, like Cavanaugh's, understand that democracy comes shifts in powers. The mlitary should play no role in those shifts.
2
"The military should stay out of politics" Military members are required to stay out of politics (voting is an exception). Of course the prohibition only applies to active duty members.
1
I guess we don't have this issue with the police. The Benevolent order of Police Officers endorsed Trump. No surprise there. Police wanting a leader who promotes a police state. He's their man. Trump would leave the police free to oppress, degrade, belittle, abuse, and yes kill with impugnity. The police unions and associations should have stayed silent on this. Now we know where they stand. They stand with a possible authoritarian with visions of running our country like Putin runs Russia or Duterte runs The Philippines. A police state. Truly scary.
5
How do your square your abdication of your duty as a citizen with the military's ubiquitous programs that aid service members in exercising that duty?? I served for 25 years and voted repeatedly. Your view is not honorable; it is just an excuse and you are setting a terrible example to your subordinates. You swore an oath to defend the constitution, yet you ignore its most basic principle by refusing to participate as one of "we, the people."
5
You're right that he's setting a terrible example for his subordinates and it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't get called into his commander's office over this essay. After all, he's not only saying that he doesn't vote, but that he thinks no military officers should vote. No word on what he thinks about enlisted personnel voting. Maybe we're too insignificant to count.
1
If this is the menatility of an officer and 'stratigist' then the Army is in bigger trouble than I thought. This is not 'leadership' the way I know it. Each and every member of our Armed Forces that are US citizens have the right to vote. You telling me that being in the military negates your responsibility to vote??? By this logic then union members should not vote either. Nor should teachers. Police and firemen should not vote either because their pay and benefits are directly affected by those in political power. This logic escapes me. Patton was a great general, but he's way off with his logic concerning voting. Freedom is not free...Go to Arlington and shout out that those people buried there died so that only civilians should decide the political power for our Country.
5
Should officers in the U.S. military vote in political elections? Should the military in total refrain from political, partisan decision?
This is a difficult, tricky question. I'm reading Charles Royster's "The Destructive War" about the U.S. civil war now, and it seems a problem, if not the problem, which plagued general W.T. Sherman. Royster describes well Sherman's alarm at division, faction, partisan madness, anarchy in the U.S. and how Sherman above all wanted to preserve and develop America in total, preserve and develop Union. Sherman well before the civil war had opportunity to witness Gold Rush madness in California and count all the ways people could become divided. Particularly fascinating is how in all the ensuing madness Sherman himself was described often as insane, a madman.
I believe Sherman would say the U.S. military should never find itself divided against itself for any reason, not to mention as it was divided to point of civil war, nor should it overwhelmingly lean in any political direction. But here is where things get tricky: If the U.S. military is something of a non-partisan monolith it means political decisions made by civilian leaders never fear any violent reprisal because the military becomes subservient and enforces political decision no matter what...The military becomes a buffer zone and political decision is easily divorced from consequences of mistake and the people suffer divorce from an elite with less and less concern for public.
This is a difficult, tricky question. I'm reading Charles Royster's "The Destructive War" about the U.S. civil war now, and it seems a problem, if not the problem, which plagued general W.T. Sherman. Royster describes well Sherman's alarm at division, faction, partisan madness, anarchy in the U.S. and how Sherman above all wanted to preserve and develop America in total, preserve and develop Union. Sherman well before the civil war had opportunity to witness Gold Rush madness in California and count all the ways people could become divided. Particularly fascinating is how in all the ensuing madness Sherman himself was described often as insane, a madman.
I believe Sherman would say the U.S. military should never find itself divided against itself for any reason, not to mention as it was divided to point of civil war, nor should it overwhelmingly lean in any political direction. But here is where things get tricky: If the U.S. military is something of a non-partisan monolith it means political decisions made by civilian leaders never fear any violent reprisal because the military becomes subservient and enforces political decision no matter what...The military becomes a buffer zone and political decision is easily divorced from consequences of mistake and the people suffer divorce from an elite with less and less concern for public.
As with other readers, I appreciate the article but strongly disagree with this sentiment.
As a former Naval officer, I found it difficult to tolerate the political rhetoric surrounding me which I saw as deeply insubordinate with respect to our Commander in Chief (I served under President Clinton). I believe that military officers are bound by their oath to support and defend the Constitution and therefore the Commander in Chief. This means holding your political views to yourself and not campaigning for a candidate while holding a commission. At the same time, I believe the the rights and obligations of citizenship are an equal mandate and with that comes the responsibility to vote. I do not believe these are in conflict; rather, I find them to be a wonderful example of the uniqueness of the American experiment and would be loathe to see our military recuse themselves from voting on the basis of a falsely perceived conflict of interest.
As a former Naval officer, I found it difficult to tolerate the political rhetoric surrounding me which I saw as deeply insubordinate with respect to our Commander in Chief (I served under President Clinton). I believe that military officers are bound by their oath to support and defend the Constitution and therefore the Commander in Chief. This means holding your political views to yourself and not campaigning for a candidate while holding a commission. At the same time, I believe the the rights and obligations of citizenship are an equal mandate and with that comes the responsibility to vote. I do not believe these are in conflict; rather, I find them to be a wonderful example of the uniqueness of the American experiment and would be loathe to see our military recuse themselves from voting on the basis of a falsely perceived conflict of interest.
5
As a military officer myself, I understand the major's dilemma.
However, the federal government does far more than just oversee the military. My officership is a profession. First, I am an American.
I can easily distinguish the two.
However, the federal government does far more than just oversee the military. My officership is a profession. First, I am an American.
I can easily distinguish the two.
4
I respect and appreciate Major Cavanaugh for his service and opinion. As citizens, professional soldiers or otherwise, we have the right to vote, or not, and to freely express our opinions on the matter. These are among the rights we defend. During my lengthy military career I did not feel constrained from voting for my Commander-in-Chief. I encouraged my Marines to do the same, vote. Had I never voted, I would still have an opinion about the individuals leading our country and by the good Major's rationale, it should seem difficult to accept their leadership. I served Presidents whom I voted against but never felt conflicted in carrying out their orders. My father, a career officer, did not vote, for many of the reasons Major Cavanaugh has stated, maybe flawed in my thinking, but it was his right. As military professionals, We can and should separate our personal opinions from our actions. We serve the whole of our citizenry, our legacy and not one individual.
24
I never served in the military, but over the years I had the distinct honor of working with a number of retired officers and enlisted personnel. I appreciate your well-reasoned decision, Major Cavanaugh, and the excellent historical review you have provided to support your position.
On the whole, as a citizen who has voted in every election I was qualified to vote in for almost 50 years, I would much prefer that you exercised your franchise with the same devotion to service as your responsibilities to your officer's oath.
On the whole, as a citizen who has voted in every election I was qualified to vote in for almost 50 years, I would much prefer that you exercised your franchise with the same devotion to service as your responsibilities to your officer's oath.
2
I strongly disagree with the major. I served 20 years in the Navy and voted by absentee ballot in every general election from the time I came of voting age until retirement. Unlike the major I considered it my duty to vote. I also enjoyed the diversity of political opinion I encountered among my fellow sailors. It is something I miss here in Berkeley, where it seems that all are of a single mind.
2
This sort of flips the Starship Troopers point of view on it's head -- the only citizens who *cannot* vote are members of the military. Taking his argument even further, it appears he feels military members should never exercise their right to vote, even after the service. I think most service members have the mental fortitude to not let their vote affect their military judgment. Good Soldiers/Officers can exercise the mental discipline to stay politically neutral and loyal to their commander in chief despite exercising their right to vote. If MAJ C were so serious about trying to avoid any political bias, then he probably should not be "glued to his TV screen" watching the political debates. Whether he likes it or not, he is affected by the political campaigns going on around him. He probably even has formed opinions, but as stated earlier it is up to him to exercise the mental discipline to avoid bringing that into his professional military duties.
3
Kudos to Major Cavanaugh for his forthrightness and dignity.
There is a case to be made that no one in the employ of government should be eligible to vote. How else do we ensure that citizens have real control over those who are living on the public dime?
Many municipal and county governments are dominated by partisan politics, which necessarily leads to the success of incumbents. It is only less obvious at the national level.
There is a case to be made that no one in the employ of government should be eligible to vote. How else do we ensure that citizens have real control over those who are living on the public dime?
Many municipal and county governments are dominated by partisan politics, which necessarily leads to the success of incumbents. It is only less obvious at the national level.
2
Because you are a active military officer you have an obligation to not take a public political view.
Because you are a citizen you have an obligation to cast a ballot.
You are just making an excuse for not performing the difficult task of taking responsibility for the future of your country.
Because you are a citizen you have an obligation to cast a ballot.
You are just making an excuse for not performing the difficult task of taking responsibility for the future of your country.
3
Thank You, Sir, for your thoughtful essay.
It is obvious you have given careful consideration to this personal decision and I commend your discipline in your actions.
You do make the case for the active military Officer, especially in light of the political tribalism that seems to have engulfed our nation more and more.
I trust that when you decide to retire from the military, you will know the profound sense of pride and responsibility in the act of voting.
It is obvious you have given careful consideration to this personal decision and I commend your discipline in your actions.
You do make the case for the active military Officer, especially in light of the political tribalism that seems to have engulfed our nation more and more.
I trust that when you decide to retire from the military, you will know the profound sense of pride and responsibility in the act of voting.
1
While I admire the service and principled idea of the author, I do not share his conclusion. Everyone has an opinion, especially soldiers. Soldiers have a duty to their commander in chief, but they also have a duty to common sense and morality. If your commander issues an order to shoot women and children, is not your duty to disobey such an order?
Voting or not voting is a personal choice, and Cavanaugh is free to his. I just question whether or not one votes means that they no longer have an opinion. I may choose in my workplace not to engage my boss with my political views because I want to maintain a good work environment, but it doesn't mean that I agree with him. And, choosing to vote or not won't affect that either.
Voting or not voting is a personal choice, and Cavanaugh is free to his. I just question whether or not one votes means that they no longer have an opinion. I may choose in my workplace not to engage my boss with my political views because I want to maintain a good work environment, but it doesn't mean that I agree with him. And, choosing to vote or not won't affect that either.
2
As a civilian, there are issues that I never come in contact with that affect the military. Sexual abuse of military women (with subsequent cover ups) is one and the denial of protections and privileges to veterans is another. Even if you plan on being in the military forever, there are lots of military men and women who plan on leaving after service. I thought about doing that myself-enlist to pay for college then leave once my obligation was up. If everyone follows the Cavanaugh plan, these people will never get representation even though the majority of their life they will be civilians. The US government needs to work for all people, and without the unique input (i.e. votes) from military people, this will not happen.
2
Unlike the loyal citizens of decades past that made the US a great nation, many Americans today believe party loyalty trumps any pledge or oath to the nation. Such outdated promises get only lip service now from those citizens and the representatives in Congress they elect, whose goal is to not to maintain America's greatness but to destroy its political opposition by any means at any cost, the country be damned.
God help us if the incessant propaganda feeding this nation-killing internecine machine converts the leadership of the US military to its cause. We have no democracy if the Joint Chiefs some day decides the wrong party won an election. Let us all hope this young Major's sense of duty to country is shared by his fellow officers, and remains beyond the seditious propaganda efforts to mislead the public, damage the country's institutions, and undermine our democracy.
God help us if the incessant propaganda feeding this nation-killing internecine machine converts the leadership of the US military to its cause. We have no democracy if the Joint Chiefs some day decides the wrong party won an election. Let us all hope this young Major's sense of duty to country is shared by his fellow officers, and remains beyond the seditious propaganda efforts to mislead the public, damage the country's institutions, and undermine our democracy.
2
Thanks for this. Civilian control of nonpartisan armed forces is enormously important for the country and the world.
I worry when (while following the news) I get the idea that the NYC police department, for example, seems to manifest as a force unto itself resistant to civilian control. No Kwangtung Army in or for America.
By the same token I think the country owes a duty to the armed forces to see that the armed forces are well-led, well-used, and well-equipped. Growing up in post WW II America I assumed it was part of being an American that we would always be well-led in a just and worthy cause fighting only wars that needed fighting. To quote from the movie "Three Days of the Condor", "I miss that kind of clarity."
Here in Austin I used to listen occasionally to the Killeen (Fort Hood) public radio station, and I knew the troops and their families were hurting when several years into the second Iraq War the station started playing Christmas Carols after Halloween, rather than waiting until Thanksgiving.
And had I been a military or civilian lawyer with the Pentagon I like to think I would have found a legal way to short-circuit the usual procurement rules on the basis of expediency so that the troops could have had vehicles properly armored against IEDs far sooner than they did.
You make an enormously important point. "Thank you for your service" seems an inadequate response to what you say and do.
I worry when (while following the news) I get the idea that the NYC police department, for example, seems to manifest as a force unto itself resistant to civilian control. No Kwangtung Army in or for America.
By the same token I think the country owes a duty to the armed forces to see that the armed forces are well-led, well-used, and well-equipped. Growing up in post WW II America I assumed it was part of being an American that we would always be well-led in a just and worthy cause fighting only wars that needed fighting. To quote from the movie "Three Days of the Condor", "I miss that kind of clarity."
Here in Austin I used to listen occasionally to the Killeen (Fort Hood) public radio station, and I knew the troops and their families were hurting when several years into the second Iraq War the station started playing Christmas Carols after Halloween, rather than waiting until Thanksgiving.
And had I been a military or civilian lawyer with the Pentagon I like to think I would have found a legal way to short-circuit the usual procurement rules on the basis of expediency so that the troops could have had vehicles properly armored against IEDs far sooner than they did.
You make an enormously important point. "Thank you for your service" seems an inadequate response to what you say and do.
1
The effect of voting will not alter your judgement in years to come. The mind is not so simple that failure to do the act of voting will remove the processes, and memories, which would have informed the act. In a time when so many citizens do not vote we, and you, need to encourage voting by example. I served 28 plus years in the U.S. Navy and I have never regretted voting nor detected any effect of voting on my exercise of duties as an officer. I have detected a great failure by many of my fellow citizens to be engaged in the affairs of the Nation. You need to examine your duty more closely as a citizen who happens to be a serving member of the military.
2
I am an active duty officer but I am not of the opinion that we shouldn’t exercise our right to vote - to me that stance is nothing but a cop-out. It takes a stronger officer to vote and then continue to obey the orders of the President of the United States than it does to simply say, "It is my job to obey orders and not to decide who gives them". As senior leaders we are not soldiers in trenches that must blindly follow orders to ensure that, when ordered, will sacrifice ourselves to take out a machine gun position so that the line may continue to push forward. Mission command would not work if we were simply robots following orders.
The book starship troopers takes an interesting view on service and citizenry. In the book, only those who have served have the right to vote because they have shown that they are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and won't make choices for their own personal gain. I have voted for a democrat in every election since I have been old enough to vote, clearly a choice that doesn't directly benefit the military in terms of raises and benefits being protected. I felt that my choice was better for our country as a whole based on my understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other amendments. I am currently reading "The Soldier and the State" by Samuel Huntington. You might give it a read and then see if you still think that military officers have no place in issues that shape the political climate in this country.
The book starship troopers takes an interesting view on service and citizenry. In the book, only those who have served have the right to vote because they have shown that they are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and won't make choices for their own personal gain. I have voted for a democrat in every election since I have been old enough to vote, clearly a choice that doesn't directly benefit the military in terms of raises and benefits being protected. I felt that my choice was better for our country as a whole based on my understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other amendments. I am currently reading "The Soldier and the State" by Samuel Huntington. You might give it a read and then see if you still think that military officers have no place in issues that shape the political climate in this country.
3
As a field grade officer myself, I disagree with the Major. First of all, voting is an anonymous event, something we take for granted here in the United States. In many other countries who you vote for dictates future assignments and promotions even at the lowest levels. Secondly, aside from being a Marine, I am a citizen. I am concerned not only with my welfare but that of the community I live in. That's why I vote. I vote for the education of our children, the future of our country, and how I want the country to move forward. In my 19 years of service, I served under Presidents I didn't vote for, but that did not stop me from performing my duties. That is the part that may be the hardest for some, but thankfully we are part of a volunteer force. If we cannot respect our commander in chief, we have the option to resign our commissions or opt out of reenlistment.
69
I am staying as far away from tonight's spectacle as possible. Why Clinton would even show up is beyond me.
Major, the oath you took doesn't make you a robot. You still have core values that form the bedrock of your beliefs. Those beliefs, not the act of voting, would be the source of any conflict with the President. So unless you're willing to abandon your core principles, you might as well vote. Just don't share your preferences with your troops. I've been doing that for over 25 years as a military officer and haven't had any issues.
3
Voting is simply the way you put your opinion into action. Refraining from voting doesn't render you a "neutral" unless you somehow also block your brain from forming opinions about the issues of the day and the fitness of the candidates. If you have an opinion that inclines you to favor one candidate over the other(s), you have, for all intents and purposes, already "committed yourself to a candidate, party, and set of beliefs and policies," whether you back that up with a vote or not. In suggesting that running away from the political battle is heroic (or even remotely effective), you have simply created a false marker for military integrity and neutrality. Friend, if you're not part of the solution ....
1
Maintaining an officially neutral position in politics is necessary in the military, but the effort to remove personal bias or hiding beliefs (by not voting) is naive. Everybody has their own principles and personal bias. It is impossible to mask or remove it from our lives. The military might be better off with a few more robots with no bias, no principles, and no political leanings, but as long as we still have people in the business of war, then emotion, bias, and principles (and yeah, even political leanings) should be accepted as part of human decision-making. Go vote! Not voting doesn't remove what you already believe and it doesn't make you less reproachable as a leader. Do the best you can as a leader to instill in those you serve that you have their interests in mind, but we are leaders because of our ability to think and make principled decisions. You don't have to talk about who you vote for, but please go vote for what you want to see in the country that you fight for. We take on an alternate lifestyle to preserve this country, we should definitely have some way we can voice how it should be. As an officer or enlisted member, you should go vote (perhaps, especially if it is for the other candidate).
2
On my commissioning as a lieutenant in the US Army, I took up the practice of not voting for all the reasons described here. My sworn oath transcended voting. The fact that this makes zero sense to so many Americans shows how distant military culture is from most of us. I came of age in the Vietnam Era. My father had served in WWII as my grandfathers had in WWI. They did not volunteer. I wasn't going to volunteer either. A low draft number changed that. I volunteered and ended up serving as an officer. Had the draft not altered my life, this article would have made no sense to me, either. As a civilian citizen, I always vote. And I'm sad that such a small fraction of Americans comprehend military culture and the burden such service carries.
18
I wish I could recommend this comment one thousand times over.
1
If I were a soldier, I would vote only for politicians who understand that deterrence is objective of military policy, not breaking things and killing people.
1
I don't understand this. The U.S. government is more than the U.S. military. Are you not allowed to express an opinion on Social Security, our health care, our infrastructure, our environment, our social issues? Saying that military officers should be "above voting" seems like another way to fetishize that military more than it already is.
5
To answer your question, no, you shouldn't. Military service is not just a job with similar clothes and lots of rules. It is an obligation. A duty that requires you to separate your own personal interests and preferences from your thoughts. You go where you're told when you're told to go there. Short of ordering illegal acts of war, military leadership must have full control of their subordinates at all time.
I find this opinion piece from Major Cavanaugh very puzzling. You are a US citizen and have a duty to vote. Once the election is decided, you will serve HRC or Trump as commander in chief. I don't see the conflict here. Once the peaceful transition of power is complete, we all should strive to come together as one nation to work together to solve our problems. That has always been the tradition of our democracy- as well as the duty,right and privilege to cast a vote. That doesn't change because you wear a military uniform.
Now, when I say we should all come together after the election, I hope we do that. But that has not been the reality of the GOP scorched earth policy of the last 8 years. Just saying...
Now, when I say we should all come together after the election, I hope we do that. But that has not been the reality of the GOP scorched earth policy of the last 8 years. Just saying...
2
This is silly beyond words. First-- by extension, no government employee should vote because the actions of an administration will affect their employment, and thus they are overly "engaged." Second-- voting is not engaging in partisan activity-- it is just one way of expressing yourself in a diverse and always evolving country. Third-- and most important -- get over yourself. The glorification of the military and its members in the ensuing years since Vietnam must end. It has led us to a war of choice in almost every year since. This gratuitous militarization has robbed us of our treasury and taken our collective eyes off important issues such as public education and infrastructure. Glamorization has added a sense of superiority and separateness of those who work in this industry, removing both the bureaucracy and individuals from proper scrutiny. Empowerment has given military leaders an out-sized place at the decision-making tables. Being an employee of the military is just not that special. To paraphrase the silly old Army marketing slogan: "It's not an adventure, it's a job." Those in the military have an obligation to be citizens in every sense of the word first, and secondly employees of the armed services. Those who we the people elect into leadership positions are obligated to judge all Americans as the full and flawed human beings they are-- no matter what their career path has been, uniform or not.
2
Major Cavanaugh,
As an active duty service member, fighting for your right to vote, I am very disappointed that you choose not to do so. I believe strongly in not tampering with an election. That is why I am careful not to discuss politics in the work place or with any service members junior to my rank. As much as I may favor one candidate over another, I would never want my rank or influence to persuade another service member or citizen to vote one way or another. My ballott is private and I do not publically endorse any candidate. I also abstain from endorsing candidates or political parties on any social media. After reading your article, I am disgusted not only that you are choosing not to vote, but that you are using your rank and influence to try and persuade other service members not to vote.
Sincerely, undisclosed rank, active duty SM
As an active duty service member, fighting for your right to vote, I am very disappointed that you choose not to do so. I believe strongly in not tampering with an election. That is why I am careful not to discuss politics in the work place or with any service members junior to my rank. As much as I may favor one candidate over another, I would never want my rank or influence to persuade another service member or citizen to vote one way or another. My ballott is private and I do not publically endorse any candidate. I also abstain from endorsing candidates or political parties on any social media. After reading your article, I am disgusted not only that you are choosing not to vote, but that you are using your rank and influence to try and persuade other service members not to vote.
Sincerely, undisclosed rank, active duty SM
46
It's so sad and discouraging to read responses like this. Spelling and syntax errors throughout, ugly and inflammatory adjectives, and faulty logic to boot.
Unfortunately I just don't have the time to express how while entitled to his opinion Major Cavanaugh's view is wrong on so many levels. As a retired Major I would have loved an opposing Op-Ed perhaps the Times will publish one tomorrow I'm sure there will be many submitted.
The first and foremost of which is that you can not some how vote for another candidate and then turn around and march into battle on orders given by his opponent. I served under both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and while I did not agree with their views and strongly opposed both of them I did not hesitate to follow any order that came down the chain.
One thing the vast majority of men and women in the military pride themselves in more than anything else is an understanding that no matter what civilian leadership of our military is an absolute pillar of our democracy and we would never do anything to undermine it.
Bottom line: Major, get off your high horse, no need to shout anything from the rooftops, simply step up and do what most other citizen soldiers do VOTE.
The first and foremost of which is that you can not some how vote for another candidate and then turn around and march into battle on orders given by his opponent. I served under both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and while I did not agree with their views and strongly opposed both of them I did not hesitate to follow any order that came down the chain.
One thing the vast majority of men and women in the military pride themselves in more than anything else is an understanding that no matter what civilian leadership of our military is an absolute pillar of our democracy and we would never do anything to undermine it.
Bottom line: Major, get off your high horse, no need to shout anything from the rooftops, simply step up and do what most other citizen soldiers do VOTE.
2
Sadly, the one thing Major Cavanaugh overlooks is that our oath, unlike the oaths sworn by any other major militaries in the past, is to "defend the Constitution of the United States", not to the Commander in Chief, an institution or government agency. His view is, at best, myopic. At worst his view is wholly antithetical to our system of democracy, a system defended by our laws -- not primarily by our military. His is a view of selfish hubris rather than one that entertains multiple perspectives. I'm a 20+ year Army officer and I'll comment that labeling himself as an "Army strategist" immediately identifies him as one who potentially knows a lot about nothing and very little about a lot. And I only say that as one who's worked the same trenches as he has for the past 11 years, but likely at much higher levels. His missive, while entertaining and thought provoking, isn't any better than the plethora of officers from all services over the last decade decrying the military's lack of talent management or grousing about personnel policies. He's entitled to his opinion and he shared it. We're entitled to rebut or ridicule his opinion, and we do. Me? I vote as an active Army officer because we're not prevented from doing so -- in fact, we're encouraged to vote even when we're prohibited from using our position to campaign for any particular candidate. If we were expected not to vote, we'd be prevented from doing so. At the end of the day, we're Americans and our vote counts.
3
A person's right to do anything necessarily means a right to not do it.
- Seneca
- Seneca
Wow! This guy is that confused and the Army employees him as a strategist. We're in more trouble than I thought.
1
As a Vietnam Veteran I am proud to have served my country. After reading this article, it's even more clear to me now that being in the military doesn't mean you can make intelligent decisions.
1
Although I strongly agree with not campaigning or publicly endorsing candidates, I believe military officers should vote. I always did in my time in the Air Force. Your vote is your input to the country on the direction you want it to go in the future. You owe the country your best judgement as well as your service.
If military officers do not vote, they widen the gap between civilians and themselves. Too many of them already view themselves as incorruptible Spartans and civilians as naive children. If they vote, though, and their victorious candidate doesn't perform well, they will understand better the difficult choices that everyone has to make.
If military officers do not vote, they widen the gap between civilians and themselves. Too many of them already view themselves as incorruptible Spartans and civilians as naive children. If they vote, though, and their victorious candidate doesn't perform well, they will understand better the difficult choices that everyone has to make.
1
Almost all of the military officers who advocate voting are Republicans. Boy George Bush illegally extended the deadline for military voting so as to get a hair breadth victory in Florida (illegal and thus not really a victory).
Advocating that military officers should vote amounts to supporting the conservative bloc. To avoid discussing the idea that military people would vote for big military budgets is naieve. The question is not what honest and well-meaning thoughtful military people would do, it is what fanatical and stupid ones would do when self interest is part of the mix. In the last California vote on legalizing marijuana, the largest funding source for the anti-marijuana side was the prison guards union. Does anyone else see a parallel?
The issue of military voting was discussed in Clarke's books about the White House in 2001. I found it informative.
Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 in 9 sec). Thanks.
Advocating that military officers should vote amounts to supporting the conservative bloc. To avoid discussing the idea that military people would vote for big military budgets is naieve. The question is not what honest and well-meaning thoughtful military people would do, it is what fanatical and stupid ones would do when self interest is part of the mix. In the last California vote on legalizing marijuana, the largest funding source for the anti-marijuana side was the prison guards union. Does anyone else see a parallel?
The issue of military voting was discussed in Clarke's books about the White House in 2001. I found it informative.
Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 in 9 sec). Thanks.
2
Major, I find your argument specious.
The primary obligation Americans have is our right to vote. You are career military and we thank you for your service, but how can you refuse to choose between a candidate who would send you to war, and one who would keep you home minding the store?
If you find the military concept confusing, to say the least, do something to change it. Not voting makes you irrelevant.
The primary obligation Americans have is our right to vote. You are career military and we thank you for your service, but how can you refuse to choose between a candidate who would send you to war, and one who would keep you home minding the store?
If you find the military concept confusing, to say the least, do something to change it. Not voting makes you irrelevant.
5
"Not voting makes you [politically] irrelevant"
YES! That's the idea!
YES! That's the idea!
Perhaps you should re-read his opinion as he has answered your question within the text.
By the way, our primary obligation is not to vote but as citizens it is to follow our laws.
By the way, our primary obligation is not to vote but as citizens it is to follow our laws.
I found Major Cavanaugh’s article thought provoking. If memory serves, the distinguished broadcast journalist Jim Lehrer made the same decision, voicing a similar rationale. He felt that such a partisan political act might compromise his perceived impartiality with his viewers and he wished to protect his role in society much as does Major Cavanaugh.
I respect their decisions but I come to a different conclusion. The major says “The trouble is I will have exercised a personal, partisan choice, committing myself to a candidate, party and set of beliefs and policies. I would like to believe that I can separate my political and professional views, but I worry that, years from now, my decision could undermine my military judgment.” What I would argue is that whether or not he chooses to vote, he HAS political views and but nonetheless follows his sworn duty to act in the best interest of his command and his country. His choice to forego voting means he relinquishes the ability to help to shape the country’s policies in all the arenas outside his purview.
That being said, I honor his principled devotion to his oath.
I respect their decisions but I come to a different conclusion. The major says “The trouble is I will have exercised a personal, partisan choice, committing myself to a candidate, party and set of beliefs and policies. I would like to believe that I can separate my political and professional views, but I worry that, years from now, my decision could undermine my military judgment.” What I would argue is that whether or not he chooses to vote, he HAS political views and but nonetheless follows his sworn duty to act in the best interest of his command and his country. His choice to forego voting means he relinquishes the ability to help to shape the country’s policies in all the arenas outside his purview.
That being said, I honor his principled devotion to his oath.
It doesn't matter if you are in the military whether you should vote or not. You are an American first and it is not only your right, but your duty to vote! No other officers will follow his lead, he is just a Major and has likely been passed over!
1
I am a former Lt Commander in the U.S. Navy and, Sir, you have a civic DUTY to vote. Your arguments are well put but no matter, you are first a citizen and secondly a member of the United States Army. I insisted that my sailors voted - NEVER telling them how to vote but insisting it was their duty to do so.
7
He makes the case that the civic duty of an officer is to not vote, and I agree, though I myself failed in that duty.
Keep in mind that the focus his case is the officer corps, so you weren't wrong to encourage your enlisted sailors to vote nor would the major be wrong to encourage his enlisted soldiers.
Keep in mind that the focus his case is the officer corps, so you weren't wrong to encourage your enlisted sailors to vote nor would the major be wrong to encourage his enlisted soldiers.
1
Thank you Major Cavanaugh. When your term of service is complete I will be happy to think that, however you end up voting, you will continue in your defense of democracy though the free exercise of the franchise you now defend.
(Go Navy, Beat Army)
(Go Navy, Beat Army)
1
While I applaud Major Cavanaugh for the thoughtful consideration he has given to the issue of voting, I strongly disagree. First, not voting does not prevent an officer from expressing an opinion outside of the voting booth, so the issue of undue influence over a subordinate is not solved by abstinence. Second, voting is done privately, so, unless he discloses his choice, no one will know for whom he voted.
Why shouldn't the results of the election benefit from the decisions he and his fellows make as to which candidate will better address the issues we all face, including both military and non-military matters? Does it not matter which candidate will lead the country? Are they equally qualified?
To refuse to vote is to leave the decision to others. Surely an officer as thoughtful as Major Cavanaugh should not disqualify himself from participating.
Why shouldn't the results of the election benefit from the decisions he and his fellows make as to which candidate will better address the issues we all face, including both military and non-military matters? Does it not matter which candidate will lead the country? Are they equally qualified?
To refuse to vote is to leave the decision to others. Surely an officer as thoughtful as Major Cavanaugh should not disqualify himself from participating.
96
So would you drive the Major to the polls if he told you that he was intending to vote for Trump, or is your concern with individuals exercising their right to choose to vote limited to only those individuals who will vote for your candidate?
A very odd and nonsensical point of view.
42
what simple minded creatures you view your fellow soldiers as. can one not simultaneously perform the right and duty of citizenship and vote without somehow being disloyal to the chain of command oath. you are and should be proud of being a citizen soldier, now perform your duty and vote.
33
Does this principle hold when one of the candidates is dangerously unhinged, and might represent a grave threat to the country itself?
62
Yes. Otherwise you are offering your support for military coups.
So any of the folks who have been crying out that voting with your silence is an insult to American service men and women want to take a swing at this article? I'm waiting...
5
I've voted while in uniform. I never heard of this particular, rather strange, tradition. I understand the philosophy behind it, but I must say that I disagree.
I wasn't an officer, so perhaps, in my day, it was all a military secret. I'm certainly glad I didn't get involved in officer's training. Smart move on my part.
I wasn't an officer, so perhaps, in my day, it was all a military secret. I'm certainly glad I didn't get involved in officer's training. Smart move on my part.
1
Ironic how you felt so strongly about staying out of things that you are getting involved in them. There's nothing great about not voting. I also don't find it surprising that the Times posts an article about how military officers shouldn't vote. I am a Major in the Air Force and I am voting. I won't let it affect the way I do my job or how I talk to my subordinates, or anyone else for that matter. It never has been an issue.
47
I also never voted in the 24 years I wore the Air Force uniform so I thoroughly understand what Major Cavanaugh wrote.
I have voted in every election since I retired from the military.
Johnie Wood, Major, USAF, Retired
Bentonville, AR
I have voted in every election since I retired from the military.
Johnie Wood, Major, USAF, Retired
Bentonville, AR
8
Major Cavanaugh, I respect your decision and agree with the military's position on not promoting or being actively involved in politics. However, I don't see how having an informed position on a candidate and privately voting for the person you believe is best qualified to be Commander in Chief could result in violating your oath. At some point in your career you must have received and executed a legal order that you knew was stupid. You kept your opinion to yourself. You can do the same and vote. You may help save the country from executing illegal orders in the future.
10
Thank you Paul,
I strongly concur, given that one candidate for Commander-in-Chief has publicly advocated pursuing actions which would clearly constitute war crimes under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and other conventions defining the laws of warfare.
Imagine how history would be different if German Military Officers, questioning the fitness of one of the candidates for Chancellor in 1933, had voted against and defeated that candidate at the polls.
I strongly concur, given that one candidate for Commander-in-Chief has publicly advocated pursuing actions which would clearly constitute war crimes under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and other conventions defining the laws of warfare.
Imagine how history would be different if German Military Officers, questioning the fitness of one of the candidates for Chancellor in 1933, had voted against and defeated that candidate at the polls.
3
Journalists once adhered to this practice as well. News once was a non-partisan affair, and many journalists chose not to vote themselves in order to maintain their impartiality. I doubt there are many reporters these days that stick to this ideal.
3
News has never been a non-partisan affair. Nor has the recording of history ever been unbiased.
5
I do not think there is much substantial evidence to support this. But, either way, it makes no sense, nor beyond a superficial level does Major Cavanaughs argument.
A journalist would be impartial in attempting to aks the same questions of all candidates. If one answers as a loon and the other answers reasonably, then deciding the facts upon the answers is both reasonable le and preferable. And why not? The argument going I was impartial.
Military officers should via training and experience have the wherewithal to review the responses and come to decisions, more so than many, in fact, by education. To not vote for a Commander in Chief and allow one to take office who has no idea the difference between illegal and legal orders is an abdication of responsibility. And not just for military personnel but for all of us.
The argument that stating "I am an officer and did not vote" is easier. Saying, "my vote is my business" is also easy.
A journalist would be impartial in attempting to aks the same questions of all candidates. If one answers as a loon and the other answers reasonably, then deciding the facts upon the answers is both reasonable le and preferable. And why not? The argument going I was impartial.
Military officers should via training and experience have the wherewithal to review the responses and come to decisions, more so than many, in fact, by education. To not vote for a Commander in Chief and allow one to take office who has no idea the difference between illegal and legal orders is an abdication of responsibility. And not just for military personnel but for all of us.
The argument that stating "I am an officer and did not vote" is easier. Saying, "my vote is my business" is also easy.
6
Your choice to not vote is somewhat confusing. You vote anonymously. When you cast your ballot you are not being displayed for any candidate. The choice not to vote means that as a military officer you have decided to abdicate your duty and responsability to help decide the commander and chief. The xpression of political preference will happen whether on choses to vote or to abdicate. The decision does not eliminate the division of party affiliation conflict. It merely takes your oice out of the decision. I see your arguments in this op-ed as a rationale of not participating in any campaign or rally. Not voting is an impotent act.
20
But the Hatch Act's list of agencies whose employees may not
engage in political activity doesn't include the military.
In other words, our best legislative minds have thought about the
issue and decided that not only may you vote, you may, for example,
-- unlike NSA, CIA or FBI employees -- make campaign speeches.
Therefore your stance could be considered idiosyncratic in the
extreme.
engage in political activity doesn't include the military.
In other words, our best legislative minds have thought about the
issue and decided that not only may you vote, you may, for example,
-- unlike NSA, CIA or FBI employees -- make campaign speeches.
Therefore your stance could be considered idiosyncratic in the
extreme.
15
The Hatch limits the partisan political activities of Federal civilian employees, not members of the Armed Services. However, I agree with Major Cavanaugh that military personnel, officers and enlisted personnel alike, should not participate in partisan political activities.
Where I differ is that the limit on partisan political activity should not prohibit one from voting, as long as one keeps his choices strictly confidential.
Where I differ is that the limit on partisan political activity should not prohibit one from voting, as long as one keeps his choices strictly confidential.
4
Citizens, whether serving in the armed forces or not ,are all subject to the laws of the land and are represented by the current administration's policies and practices. Voting to replace or keep the people in power doesn't change that. You don't quell preferences or biases by not expressing when you vote. You suppress them and then they express themselves In more irrational and harmful ways.
Vote for goodness, sake! Its your right and your duty.
Vote for goodness, sake! Its your right and your duty.
13
Too many people seem to believe that military service makes one an expert in small d democratic politics. That is one of the biggest ironies of the US.
14
What a pathetic attitude. So I suppose the major by that reasoning woul never vote even in local elections for mayor or governor?
14
He indicated he does not vote in national elections.
1
I always appreciate a person of conviction, who is willing to live by such despite pressure, and is sophisticated enough to enunciate it without persuasion. Thank you.
And this is not necessarily an endorsement of your position.
And this is not necessarily an endorsement of your position.
10
This Army Officer epitomizes the highest and best of us. Commitment to his oath is something so lacking in this country as a whole. I celebrate this leader and am proud to have him representing me in our armed forces. Well done and many thanks for serving where others cannot.
8
You realize that in writing the article you are doing exactly the same thing as what you have called out other officers for doing? Namely trying to pursuade military members to vote a certain way. This is no different than in 2008 when the DOD, in an attempt to not interfere with the presidential election, purusaded defense contractors to not issue lay off notices to thousands of employees until after the election. An action that in and of itself influenced the election by helping an economic narrative. The Hatch act was specifically written to enable military service members to have say in self determination. The issues with the Act and the confusion that you allude to are tied to guidance issued to help "clarify" the law that seek to further restrict Soldier involvement in the process.
18
I am a retired Air Force enlisted person, having trouble understanding Major Cavanaugh. I voted in every election since turning 18, and saw no conflict between that and my career. Is it really that different for officers?
64
Yes, for historical, class-ridden reasons. Officers are assumed to be superior beings, capable of independent thought. Enlisted men should simply obey orders, unless they are patently illegal, such as torturing prisoners. If a country were to drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy and it were deemed a war crime (targeting civilians) officers in the chain of command could expect to be prosecuted; sergeants and others would escape prosecution.
Officer here, I'm having trouble understanding too. Voting is done in private and the Major will have an opinion irregardless if he votes or not. I don't see what the problem is.
3
Following your logic, should police officers then not vote for the mayor of their city? I would hope that we do not require public servants to disengage their brains and mindlessly follow orders. I certainly agree that members of the military should avoid being used as political props. I think that when one is in uniform, he or she should fulfill the duties and responsibilities related to that uniform. But when you are out of uniform, you can in good conscience exercise your right to perform the duties and responsibilities of a good citizen.
32
@Alison - actually since the Mayor of their city has a significant impact on their financial life voting for the Mayor represents a real conflict of interest. No police officers really shouldn't be voting for the mayor of their city.
1
This seems nuts. A democracy needs the informed votes of citizens who have first-hand knowledge of military matters other citizens may not know about. I get that overt political advocacy can undermine military discipline. However, quietly voting does not endanger our democracy. Rather, it strengthens it. While it is wrong to openly advocate against the Commander-in-Chief while a uniformed officer, it is perfectly fine to vote against the CIC if you otherwise do your military duty without hesitation. We are a democratic republic, and our form of government depends on participation of all sectors.
25
I never met this rationale from someone serving in our military. I must think on it. At first blush, it seems that a soldier can vote and still maintain steadfast commitment to the Commander-in-Chief. But I'm not sure. It is worth pondering, and, frankly, it makes my vote more precious to me.
4
I appreciate Major Cavanaugh's principled stand. I must admit it is one I have never considered, but it makes sense to me that there could, indeed, be such a conflict of interest. I wonder why there has not been more visibility and discussion on this topic.
14
This is ridiculous. The author is avoiding his responsibility as a citizen. He should not engage in partisan political activity for the same reason that those in positions of power should not use that power to coerce others, but he, like any citizen, should vote. If he cannot guide his actions in terms of these two different requirements, then he should not be an officer.
50
This is a very interesting commentary. I was in the Navy for 30 years. I always believed that voting was very important and vital part of being a citizen. To abdicate that responsibility was against all that I stood for. On the other hand I did not talk about my political views. I believed and placed politics in the same bucket as religion. Religion in the military should be ecumenical and of personal taste. The treatment of politics should be similar.
48
I think it is the right and the obligation of every citizen to vote. A military officer is obligated to obey all lawful orders issued by a superior, including civilian officials both elected and appointed. There need be no conflict between performing ones duty as a military officer, and performing ones duty as a citizen.
23
Well said, by both you and the Major. We serve/served to preserve the right for citizens to agree/disagree with our elected officials. He provides a well-reasoned, and well-defended position. I, on the other hand believe like many respondents to this article that you can be both citizen and soldier. Voting is one of the few rights active duty military can still exercise while in uniform, and should be exercised.
2
I think one of the most important reasons for citizens to vote is that we are voting for the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. I think that Major Cavanaugh's argument makes it even more imperative that we elect those who will take the responsibility for deploying troops seriously and never put them in harm's way except when absolutely necessary. We see the kind of commitment he has; our own needs to be just as strong, especially in a time when they are all volunteers and so few of us have family or friends who serve.
15
I support Major Cavanaugh's position on voting, but I disagree. I was a Warrant Officer in the Marines around the time that the voting age was changed to age 18. I was already 21, but it was a momentous change - those of us fighting for our country were now allowed to vote for the Executive that sent us over there. I continued to vote and never felt obliged to criticize our President even though I disagreed with his politics. That is the middle way perhaps. Still the Major seems to be a thoughtful soldier and I thank him for this thoughtful essay.
6
I disagree entirely with Cavanaugh's position. There's a a reason that the ballot is secret: Cavananaugh can vote without publicly supporting a party or candidate. The rest of us vote, and when the votes are counted, we consider the winner our President of Congressperson or Senator or school board member, whether we voted for that individual or not. That's how it works.
I perceive a genuine danger in a member of the Armed Forces who thinks that the election process is not for him or for her: the Armed Forces do not exist separate and distinct from the government. They mustn't.
I perceive a genuine danger in a member of the Armed Forces who thinks that the election process is not for him or for her: the Armed Forces do not exist separate and distinct from the government. They mustn't.
16
It is a principled decision not to vote for federal offices- but that shouldn't preclude him from voting in local and state races.
What bothers me more is recently general officers being involved in partisan politics. There are too many close ties to serving officers who may be swayed by their mentors.
As part of their service, retired flag officers should maintain an oath to the constitution, flag and country that they stay out of partisan politics for at least a decade after retirement.
What bothers me more is recently general officers being involved in partisan politics. There are too many close ties to serving officers who may be swayed by their mentors.
As part of their service, retired flag officers should maintain an oath to the constitution, flag and country that they stay out of partisan politics for at least a decade after retirement.
12
Cavanaugh (sorry, the NYT did not give his proper title) is exactly correct. My father, a career army officer, never thought it proper to vote, and I, a career army officer, never did either. That was the proper way it has always been for soldiers of the Republic. FDR made the first breach in this Golden Rule when he pushed for soldiers' to vote in 1944, so as not "to change horses in midstream". LBJ got the military into pushing soldiers hard to vote in 1964, by promising not to send American boys to do Asian boys' work. That started a Voting Officer in each army company -- a practice which, I suspect, still exists to push soldiers into voting. As one would imagine, a Voting Officer's success. As a voting officer is measured by the number of absentee ballots sent in by the company.
4
Excellent advice. And a thoughtful, articulate explanation of a principled position. It's the path I chose for most of my 34 years of active duty service for exactly the reasons Cavanaugh lays out. I am equally concerned with the recent growing involvement of retired military leaders in the current presidential campaign--on both sides. The current and past Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs have come out strongly against it. For very good reasons. America needs complete confidence its military is completely nonpartisan politically, serves only the nation, and is not aligned in any way with competing political parties. This article needs to grow into a much larger conversation after 2016. Tome Walters, Lieutenant General, USAF (Retired)
6
Major Cavanaugh's integrity shines through in this piece, and his point of view expresses the highest ideals. But it is possible to adopt a different position without violating the principles he cherishes. The major reveals himself to be a very thoughtful man, so he has surely thought carefully about the issues at stake in this election. His refusal to vote, therefore, does not equate with a decision not to form any judgments about the candidates in the various electoral contests.
A decision to vote without revealing his preference to anyone else would prevent his serving as a prop in any candidate's campaign. The country needs the participation of as many informed voters as possible, and Cavanaugh certainly fits that description. In the presidential election of 1864, Union soldiers played a major role in securing the reelection of Lincoln. Better than anyone else in the nation, they understood the sacrifices a continuation of the war entailed, and thus their vote reflected an informed choice.
Nevertheless, Major Cavanaugh's position embodies a deeply honorable attitude. In a free society, people of integrity can embrace different opinions. Our country is fortunate to have the service of someone like him.
A decision to vote without revealing his preference to anyone else would prevent his serving as a prop in any candidate's campaign. The country needs the participation of as many informed voters as possible, and Cavanaugh certainly fits that description. In the presidential election of 1864, Union soldiers played a major role in securing the reelection of Lincoln. Better than anyone else in the nation, they understood the sacrifices a continuation of the war entailed, and thus their vote reflected an informed choice.
Nevertheless, Major Cavanaugh's position embodies a deeply honorable attitude. In a free society, people of integrity can embrace different opinions. Our country is fortunate to have the service of someone like him.
95
His integrity is blatantly on display by trying to prevent a largely republican block from voting.
1