Would George C. Marshall Cast a Ballot in 2020?
By Marc Losito
What does it mean to be a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine in the context of an upcoming election in a polarized democracy? Uniformed officers of the United States armed forces have sworn an oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation,” and “will faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. Yet, the 2020 Presidential election is occurring in an extraordinary political environment, one where nothing is without partisan attribution, and the military is being highly politicized.
George C. Marshall once wrote “I have never voted, my father was a Democrat, my mother was a Republican, and I am an Episcopalian.” Marshall, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, 5-Star General, and author of the Marshall Plan, is a common barometer for political abstention while in uniform. Marshall is joined by great leaders practicing self-disenfranchisement for the greater good of the nation, such as Generals Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Is political abstention a characteristic of generations past, or would George C. Marshall cast a ballot in 2020?
Flag officers and professional soldiers alike have subscribed to the same “Marshall-esque” nonpartisan positions to remain above politics and ensure their integrity remained ironclad. It is fitting that the “foreign and domestic,” “mental reservation,” and “faithful discharge” clauses were added in 1862 as the “Ironclad Test Oath” during another extraordinary political environment with a highly politicized military: the Civil War. These clauses should give officers pause and trepidation in casting a ballot in the 2020 Presidential election but certainly should not stop them. Military officers should question whether they can carry out their civic duties without compromising their oaths of office and civil—military relationships, such as these, should be a greater part of our civil discourse.
Military officers are citizens first and have a right, perhaps a civic obligation, to participate in the democratic process. As late Chief Justice Earl Warren argued, service members do not foreclose on their fundamental rights simply because they have donned a uniform. In fact, many officers began participating in democracy before they dressed in fatigues, forming a political identity on a range of kitchen table issues from social to economic policy. And as George Washington relayed to the New York Provincial Congress, “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.” To whom could the stakes be more critical than the citizen-soldier? As military leaders of an all-volunteer force, officers bear the ultimate costs of Clausewitz’s maxim that “War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.” If we believe this to be true, then our soldiers have more at stake than most when casting a ballot and should be invested in their future by selecting their leadership. Similarly, the officer corps is not a monolithic segment of civil society, but a heuristic sampling of America’s racial, economic, and geographic diversity that should be considered vital to our democratic process.
On the other hand, every officer understands as they raise their right hand and swear their oath, they willingly subordinate their individual interests to the greater good of the nation. In this oath, officers make a promise to every citizen to obey civilian authority, support and defend the constitution and do so faithfully without mental reservation. These clauses bring about a notion of honor, a military value that has withstood the test of time and guides our moral actions without restraint. For those that swear this oath, voting places an officer’s mental reservation and ability to faithfully discharge their duties—and by extension, one’s honor—in jeopardy. To cast a ballot for President is to express explicit approval for the qualifications of their preferred candidate to be the Commander in Chief and is tacit disapproval for the opposing candidate's qualifications. In the event the opposing candidate wins the election, there is undoubtedly mental reservation present. By virtue of their oath and obligation, the appearance of impropriety is unbecoming of an officer and threatens good order and discipline.
This nuanced discussion of civil–military relations could not be of any greater consequence than during the 2020 election. Recently, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reinforced to Congress the military’s commitment to apolitical principles by clearly identifying there is no role for the U.S. armed forces in an election. General Mark Milley typifies a long line of iconic military leaders who understand the slightest degree of politicization can create the appearance of impropriety. Such a perception compromises the independence of the profession of arms and the flow of trust between the military and its civilian authorities.
In fact, the politicization of the military is the culprit in this conundrum to vote. Richard Kohn, a leading authority on civil–military affairs, has questioned the military’s ability to be “trusted as neutral servants of the state if they are politicized, attack or defend the executive leadership, publicly express their views (and vote)—in short, if they behave like politicians.” He argues that even personal identification with a political party can compromise an officer in their duty performance. The implication being, military officers unable to remain apolitical and separate their civic expression from oath obligations should resign their commission.
The question remains, which was not set out to be answered but to spark discourse outside civil–military circles, would George C. Marshall cast a ballot in 2020? Soldiers, scholars, and statesmen have made compelling arguments for both sides of the debate but have not landed on a unanimous position. It is a safe assumption that Marshall might have continued his personal-professional policy of abstention in 2020. At the very least, he’d likely offer the advice that so many other indispensable officers have – keep your politics private.
Marc Losito is a first-year MPP candidate at Duke University and an active duty U.S. Army Warrant Officer, focusing on the intersection of technology and national security. The views expressed in the article are his alone and do not represent Duke University, the Sanford School of Public Policy, nor the U.S. Army.
