For Chuck - The voting thread

[dneal]

If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance.

~Marcus Aurelius

I believe I mentioned that I read (and re-read) MA in a different thread. Here's a quote of his I keep handy.

So here you go Chuck. An opportunity to change my mind. Let's hear your best argument. Not a link and "this one guy said so", not a lot of "lol's" and emoticons. Not rhetorical nonsense about "hiding behind a flag". Those aren't persuasive, and mostly get eye-rolls from me. Right now you just disrupt threads with ineffective attempts at insult over this topic.

I'm talking about a real argument. You know, those persuasive essays you wrote in a 100 level English class. A thesis, supporting points and conclusion.

There's no right or wrong answer in a matter of choice. There are pros and cons to be weighed and decided upon. I'm not 100% committed to my current decision (I was before I retired, but now I'm open to the alternative). You genuinely have an opportunity to change my mind. To "win", in front of everyone; if that's important to you.

I'll even tell you the parts I agree with, the parts I don't, and why; and allow you to expound or reformulate.

Gauntlet laid down, the floor is yours.

[Chuck Naill]

For me, the reason to vote is simple, because I can and because I want to be a part of being a citizen and the process for which the Declaration of Independence exists.

If I don’t vote, I am no voice. If I don’t vote,
I cannot object.

Liberty is not free. It requires participation.

For me, Trump was a threat . Voting was a huge part of me being able to say “no”!!, perhaps more “hell no”.

[dneal]

Chuck, let me propose a thesis for you.

Military officers have a (insert adjective) duty to vote because…

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, let me propose a thesis for you.

Military officers have a (insert adjective) duty to vote because…

Citizenship

They are US citizens before they are engaged or affliliated with other groups.

Citizenship requires one to form an allegiance to the US, serve when asked for military and jury, etc. Register to vote and be engaged in the demogratic process. Respect the rights of others,

I have asked myself how a nation like Germany came to be ruled by an authorcrat and mad man. It is simple, he was voted in and some didn't vote. So both those that voted for Hitler and those that didn't vote bear the responsibility and shame for what occured. While one vote may appear to not matter, it matters to your family and friends who hear of and see your actions.

And Jared Kushner is funding his private equity fund by turning to then Middle East, his work within the Trump administration. If this is unsettling and you didn't vote, how do you justify your thoughts and actions? I can't answer for you.

[dneal]

So the citizenship is the part that resonates with me, and that's why I do vote for everything except national seats (which for me ends up being two senators, one representative, and the President). Those are the only three (the first two as part of Congress) that can bring me back on duty. The UCMJ still applies to me even though I'm retired, interestingly; there are laws on how calling up retirees works (although highly unlikely short of some major conflict with Russia or China) - so I'm not released from obligation.

I agreed to do what they think they need. I agree with the principle of not putting my thumb on the scale, so I pass on those three votes. Clinton's "peace dividend" gutted the budget. We were broken as far as readiness went. It was unsettling. I thought going to Iraq was a dumb idea. It was unsettling. There's two quick ones, but I can recite a very long list. I've worked for a lot of people who I thought had dumb ideas, but if they were legal and ethical; I followed orders.

The Hitler argument doesn't really persuade me. He leveraged the "madness of crowds", to use Douglas Murray's phrase. Kushner doesn't persuade me either, for the reasons above. Pick the politician and I'll list their sins. I think the whole system is corrupt.

[Chuck Naill]

While the system may or may not be corrupt, it is the system that decides the laws, enforces the laws, and influences what sort of life American can enjoy. We rely on those laws and processes to ensure justice can eventually take place. We depend on those laws to prevent and punish those that would do harm in all the forms that harm can occuir. Africans were freed by political means. Civil Rights came about by polticians. Aubrey's murder was tried and three people found guiilty by through political constructs. The system is necessary.

Voting is how we individually can participate to ensure that system continues or changes if needed. Our public and private discussions allow us to make our individual case to our fellow citizens. The military serves to protect the citizens and ensure they can participate in what it means to be a citizen. For a military person not to exercise the citizenship they are formed to protect is irrational for me.

Also, since a miltary person must support whoever is in office, I would think it would be easier if it were not an autocrat. We see military rule is other nations where civil liberties are curtailed and people suffer great harm. You don't want a president sending you into battle for his or her own benefit rather than fulfill the reason why the miltary exists. When Trump was chest beating with North Korea, most of us were very concerned.

I am personally disappointed in the choices we have for president, so what I need to do is study and try to influence as a patriotic and civic duty. That participation can be as important as military service. So, thank you for asking me to provide you with some personal thoughts.

[dneal]

RE: the system… I agree in general, but consider my role as one who simply is ready to do violence to protect it. The machinations of it are distasteful to me. I’m a 10th Amendment guy. I think the overwhelming majority of political problems are a needless result of too much federal power, and the jockeying for that power (and money). I think the overwhelming majority of government should be addressed at the state and local level. I participate as a citizen at that level.

RE: support whoever is in office… That’s the primary argument to not vote. If I vote for candidate A, and Candidate B wins; can my voting for candidate A be considered evidence of not supporting the winner? Should an officer have in the back of their mind “I didn’t vote for that sum’bitch, I voted for the other guy…”? Abstaining prevents that from happening.

I never agreed with the decision to invade Iraq, for example, as I said earlier.. I was there with the initial invasion. I did agree to set my personal opinions aside and do as ordered. I saw no legal or ethical reason not to. It was within the constitutional authority of the president and the congress.

This may simply be that we each see the other’s reasons, but weight them differently and arrive at different conclusions. An impasse. I’m still open to having my opinion changed, and will listen as long as you want to offer your views; but I didn’t arrive at my conclusions lightly and I assume the same is true for you.

If anything, this thread is evidence we’re both capable of thoughtful discussion, and perhaps an example of what this portion of the forum could be.

[Chuck Naill]

If anything, this thread is evidence we’re both capable of thoughtful discussion, and perhaps an example of what this portion of the forum could be.

It has and thank you for the opportunity.

[dneal]

My opinion gravitates toward the most simplistic, but if a person doesn't vote I would be interested in knowing why, and I suspect that the answer falls into two broad categories - none of the candidates/parties represent their views, and/or they like sniping from the sidelines without taking responsibility for either side. I can understand the first, and in the elections I've voted in it has often seemed to be a choice of the least worst candidate.

I don't have any problem with people who don't vote, although I do see it as a social responsibility. Choice is personal.

I really intended this for an opportunity for discourse between Chuck and myself, but I'll make an exception and address this. Maybe it will help clarify my position to Chuck as well.

There is a long tradition of military officers abstaining from voting. Most of the tradition is encapsulated in George C. Marshall's public views on the topic, and I agree with them. Primarily, it helps assure that advice given to politicians is not politically biased. A President (theoretically) doesn't have to worry that the advice is politically motivated. It helps prevent the undermining of confidence. There is a similar tradition of not commenting on politics publicly (i.e.: retired generals commenting on TV about this or that administration), although that too seems to have gone out of fashion.

In addition to that, voting for federal officials asks that I ignore my personal interest. Maybe I want better pay or benefits. Maybe I don't want to go to war for fear of personal safety or some other reason. Is my personal interest beneficial to the nation, or just me? Can I exclude those potential biases in my decision, as a fallible human? Maybe, but if I abstain from voting for federal positions I remove that potential.

[Chuck Naill]

Ignoring my personal interests can occur in a variety of ways and by more than military people.

Healthcare givers provide assistance to people who refuse to help themselves which makes their work that much more difficult and can be just as lethal as combat. This is why I don’t consider the military as more special or that not participating in the democratic process not necessary. Fauci and others worked for Trump yet maintained their integrity. They spoke truth to power. Just because no obvious “violence “ is apparent, does not lessen the service. What if everyone decided they had to sacrifice their beliefs to serve the president?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

My opinion gravitates toward the most simplistic, but if a person doesn't vote I would be interested in knowing why, and I suspect that the answer falls into two broad categories - none of the candidates/parties represent their views, and/or they like sniping from the sidelines without taking responsibility for either side. I can understand the first, and in the elections I've voted in it has often seemed to be a choice of the least worst candidate.

I don't have any problem with people who don't vote, although I do see it as a social responsibility. Choice is personal.

I really intended this for an opportunity for discourse between Chuck and myself, but I'll make an exception and address this. Maybe it will help clarify my position to Chuck as well.

There is a long tradition of military officers abstaining from voting. Most of the tradition is encapsulated in George C. Marshall's public views on the topic, and I agree with them. Primarily, it helps assure that advice given to politicians is not politically biased. A President (theoretically) doesn't have to worry that the advice is politically motivated. It helps prevent the undermining of confidence. There is a similar tradition of not commenting on politics publicly (i.e.: retired generals commenting on TV about this or that administration), although that too seems to have gone out of fashion.

In addition to that, voting for federal officials asks that I ignore my personal interest. Maybe I want better pay or benefits. Maybe I don't want to go to war for fear of personal safety or some other reason. Is my personal interest beneficial to the nation, or just me? Can I exclude those potential biases in my decision, as a fallible human? Maybe, but if I abstain from voting for federal positions I remove that potential.

Thanks for the clarification, although I was aware of this. In the UK voting among both other ranks and officers is encouraged. In fact, as I recall, voting among officers is usually at a very high percentage.

As an aside, and by no means intending offence, if you prefer a one-to-one discussion with Chuck perhaps you could take it backchannel. Otherwise people (like me) may be tempted to engage - especially if the discussion is interesting!

[dneal]

No worries, and I considered that; but there's no reason we can't have a discussion in public. Not quite the Coppleston-Russell debate, but it's just a little section on a pen forum.

I think we've reached an impasse anyway.

p.s.: I always encouraged my Soldiers to vote.

[Chuck Naill]

No worries, and I considered that; but there's no reason we can't have a discussion in public. Not quite the Coppleston-Russell debate, but it's just a little section on a pen forum.

I think we've reached an impasse anyway.

p.s.: I always encouraged my Soldiers to vote.

I wasn't interested in changing your mind. So much of our conversation revolve around politics and you are opinionated just like me. I was, however, surprised that you didn't vote for Trump after defending him so. Like I said, it happened years ago on another unmoderated forum where the Trump advocated didn't vote. I was more motivated to vote against him than I've ever been motivated to vote for someone.

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

[dneal]

Note I don’t defend the individual. I agreed with a lot of his policies, and found his effect on the political landscape amazing. I critiqued the hyperbole and hypocrisy; which was more a criticism of the left than support for Trump the person.

But you’re welcome, and thanks as well.

[Chuck Naill]

I agree he had an amazing, and for me horrible, effect.