Politics and Professionalism: A Precautionary Note - A Response

Last December’s issue of the Marine Corps Gazette featured essays from the 2010 Gen Robert E. Hogaboom Leadership Writing Contest. The Honorable Mention article, titled “Politics and Professionalism: a Precautionary Note” by Capt Jonathan Wong, describes for us the type of political discussions he and other Marines have witnessed among both Marines and civilians. These encounters are described as contemptuous, contentious, loud, passionate, personal, polarized, and vitriolic. Given what you typically see on cable news—two talking heads clamoring to get an uninterrupted word in, with a continuous increase in volume and continuous decrease in civility—one can easily understand what prompted him to start writing. The author goes on to say that civilians can argue this way if they choose, but this type of behavior is not acceptable for Marines. Because of this, the author does not merely say we ought to, for the most part, keep our politics to ourselves. He goes much further than that and states: “. . . the nature of our duties and the relationships between the leaders and the led require us to keep our politics mostly private.”
   
No one can argue with the fact that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids a commissioned officer from using contemptuous words against a public official. And I don’t doubt that many of us find this particular type of political discourse useless and inappropriate, not just within the Marine Corps, but anywhere, at any time. However, the claim that we are “required to keep our politics mostly private” fails as a principle, is not well supported and, given that the article was an honorable mention, misses the mark as useful leadership advice.
   
This principle, or general rule of conduct, is meant to encompass all political discussions among Marines. Can you foresee the problem in raising an issue with a particular type of political discourse and then offering up guidance to be broadly considered for all political discourse? If not, let me put it to you simply. Civil and productive arguments on political issues take place among Marines all the time, even when the subject is considered highly controversial. It’s through these arguments that ideas can be shared, bad ones can be dispelled, and good ones can be refined. Furthermore, this principle only raises questions. What is meant by “mostly”? Which issues are allowed in the market place of ideas and which are not? Why are certain issues allowed and not others? Upon what authority is this determined? These are appropriate questions to ask because the author stated we are required to keep our politics mostly private. Not that we ought to, but we are required to.
   
The author states that the “nature of our duties and the relationships between the leaders and the led” are reasons why we are required to keep our politics mostly private. Words like duty, fraternity, and loyalty, and the implication that the perception of the leader might be bad are used for additional support. But does it follow that because among Marines these things are important we should, for the most part, keep quite? What about truth, clarity of thought, and explanatory power and scope? Don’t they help you avoid having an “inferior understanding of public affairs,” as the author warns, or an inferior understanding of almost anything for that matter—a situation, a mission, an enemy? Might we serve our Marines better by teaching them how to think through difficult issues vice having them avoid the “battlefield of ideas”? Think of how many meetings Marines have had with tribal members in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years. Might exercising their minds by taking on complex political issues here at home help develop useful skills for counterinsurgencies today and yet to come? The old saying “the more you sweat in practice the less you bleed in battle” comes to mind.
   
The author also states that the President must have complete confidence in us without having to weigh the political positions of our senior leaders. Yet someone’s ardent disagreement with universal health care does not make him a bad tactician on the battlefield, but poor thinking certainly does. I think the President is fully aware of the fact that we have taken an oath and are obligated by law to obey our Commander in Chief, regardless of our political views. What political positions our senior leaders choose to reveal to him are completely up to them. I would be willing to bet they spend more time thinking of how to say something and when to say it vice whether or not to say something at all. (Notice that one approach involves far more mental work than the other.) I would also be willing to bet that their ability to think through contentious issues was helpful in their journey to becoming our senior leaders.
   
Though I’ve already touched briefly on the leadership aspect of this issue, I would like to expand further on it. Teaching Marines how to think is probably the greatest skill the leader could give to the led, but this entails a leader who knows how to think in the first place. If you are in a position of leadership and view keeping your politics mostly private as wise counsel, I beg you to reconsider. It is far too easy to “stay out of it” when a Marine states a view on a controversial political issue; it involves little to no thought on your part. Is that wisdom or something more akin to fear? There is nothing rude or unprofessional about asking for clarification to ensure you understand the claim. There is nothing rude or unprofessional about asking why someone believes as they do. And there is so much to gain by listening carefully to the reasons that are given and seeing if the reasons properly support the claim. (Think again of all of those discussions that have and will take place in theater.) What can be taken as unprofessional is how you ask these questions? And what can be taken as unprofessional is why you ask these questions, which may not be readily apparent to your “opposition” in the beginning of the conversation but will reveal itself over time. Are you asking these questions to simply paint someone into a corner—to make them look bad and to make yourself look good—or are you making a noble effort to engage, learn, trade ideas, weigh the evidence, and a seek out the best answers? Make no mistake; this is a difficult thing to do—to think hard about a complex and/or emotional issue, to maneuver though a conversation in a way that will keep it civil yet productive, to lay your cards on the table to find out if your position on a given issue holds up to scrutiny.
   
There is enormous payoff to this approach vice remaining “mostly private.” If we are more, not less, willing to engage in political discussions of all sorts, those loud and passionate Marines who are viewed as fools will actually have to make an account for their claims. In the engagement we may very well discover that these Marines are not fools but have put a lot of thought into the issues they have abruptly commented on and, then again, maybe not. But calling them fools behind their backs just remains a bald-faced assertion until you get the guts to engage in a useful dialog.

Note
1. Wong, Capt Jonathan P., “Politics and Professionalism: A Precautionary Note,” Marine Corps Gazette, December 2010, p. 69.