The Foreign Service Journal, October 2016

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2016 17 SPEAKING OUT Safeguarding a Nonpartisan Foreign Service BY MATTHEW V. TOMPK I NS This is a proposal for a baseline standard of political discretion: keep our ballots secret, along with the preferences we bring to them. I n 15 years of working for the federal government, I’ve always tried to remain diligently apolitical. I believe that I am most effective in advanc- ing or implementing the policies and interests of the U.S. government when I haven’t previously articulated my per- sonal opinions on those policies or the elected leaders making them. I was introduced to the concept of “principled nonvoting” as a young ROTC cadet. Abstention from politics, to the extreme of not voting, was part of the professional ethic of a nonpoliti- cal military. It was meant to reassure elected leaders—and the public—that the military’s loyalty would not have to be questioned every four years. The practice prevailed among the officer corps in the U.S. military from the end of the Civil War until the aftermath of World War II, when it began to break down. Over the years, I have personally found principled nonvoting to be a valuable practice, yet I have also repeat- edly questioned that belief. Voting is a civic responsibility—not just a right— and that consideration has often chal- lenged my thinking on this matter. There have also been elections where I thought passionately that the outcome mattered, and I strongly supported (or opposed) one alternative over another. But each time I have returned to the arguments supporting principled Matt Tompkins is currently a vice consul in Santo Domingo and previously served in Guatemala City. Prior to joining the Foreign Service, he held intelligence and policy positions with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and served as a U.S. Army officer. nonvoting and concluded that, for me at least, they take precedence. Never has that belief and that prac- tice been as difficult as in 2016. It’s one thing to disagree with the policy judg- ments of a party or candidate, but it is quite another to believe that a candidate is fundamentally unfit for office and would pose a bona fide danger to the republic if elected: Yet I remain silent. The Value of Nonpartisanship Being apolitical is actually pretty easy in epochs of the muddled middle. Apart from the most committed parti- san, did anyone really feel at the time that the country would have been led in wildly different directions depending on the outcome of Bush/Clinton, Clinton/ Dole or Gore/Bush? The true test of the principle of an apolitical bureau- cracy—and its essential value—is when one side offers a candidate, platform or policy so fundamentally unacceptable that every fiber of your being compels you to speak out against it. Opinions about each of our last three presidents were relatively polarized, either due to their actions, policies, attributes or the political climate at the time. So I feel safe in assuming that anyone reading this can think of at least one friend or colleague who regularly voiced disdain for one or another of them, whether in the form of a shared link on Facebook, idle talk at a bar or something more formal and politically active. How would those opinions shade your confidence in the opinion-makers’ diligence implementing the policies of their despised commander in chief? Between career stints in the Army, at the FBI and now at State during those three presidencies, I have repeatedly heard such opinions expressed about candidates, sitting presidents and for- mer presidents. Never, in my experience, has such opining improved the dogma- tists’ ability to accomplish their mis- sions—in fact, it is often easy to identify ways that it has detracted from it. How can you effectively motivate subordinates to work on a task when you’ve made clear your personal oppo- sition to the policy it supports? How can you effectively advance a position when you’ve made clear your disdain for the person who established it?