The Foreign Service Journal, October 2016

18 OCTOBER 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL When you’re reporting back to a superior on a task that didn’t go as planned or a mission that just couldn’t be accomplished, will they attribute it to the practical impediments that you describe, or to your previously stated political disdain? Origins of the Nonpartisan Professional Ethic The professional ethic of a nonpoliti- cal military originated in the post-Civil War period when General William Tecumseh Sherman, who took com- mand of the U.S. Army in 1869, insisted on keeping the institution out of par- tisan politics. The traumatic divisions of the nation that had led to war were often reflected among senior officers, but in time the political neutrality of the career military became well established. Among other things, this contributed critically to the effective function of the civil-military relationship through World War II and beyond. Such nonpartisanship could argu- ably have been maintained by senior military leaders simply remaining silent about their political opinions and voting preferences. However, the professional officer corps considered that insuf- ficient: in practice, nonparticipation to the extreme of complete abstention was followed by most officers down to the junior levels. It was impossible to draw the line of when an officer would be senior enough that their political loyal- ties might be relevant, so the nonparti- sanship of all officers mattered. And, critically, it was thought that even the most discreet conduct of political participation still invited speculation: partisan interlocutors would simply assume political prefer- ences based on whatever hints they could glean, possibly with implications more disruptive than if partisan affili- ation had simply been declared. It was best for all officers to simply abstain from voting altogether. A Baseline Standard of Political Discretion I initially anticipated that I would make a case for principled nonvoting in the Foreign Service in this space. Our responsibility to faithfully and effectively represent the interests and advance the policies of the United States is more important than scratch- ing a personal political itch, supporting a preferred candidate or taking a shot at one on Facebook. But forgoing one’s vote may not be for everyone, and I recognize that for a cohort as steeped in policy decisions as this one it’s unrealistic to propose that people completely abstain from politics. Instead, this is a proposal for a baseline standard of political discretion: keep our ballots secret, along with the preferences we bring to them; limit Facebook posts to sightseeing, kid pictures for the grand- parents and Trailing Houses questions; deflect cocktail party questions about the candidates with discussions about the process, and limit the happy hour deri- sion to other governments’ leaders. This entreaty comes with two important caveats. First, I am propos- ing a professional ethos we should collectively follow, not a policy that should be implemented. The Hatch Act is more than sufficient for establishing the minimum requirements to maintain the apolitical nature of the bureaucracy. This is a case to safeguard our profes- sional efficacy, not make new rules, set new limits or restrict anyone’s right to make personal judgments about appropriate, desired levels of political participation. The second caveat is the Nazi excep- tion. We all have a moral responsibility to reject policies we determine to be immoral on a fundamental level and a legal responsibility to refuse unlawful orders. When we disagree with a deci- sion, we obviously have the opportunity to address the issue through the chain of command. When the chain of command is unre- sponsive or shares the “party line” and is unable to see the different perspective objectively, we have a right (and arguably a responsibility) to make use of the Dis- sent Channel to flag the issue for senior consideration. And, in the extreme, we have the right and eventual responsibility to resign in the face of a policy or order that we consider illegal or immoral. None of these actions are intrinsi- cally partisan, and a call for diligent nonpartisanship has no implication for the appropriate use of any of these avenues of dissent. But a campaign My real hope in writing this is that we have a conversation or at least some introspection about the question: Howmuch public political participation is appropriate for the professional Foreign Service to remain truly nonpartisan?