Jeff Sessions, former U.S. senator and Attorney General in the Trump administration, lost a runoff primary to Tommy Tuberville, a college football coach.
Catherine Crawford, a retired teacher from Montgomery, voted for Tuberville, in part because of Trump's criticism of Sessions.
"I hated that, because I think Jeff Sessions is a pretty good fellow," she said. "If he hadn't done that one thing [recusing himself from the Russia investigation], people would have voted for him." [Source]
In Crawford's opinion, then, Jeff Sessions lost because of his disloyalty to the President. But what is loyalty, exactly? Should it be to a person, or Is it to a person, or is it to something else?
Morals are a tricky thing to teach in a "freedom of religion" society, so the Army has a nifty acronym that it uses inculcate values in its soldiers (LDRSHIP). One of the values is Loyalty. [Source]
Being loyal, as the Army defines it, means to "Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. " It is also "believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone."
This is troublingly ambiguous. Should Sessions have been loyal to the president and block teh investigation, or to the Constitution, and let it continue? He chose the latter, and in return took a lot of abuse from the candidate he campaigned for.
I see a similar dynamic with LTC Vindeman, whose experience NBC has cited as a dangerous case study for future officer candidates. [Source]
Even after being selected for promotion to O-6 colonel, Vindman has decided to retire. . His lawyer cited the bullying and intimidation he received from the commander-in-chief. [Source]
If we accept loyalty as being to a person, we encourage sycophants and demagogues. It is only by insisting on loyalty to the country -- to duty -- that we achieve the kind of professionalism that government service is meant to be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment