How have civilian views of deference to military and civilian authority evolved? Are current trends in civil-military relations antithetical to healthy democratic norms? And what can be done to ensure the civil-military relationship is a healthy one? In Episode 3, Season 2 of the Social Science of War podcast, we explore these questions by focusing primarily on the civilian side of civil-military relations.
Our guests discuss survey data that suggests civilians are more deferential to military authority than in years past. They argue trends in this data run counter to traditional views of what constitutes healthy civ-mil dynamics in a democracy. The conversation also covers how views of retired military officers’ involvement in politics are changing and how “advice and consent” procedures for promoting senior military officers in the Senate may impact civ-mil dynamics. They conclude with some policy and pedagogical prescriptions for restoring healthy civil-military norms.
Dr. Ron Krebs is a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota who teaches courses on international relations and has focused his research in recent years on civil-military relations. Dr. Krebs is the author of two books, but the discussion in today’s episode focuses primarily on some of his recent civ-mil journal articles and op-eds: “No Right to Be Wrong: What Americans Think about Civil-Military Relations,” “Civilian Control of the Military Is a Partisan Issue,” and “More Deferential But Also More Political: How Americans’ Views of the Military have Changed Over 20 Years.”
Dr. Scott Limbocker is an assistant professor of American politics at the United States Military Academy. Most of his research has focused on the executive branch, namely the presidency and the bureaucracy. More recently, Dr. Limbocker has explored the bureaucratic principal-agent framework’s applicability to civil-military relations. Today’s discussion focuses primarily on a Lawfare article he coauthored with other members of the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, titled “Senate Confirmation Is a Recipe for Politicizing Military Personnel Policy.”
The Social Science of War podcast is produced by the Department of Social Sciences at West Point. Visit our website if you would like to be a student or teach in the department, or if you would like to connect with any of our instructors based on their expertise.
Kyle Atwell created the Social Science of War. Hosts on Season 2 of the podcast are Dr. Nakissa Jahanbani, Dr. Alexandra Chinchilla, Lieutenant Colonel Sean McKnight, and Major Gabriel Royal. Please reach out to the podcast team with any questions about this episode or the Social Science of War podcast in general.
Image credit: Petty Officer 2nd Class Alexander Kubitza, US Navy
Can the thirty or so years INCREASE in the confidence of and deference to the U.S. military and to U.S. military officials, can this not be best be understood from the perspective of the thirty or so years DECLINE in the American peoples' trust and confidence in the other institutions of the U.S. government?
Herein, politicians — recognizing this such phenomenon and seeking to capitalize on same — thereby deciding to appoint military officials/former military officials — this rather than civilian individuals — to various civilian government positions; herein, seeking to gain popularity, influence, etc.?
Consider the matters addressed in this podcast — and addressed on other related podcasts and articles — from the following perspective:
“Wright’s article was prompted by a brief observation in the magazine Foreign Policy by the military writer and journalist, Thomas Ricks, who considered ‘another civil war breaking out in this country over the next ten to fifteen years’ a real possibility.’ By “civil war’‘ Ricks wrote, ‘I don’t necessarily mean set-piece battles and Pickett’s Charge. I do mean wide-spread political violence with parallel (though not necessarily connected) efforts to reject current political authority in certain legal domains or physical spaces.’
This post was sharply attacked as ‘irresponsible’ and ‘nonsense’ by one critic, Josh Barro who, in an article for the Business Insider website, observed:
‘By this definition, America experienced a civil war from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, when race riots engulfed major American cities, four major political figures were assassinated, and the federal government had to send National Guard troops into Southern states to enforce integration over the objections of both local officials and violent white mobs. According to the FBI, there were 2,500 bombings in the US in 1971 and 1972 alone, often carried out by left-wing groups like the Weather Underground. I agree there is a real risk that the US will return to 1950s–70s levels of political violence and social upheaval. And I’m worried about this. But calling such a situation a ‘civil war’ just makes everybody dumber.’
I’m not so sure. If, as Foner concludes, there is a reassuring difference between 1860 and 2017, there are also disquieting differences between the 1960s, the 1970s and the present, and these differences are both constitutional and strategic. Constitutionally, we are more divided as a state today than at any time since the 1860s. Strategically, the increasing lethality of weapons, coupled with the ability to organise mass movements through social media, and the decentralisation of both phenomena, are very worrisome. Moreover, in one crucial respect, the US today is not so different from the 1860s: that would be the paralysis of Congress and a lack of confidence in the two major parties, our Whigs (the establishment Republicans) and our Democrats (then divided regionally, now ethnically and racially).”
(See near the end of the the September 28, 2022 “Engelsberg Ideas” article “The Decay and Renewal of the American Constitutional Order” by Philip Bobbitt.)
Question:
How does the perspective, offered by Philip Bobbitt here, (ex: "Constitutionally, we are more divided as a state today than at any time since the 1860s. Strategically, the increasing lethality of weapons, coupled with the ability to organise mass movements through social media, and the decentralisation of both phenomena, are very worrisome. Moreover, in one crucial respect, the US today is not so different from the 1860s: that would be the paralysis of Congress and a lack of confidence in the two major parties, our Whigs (the establishment Republicans) and our Democrats (then divided regionally, now ethnically and racially).”;
How does this such perspective affect the arguments of Dr. Ron Krebs and Dr. Scott Limbocker in our podcast above — and affect the arguments of other important individuals on these such matters?