Vetted Conversations
Vetted Conversations is a podcast created by We the Veterans & Military Families to help Americans - especially the veteran community - better understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens and how they can get involved to reinforce our constitutional republic and representative democracy. We are focused on bringing Americans together to help create a more perfect union. This podcast was formerly titled Vet our Democracy and was rebranded with the launch of Season 2 to reflect our expanded goals.
Vetted Conversations
Ep. 10: The role of our military in our democracy
In this episode, we hear from Dr. Shawn Healey, PhD of iCivics (1:07) on why it's important to have civilian control of the military. And Kori Schake, the Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute shares her perspectives on the topic (7:33). Finally, Vet the Vote coalition member Chris Purdy of Veterans For American Ideals joins us (46:02) to tell you how you can get involved in a coalition of thousands of veterans and allies who continue their service to America by upholding, defending, and advocating for human rights at home and abroad. Support the Show. (https://www.buzzsprout.com/2268525/support) For more, check us out at www.wetheveterans.us and at https://linktr.ee/vettedconversations
For more, check us out at www.wetheveterans.us and at https://linktr.ee/vettedconversations
Welcome back to the Vetted Conversations Podcast, where we delve deep into the foundations, workings, and current challenges to the American way of self-governance. In today's confusing world, it's more important than ever to understand how our government works and how we, as citizens, can actively participate in the discussion to safeguard our liberties and continue freedom. Our mission is to ensure you, our listeners, have the knowledge and insights needed to become more informed and engaged citizens and active members of your communities. So let's get into it. Hello, everybody. Part of our mission here is to help increase our collective understanding of civics, namely our rights and perhaps more importantly, our responsibilities to each other as citizens in a free society. Based on your feedback from season one, we are adding a short civics discussion to each episode in season two to help better explain how our government is organized and how it is designed to work so that we can all more effectively engage with our elected and appointed officials and help create a more perfect union. Joining us today is Dr. Sean Healy, a civics expert and the senior director for policy and advocacy at iCivics. iCivics is our nation's leading nonprofit civic education organization whose mission is to ensure the practice of democracy is learned by each new generation. Sean, it's so good to have you back to educate us today. Here's our question for today's episode. Why is it important to have civilian control of the military?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I think it goes back to uh once again the founding era and uh some of the excesses uh of the the British Army and the British Navy uh in the context of of the the revolutionary period. Uh and in fact, if you even if you look at the the Third Amendment uh to our constitution, it prohibits the quartering of troops, right, uh in our homes. Uh but but the this notion um that we should have there should be democratic accountability, small b, democratic accountability uh for our military intervention. So of course the president is uh commander-in-chief of the military, uh, but but only Congress can declare war. So there's uh civilian control and even kind of checks and balances uh between that. Um so yeah, really, really critical uh to kind of the the founding of the country, uh and even in a contemporary sense, I think there's this notion that uh the tail shouldn't wag the dog, that uh our popularly elected uh officials uh should be accountable to our our military interventions. Of course, we have the uh largest and and uh strongest military in the world and uh has a uh a global presence uh but ultimately is accountable to elected officials uh who have uh limited terms.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. Yeah, and I think that's one of the concepts that confuses a lot of uh young military members, especially, is you know, why are the politicians getting involved in military matters? Where if you go all the way back to the founding of the country, you would quickly realize that that although we have a fairly positive view of our military today, that wasn't always the case throughout history and certainly out through world history, where you know, you typically didn't want to see an army marching through your village because bad things were gonna happen, right? And so I think I remember um I think it was George Washington talking about you know uh a standing army being probably the greatest threat to liberty, and right, you know, was a tool like fire, right? Like uh carefully used, uh was beneficial, but out of control could have disastrous effects. So, like, could you tell us a little bit more about like the founder's view of the military?
SPEAKER_00:And and uh I think that's right. And wash, I'm glad you brought up Washington because of course he he uh handed in his sword, right? And and saw that saw that as so critical. So yeah, we had the uh the general that that won the Revolutionary War was our first president, and he suggests that that office was created for him, and maybe this experiment uh in constitutional democracy uh doesn't probably doesn't happen without Washington because there was such uh kind of universal trust. But he was very adamant about uh handing in that sword and and uh walking back to to going back to his farm and uh being a civilian, right? Resigning his commission. Um and so that separation uh comes from the very beginning. I think you're also right, these debates, not just Washington, but uh the other farmers, these concer framers, these concerns about uh a standing army, and it's reflected even in the Second Amendment, right, uh the Constitution. We spend a lot of time talking about well, whether we have an individual or a collective right uh to uh own firearms, but the the uh the prefecatory clause, right, a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, yeah, there there are there uh we did not have a standing army at the time, right? Uh and there was this notion that we actually had a civil responsibility to have firearms uh and to to be at the back and call uh of our our states and particularly our state militias. And that was that was in the the revolutionary context or the post-revolutionary war context, uh that was how we would defend this country. Uh we also, of course, had the privilege, uh particularly at the time, to be separated from most of the rest of the world by oceans, right? So uh we could we could we could uh take take some of our security for granted in that respect. Uh and it so it's hard in the modern context to to understand what we've evolved to, but uh certainly comes from that that that notion of hey, it's a civil responsibility to be part of my uh state militia that ultimately may be called to the defense of the country.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, absolutely. And then you know, we've also established laws over the years, especially what is it, after the Civil War with Posse Comitatis, like you know, prohibiting the military from being used for law enforcement purposes inside of the United States, which is an equally important thing uh for folks to understand. But yeah, I think you're absolutely uh right, and I appreciate you illuminating us on kind of like the intent of the founders, but for sure, as frustrating as politics and political leadership can be to uh military members and even veterans who are watching the news, um, you know, I think it is supremely important that we always keep in mind the vision of the founders, that the military, which is probably the greatest threat to liberty or could be, be very closely controlled and responsible to the people.
SPEAKER_00:Right. Yeah, just that notion of democratic accountability is critical. And I I yeah, and I you know it's also important to say that, yeah, through uh uh through our system of government, uh, you know, the military is very well funded, right? I'm sure you can make arguments that it should be better funded, but it's about 15% of our our overall federal budget, and we vastly outsp outspend every other country in the world uh in terms of military. So uh our civilian government is is taking care of the military, and of course we've had so many people uh serve not just in the presidency but but in Congress that are veterans, and that continues to be the case.
SPEAKER_04:Awesome. Thanks so much for that answer. That was great. You just heard from Dr. Sean Healy of iCivics on why we have civilian control of the military. And to do a deeper dive into the state of our military, we've invited defense expert and national security thinker Corey Shockey to chat with us today. Corey is a senior fellow and the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Before joining AEI, Dr. Shockey was the Deputy Director General of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. She's had a distinguished career in government, working at the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Defense, and the National Security Council at the White House. She's also taught at Stanford, West Point, Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, the National Defense University, and the University of Maryland. She's the author of five books, among them America versus the West, Can the Liberal Order of the World Be Preserved? And she's also co-editor, along with former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, of Warriors and Citizens, American Views of Our Military. Corey, welcome.
SPEAKER_03:It's a great pleasure to be with you.
SPEAKER_04:It's good to have you here today with Ellen and I. We were discussing like the state of America, our military, and the role of military democracy and uh and the strength of our republic. So we want to get your take. Like from your view, like what's the proper role of our military in supporting our democracy?
SPEAKER_03:So I think the constitution's pretty clear on this, right? To protect the republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Um and uh both Congress and the Constitution have vital roles to play. We tend to think of the military as an executive branch institution. But I've always loved that when you get dragged up to Capitol Hill to testify before Congress, you sit in front of a plaque that quotes the Constitution, saying it is the right of the Congress to raise armies and maintain navies. And I think uh one misconception people very often have who don't work in defense policy is to believe that the president really controls American defense policy, when in fact the Congress does by its legislation and its oversight.
SPEAKER_02:And in recent years, there's been reason to question me, right? Is that kind of why people get confused about whose whose job it is, whose whose role it is?
SPEAKER_03:Well, I think so few of us actually ever have to deal in the high policy-making world that it's not surprising people don't know that much about it. It's not their lived experience. And people have busy, fulfilling lives, they're off doing other stuff. Um But I do think it's especially important given two factors that we pause and reflect on the role of our military in a democratic society. And one reason is because 50 years into an all-volunteer professionalized military, so few Americans have any experience, any familiarity, any involvement with that it creates misconceptions about who is in our military and how they think about the world. And uh so, for example, the American public begins to think about our military the way they think about the Supreme Court. That is, if the military has views, if people, senior people in the military have views consistent with the broader, with any individual's private politics, then that person tends to think about the military as loyal and patriotic and a pillar of democracy. And if the military leadership expresses views different than that individual's personal politics, they tend to think of them as either a danger to democracy or a woke military that can't win wars. Um, and so there's a politicization that's going on in public attitudes about the military. Historically, that's not uncommon, but for about the last 30 or 40 years, um, there has been a sort of golden age of American public admiration for its military and deference to its military that in our febrile political moment is coming to an end.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, which is really sad. That's a that's a sad outcome. Joe, do you want to hit the next one?
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, no, it was interesting. I mean, uh Corey's comments about going up to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees is familiar, right? And every time I took the comment on up there, he's like, you know, I have two, you know, two bosses on the Pentagon between the chairman and the secretary, and then I come up here and I've got 435 of them, right? So on the outside, you know, and 100 on the Senate, all willing to give him advice. Um, when his whole purpose was to go up there and provide his unvarnished best military advice, um, not political advice, but you know, from the perspective of our national security, what's best for America. Um but, you know, and I saw sometimes it that treaded into some cultural issues, like, you know, do we allow women in the in the infantry and allow them the ability to compete for you know that our military's highest jobs? Um you know, what's the case?
SPEAKER_03:And again, remember, most of the military leadership opposed that decision, and Congress imposed it on the military. It's actually a terrific example of the fact that Congress really runs defense policy.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, and and and even the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell was another issue, you know, where you know my boss was one of the failed outs on that. Um despite advice to the contrary from his staff. But you know, it was his what he felt was was right and true at that point in time. Um what happens if we don't have civilian control over the military? What do countries look like in that case?
SPEAKER_03:Well, there are a lot of examples from around the world. It can look like Pakistan, it can look like uh any one of a number of Latin American countries across the last hundred years. Um, I know it has to be dissatisfying for people in the military that uh the political leadership of the country is so often ignorant and so often reckless, um, just as the American public is so often ignorant and so often reckless. But you know, there's the culture of American military subordination to civilian control starts at the very beginning of the American experience. It starts with George Washington. We would have a very different civil-military relationship in the United States if you had anybody but George Washington as the founding father. And if you'll indulge me a minute or two, the example is the Newburgh conspiracy. So two years after Cornwallis surrendered in the American Revolutionary War, Washington's army was still encamped in New York. The British were still in possession of Manhattan while the peace negotiations were going on. And Washington's army was poorly fed, it wasn't being paid, it had been promised pensions that then several American colonies made illegal for the government to provide. So breach of promise. Alexander Hamilton was at that time in the Congress and leading the effort to give the Continental Congress revenue-raising powers, which they did not originally have. And Hamilton, along with Robert Morris, who was then what's like the Treasury Secretary, they were encouraging Washington's officers to mutiny, to march on the Continental Congress and demand pay and pensions as a way to force Congress to uptake to take up revenue legislation. And Hamilton actually writes George Washington asking him to lead the effort. And Washington famously answers: an army is a very dangerous thing to toy with. And nonetheless, Hamilton and the politicians continue to advocate for mutiny. And when the army tells this story about its founding, they're very sentimental, as our army so often is. And one is that Washington doesn't stumble onto the young officers. He calls them together to enforce good order and discipline on them. And he stations 6'6, 240-pound Major General Henry Knox at the door to take into custody for court-martialing anyone who won't sign an oath of loyalty to the Continental Congress. And the second thing the sentimental story leaves out is that Washington acknowledges that Congress is terrible at its job. But he very movingly says that is not the basis for our subordination to elected leadership in this country. Our subordination is about who we are as a military. And who we are is a powerful military that never wants to be a threat to the civilian leadership of a country.
SPEAKER_02:Wow.
SPEAKER_04:Wow. Wow.
SPEAKER_02:And also something's never changed with Congress, I guess.
SPEAKER_03:Exactly. But it I feel like that foundation still resonates through the culture of the American military. That is that it doesn't require anybody else being good at their job for the military to keep its bearings, that it never wants to be a threat to civilian governance, because that's who we are as a military. And that's the reason the American military, that dignity, that self-restraint is actually the reason the American military is the most popular institution in the country. And you know where you can see it? I'm sorry, just one more example. So you can see it in the two um snapshots of former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, testifying before Congress. So in the testimony where he can't resist the temptation to show off his Princeton education and answer a question nobody asked him about critical race theory, right? Like that was the moment for the uniforms to hide behind the suits. The secretary got asked the question, and General Milley shouldn't have waded into the answer, because that then made it fair game for every other military person testifying to have to answer that question. But the second example that I think is really telling is the next time General Milley went up to testify, he got called a traitor by Matt Getz and other members of Congress. And he squared his shoulders and sat there in quiet dignity and took the abuse. And I would be willing to bet four months' pay you could see a measurable uptick in public admiration for the American military. It demonstrated who the reckless idiots are in this system, and they are the civilian leadership. What we count on our military for is the quiet dignity of doing a hard job well.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. Yeah. No, thanks for sharing that story about Washington and then also the more current recent examples. Because yeah, I think it's one thing that was abundantly clear from the founders was that they truly believed that a standing military was probably the greatest threat to liberty in this country, or many of them felt that way.
SPEAKER_03:Um and and surprisingly, I mean Oh, they absolutely believed. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
SPEAKER_04:No, no, go, go, go.
SPEAKER_03:They absolutely believed that a standing military was an inherent threat to the Republic. And by the way, they had a thousand years of world history justifying that. You know, we because it's our own historical experience, is so different. We sometimes lose perspective on how unique, what an anomaly a professional military that isn't a threat to democracy really is. The American experiment was the example that marks the passage to modernity for democracies.
SPEAKER_02:Well, and so from that perspective, that the professionalization of the military has done all these incredible, you know, has sort of led to all this incredible progress and change. Is it fair to say that it also had sort of the externality, whether it's positive or negative, of a widening civil military divide? Because with fewer people than potentially serving and and and as we know, service becomes a military service becomes a most family business. Um many, many families are the the ones who continue to serve generation after generation. Do you think that in the last 50 years, do you think what what are your thoughts sort of about the the hazards of the military-civilian divide and what that looks like now, and then what that could look like in the future as we potentially have even a smaller professional military?
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, you're exactly right that that the professionalization of military service in the United States has absolutely widened the gap between civilians and the military. But there are two other factors. We shouldn't put the entirety of responsibility on professionalization because there are two other policy issues. And one is we are choosing to have a small military. You know, in World War II you had 10 million Americans under arms, and every single American family, for all intents and purposes, became an expert on the war effort because their children or their husband or their uncle were directly affected. So one policy choice that's consequential is we're choosing to have only a third of 1% of Americans under arms. We could choose that differently, and that would narrow the gap. But it's a great luxury that we have a war-winning military that doesn't require a larger proportion of our public. The second policy choice that really widens the gap is the way we have turned American military bases into fortresses. That military families live on base, they do their grocery shopping on base, they go to church, chapel, or synagogue or mosque on base. And so that radically reduces the everyday interaction of your babysitter being the daughter of a deployed soldier. Or, right, all of the little interstesis, having them over for dinner when the soldier is deployed and her husband is managing three unruly toddlers. So policy also affects this. Where we place recruiting stations for maximum recruiting bang for the buck instead of prioritizing a broader distribution of participation. There are a whole bunch of policy choices we could make differently in order to narrow the gap. But you asked me a bigger question than that, Ellen, which is should we be worried about this? I think there are only two real tests of whether the American whether civil-military relations are problematic. And the first is can the president fire any military leader they want? And we have a half dozen examples just from the last 10 years, right? McKiernan, McChrystal, Mattis. So that clearly holds. And the second way to judge whether civil military relations are vital and vibrant is will the military carry out policies they don't agree with? And just about every major choice about the use of American military forces in the last 10 years has been over against the advice of the military itself. I would be willing to bet that the idea of sending to the shores of Gaza a floating distribution network for humanitarian assistance was not a bright idea dreamed of in the Pentagon, but it was a White House directive that we gotta find a way to do something. And because the American military is good at, you know, pulling a rabbit out of its hat, they thought of this bad idea being less bad idea than other ideas they were gonna get forced to participate in.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, that that had West Wing written all over it when I saw that in the headlines. Uh for sure. Absolutely. That's an important thing, right? And I think you know, I want to go back to an earlier earlier point you made about you know civilian control of the military. And I think a lot of Americans don't understand the great sensitivity about deploying our military domestically, right? Like what it takes to actually have you know uniformed active duty service men and women deploying inside the United States on missions. And that's not something we normally do outside of like incredible natural disasters like Katrina or um, but you know, where people are like, oh, let's use them to secure the border and round up, you know, illegals and all this other stuff. Like, can you talk about like why we don't do that?
SPEAKER_03:Absolutely, and it it's such an important point. I would be willing to bet a lot of the reason the American public loves our military so much is because the only times they ever have interaction with them are when society's in distress, when there's a flood in New Orleans, when there are wildfires in California, when people are scared and need help. That's the interaction they have with our military. So, you know, it it hasn't been for what now 50 years since you had the American military deployed in force on college campuses to put down anti-war riots. Um, you know, National Guard troops firing on crowds of college kids had a lot to do with the distrust the public had of the American military in the time of the Vietnam War. So it's really a good thing that we let police and the FBI and the Border Patrol handle their own jobs instead of having the American military do it. The American military already has a full-time job. For sure. Um this came into, but but this is very unusual, right? Even in most democracies, the militaries are used for domestic policing. And there's a very important reason the American military is an outlier on this, which is because after the American Civil War, the Union Army occupied southern states and had enormous political latitude to remove elected governors, to disband legislatures in the states that had seceded from the Union and taken up arms against the American government. And so in 1878, Congress passed something called the Pasicomitatus Act, which at the end of Reconstruction, when by agreement of the Congress, the American military was withdrawn from occupying the formerly seceded states. Congress, the civilian control of the military, passed legislation saying that unless the President of the United States invoked the Insurrection Act, the American military that is, states were in rebellion against the federal government, the American military could not be used for domestic policing. The only way it can be is if a governor uses the National Guard for state purposes. And it's a really important restraint. It has a lot to do with why the American public likes its military so much. And I'm a huge believer that we should let the people whose job it is to police and patrol and uh engage in our domestic security to do those jobs for us.
unknown:Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:That's really it's interesting. I mean, it's also interesting, though, you made me think of the concept of, you know, sort of a shift towards isolationism among some factions of America. And um, you know, we we see the military as as this, you know, this group that goes out and protects us from, you know, threats far away that could come and and potentially reach our shores and then and take the fight to the enemy, and sort of these these phrases that we've lived with, um, you know, in our in our mostly in in most civilians' general lack of understanding of the military, they that that is an understanding, right? Like the military goes away and fights somewhere else so that we're safe here. But there has been in different facets of our political tableau, kind of these pop-ups of sort of isolationism and a and sort of a lack of interest in doing that work. Do you I mean what what are your thoughts on that? Why where you know where is that coming from in the various segments of of the of American politics? And is that a good idea? Is it a good idea to pull back?
SPEAKER_03:So Americans have always been reluctant internationalists because we won the geopolitical lottery. We have Canada and Mexico as neighbors and oceans on the other sides. So we have the luxury of ignoring the world if we want to. And Americans very often want to. It, you know, the the period of the last 80 years is quite an anomaly in the American experience, but after twice having to mobilize the American population to go pacify Western Europe and Asia in order that the United States could be safe and prosperous. They wanted to build an international order where we could fight our wars as away games, as you rightly point out, and also where we would have an early warning network of when danger was brewing, and we would have cooperation from other countries to handle those problems. So the burden sharing of having allies and security guarantees reduces the cost to the United States of wars we fight. And there are a lot of people concerned that American allies don't do enough, and they're right. Um, but but the other side of the coin is no great power has ever had as much voluntary cooperation as the United States gets from other countries. And that's because of the type of international order we built. You know, one of my favorite trivia questions is does anybody know how many soldiers there are in the Luxembourg military? 1,700. And yet the lieutenant colonel who commands Luxembourg's military gets as many votes at NATO as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gets.
SPEAKER_04:That's amazing.
SPEAKER_03:It's such a but what it tells you is that the United States built an international order where small and middle powers are invested in the outcome. So they help uphold an order that we would otherwise have to do all the work in. So I'm very much in favor of an internationally engaged United States because I think it reduces the cost of keeping security and prosperity for ourselves by extending it to others. I'm sympathetic to the argument that maybe we do too much in the world. I think that's a natural reaction from the mistakes of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And let me be clear that I think the mistakes are predominantly political mistakes, not military mistakes. But uh, you know, there's this great onion headline: America's college professors weary of the burden of war. And it's funny, right? Because college professors like me bear no burden of the nation at war. But one of the beautiful things about the relationship the American public has with its military is even though only the American military bore the burden of those wars, the American public worries about that burden. Right. Right? And that's a beautiful thing. It speaks to the positive and symbiotic nature of Americans' relationship to its military.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. Yeah, um, we used to have a saying in the Marine Corps: if you're going to a gunfight, bring a gun and then bring all your friends that have guns. So that makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, you know, the importance of alliances and treaty partners. And when I was stationed in Kabul, Afghanistan over at the ISAF headquarters in 2013, I mean, there were 50 coalition countries, 50 at that time in Afghanistan. So, I mean, you know, just you talk about like there's a there's a moral weight that comes with that as well, right?
SPEAKER_03:You know, and there's absolutely, absolutely right. My mom, who lives in Northern California and knows and cares very little about the issues we've been talking about, she thinks her government is more likely on the right path if our closest friends will join in that gunfight. So it not only reduces cost, it gives confidence, um, a moral weight, as you rightly say, Joe. I think there's a lot to that. But one other thing, if you think the United States might have to fight China, you are gonna want a whole lot of friends at that gunfight. And you are gonna need a whole lot of friends to bear the economic cost of up-ending how their economies work in order to help us win that fight.
SPEAKER_04:Oh, yeah. Yeah, I mean, look around your house at the labels of where everything is made and think of everything that's made in China, not available anymore, or available at$500 more per product, you know, 500%.
SPEAKER_03:Or that's made in Vietnam relies on supply chains in China. Or it's you know, that we're just starting to figure out that very complicated supply chain problem.
SPEAKER_04:High-end chips and weapon systems and Taiwan, I mean it's all all wound together, right? So um we're we're curious, uh, I've got to ask, like, there's a a lot being said right now about Ukraine, how involved we should be. I mean, from one perspective, um you know, one of our nation's largest adversaries and Vladimir Putin is getting his n is getting his nose bloodied with zero American troops on the ground. Um what happens if Putin wins in Ukraine? What does that mean for the United States?
SPEAKER_03:If Putin wins in Ukraine, he will have a battle-hardened army coming off a major success on the borders of several NATO countries. Um and that will require us to probably reinforce those countries with American troops in order to maintain the stability and security that we have committed to them through the NATO alliance. It will unquestionably require the United States to spend more money on upgrading and probably expanding our own military. We are right now just beginning the proper level of panic of the inadequacy of our weapons production and ammunition production. So, in a way, Ukraine has Ukraine's suffering has alerted the United States to our own inadequacies in the way supplying Britain and the Soviet Union during the early years of World War II helped the United States get ready for war. So we ought to be really worried about how a successful Russia would affect the United States and its allies. The other thing is Joe, you rightly made the point that there are no Americans. Military casualties here. And Ukraine is fighting the war. We feared we would have to fight as part of the NATO alliance. And they are holding their own. And all we are doing is giving them the equipment to fight a courageous fight against a bigger, stronger country.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, it's pretty incredible. And also, you know, um a great testament to why alliances can be so effective and important. Um and obviously that's something that you know many people who have served, I'm obviously have a military spouse and live kind of very close to all of this, these conversations, but you know, among our community, many people understand that, understand the need for alliances, have worked with these folks overseas. Um so having had that experience, you know, for people who have served, people are connected to the military, what then is sort of the best thing that veterans and military families can do sort of pushing back out into our society, into our you know, our citizenry? What's the best role of our community as citizens to help strengthen our democracy, considering all this experience we've had?
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, to talk about it. You know, the broader public has none of the kind of experience that has trained veterans' judgment. And that judgment differs wildly, right? Like a lot of veterans believed we should stay in Afghanistan until we had Afghan security forces who could do the work we were helping them to do. But a whole lot of veterans also thought it was pointless and we had lost the plot line. So um, you know, the American public doesn't even understand that veterans have as wide a spectrum of views on things as the American public has. And that actually, if you look at the data, the attitudes of the American public, excuse me, the attitudes of American veterans align almost exactly to the attitudes of the broader public when you account for education and income. They're indistinguishable. And probably nobody in the American public appreciates that. So talk to your neighbors, whatever your views are on the state of the world and the role of the military. It's really important for uh Americans who don't have experience of it to hear what you think. And I guess the second thing I would say is um, as Joe Plensler has taught me, veterans volunteer at twice the right of the American public. So whether it's running for the school board or being a school uh cross and guard, get out in your community where people can see you and hear from you. Uh, because participation is what uh drives uh the vibrancy of American democracy. I mean, civil society really is our superpower. And so uh to the extent we are passive recipients of democracy, all of us weaken it. To the extent we vote, volunteer at polling places, participate in local uh town council discussions, all those things matter, big and little, matter for strengthening democracy in our country.
SPEAKER_04:Corey, thank you so, so much for your words of wisdom for making us smarter today about our own history and and issues on civics in American democracy. You've been a longtime friend of the American military and the veteran community, and I just wanted to say um on behalf of our board, thank you for doing that. And please continue because uh um there's never been a conversation or an event that you've spoken at that I've walking away from where I wasn't a lot smarter than I was when I walked in. So if you haven't read um Warriors and Citizens, American Views of Our Military, that Corey edited with uh Secretary Mattis, um highly recommend that. She's got five other buttons out there that I would commend to you. And if you're concerned, as you know, the veteran population drops from 17 to 14 million by 2040 as the American population goes from 330 to 405 million, and veterans become a smaller per capita percentage of our country, it's incumbent upon all of us, like she said, to better tell our stories, to get better connected with the community. And and thankfully, in the age of the internet and uh social media and all these other platforms that we have now, there's never been a time where everyday citizens can be more involved in the national discussion. So uh on behalf of all of us, thank you so much. Any any final thoughts, Ellen or Corey?
SPEAKER_02:No, I'm sorry, I've had to move my mic because there's been a um Navy military helicopter circle with you, reminding me the sound of freedom.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, the sound of freedom, exactly. Thank you, my friends. I really enjoyed this conversation, and thank you for the good work you are doing.
SPEAKER_04:And thank you for persisting through your cold. We know it's uncomfortable, and thank you for showing up and talking to us, even though I know you're not feeling very well. So we recognize that. As part of season two, we want to provide veterans a way of getting more involved in their communities to advocate for the issues they care about. To do this, we are featuring veteran organizations that we think you might be interested in. Today's spotlight is on Veterans for American Ideals, and representing VFAI today is Chris Purdy. Chris is a U.S. Army National Guard veteran who served in Iraq in 2011, and he is currently the director of VFAI. Chris, welcome. Where are you in the country and how are you doing today?
SPEAKER_01:Hey Joe, thanks for having me. I am in sunny Atlanta, Georgia. Uh so um spring has sprung down here and my allergies are kicking in. So hope, hope, hope I'm all right. Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, same up here. We had an early spring in rural Virginia, and my wife and I were both getting affected by the pollen over the weekend. So it's like we're inside the house, we're fine, we go outside the house, and it's like, you know, just nothing but madness. But yeah. Well, hey, um, I'm really excited to have you here today. Uh, we've been looking forward to this uh for a bit. Could you just like tell us what's the mission of veterans for American Ideals?
SPEAKER_01:Sure. So Vets for American Ideals, V F AI. Um, we are a coalition of veterans uh who what we really want to do is provide a way to allow give veterans an opportunity to advance human rights issues. So we are about creating human rights defenders at home and abroad for a variety of issues. We have engaged on things like Afghanistan, on special American visas, on democracy protection, on police demilitarization, um, quite the gamma of human rights issues. But at our core, it's about putting veterans to work for human rights.
SPEAKER_04:Awesome. No, that's that's a great mission. I know a lot of us um, you know, serving overseas have certainly seen what it's like to live in societies where human rights are not at the forefront of um of people's thoughts and what it's like to live there. I'm I'm really impressed with the work that you did. Can you tell us a little bit more for folks that might not be so familiar about the special immigrant visas and why it was so important um to help get Afghans who had served with U.S. forces and their families out?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, so the special immigrant visa, SIV for short, is this pathway to sit to citizenship, to residency in the United States that is available for people who served alongside American soldiers in in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq. Um it basically, if you were an interpreter, if you were an embassy worker, things like that, it gives you uh a way to come to this country. Um and we needed to expand the number of visas that that are that are available, number one, because it's it's it's uh limited by Congress. We have to keep advocating for those every year. But also in the lead up to the withdrawal of Afghanistan, we recognized that if the country were to fall, which it eventually did, that these people would be in jeopardy. And so we organized uh multiple coalitions actually uh to help these folks and help other refugees leave the country ahead of the withdrawal. And then once the event, once the actually, you know, couple fell and there was this massive evacuation, we were pretty critical at the national level in organizing groups to continue the relocation efforts um after the evacuation. And and we continue to this day doing a lot of advocacy around that.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, no, the network is so important because I you know I can't imagine having, you know, if I was an Afghan who risked my life to support U.S. forces in combat in Afghanistan, put a target on my back and on the on the backs of my families, um, what it's like to have that whole country collapse and me not have a pathway to get out, right?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. And the veteran voice is so important because the veterans know these people, right? Like it's so there's a domestic constituency built in here into the United States that can advocate them. That doesn't happen for every immigrant group. Um, and so we we think it's really important to keep pushing for uh for for both the SIVs, but then also people who you know might not be the SIV specifically, but maybe is their their you know, uncle or nephew or niece, you know, various concentric circles out, but they're still at a danger because of their um uh their association to American forces.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, because the last I checked, the Taliban's still trying to go after people who helped us over there.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, yeah, it's it's not a great situation. Yes, yes.
SPEAKER_04:Well, thanks for everything that you and your compatriots have been doing on that front. I know there's a huge veteran-led effort um after the fall to get people out, and we can't do enough, um, certainly by my estimation, to help those folks and their families. Uh when we looked at today, what's on the front burner uh for you and VFAI?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, so 2024 is a big election year. Um, and we believe that democracy is a human rights issue. And so what we're doing at VFAI is organizing veterans to get out there, talk about the importance of democracy, really to be validators uh for democracy going into this election season. We're not trying to sway the election one way or the other, but what we see are lots of candidates and lots of people out there talking about both on the left and the right, talking about how democracy has failed. And as veterans, we just think it's so important to get out there and speak up in defense of democracy. And uh and we can do that through a variety of different ways. We're you know, we're creating videos and and other different multimedia uh um uh opportunities for veterans to speak out. Um and we're really proud to support the work that Bet the Vote is is doing and getting uh folks out as poll workers because I think when people see veterans on quote unquote the front lines of democracy, they're gonna be more re uh more reassured about the democratic process. So that's really what we're looking for going into 2024.
SPEAKER_04:For sure. Absolutely. And I just want to recognize Chris and BFAI because I want to say that one of the earliest efforts I saw recently to get veterans more involved in poll working came from you and your organization.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, in 2020, we saw that you know COVID was happening. There was a lot of concern about the ability for states to find poll workers, and so we partnered with Power of the Polls and other different organizations uh to get about a thousand folks out, um, veterans and allies out on election day as poll workers. And we're just so grateful that Vet the Vote and we the veterans took that effort and really took it to new heights that we could never do, right? Being kind of a small organization and defined by the parameters of a larger um group within human rights first, because we sit as a project, um, you all were able to kind of take that to the next level. And so we're really grateful for all the work that you continue to do towards that.
SPEAKER_04:It is an amazing team effort, and I've I've been super happy about all the success that all 30 plus 37 groups now um are part of that effort, which which is pretty exciting. But um, it was it was funny to me how many people were of like mind thinking about these issues, and it was just um finally kind of connected together, you know, to put all this um work together in in one direction. So I think uh, you know, I'm really optimistic that we're gonna be able to hit a hundred thousand federal.
SPEAKER_01:And it's an easy thing, right? Like it is, it is not it, you're you're going out there and you're doing a real tangible thing for democracy. And then you can then then those people who are out there being poll workers can then take that message to their communities. And I I share the story of a guy I went to Iraq with. Uh he's now a first sergeant in the Army National Guard, um, but he's also a high school teacher. And he did not know that uh, you know, I was kind of participating in this effort to organize veterans to be poll workers. And he was actually recruited in the last cycle in 2022 through the vet the vote um campaign. And I we had a conversation afterwards, and he said that you know, one of his uh students, uh high school student, kind of started talking about some of this election denial stuff that you hear out there. Oh, it's rigged, it's not, you know, my vote doesn't count. And he was able to say, hey, I was a poll worker. I served my community as a poll worker. Are you are you saying that that I was rigging election? I'm a teacher, I'm a veteran. And I think that that's such a powerful example of how this campaign uh really defends democracy at the at the person-to-person level.
SPEAKER_04:So 100%. And and everyone I I talk to, I mean, you know, I know you are actively recruiting people to be poll workers, I'm doing the same thing uh at a personal level. And it's funny because every once in a while on social media I'll get a pushback, it's you know, somebody's skeptical about it or whatever. Right. My first question is, hey, can you tell me when's the last time you served as an election poll worker? And 100% of the time, it's like, well, I've never done it. I'm like, this is your invitation to do it. Because, like, you know, I I uh I am I'm a skeptic. I, you know, um, you know, for for the longest time, I think it's my punk rock DNA. Um, you know, we're really suspicious about like you know, politicians and elected officials and all this other stuff, and and uh going into the training, yeah. I was equally skeptical, but I walked out of that training four hours later, being like, damn, this is a really good system. Like it is really well thought of. And that that was in Maryland. I I've done it, um, moved to Virginia last summer and equally impressed here. And uh, yeah, absolutely. If you have any questions about how your local elections are being run or in your state, you know, I think Chris would agree with me. Go volunteer, show up, a couple hours of trainings, spend a few days at the polls, and and it will lay any concerns you have about the sanctity and integrity of American elections.
SPEAKER_01:You know, we we can uh we can agree or disagree on whether politicians themselves are honest. I think we all know that politicians have an agenda to get you know to get power and stay in power, and that's that's a a thing. We just have to kind of work within the in the system. But the idea that our system itself is fundamentally flawed and rigged and and the process is is broken, yeah. As soon as you as soon as you go and be a poll worker and you can see how the system works and you can you know see how the different layers that are that are that are involved to to ensure that you know our our our republic is working correctly. Um I I don't know how you walk away from that and and still still hold those ideas.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, 100%. You know, and and the funny thing is, you know, we're Ellen and I were talking to Corey Shockey over at American Enterprise Institute last week about this, and we're like, you know, who's trying to crack our faith in democracy and why? And she's like, every dictator and autocrat around the world uh wants to see democracy fail. And so essentially, like, you know, when Americans lose faith in our system, the Vladimir Putins of the world win, the you know, premiers of of China and the leaders in Iran and North Korea, they win in a sense, right? So I think you know what what you're doing with veterans for American Ideals is so important because not only is it reminding our fellow Americans of how precious our our our experiment in democracy is for almost 250 years now, um you're providing veterans an important pathway to to get involved. So um, you know, my next question is how can vets you know find out more about you and the work that you do and and get involved with VFAI?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. So like I said, we are a project of Human Rights First. So we sit in this larger kind of parent organization that provides us with all sorts of resources and experts and um and different ways to engage at the national level and the and the state and local level. Um if folks want to learn more about us, you can go to VFAI.org. That will send you directly to our page on the Human Rights First website. You can read about our mission, see kind of pictures. We have had done trips to the border to look at the refugee crisis. You can kind of see the breadth of uh of the work that we have done on human rights. And then there's a uh a sign-up link uh it you know somewhere in the middle of the bottom of the page. You just put your information in. Um, and you can get our our newsletters. Um, we we put out newsletters every month and we we do trainings for for folks to get involved. Um we are looking to do uh kind of a national uh convening or fly-in. Uh so if folks are interested in getting involved in that, uh, I would say sign up and and and keep on the lookout. There's more information that we hope to put out in the next few weeks. Um obviously, social media is a great way to interact with us as well. Uh I do our social media. Uh my colleague Emily does it. So if you're commenting on our page, I'm reading it, right? And so um that's a really great way to get directly involved uh in our work.
SPEAKER_04:Awesome. No, Chris, I know it's a small and mighty team over there, and I've been to several of your events when I used to live and work near DC, and they were exceptionally well done. So I think you know, if if veterans are looking to get involved, what a great way uh to check out Veterans for American Ideals and continue to serve your country and your community again. Um any final thoughts, Chris?
SPEAKER_01:Or yeah, just you and I were talking before we got on about how important it is for veterans to kind of have an outward-facing look on life, right? I think so often society thinks that veterans are a discount at lows or priority seating on an airplane or the VA disability benefits. But I think we as veterans, especially the post-9-11 veteran generation, people who span these last 20 years, we know how much it is how important it is to serve our community, to keep that service going. And so however you do that, whether it's through VFAI, you know, supporting SIVs or through Vet the Vote being a poll worker or Team Rubicon, you know, you know, whatever it is, I think it's really important that the veterans are out there building their communities because when we when I look at American history, um the period of largest growth, of the best growth in our country after World War II, right? After the Civil War, we had massive growth, massive social progress. It was done and led by veterans. So that's what that's what I'm uh I'm I'm about. And I'm glad that uh you're doing this podcast to highlight the different ways that vets can get involved. Uh, and I really appreciate that.
SPEAKER_04:One 100%. You know, I think one of my favorite authors said, in a democracy, you gotta be a player. And uh I believe that with with every every bone in my body. And and uh yeah, Chris, you and your team are doing great work. Again, I really admired the effort that you put forward on getting our Afghan allies out and uh to you know help them on their way to becoming American citizens. I think those are the best kind of immigrants that we can have to this country, you know, full stop. So uh well done to you and your colleagues on that. And um, thanks so much for spending some time with us this morning.
SPEAKER_01:All right. Thanks, Joe. Great to be here, and uh, we'll see you soon.
SPEAKER_04:Thank you so much for listening. If you found this podcast effort, If this episode interesting or useful, please share it with the people you know. This episode was co-hosted by Joe Plunsler and Ellen Gufseson. The audio and video were edited by Cameron King. And this podcast is a production of We the Veterans and Military Families, the 501, not-for-profit, nonpartisan, veteran led organization focused on promoting positive and patriotic civic engagement to strengthen American freedom and liberty. Find out more about us at we the veterans.us and follow us on social media.
