Petraeus’ No-Vote Policy Intellectually Flawed

Gen. David Petraeus’s reason for not voting in past presidential elections is not logical, patriotic or brave.

The issue was raised by the media in the days following Gen. Colin Powell’s endorsement of Sen. Barrack Obama. Petraeus was asked who he would endorse, and his answer was that he didn’t vote for presidential candidates because he would have to do the bidding of whomever became commander and chief.

On its very face, this is an illogical response—especially coming from a man named one of the world’s top public intellectuals by Foreign Policy magazine. The voting booth is a sanctuary for the anonymous expression of our conscience as citizens. Neither Gen. Petraeus’ vote nor Joe the Plumber’s vote is part of the public record, unless and until they wish to disclose how they voted. I can readily see why a top-ranked military official would not want to make his choice of candidate public. In that case, all that’s required is to tell the interrogator that the information they seek is private, and leave it at that.

While many may consider a man of Petraeus’ stature the pinnacle of a patriot, the abrogation of duty to vote is decidedly not the action of a patriot. It is our paramount civic responsibility to vote, just as serving in the military is a high service and often a supreme sacrifice to our country.

One might also assume that Gen. Petraeus’ rise through the ranks had something to do with bravery, since he wears the Bronze star. However, it seems the dodge of a coward to not vote because you may have to serve a president you personally wouldn’t have chosen to lead the country. But wait. Isn’t that what military training aims to achieve—serving a higher authority with which you may not be in total agreement? Soldiers are trained to say, “Yes, sir!” even when their hearts say, “No.”

In the corporate world, which so dominates our culture and politics, men and women carry out the orders of CEOs who donate large sums to candidates and often put their subordinates in a similar position as Gen. Petraeus. Yet, do these people choose not to vote because they have to work under a CEO whose politics don’t coincide with theirs? Perhaps some take Gen. Petraeus’ tact, but most vote their conscience and have the guts to speak their truth or give a no comment.

  • Barnstorm

    I don’t see an issue here. General Petraeus doesn’t have to reveal who his preferences are, or even if he does or doesn’t have any. Simply because he is a public figure doesn’t require that he share his opinion. His opinion doesn’t mean any more than say, David Hasselhoff’s (although it is sure to be a lot more informed about the Iraqi conflict).Having guts has absolutely nothing to do with this.

    Maybe by NOT voting, he is voting his conscience. He won’t allow himself to choose between Frick and Frack. Like he says, ultimately he will have to follow the orders of whoever gets in there. By publicly stating that he doesn’t choose who his commander-in-chief is insulates him from possibly alienating himself from whoever gets chosen.
    In a corporate world analogy like you state, would you, as a CEO keep on a guy who publicly came out for the guy who didn’t get the CEO job?
    That doesn’t make Petraeus unpatriotic; it makes him a shrewd commander who is more concerned with carrying out his mission that worrying about what happens several thousand miles away.
    His only “sin” here is that he refuses to be a part of a media assault that seems only aimed at further polarizing the country. He won’t let himself get pidgeon-holed.
    In that case, the media need to get over themselves and stop trying to distract the man from doing his job.

  • #28

    Very well put Barnstorm.

    Petraeus’ right not to choose is his choice.

    It’s not cowardly, but brave to admit so publicly.

    The man stands quite firmly on what he believes.

    Contrary to popular opinion, he suggested the surge wasn’t the key or lone factor in the decrease in violence in Iraq recently.

    In a world of liars, I admire his honesty.

  • Anonymous

    Or maybe it’s his way of not having to say that he has no confidence in Senator McCain.

  • #28

    “Or maybe it’s his way of not having to say that he has no confidence in Senator McCain.”

    That’s a stretch, since the OP clearly states:

    “his answer was that he didn’t vote for presidential candidates”

    Didn’t indicates past tense, as in previous elections.

  • Old Timer

    GeneralPetraus is a well respected leader in his field. Publicly stating that he does not vote in presidential elections is, IMHO, a significant failure of leadership. His preference for a particluar candidate is clearly his own business, thus the secret ballot. Letting the whole world, and the people under his command, know that he does not participate in this most precious democratic process that many people died for, shows an amazing disrespect for democracy and its martyrs.

  • Barnstorm

    Old Timer, don’t our Presidential choices over the past 30 years show an amazing disrespect for the intelligence of the American voter?

    Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber, with a side order of LaRouche & Nader. Yeah, right.

  • Anonymous

    What is truly frightening in this election is that people are so focused on patriotism, but no one even attempts to define the term. Rather, “patriotic people” are those whose views are consistent with those of the politician who is speaking.

    A true patriot respects the fact that we are a diverse country with diverse ideas. Living on a Middle America farm makes me no more or no less a patriot than does living in the middle of the Bronx. Agreeing with the McCain/Palin ticket doesn’t make me more — or less — patriotic. Agreeing with the Obama/Biden ticket also doesn’t make me more — or less — patriotic.

    Think of the irony: People are using “patriotism” to divide our country. What true patriot would ever want to do that?

  • Anonymous

    Or maybe this blog is turning out to be a rat-infested daily-kos wannabe, which accounts for the posting of a dumb-ass non-issue just for the sake of sticking it to republicans, and which accounts for the precipitous fall-off of participation that I’ve noticed since Chris MC started up.

  • Barnstorm

    #8, “just for the sake of sticking it to republicans”?

    Please don’t let your narrow-minded paranoia get the better of you. Just because you don’t agree with something is no reason to believe anybody is “sticking it” to anybody else. Sheesh.

    Excellent point #7. If it weren’t for patriots who spoke up against the status quo, we’d all still be honoring the Queen. Silence and aquiescence are the true enemies in a democracy.(hope I spelled that right).

  • http://createdthings.blogspot.com/ Jeff Hall

    “While many may consider a man of Petraeus’ stature the pinnacle of a patriot, the abrogation of duty to vote is decidedly not the action of a patriot.”

    What duty to vote? We live in a free country, and each citizen has the right to vote or not vote. If a citizen decides to vote, he has the right to vote for whomever he chooses.

    The poster has no right to say the Gen. Petraeus has the duty to vote. The voter’s only duty is to his own conscience.

  • #28

    Excellent point #7.

    Both major parties are capable and guilty of doing this, and not just with patriotism.

    If I don’t vote for the “family values” party, does that mean I don’t care about family?

    There’s a difference between “you’re either for us or against” which discounts indifference, and “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem,” where indifference can create a holocaust.

    It reminds me of the use of religious values, where I generally find most people all screwed up. In 1986, Ray Knight of the Mets was awarded the World Series MVP. In a post game interview, he made significant metnion of God in answering how the Mets pulled out the series win. Does God not like the Astros and Red Sox? That’s what I heard.

  • #28

    Good points again, Barnstorm & Jeff Hall.

    I guess this makes me a sometimes unpatriotic rat however.

    #8 – Perhaps your assertion is correct, that on this blog, non-issues are getting stuck to the Republicans, but it is a two way street. My experience on other blogs recently is quite the opposite. With McCain running behind in most polls, Republicans are getting desperate in what non-issues they will post. Example, I debated with a well-educated person who believes Obama is a Socialist and will lead our country into a proletariat revolution; this after our president led the push for a bailout of AIG and the banking / credit industry. Can you see the contradiction?

  • http://www.yourct.com Chris MC

    What is odd about your statement #8 is that I have done absolutely nothing to suppress opposing points of view. On the contrary, I’ve repeatedly invited them.

    Second, ask lefties, if you happen to be acquainted with any, about their views. They will diverge with mine often. A lot of the political left is justifiably suspicious that I am not in full agreement with them.

    Perhaps the problem is that for a long time nobody was taking the pretty mainstream positions I have taken here – although I’d find it difficult to pigeonhole turfie – and the overwhelming majority of people right now are moving away from the hard core positions that (I infer) you hold.

    Case in point: the movement of significant chunks of conservatives away from the McCain/Palin train wreck. Was posting that somehow a lefty thing? These people are some of the core of American conservatism, if not GOP Conservatism.

    That said, I’ll let you know that we are actively interested in a broader range of contribution to the conversation on the blog – including from your part of the spectrum of opinion.

    In the meantime, do not hesitate to offer your contribution here in the comments – especially when we have open threads…

  • #28

    Well put Chris Mc.

    And pigeonholing Turfie is mercurial at best.