Blind allegiance to party over country

On Election Day, how many of us went to the polls driven by a single truth that should guide all our political decision-making – i.e., acting solely in the country’s best interests? A sudden flashback to a personal incident during my Marine Corps service, occurring over half a century earlier, reminded me that an institution’s best interests sadly are not always given such priority.

Returning to Okinawa after a Vietnam deployment, I was a young “gung ho” first lieutenant in command of a rifle company. I naively believed the best interests of the system would never fail me or my fellow Marines.

One of the company’s more challenging jobs was the armorer, charged with full responsibility for maintaining all our weapons. While the job was previously held by two corporals (E-4s), they trained an exceptional young 18-year-old private first class (E-2) to replace them. So impressive was he, I obtained a meritorious promotion for him to lance corporal (E-3) to be awarded at the next awards ceremony.

Unfortunately, however, the armorer experienced an accidental discharge of his weapon in the armory; fortunately, no one was injured. He complied with regulations mandating the incident be reported to me; I was then required to report it to my battalion commander (BnCO).

In doing so, I have never forgotten his immediate, and angry, response, “G-d damnit, no, no, no. The general just got through talking about this today. Bring him (the armorer) over and we will bust him.” To my shock, the BnCO was uninterested in anything other than punishing the armorer.

As expected, during the ensuing nonjudicial punishment, the BnCO – a daytime drinker who often wore sunglasses to conceal his bloodshot eyes – paid little attention to the praise I gave my Marine. He simply tore up the armorer’s pending meritorious promotion award, demoted him to private (E-1) – the combined effect was to bust him two ranks – and fined him.

As my first sergeant (E-8) and I escorted the armorer out of the BnCO’s office, he broke down in tears. I had my first sergeant return him to his barracks as I immediately returned to the BnCO’s office.

I had researched previous punishments taken against more senior enlisted Marine armorers in the battalion for accidental discharges – none approaching the severity given mine – as they only received monetary fines.

As I endeavored to explain this to the BnCO, he dismissed my request to reconsider the severity of his punishment. Furious the system was failing my Marine, I then suggested the BnCO acted inappropriately by telling me upon reporting the incident to him to bring the armorer over to “bust him.” It ran contrary to any sense of judicial fairness in first considering the facts of the case and any special circumstances. I respectfully informed the BnCO if he insisted on such harsh punishment, I felt compelled to Request Mast to discuss the issue with the BnCO’s superior.

Request Mast is a procedure by which Marines are allowed to communicate grievances or seek assistance from their chain of command. Any Marine seeking Request Mast is not to be punished for doing so. Yet my BnCO warned he would relieve me of my command if I so acted. Nonetheless, I exercised my Request Mast right and was consequently relieved of my command. It was not the best way to start one’s Marine career, but the armorer’s emotional breakdown due to the institution failing him triggered me to do what I believed was in the Corps’ best interests.

I learned an important lesson that day – one coming back to haunt me this Election Day. While the Marine Corps’ motto long emphasized the moral priorities of “God, Country, Corps,” some Marines – like my BnCO – subordinated them to other personal interests. For the BnCO to have passed judgment on a Marine, before even knowing the facts of the case or considering that Marine’s outstanding record while then taking action against one exercising Request Mast, demonstrated complete disregard for preserving the best interests of the Marine Corps. It also triggered the armorer’s subsequent disenchantment with the Corps he so dearly loved.

This flashback hit me with the realization that, by failing to promote the Corps’ values, there will always be those lacking commitment to promoting America’s best interests. There will always be those whose allegiance is not to God or country but to a political party. And, today, for many it is to a party that has shifted so far left it has abandoned the ideology and principles of the Democratic Party of old.

As former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. notes, Republicans of today under former President Donald Trump more closely represent the values of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, of his father, Robert F. Kennedy Sr., and of the party they helped build.

In her final address to the public before Election Day, presidential hopeful Kamala Harris, who devoted more time during her campaign criticizing Trump than explaining her policies, warned he is a threat to democracy. This is ironic, coming from one whose administration pressured social media to ban conservative viewpoints, from one whose running mate deceived voters prior to the 2020 presidential election that a very telling “laptop from Hell” revealing Biden family criminal acts did not belong to Hunter and from one who became her party’s presidential candidate via an unconstitutional party coup while failing to earn a single primary delegate’s vote.

Unlike President Joe Biden’s claim Trump supporters are “garbage,” supporters of Harris are not. But they are misinformed about Harris’ total incompetence and sadly influenced by party loyalty rather than loyalty to our country’s best interests. So influenced are they, they ignored the failure of their party’s coup leaders – responsible for replacing Biden with Harris due to his mental issues – to have acted sooner in the country’s best interests to remove him from office due to the obvious danger posed. In dismissing the single truth, these leaders sold their souls to the devil simply to promote their party’s best interests.