Jonn lets me do a verbal, off-topic “walkabout” here from time to time. What follows is such a ramble – an off-the-wall thought or two that’s not necessarily directly concerned with one of TAH’s normal topics.
Consider yourself forewarned.
. . .
We’ve all heard Lord Acton’s axiom: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It’s perhaps one of the most widely-known quotations in the English language.
Most regard it as a truism. And on the surface, it does indeed appear to be on the mark.
Even in the military examples seem to be common. It’s hard to argue against it when you see things such apparently confirmatory examples as Gerald “PX Ranger” Green; the aptly named James “Two-Timing Fraud” Johnson; former BG, now retired LTC Jeffrey “Coersion” Sinclair; and Generals David Petreaus and Kip Ward.
Enlisted personnel and civilian defense officials to a lesser extent show the same faults from time to time as well. Witness the periodic drill sergeant scandals, the antics of former SMA Gene McKinney, and the former Acting Secretary of the Army John Shannon.
It’s not just an Army problem. Examples exist from all services that seem to confirm Acton’s thesis.
You also find similar conduct in other professions that are based on trust. Don’t believe me? Just take a look at clergy and cops. Finding public examples of corrupt conduct in either profession isn’t particularly difficult.
Until recently, I thought Acton was probably right, at least to some extent. I don’t believe that any more.
I now think Acton got it wrong; that’s not what’s going on here. I don’t think power itself is to blame at all.
Power doesn’t corrupt. Rather, power reveals.
I didn’t come up with that thesis. At the end of this ramble, I’ll give credit to the unusual source that to my knowledge first voiced that thesis – and convinced me that’s the case.
. . .
We seem to see so many such examples of corrupt behavior by people in positions of high trust. Yet in truth, such instances are rare. Consider:
• For every Gerald Green, there are literally hundreds of LTCs who played it straight and advanced on their own merit.
• For every James “Bigamist” Johnson, there are hundreds of Colonels who didn’t commit bigamy and defraud the government to support their mistress.
• For every Jeffrey Sinclair, there are dozens of GO/FOs who did not attempt to strong arm subordinates into a sexual relationship.
• For every Kip Ward, there are dozens of GO/FOs who followed the rules concerning TDY travel to the letter.
• For every David Petraus, there are dozens of GOs/FOs who did not retain and store classified materials improperly, then show them to his biographer afterwards.
If Acton were right, then those kinds of corrupt conduct would be the rule at high levels. But it’s not. It’s the gross exception, not the rule.
We hear about such behavior today when it happens. The media – both traditional and electronic – thrive on scandal. Given advances in technology they’re more efficient today than they were even 20 years ago about getting the story out. The traditional media today also seem to be more concerned with deadlines than accuracy. So when something along these lines happens, we hear about it relatively quickly; they don’t bother to wait and “check it out” first.
In short, the conduct we’re talking about is IMO quite rare. The vast majority don’t engage.
However, the conduct we hear about does appear to be concentrated at higher ranks. Why is that?
. . .
Part of the reason IMO is simply selective reporting. Think about it for a moment – is it really news if some PFC or 2LT (or even a CPT) does something bad? No, not really – though you might hear about it, briefly, in the case of the CPT. Even then, unless the case is sexually tawdry or involves a great deal of money, for most misbehavior below the grade of E9 and O5, you’ll likely not hear about it.
Why? Unless big dollars or sex is involved, the media just doesn’t seem to care all that much. Outside of training commands, contracting, and comptroller positions, most junior officer and NCO assignments don’t really provide the opportunity for a scandal that the media will find “interesting”.
IMO, that’s part of the reason. But it’s not all. Another factor is at work.
. . .
The military does a pretty good job of screening its people as they advance. Those with a tendency to abuse either the public trust or their subordinates tend to get weeded out as they progress.
However, like any process created or implemented by humans, the military’s screening process is imperfect. Some with seriously flawed character slip through from time to time.
Why? Sometimes their bosses simply are biased in their favor, or are flawed themselves. Maybe their supervisor has an inkling of the problem, but isn’t sure (or doesn’t realize it’s as serious a flaw as it really is) and in today’s “zero defect”, highly inflated evaluation system doesn’t want to kill a promising career – so he/she gives them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes they’re good actors and manage to hide the flaw. Perhaps they are forced by supervision and lack of authority to “toe the line” and suppress the flaw. Dunno.
Hell – perhaps they actually change over time. I personally don’t think that happens often if at all, but I’m not a shrink and I guess it is at least theoretically possible.
For whatever reason, some that shouldn’t slip through the cracks. They get promoted until they are selected for and placed in a position of wide-ranging authority – a position of high trust, with less direct supervision and where their decisions are less likely to be questioned.
I can’t speak for the other services, but in the Army – outside of contracting and comptroller work – a position involving truly serious authority over hundreds or serious financial clout generally doesn’t happen until O5 for officers, and really not until the CSM level on the enlisted side. (Company commanders and First Sergeants just don’t typically have enough authority over enough people and resources IMO to qualify.) So it’s not until the E9 and O5 grades that individuals with such flaws have the opportunity to show it.
But now . . . for the first time in their career, they actually have the power to do something they’ve been disposed to do all along, with what they believe is a reasonable chance of evading detection. So they do.
“Corrupted by power?” Hardly. Their attaining power simply revealed what was there all along.
. . .
I said earlier I’d give credit to the individual who convinced me Acton was wrong. That individual is in many ways somewhat surprising; it was Robert A. Caro. He’s neither government nor military; he’s a biographer, and has done some truly fascinating work. Caro wrote an acclaimed biography of NYC’s Robert Moses, and has done a multi-volume biography (still incomplete) of LBJ. All of his work I’ve read so far is an excellent read; I’d highly recommend it.
Caro has been fascinated by power and its use his entire career; he’s studied it in detail. Here’s what Caro had to say on the subject:
We’re taught Lord Acton’s axiom: all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believed that when I started these books, but I don’t believe it’s always true any more. Power doesn’t always corrupt. Power can cleanse. What I believe is always true about power is that power always reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do.
I think Caro, not Acton, nailed this one. Power doesn’t corrupt; power is neutral. Achieving a position of power merely gives those who possess it the opportunity to reveal their true nature.
. . .
That’s the end of the ramble for today. Back to the res.
