Jonn lets me do a verbal, off-topic \u201cwalkabout\u201d here from time to time. What follows is such a ramble \u2013 an off-the-wall thought or two that\u2019s not necessarily directly concerned with one of TAH\u2019s normal topics.<\/p>\n
Consider yourself forewarned.<\/p>\n
. . . <\/strong><\/p>\n We’ve all heard Lord Acton’s axiom: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”<\/em><\/a> It\u2019s perhaps one of the most widely-known quotations in the English language.<\/p>\n Most regard it as a truism. And on the surface, it does indeed appear to be on the mark.<\/p>\n Even in the military examples seem to be common.\u00a0 It’s hard to argue against it when you see things such apparently confirmatory examples as Gerald \u201cPX Ranger\u201d Green<\/em><\/a>; the aptly named James \u201cTwo-Timing Fraud\u201d Johnson<\/em><\/a>; former BG, now retired LTC Jeffrey \u201cCoersion\u201d Sinclair<\/em><\/a>; and Generals David Petreaus<\/em><\/a> and Kip Ward<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n 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<\/em><\/a>, and the former Acting Secretary of the Army John Shannon<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n It’s not just an Army problem. Examples exist from all services that seem to confirm Acton’s thesis.<\/p>\n You also find similar conduct in other professions that are based on trust. Don\u2019t believe me? Just take a look at clergy and cops. Finding public examples of corrupt conduct in either profession isn\u2019t particularly difficult.<\/p>\n Until recently, I thought Acton was probably right, at least to some extent. I don\u2019t believe that any more.<\/p>\n I now think Acton got it wrong; that\u2019s not what\u2019s going on here. I don\u2019t think power itself is to blame at all.<\/p>\n Power doesn\u2019t corrupt<\/em>. Rather, power reveals.<\/span><\/p>\n I didn’t come up with that thesis.\u00a0 At the end of this ramble, I\u2019ll give credit to the unusual source that to my knowledge first voiced that thesis \u2013 and convinced me that\u2019s the case.<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0<\/strong> For every Gerald Green, there are literally hundreds of LTCs who played it straight and advanced on their own merit. If Acton were right, then those kinds of corrupt conduct would be the rule at high levels. But it\u2019s not. It\u2019s the gross exception, not the rule.<\/p>\n We hear about such behavior today when it happens. The media \u2013 both traditional and electronic \u2013 thrive on scandal. Given advances in technology they\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n In short, the conduct we\u2019re talking about is IMO quite rare. The vast majority don\u2019t engage.<\/p>\n However, the conduct we hear about does appear to be concentrated at higher ranks. Why is that?<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n Part of the reason IMO is simply selective reporting. Think about it for a moment \u2013 is it really<\/em> news if some PFC or 2LT (or even a CPT) does something bad? No, not really \u2013 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\u2019ll likely not hear about it.<\/p>\n Why? Unless big dollars or sex is involved, the media just doesn\u2019t seem to care all that much. Outside of training commands, contracting, and comptroller positions, most junior officer and NCO assignments don\u2019t really provide the opportunity for a scandal that the media will find \u201cinteresting\u201d.<\/p>\n IMO, that\u2019s part of the reason. But it\u2019s not all. Another factor is at work.<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n However, like any process created or implemented by humans, the military\u2019s screening process is imperfect. Some with seriously flawed character slip through from time to time.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t sure (or doesn\u2019t realize it\u2019s as serious a flaw as it really is) and in today\u2019s \u201czero defect\u201d, highly inflated evaluation system doesn\u2019t want to kill a promising career – so he\/she gives them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes they\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n Hell – perhaps they actually change over time. I personally don\u2019t think that happens often if at all, but I\u2019m not a shrink and I guess it is at least theoretically possible.<\/p>\n For whatever reason, some that shouldn\u2019t slip through the cracks. They get promoted until they are selected for and placed in a position of wide-ranging authority \u2013 a position of high trust, with less direct supervision and where their decisions are less likely to be questioned.<\/p>\n I can\u2019t speak for the other services, but in the Army \u2013 outside of contracting and comptroller work \u2013 a position involving truly serious authority over hundreds or serious financial clout generally doesn\u2019t happen until O5 for officers, and really not until the CSM level on the enlisted side. (Company commanders and First Sergeants just don\u2019t typically have enough authority over enough people and resources IMO to qualify.) So it\u2019s not until the E9 and O5 grades that individuals with such flaws have the opportunity to show it.<\/p>\n But now . . . for the first time in their career, they actually have the power to do something they\u2019ve been disposed to do all along<\/em>, with what they believe is a reasonable chance of evading detection. So they do.<\/p>\n \u201cCorrupted by power?\u201d Hardly. Their attaining power simply revealed what was there all along.<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n I said earlier I\u2019d 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\u2019s neither government nor military; he’s a biographer, and has done some truly fascinating work. Caro wrote an acclaimed biography of NYC\u2019s 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\u2019d highly recommend it.<\/p>\n Caro has been fascinated by power and its use his entire career; he\u2019s studied it in detail. Here\u2019s what Caro had to say on the subject<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n 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<\/span><\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think Caro, not Acton, nailed this one. Power doesn’t corrupt; power is neutral.\u00a0 Achieving a position of power merely gives those who possess it the opportunity to reveal their true nature.<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s the end of the ramble for today. Back to the res.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n\u2022<\/strong>\u00a0 For every James \u201cBigamist\u201d Johnson, there are hundreds of Colonels who didn\u2019t commit bigamy and defraud the government to support their mistress.
\n\u2022<\/strong>\u00a0 For every Jeffrey Sinclair, there are dozens of GO\/FOs who did not attempt to strong arm subordinates into a sexual relationship.
\n\u2022<\/strong>\u00a0 For every Kip Ward, there are dozens of GO\/FOs who followed the rules concerning TDY travel to the letter.
\n\u2022<\/strong>\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n