Some Republicans seem to be indulging in a bit of self-congratulatory fantasy upon the election of a Republican president.

Monday, April 16, 2001

Some Republicans seem to be indulging in a bit of self-congratulatory fantasy upon the election of a Republican president. It is not true, because it cannot be, that military personnel in the White House details are showing a fresh respect for George W. Bush that they withheld from Bill Clinton.

I heard Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht tell Mower County Republicans in an Austin meeting that someone he knows told him that he had noticed the Marine posted outside the Oval Office proceeds through a series of respectful motions not previously accorded Clinton when he was president. The congressman said his friend said that when Clinton was president, the guard simply stood motionless at attention with eyes straight ahead. Now that there is in the Oval Office a Republican military people respect, he suggests, the sentry changes position so his eyes are always following the new president.

This isn’t new. That is to say, such stories are not new. They come by e-mail – especially by e-mail. The Marine who stands at the base of the steps from Marine One (the helicopter used for presidential transportation), I have also been informed, turned his back on President Clinton as soon as he passed. But now that George W. Bush is president, so the story goes, he stands with genuine respect and remains at attention as long as this president is in the area.

Nonsense. And not harmless nonsense, either. I don’t blame Republicans who kick up their heels and shout hallelujah because their man finally made it in. That is, I suppose, the name of the game. And, of course, Rep. Gutknecht was sufficiently careful not to put his authority behind this story as personally known to be fact. Yet, he took great delight in telling it, and he received the happy response from fellow Republicans he anticipated.

I know a good deal about what military personnel in support of the Office of the President are trained and directed to do. I could presume this just from 43 years of armed forces experience, including that of a military police officer. More, my final assignment was to the Military District of Washington where all this takes place.

I cannot be certain there was utterly no revision in ceremonial procedures coincidental with a change in administration, but if there were some minor variations they had nothing to do with personal political opinions. Any military person (Army, Air Force and Navy personnel also on duty at the White House) who behaved as claimed would be promptly relieved and suffer severe discipline. So would everyone responsible for anyone who did such or failed to report it.

It is true that career military people tend to support Republican candidates, and this is the reason Democrats worked hard to disqualify as many military absentee ballots in Florida for which they could find excuses. Military personnel do not, however, carry personal political preference into the performance of their duties. This is one of the most significant differences between the American military and that of many other nations, and it is a thing of which American personnel are justly proud.

In the United States, the armed forces serve the civilian government and citizenry. The president is their commander-in-chief. Whoever has been, is now, or will yet become president receives the highest official regard and ceremonial respect. To suggest otherwise, even as partisan fun, is to insult the professionalism of our military.

Wallace Alcorn’s column appears Mondays.