Retrospective: The Dismissal of Lt. Col. Vindman
*The following article is part of a series of opinion pieces I have submitted to the Washington Post for consideration, that I refer to as the ‘WaPo Said No’ collection. This is simply a (subjectively) catchy, humorous title, and is in no way a reflection of my personal thoughts on the Washington Post. Full disclosure, I am a subscriber and reader. A debrief of why I feel each article was rejected and how I could have made it stronger appears at the end of each.*
In the world of table-top role playing games, characters within their respective worlds are often asked to ascribe to a particular “alignment”: a moral code that generally informs how this particular being is going to react to a given situation or interaction. While useful within the construct of those games for participating parties to understand how their companions may respond to challenges, there is a degree of applicability to using alignments to determine our own moralistic code in the real world. Further, we can begin to see how others align themselves, and whether those actions align with our own code.
What comes in mind in particular, is this past Friday’s dismissal of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated and highly respected veteran of the United States armed forces. The decision should come as no surprise to anyone even passingly familiar with the current news cycle, and how its actors react to a given situation. We all know President Donald Trump detests what he calls “disloyalty”: or rather, whenever anyone acts in a way contrary to what his belief or modus operandi is. Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony during the impeachment trial decidedly put him in the path of President Trump’s fury, and it was truly only a matter of time before Vindman’s removal.
It can be debated ad nauseam whether this act was moralistically right, but from a strictly legal standpoint it appears to be sound. As with the controversy that surrounded the firing of Ambassador Marie Yavanovitch, the President is within his legal bounds to excuse Lt. Col. Vindman from his post and have him reassigned. Having said, let’s return a moment to the moral quandary in question, and also to the topic of alignment.
In the current administration, there is an aspect of alignment that is of particular poignancy: the idea of lawfulness. Now, within the realms of many of the aforementioned role playing games, lawfulness can be expressed in one of three ways: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil. A Lawful Good character is compelled to do the right thing within the bounds of the law- they are largely considered to be morally upstanding and a champion of justice. Someone who is Lawful Neutral simply obeys the law to its most black and white determination: these would be judges, those who follow the letter of a society’s governance. Those who are Lawful Evil use the law to their own advantage at every opportunity, and twist it to personal benefit however they can.
To take a Lawful Neutral stance on this- yes, the President can fire Lt. Col. Vindman at pleasure. That’s the rule of the land. Whether or not he should have done so, is where the waters become more gray and open to interpretation. Largely this hinges on one’s own world view, and their perception of the President. However, a simple way to consider the morality of his actions can by answered by asking the question: just because you legally can do something, should you?
There is an entire cottage industry devoted to dredging up esoteric, outdated, and heinously ridiculous laws that exist on state and local legislatures throughout the United States. Things like Alabama’s Class B Felony for Unlawful Bear Exploitation, regarding the illegal purchase and ownership of a bear for the purpose of wrestling. Or a Massachusetts law that dictates a citizen can be fined up to $100 for dancing to the National Anthem. From a Lawful Neutral standpoint, yes, we can prosecute people for dancing to the Star Spangled Banner- that is the letter of the law as it is written. But, should we?
Norms in our political system are there not solely because “it is how we have always done things,” but because they largely adhere to a greater structure of moral code that we use to enhance our laws as they exist. Norms are our Lawful Good way of doing things- how we champion right and justice for the betterment of all, rather than leveraging the word of governance to our own gain and advantage. After all, laws are written for the protection of people’s rights and safety- an inherently good thing. What keeps those laws acting in good faith, though, is the norms that surround them.
Post Script Reflection: While I actually find most of this to be a fairly cogent philosophical debate, as a call to action it lacks any real punch. The piece refuses to take a side, which is a difficult line to toe for an opinion submission. Its culminating argument essentially boils down to “let’s all just play nice like we always have.” While I don’t disagree with my own stance, it also ignores the context of an increasingly ‘contact sport’ iteration of politics that seems to be manifesting. This was even true at the time of writing. Again, while I think the philosophical discussion is largely coherent, and still a favorite of mine for tearing down and examining behavior, ultimately there is a lack of call to action. The piece never challenges the reader to examine their own views or morals, or posits a stance, it just states a possible philosophical view. Not a bad essay, but not one with a ton of weight.
