Until My Dying Days

On October 27, 1997 in Phoenix AZ, I raised my right hand and took the Oath of Enlistment, required upon entry into U.S military service, for the first time. Over the course of my 24 year career as a Navy Diver, I would take it another five times.

“I [State your full name], Do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God (optional).”

I opted out of the last sentence - because our constitution affords us that right. However, it's not as if I was noticed, I was standing amongst a group of about 30 other people, all of us simultaneously affirming our allegiance; those of us that declined God's help as a witness, inconspicuously remained silent as that line was repeated. At 23 years old, and full of anxious enthusiasm for the life-changing decision I had just made, taking the Oath was more of a formality for me then, rather than a patriotic promise. However, as I would mature through my life and career, from that, ready to conquer the world, young-man to the now looking at 50, retired from military service, middle-aged man; the Constitution has become the shining North Star guiding my American patriotic virtue.

My oath to our foundational doctrine motivated me to read and understand what responsibilities and authorities were vested in our government by the Constitution's seven articles, and what rights were enumerated for "We the people" through the 27 Amendments. I wanted to know what I was swearing my allegiance to support and protect. I then, wanted to further know who the men were that wrote this, unique to the world, document of Republic Democracy. I researched who the Founding Fathers were, what contributions to the formation of our country they made, and what they individually believed regarding the things that still conflict us to this day.

I now use this meta-understanding of the foundation of our nation, to navigate the complicated sociopolitical paradigms that have existed in the United States, to include this most divisive and contentious Presidential Election that is upon us. The current climate of political partisanship that's been created, has affected all of society, and each of us in it. We are all experiencing public conflicts, hostilities, and vitriol that are resulting in loss of relationships with coworkers, friends, and family members. We are now, in our time, experiencing the conflicts that existed amongst the people of the United States leading up to the Civil War, only more exacerbated due to our technological advancements of Social Media.

Today I witnessed such a loss caused by the political conflicts of the 2024 Presidential Election. A long-time dear friend of mine, made public via social media, how a friendship that was over three decades old had come to an end, because to my friend's shock, this unidentified person unfriended and blocked him due to the difference of opinions they shared regarding the election. This loss must have really impacted my old friend, because it left him questioning, what our country has become, if we are now a combative "us versus them" society, where is our Unity, and what if anything will it take to bring unity back to our republic. About 50 people commented on my friends emotionally charged public announcement. A few people gave their sympathies on the friendship lost, while a few others offered up platitudes by assuring him of better days are yet to come. However, the impetus of our division being unmeasurably stronger than our courtesy for civil political discourse, my buddy's post turned into a terrible public debate.

A few people simply, but emphatically posted #Trump2024, from there the discourse progressively grew more heated, contentious and unintelligible. Some accused Trump of being a rapist, only to be met with his supporters accusing Biden of the same thing. Many accused each other of being brainwashed. One women called Harris a 'twat' while another bloviated how the Democrats of the South are the same Democrats of today, and they are the reason for all our problems because they have no common sense, and that they teach division(not the mathematical kind), while only Republicans compromise and work things out professionally. Many complained of only Democrats getting wealthy on a government salary, contented by statements of MAGA ushering in Project 2025. Both sides accused the other of being Hitler, Nazis, and socialists; and each will either ruin the economy or save it. Needless to say, the question my friend posed, "What will it take to unite us again" went unanswered.

Amongst all this rhetoric, something was starkly missing. No one spoke of the Constitution, who's attacking it, who's supporting it, how is it being upheld and followed, or how is it being usurped and infringed. the only things the people of this debate armed themselves with for argument, were either superfluous and shallow political accusations, or ill-informed economic paradigms and the unattainable cost of all things due to inflation. Not one person mentioned how the beliefs or behaviors of a candidate, politician, or political party were either in affirmation with the Constitution or were disavowing it. This post was merely a microcosm of the greater political discourse that's surrounding this election. The vast majority of Americans are only concerned with their perceived economic prosperity, while relying on combative and insulting rhetoric to argue their opinions; resulting in the social chasm that is dividing us and destroying relationships.

I do understand that I'm analyzing the sociopolitical climate of our country, as well as this election from a very subjective viewpoint. I having served in the armed forces, took the Oath of Enlistment, that required me to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign or domestic. An oath, even in retirement, I will not waiver from. I also realize that while I uphold this duty, it is not a requirement for civilians to support and defend the Constitution, that's what the military is for. It's a responsibility I am dedicated to, and I can't expect civilians to match my dedication. So I can understand why people in America are relying on political affiliations, economic irritants, rabble-rousers, billionaires, and commercialized media as their resources for political information, then subjectively applying it as it suites their emotions and justifies their world view. Unfortunately this leaves the ignorant and apathetic dangerously susceptible to manipulation by both politics and media, and results in people like my friend, wondering how we became so divided, and what will it take to unite us again.

On September 17, 1787 with a sense of accomplishment, marked by apprehension, Benjamin Franklin quipped, "A Republic, if you can keep it" to the politically curious and affluent people of Philadelphia, when they enquired what type of governmental achievement, for the budding nation, had been accomplished at the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention, which convened four months earlier in May. The ratification of our constitution didn't come without conflict or even the threat of disapproval completely. With a requirement of 3/4 states agreement for ratification, this unification was no easy task in obtaining. Would a new federally centralized government become an imperial monarchy, such as the one they recently divorced themselves from? How could popular majority rule compromise with protecting the rights and liberties of the minority? How would the wealthy be safe from the poor and vise versa; and what to do about Slavery?

These questions represented themselves in Franklin's apprehensive response, because just hours earlier, at 81 years of age and suffering from almost paralyzing gout, he delivered a humble yet moving speech to the convention representatives, pursueding them to relent from the focus upon our differences of opinions and fears that the Constitution was not perfect, but rather appreciate the differences of wisdom that have assembled together and agree that the Constitution could not be more "perfect" under such conflicting and competing ideals. With great self-awareness Franklin relied upons self-example to convey how he at his advanced age grew to understand things differently than he previously had while young. He implored that it's an imperative to question one's beliefs and listen to outside wisdom such as he did regarding immigrants, Native Americans, and slavery.

When young, he derided people not like him, owned slaves and believed they and natives were incapable of being educated or civil. However, as he matured he saw the benefits of the diversity that immigrants introduced, by his wife's demand he undertook educating natives and negros, then realised that they are capable of the same achievements as anglos, and finally abandoned and disapproved of the institution of slavery. One could say that Benjamin Franklin was the first "Woke" American. While the Constitution didn't solve their conflicts or instantly turn all into purveyors of liberal thought, such as Franklin's, it did; however, give the framework of compromise and the mechanisms of governance to achieve a consensus democracy across such and idealistically diverse Republic. In that regard, Benjamin believed the Constitution could not be more perfect, convincing enough delegates to sign in agreement to ratify the Constitution, even though not all members agreed upon it.

Now that a centralized government had a doctrine to set course by, George Washington was the unanimous decision as the first American to lead the Executive branch and the fledgling nation. Benjamin Franklin so agreed with, and respected George Washington that he bequeathed to him, his cherished French walking stick stating in his will, "For his stroll to destiny". Like Franklin, Washington believed that the Constitution, while not perfectly agreed upon, was perfect enough to follow, and the best compromise that could be expected amongst such strong idealed men. Washington understood how important the Constitution was in unifying the Republic, how it was necessary to give the 13 original colonies blanket protection against aggressive European powers that were still trying to expand their empires in the Americas. Washington knew that each colony if left to their own security and promotion of prosperity would eventually fail, allowing foreign infiltration.

George Washington so worried about the young country and her new representative republic, that he warned all against the evils that would follow if the Constitution wasn't used as each member of government's guiding light, but rather political party affiliations. Early into Washington's second term in office Thomas Jefferson, his Secretary of State, and James Madison, his speech writer, resigned their positions and affiliation with Washington, in order to form America's first political party, The Republican Democrats, also known as Jefferson Republicans. Jefferson and Madison who favored France, and supported the French Revolution, believed that Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton were going to turn the new country into an imperial monarchy like Britain's, because these three men favored the country the United States revolted against over France. This defection and formation of a political party extremely vexed Washington and upon his retirement from office he addressed the issue in his published, "Farewell to Friends and Fellow Citizens".

In his farewell address, Washington warns the nation against following political party ideals and affiliations over the Articles of the Constitution. He believed that each government representative should follow the respective constitutional article for the government branch they were seated in. The Congress and Senate should follow Article I, the President and his Cabinet should follow Article II, and Supreme Court Justices should follow Article III; and take all precautions against forming and following political agendas that could compromise the Constitution. Washington foretold of the problems that will arise if political parties are followed rather than the Constitution. Political revenge will be the foremost agenda on the minds of representatives, Geopolitical separation will occur, leaving states and territories to break away from the union and war amongst themselves, and finally foreign intrusion would compromise our union, because the Constitution that used to bind us, would be destroyed from within and allowing foreign entities to form alliances with once American loyalists.

As we find ourselves now so divided by political affiliations and emotionally wound by the rhetoric that stems from our partisan echo chambers, Washington's words from the 18th Century are prophetically calling to us to heed his warning and focus on the Constitution and its tenets, while not perfect give us the best framework to compromise and unify our nation rather than stanchly align politically and destroy this great experiment in democracy. The words of Benjamin Franklin in the wake of the Constitution's ratification, where he informed the people that this new democratic republic is only theirs, if they can keep it; prove that it's "We the People" who are responsible for the democracy we want to enjoy. Washington in exclimates Franklin's point, in his farewell address, by compelling the American people to follow the Constitution, and and by all means resist the natural spirit of man to form and follow political parties. Washington and Franklin both understood that America was more vulnerable to destruction from within, rather than from without.

This is why the Oath of Enlistment calls for the US Service Member to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Because the wisdom and words of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington are well understood when it comes to oath for our military; knowing that destruction of our constitution and country are more likely to come from within, and not from an outside foe. As it's the duty of the military to defend the Constitution, we must be the ones drawing attention to those who are attacking its provisions. A large majority of the political rhetoric that fills our media feeds speaks nothing of politicians' infractions against the Constitution, or the apathy the public demonstrates when faced with the attacks being made against The Articles and Amendments. American people are more aggrieved by financial issues, or fearful that 'others' are unduly getting their piece of the American Dream.

As a retired service member when I hear a political candidate speak out to a group of people and inform them that there will be no more need for voting, because they are going to fix it so his lovely Christians won't have to anymore. I here a domestic attack against the 15, 19, 24, and 26 Amendments. When I hear politicians and political pundits inform their audiences that there really isn't a separation between Church and State, I again hear an attack, this time it's against Article VI and the 1st Amendment. When I see our Congress bogged down by obstruction and no compromising legislation being made, I see an attack on Article I. When I see a Supreme Court Justice and their significant others colluding with foreign governments, taking money from wealthy donors with cases on their docket, I see an attack on Article III. When I see a President insight stochastic violence and erroneously accuse our trusted agencies and institution, I see an attack on Article I. I as an American who has taken the Oath of Enlistment, cannot support any candidate, political party, or campaign that affirms any of these attacks.

I am not so naive to believe that the only way we support the Constitution is for all Americans to think and act alike. However, we must understand that we cannot entrench ourselves in our differences at the expense of destroying our constitution. Just as Franklin understood, We may not approve of the Constitution completely, but we all must agree upon using the Constitution to Compromise in creating a government and legislation that Unifies us against destruction, whether that be from outside our nation or from within. Our founding fathers never intended for the Constitution to be a document written in stone, but rather a living one, that can be re-examined and amended as the country progressed. "In order to form a more perfect union" written into the preamble, is the spirit of the Constitution, and what we must all rely upon to unite us in our differences.