The Democrats' disingenuous alarm over Sen. Tuberville's blockage of military promotions
For many months, Sen. Tommy Tuberville has been preventing Senate approval, en masse, of military promotions. Instead of permitting hundreds of promotions to be approved together by unanimous consent — the usual practice — Tuberville insists that the promotions be voted on individually. That process would likely take a month or more of almost undivided Senate attention, given the number of promotions in question.
Tuberville’s obstruction is a protest against the Biden administration’s policy on abortion access for military personnel and their dependents. Under that policy, the Pentagon pays travel expenses for those desiring an abortion. Because the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, some service members and dependents must travel outside of the state where they are stationed to abort their fetus.
Tuberville reportedly wants a Senate vote on the Pentagon policy and insists that the vote be taken pursuant to a bill offered by Democrats.
I don’t agree with blocking hundreds of military promotions over this matter. However, what really strikes me about the dispute is the overwrought reaction by Democrats and their media mouthpieces.
Chuck Schumer calls Tuberville’s action “one of the most abominable and outrageous things I have ever seen in this chamber.” Joe Biden says Tuberville is jeopardizing national security and being “ totally irresponsible.”
Democrats have a well-earned reputation for being soft when it comes to backing the military and, frankly, to defending America. So it’s natural that they would seize on Tuberville’s one-man blockade of mass military promotions to try and turn the tables.
But Tuberville isn’t jeopardizing national security. Military and national security slots are not unfilled. They are filled by personnel in an “acting” capacity — the same way so many high-level jobs in the Trump administration were filled when Chuck Schumer and company held up confirmation of nominees to key posts throughout the federal government.
The law of averages tells us that some of the acting military officials are more competent than the people whose promotion Tuberville is blocking. Others are less competent.
To the extent the military is awarding promotions based on merit, the overall effect of the blockage would be to lower, marginally, the quality of the people holding the posts in question. However, I don’t assume that under the Biden administration the military is consistently awarding promotions on the basis of merit.
Which brings me to a report in today’s Washington Post about Biden’s blocked nominee to serve as superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy. She’s Rear Adm. Yvette Davids. If/when she assumes the post, Davids will be the first female to head the Academy. And she’s Hispanic, to boot.
With her status in limbo, the job of superintendent is being carried out by Rear Adm. Frederick Kacher. Is there any reason to believe the Academy is worse off under his leadership or that he’s less qualified for the job than Davids?
Nothing in the Post’s report suggests so. Davids has no previous experience running an educational institution. She has a distinguished record of service in the Navy, but so does Kacher.
The Post quotes Retired Adm. James Stavridis. He called Tuberville’s action “ridiculous” and said Davids is “richly qualified” to lead at Annapolis. Stavridis added:
It is particularly harmful to see the Academy’s first female Superintendent locked out of her office — terrible signal,
Davids is not being locked out of her office. The office isn’t hers unless and until she gets the job.
But give the retired Admiral credit for honesty, if not accuracy. This isn’t about the quality of leadership at the Naval Academy. It’s about “signals” — virtue signals.
And this suggests to me that Davids was awarded “her office” because of her gender (and possibly her ethnicity). She may or may not have been the best qualified candidate. In all likelihood, it didn’t matter. The Navy, having lagged behind two other service academies in awarding its top academy job to a woman, wanted to send a politically correct signal.
Looking at the bigger picture, I assume that some military promotions are granted on the basis of merit, correctly assessed. I’m willing to assume, in addition, that in a few cases, the blockage of promotions has produced significantly less than optimal leadership. Finally, it’s probably the case that the holding up of so many promotions for political/ideological reasons has had a slightly adverse impact on morale.
But let’s not pretend that Tuberville’s obstructionism poses a threat to national security. And let’s remember that if a top-level post urgently needs to be filled by an officer whose nomination has been held up, the Senate can remedy the problem by clearing the promotion of that officer.
In fact, it has done so. As the Post acknowledges, a vote was held in September to confirm a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And this month, a small number of military promotions cleared the Senate, including the appointment of Adm. Lisa Franchetti as the first woman to lead the Navy and join the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
More promotions would have cleared the Senate had Chuck Schumer not insisted that promotions be approved en masse by unanimous consent. It’s true that this has been standard Senate practice. But if Schumer truly felt a national security imperative to fill certain positions on a permanent basis, he should have allowed them to be filled separately, instead of jockeying for a talking point.
Again, I don’t agree with Tuberville’s action. But I’m not alarmed by it. And the efforts of Democrats and their media friends to sound the alarm strike me as quite insincere.