Not Putting Their Money Where Their Mouth Is: Retired Flag Officers and Presidential Endorsements

• Author: Zachary Griffiths,Olivia Simon
• Published date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X19889982
• Date: 01 July 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Not Putting Their

Money Where Their

Mouth Is: Retired Flag

Officers and Presidential

Endorsements

Zachary Griffiths

1

and Olivia Simon

1

Abstract

Endorsements by retired flag and general officers are now a fixture of the presi-

dential election cycle. However, their motivations are unclear. Retired flag officers

might endorse with material, purposive, or solidarity motives. We evaluate these

motivations with a new data set of 1,340 endorsements by 1,041 endorsers between

2004 and 2016 matched with campaign contributions. We find that campaign con-

tributions, service in the Navy, and retiring as a higher ranked officer are all asso-

ciated with an increased likelihood of endorsing. We conclude that about 10 retired

flag officers participate to improve their material situation, 193 seek to advance their

ideological preferences, and the remainder participate to demonstrate solidarity

with their peers or acquaintances. These findings provide new insight into endorser

motivations and civil–military relations.

Keywords

civil–military relatio ns, elections, endorsem ent, campaign contribution s, political

science, partisanship

1

Department of Social Sciences, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Zachary Griffiths, U.S. Army, Fort Carson, CO 80902, USA.

Email: zachary.e.griffiths.mil@mail.mil

Armed Forces & Society

2021, Vol. 47(3) 480-504

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X19889982

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

While chanting “lock her up” in support of President Trump during the 2016 Repub-

lican National Convention, Lieutenant General (retired) Michael Flynn smashed

norms against partisan political participation by retired flag officers. CNN covered

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s counter with the headline “Clinton to Trump:

My military endorsements are bigger than yours” explicitly comparing Clinton’s 110

endorsements to Trump’s 88 (Merica, 2016). Strong criticism of these endorsements

followed. General (ret.) Martin Dempsey (2016) e ven publicly called on retired

generals and admirals to keep their politics private. Sparri ng flag officers, who

retired from positions as military executives in the grades of O7–O10, bring media

attention and national security credentials to candidates who have run with increas-

ingly limited military experience. Understanding what motivates retired flag officer

endorsement has important implications for underst anding political participation

and civil–military relations.

This article aims to explain why retired flag officers endorse and contribute to

presidential candidates. We argue retired flag officers fall into three camps: inves-

tors with material motives, ideologues with purposive motives, and intimates with

social motives. This article matches endorsing, a highly visible, low-cost gesture,

with financial contributions, a less visible, costly gesture, to examine retired flag

officer motivations.

Presidential endorsements by retired flag officers have exploded since 1988

(Figure 1). Retired flag officers endorse Republican candidates 8 times more than

Democratic candidates. 2012 was especially stark, with 501 endorsements for Gov-

ernor Romney compared to 5 for President Obama. The trend toward endorsement of

Republican candidates mirrors partisanship survey data of active Army officers

(Urben, 2010). However, 2016 is a notable outlier, with Democrat endorsements

Figure 1. Endorsement by party, 1988–2016.

Griffiths and Simon 481