Joe Biden’s pick for defense secretary is a decorated soldier and a West Point grad who earned four stars and two advanced degrees amid decades of public service.
He’s also a revolving-door businessman just barely out of the military. As such, he embodies two problems with our governance: the revolving door between industry and government and the subtle erosion of civilian control of the military.
Put another way: Dwight Eisenhower made famous the term “military-industrial complex.” Retired Gen. Lloyd Austin is that complex, and ideally, our defense secretary would have some distance from both.
Austin serves on the board of Raytheon, having carried over from the board of United Technologies when the two merged in April. Pre-merger Raytheon and United Technologies were the No. 4 and No. 6 defense contractors in 2019, combining for $24.7 billion in military contracts.
United Technologies and Raytheon have paid Austin about $1.4 million since 2016, according to the Project on Government Oversight. Austin joined UT’s board four months after retiring as a four-star general in May 2016.
Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
Even aside from the military, our past two presidents have acknowledged the corrosive effects of Washington’s revolving door. It corrupts policymaking when our policymakers are being lobbied by their old bosses who hold out the implicit promise of a lucrative post-government gig — as long as everyone just plays ball.
More corrosive in the long run is the insular world when the elites continually pass back and forth through the revolving door. Make policy in government, cash out to work for those you subsidized and regulated, then pass back through to make policy again, knowing you will cash out again. Soon, there’s an inner circle of elites playing musical chairs, and your specific role doesn’t matter so much as your position of being firmly ensconced in the power structure along with a small group of old chums who are all doing very well for themselves.
From the Army to Raytheon to the Pentagon in five years would be quite the spin for Austin, and you know that Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing would all be waiting for him on the other side.
None of this is to suggest Austin has ever or will act on corrupt motives. By all accounts, Austin is an upstanding, diligent, patriotic, and brilliant man. “In his more than 40 years in the United States Army,” Biden wrote in an impassioned op-ed, “Austin met every challenge with extraordinary skill and profound personal decency. He is a true and tested soldier and leader.”
But Biden ran largely on restoring norms. Restoring norms means following generally applicable rules even when you think you deserve an exception. In his defense of the Austin pick, though, Biden precisely argues for an exemption from a norm that is written into federal law. That rule: To ensure civilian control of the military, brass ought not move quickly from uniform to being defense secretary.
Biden almost acknowledges that. “I respect and believe in the importance of civilian control of our military and in the importance of a strong civil-military working relationship at DOD — as does Austin.”
But there’s a but.
“But I hope that Congress will grant a waiver to Secretary-designate Austin, just as Congress did for Secretary Jim Mattis. Given the immense and urgent threats and challenges our nation faces, he should be confirmed swiftly … He is the person we need in this moment.”
In effect, yes, we should usually not put generals in charge of DOD, but right now, this recent general is the guy we need in charge of DOD. Biden’s argument leans heavily on how closely he has worked with Austin. “Above all,” Biden writes, “I chose Lloyd Austin as my nominee for secretary of defense because I know how he reacts under pressure, and I know that he will do whatever it takes to defend the American people.”
That is, norms are good for other guys, but I really know and trust this guy.
Making exceptions for the people you know really well, that can be called all sorts of things. It can’t be called restoring norms.
