UPDATE: By appearing for a TV interview to endorse Kamala, instead of just giving a print interview, Jimmy McCain clearly violated the military directive.

****

Democrats are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that John McCain’s son, Jimmy, is now a registered Democrat who endorsed Kamala. This is not a big deal. John McCain loathed Trump and, to hurt Trump, he refused to release Americans from the scourge of Obamacare. McCain’s widow took an ambassadorship under Biden. McCain’s daughter is an ostensibly conservative commentator whose ideas usually align with the Democrats. Why, then, would it surprise anyone to know that Jimmy hates Trump, too?

What’s more interesting is whether Jimmy, when formally endorsing Kamala and explaining to CNN his reasons for doing so, violated the military’s long-standing directive against partisan military activity. I don’t pretend to be conversant with military laws and regulations, but I can read, and something doesn’t add up here.

Image: Jimmy McCain. YouTube screen grab.

On the civilian side, the Hatch Act of 1939 exists to protect Americans from federal employees campaigning for themselves or their values on the taxpayers’ dime. Politicians and federal employees routinely violate the Act, and the different parties play “gotcha” trying to catch the opposing party doing so. The latest example is the Harris-Biden administration trying to turn Trump’s appearance at Arlington into a Hatch Act violation. In fact, he did not campaign there but was, instead, a silent and respectful attendee at a ceremony.

While the Hatch Act does not govern the military, it has self-imposed rules for non-partisanship. Of course, we know that the Pentagon is a political instrument as much as a military one. However, to guard against the appearance of impropriety, military personnel must meet an especially stringent standard. No one wants to worry that the American military could become a partisan instrument that could be turned against fellow Americans.

As best as I can tell, the Department of Defense’s last word on the subject was Directive 1344.10, issued in 2008, immediately after Barack Obama came to office. That Directive says that members of the American Armed Forces are entitled and, indeed, “encourage[d]...to carry out the obligations of citizenship.” However, paired with that civic obligation, Directive 1344.10 says that the military must respect “the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity...”

The leeway for what active-duty military personnel may do is pretty broad. They can

• State their personal opinions about candidates and issues provided that they make it clear that they are doing so as private citizens, not as military representatives.
• Encourage people to vote.
• Join partisan and non-partisan political clubs and attend meetings if they’re not wearing their uniforms.
• Serve as non-partisan election officials if not in uniform.
• Sign petitions for legislative action or to place a candidate on the ballot if done as a private citizen and without engaging in partisan political activity.
• Write letters to the editor of a newspaper if they make it clear they are acting as an individual and identify themselves as an active duty person voicing his or her own opinion.
• Donate money to an organization, party, or committee favoring a party or candidate.
• Display a bumper sticker on their private car.
• Attend fundraisers if out of uniform.

What they cannot do is... Well, it’s also a long list. I’ll confine myself to the one item that interests me:

Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

For this prohibition, there does not seem to be any exception for a service member who appears on television out of uniform. According to a helpful essay from the United States Space Force, a member of the military who violates these rules will face consequences:

Service members who violate these directives could face punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and/or other criminal or administrative penalties.

Hmmm. That seems serious.

So, what did Jimmy McCain, an active-duty military member, do? He made himself available to CNN for a non-TV interview that will be followed by a TV interview, in which he discusses his political views, his disdain for Donald Trump (typical for a McCain), and his plan to vote for Kamala (an effective endorsement):

When former President Donald Trump held a campaign event at Arlington National Cemetery last week, 1st Lt. Jimmy McCain says he viewed it as a “violation.”

The youngest son of the late Sen. John McCain had already been moving away from the Republican Party — just weeks ago, he changed his voter registration to Democrat and plans to vote for Kamala Harris in November, he told CNN in an exclusive interview this week.

But he is speaking out now for the first time about Trump because of the former president’s conduct at the hallowed ground where several generations of McCain’s family, including his grandfather and great grandfather, are buried.

[snip]

McCain’s decision to speak out now is part of his broader shift away from the Republican Party and his family’s famously conservative roots. After years as a registered independent, he says he registered as a Democrat several weeks ago and plans to vote for Kamala Harris in November, adding that he “would get involved in any way I could” to help her campaign.

[snip]

Jimmy McCain, who enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 and now serves as an intelligence officer in the 158th Infantry Regiment, had until now deliberately sought to avoid entering the political fray. [Emphasis mine.]

CNN may be muddled about the military, so it’s possible that McCain is a civilian employee, but that sounds as if he’s on active duty. More may emerge from McCain’s live TV interview with Jake Tapper. The package deal of a print interview followed by a TV interview seems problematic.

On the available information, am I crazy to think that Jimmy is sailing very close to the wind when it comes to Directive 1344.10?