There is a class of progressive uniformed service member for whom rules and orders are only taken seriously insofar as they align with their own ideals. This isn't a problem in and of itself. In fact, this disposition is what is legally, morally, and ethically required where fidelity to our oath to the Constitution represents the highest ideal. As exemplified by their recent behavior, though, many progressives do not hold fidelity to the oath as their highest ideal. As the world bears witness to countless examples of active service members who harbor sentiments about their fellow Americans incompatible with the oath, I'd like to explore how opposition to the implementation of Executive Order 14183 "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness" demonstrates that those espousing contempt for Charlie Kirk on social media represent only a fraction of the widespread base of opposition to the exercise of Constitutional authority within the Department of War (DOW).

If a progressive service member or DOW civilian gets an order to do something that conflicts with their progressive politics, they'll only follow it if there are robust accountability mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Even then, the quality of that compliance in terms of speed and efficiency will be severely lacking. Beyond this, some are willing to accept risk of punishment fighting for what they believe in by actively subverting the execution of lawful orders. Those of us persecuted for noncompliance with the unlawful implementation of the COVID vaccine mandate can empathize so long as we understand the underlying disconnect is a fundamental incompatibility of values. We were willing to face whatever punishment the DOD could muster because this was required by our oaths, so we can understand when others do what they have to do in service to their own ideals. It is this understanding that I hope to convey with this case study, for without appreciating the full scope and scale of the opposition, meaningful reform will be impossible. In order to understand, though, we have to consider the highest ideals of progressivism and the implications of those beliefs.

Extreme Egalitarianism

Extreme egalitarianism is a philosophical position that holds that equality, particularly in the sense of comparative equality, is the paramount moral and political goal, often arguing that any inequality is inherently unjust and must be corrected. This view stands in contrast to moderate or restricted egalitarianism, which allows for differences in well-being or resources based on factors like rights and merit (which is consistent with recent SECWAR messaging). A key premise of extreme egalitarianism is the idea that there is a moral claim to an equal share of well-being or other valuable goods.1