The following opinion piece is authored by Thomas Murphy, Ph.D., an educator and long-time Department of Defense civilian with significant experience having worked on several U.S. military installations overseas. In his opinion piece below, he presents his thoughts on potential reforms to American democracy. Dr. Murphy is a Maryland UOCAVA voter, resident of Belgium, and member of the Global VMF Caucus. 

_________

VMF Member Opinion: Wear a Coat, for Crying Out Loud: Restoring Civility, Professionalism and Efficiency in American Politics and Government

An increasingly common topic of debate is what exactly the Democratic Party’s priorities should be once the dust settles after the 2026 election. At present, it appears likely that the Dems will take the House – some prognosticators predict a 25+ seat majority. The Senate is less certain, but momentum in 5-6 key states is, as of early October, moving largely in favor of the Democrats. States such as Iowa, Texas and Kansas, that were previously seen as no-go zones for Democrats, are this year in play.

To be sure, a Democratic tidal wave victory in Congress would place enormous pressure on the Democratic leadership. In the first place, both Hakeem Jeffries in the House, the presumed Speaker to be, and Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Minority to Majority members may indeed face challenges to their assumed positions in the forthcoming 120th Congress. Assuming they survive, they and Democratic congressmembers will need to consider not only a new, innovative legislative agenda of progressive priorities, but also legal-investigative and retaliatory ones.

If Democrats pursue the legal-investigative route, who from the Trump administration will be investigated – and why? Former Attorney General Pam Bondi and Defense Secretary Pete Hegeth come to mind for the many controversies surrounding them. The killings of 200 unarmed small boat fishermen in the Caribbean? Or a similar number of schoolgirls killed in a bombing raid in our latest Middle East War? These actions constitute war crimes. That would seem to place them at the front of the line, as would the ICE killings of Renee Goode and Alex Pretti.

Or, rather, should congressional committees concentrate investigative power instead on grift and abuse of governmental power? Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, Jr., Peter Witkoff and others have operated outside of official American diplomatic channels, and have used their positions to promote private business deals in the Middle East and elsewhere that benefit themselves and their families. 

What about law firms, corporations and universities that were pressured into paying for relief from federal legal actions by this administration – many of whom capitulated? How to repair the professional behavior of the private sector?

Perhaps the anger of the American public will support a more retaliatory approach to policy – give to the other side what they did to us: increasingly draconian rules in the House, limiting Republicans’ speaking time on the floor of Congress, or reducing minority party staff and research resources in the House; in the Senate, the removal of the parliamentary filibuster (creating a real 51 vote legislative majority in the Senate), for example, could render minority party rights limited. 

Being Nice

Let’s have a look at the political culture of DC, and a few intra-institutional changes that might improve the political climate in DC. The first is comity: this word is rarely used in colloquial conversation – but it is a regular term on the floor of Congress. It refers to the means by which business or human relations are conducted; specifically, it means that business must be conducted in a civilized, respectful, rational manner, with consideration given to participants, regardless of their political views.

For decades, the U.S. Congress ran on this principle: for example, members do not call each other by name on the floor of Congress; foul language is not used on the floor; use of the second person (‘you’) is not used in political discourse, in deference to the third person, and  members physically present themselves appropriately.  These norms have been strained and need to be restored. 

Dressing and Speaking Badly

In the British Parliament, a business-style dress code is mandatory, requiring a coat and a tie for men, and professional dress for women. In the U.S., similar standards were held, by unspoken rule, until a few years back, when U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) started showing up to work in a hoodie and shorts. In 2023, there was a vote in the Senate (that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer initially opposed) to require professional dress among Senators. Eventually, the measure passed unanimously. 

Similar rules should apply to the use of language on the floor of Congress, where casual obscenity and ‘bad’ language has crept into floor speeches. This also applies to lack of decorum on the floor, as when a Republican member a few years back yelled out, on the floor of Congress, during an Obama speech, “You lie!”

Improving the Press

Let’s start with how to make the U.S. press less submissive and more effective. President Trump holds the press, and any differing political perspectives, with disdain. Of course, in a healthy democracy, the personal views of a president are irrelevant to a healthy media.  

The U.S. media is currently compliant and passive, in comparison to other world media. (This seems to be a norm of deference taught in American journalism schools.) Reporters don’t challenge power in real time; they don’t point out lies; they don’t ask follow-up questions; they don’t work together.  

Solutions: 

• More aggressive treatment of public officials, including challenging responses that are clearly not true. 

• Cooperation between news teams. If reporter from Network A has his question avoided, reporter from Network B should follow up with the same question. 

• Imposition of a “Question Time” tradition (as in parliamentary forms of government) where the leader or other top official has to contend with a periodic ‘media driven’ series of questions in a public forum. This reform could be instituted by a Democratic President in 2028; it would be hard to cancel. In a parliamentary system, questions are penetrating, and fluff answers are not tolerated. There is no communications director present. 

• The ultimate creation of a news corporation, which is funded by, but not run by the government. Strict rules would control the assignment of independent and competent board members, and of the quality of journalism and professionalism – while individual journalists could publish freely without fear of political reprisal or corporate driven priorities. The disadvantages of private media coverage – partisanship, profit and corporate overlordship – along with the shortcomings of a rigid state sponsored media could be circumvented, if such a model were implemented in an intelligent manner.

Campaign Money

Some, such as former Treasury Secretary Robert Reich and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have put forth proposals that would redefine the ways in which political money flows in the U.S. One common theme among many reformers is that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision must be reversed, as that decision declared corporations as ‘people,’ providing them with free-speech rights to unlimited campaign financing. As a result, “dark money” from PACs and other sources have poured into American politics.

A constitutional amendment limiting or redirecting campaign financing is also a possible, but less likely route to reform. 

Elections

Similarly, a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College is supported by some; implementing such a reform would be hugely difficult, as 38 state votes are required for approval of an amendment (in additional to 2/3 of the House and Senate), but many smaller states would never relinquish the enhanced electoral power that the Electoral College provides – and there are more than 12 of them!

A possible solution that bypasses an amendment is to have states form compacts whereby the President is elected by popular, rather than electoral vote. One such organization advocating for this rare method of reform is the National Popular Vote: 

• The U.S. Constitution (Article II) gives the states exclusive control over the choice of method of awarding their electoral votes—thereby giving the states a built-in way to reform the system. 

• The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC will get all the electoral votes from the enacting states. This guarantees that the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide will get enough Electoral College votes to become President. 

With regard to election reform, gerrymandering is another perennial problem in American politics. The introduction of a non-partisan commission to determine electoral districts might be a step in the right direction – but this issue is particularly intractable, as it is thoroughly intertwined with narrow partisan election cycles, demographics and race. Further, the country lacks a firm historical, theoretical basis to guide such a change. Power from the majority party has typically served as the mechanism of district distribution. 

The Supreme Court

Might increasing the number of members of the Supreme Court improve its democratic accountability? Pete Buttigieg calls for it. Democrats should be cautious, as the previous attempt to do so (under President Franklin Roosevelt) ran into strong opposition within his own Democratic Party. 

Further, an enlarged Court could make ideological and policy changes even harder if, for example, a 13-member court held a 9-4 or 10-3 majority instead of the current 6-3 majority, which could be changed by 2 retirements or deaths. Smaller might be better. One solution might be an 18- or 20-year term limit.

Perhaps a better immediate measure would be to create an ethical rubric for the Court; gifts from those with business before the Court might be banned; outside influence and political compromise might be tightened up. This measure could be introduced as either simple federal legislation or as an amendment to the Constitution.

The President

Money buys a lot of things, but class isn’t one of them, apparently. 

Certainly, among the first changes to the Executive Branch should be the refining of the pardon power. Pardons should be limited in scope and number, and no one should be ‘pre-pardoned,’ anymore than one would be “pre-convicted.”

Press access to the White House is a non-controversial, First Amendment right. What needs to end is the authority of a President to prevent it. Even the rules regarding which reporters get called upon could be rewritten to ensure greater fairness.

The Justice Department needs to be brought back into the realm of law and service to the country. The Congress can influence this process both directly and indirectly – primarily through controlling the funding of Justice and in regulating and investigating bad behavior – and shielding the department from political influence. 

Conflict of Interest, Emolument and Nepotism Laws need to be both enforced and enhanced. Influence from foreign entities has run rampant in this Administration, and those guilty need to be held to account, whether it be Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, FBI Director Kash Patel, or Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the laws need to confirm that our national representatives are not for sale – even if they think they are.  

Recently, a parliamentary government in Europe passed a new law prohibiting lying by politicians. While complicated, a carefully defined measure against cynical, deliberate, provable misrepresentation intended to mislead on a specific policy matter might gain some political traction in the U.S.

And, speaking of language and lying, the President casually calling a national emergency doesn’t make it one; nor does claiming that a Triumphal Arch is necessitated by national security concerns. 

Prove it.

In Summary

There is a lot of work to be done in the next Congress; the issues pointed out here only scratch the surface. The place of the U.S. in the world economy has been compromised, as has our foreign policy and relations with allies. But we will need to start somewhere, to replace the staggering damage that has been done to the American Republic.

_________

Views and opinions shared by individual members are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of Democrats Abroad or the Global VMF Caucus.

U.S. citizens living abroad, both civilian and military, are highly encouraged to check your voter registration status and request your ballot for any upcoming elections in your home voting state that you are eligible to vote in. 

The Global VMF Caucus has over 1,500 members located in dozens of countries and proudly consists of veterans, military family members, Department of Defense civilians, other national security professionals, and strong allies of veterans and military family causes.