Let's talk about the "Military" Party...

Day 1,158, 15:36 • Published in USA USA • by Onishi


You may be aware of the ]United States Defense Party, so-called the "Military Party", because of it's high proportion (almost exclusive) of military members. There's been a lot of controversy about this party, as people fear a hidden agenda, or even an MTO (military takeover, like it?) of the US. However, much of the debate has settled into the usual cess-pit of flung insults and bad attempts at trolling, which is why I am producing the definitive arguments from both sides here, for you to make up your own minds.

According to SVV's article, the USDP mission statement is...

"The United States Defense Party was founded to represent the eUS Military as well as support open, competitive elections through natural game mechanics. In the United States, there are two very large, yet distinct communities that operate alongside each other...... It only makes sense that the eUS Military should have some sort of representation there to help build relations between the two communities."

I have interviewed Joshua Hoss, who is representing the USDP, and Dimension, who has been one of the most vocal in the anti-USDP camp.

Hey Dimension, thanks for the interview. How are you?

Dimension: Good.

Briefly outline your stance on the United States Defense Party.

Dimension: Leftist.

Do you think there is a possibility that the USDP will prove to be a significant threat to the member base of the other main parties?

Dimension: No, because they have loft, so i'm fairly sure they're all going to be getting Ukrainian citizenship and moving there. Or Israeli. SVV and Hoss are there too.

Do you think there is a possibility that the military involvement in this party will affect it's agenda? Does the line blurring between the JCS, government, and the main military mass concern you?

Dimension: There has never been a rule against JCS participating in parties. I don't think that being JCS in USDP is a problem. But, I dislike the way that SVV handled the mass mailing. He was only asking military members to join in his first round of PM's, and Leroy Combs was posting in eusmil (Editor: Military-only forum) about it which is against policy (talking about any political party, in fact). They all know that's not the way to go about it, but they still do it, so those lines are being blurred, yes.

Do you think this will further divide up the community as the military no longer have to integrate with everyone else in order to be involved in politics?

Dimension: Not until they get some real leadership.

***

Hey Joshua Hoss, thanks for the interview. How are you?

Joshua Hoss: No problem, happy to be here. I'm good, how about yourself?

I am fantastic. Tell us a little bit about the United States Defense Party. You define yourselves as a Pro-Military Party, not a Military Party, what exactly does that mean?

Joshua Hoss: Well its really a concept more than a political party. In the past most of the military was prohibited from joining a political party. This meant that many politicians were in a way prohibited from serving in the military (or at least most of it). What this created in my mind was a divide between the two communities. Heck, there are even two separate forums for both groups.

With recent game changes the void between our military and our political field is much smaller. What we want to do in the USDP is to help both sides reach common ground and open more dialogue. Obviously as a political party we are involved in politics. But many of us are also involved in the military and/or militias. What we want to do is show military personnel that there is a party that is familiar with them and plays the game the same way. In the same breath we want to show politicians that there is a place to come meet the military and interact with them in an easier fashion. We say we are "pro-military" instead of "a military" party because we are not exclusive to the military. As I said we want to be a common ground for both politicians and military players.

It is not a requirement to be in the military or militia to join the USDP. The only real requirement is that a party member be supportive of the military. This can be done by simply meeting with and talking to military members, which we hope the USDP serves to meet.

What prompted this sudden interest in politics in the military, a community which has always been anti-politics?

Joshua Hoss: First let me say that the USDP is not affiliated with the military. We are trying to be very careful about making that distinction. The USDP really has been a long time coming. Most of the people I speak to on a consistent basis are people who have a deep love for the eUSA military, but who have also played in the political arena as well. My former experiences in the eUSA military showed me that a lot of players want to experience every aspect of eRepublik, and they sometimes become frustrated when they are prevented from doing multiple things at the same time.

These experiences were shared with some of the other people who helped start up the USDP. As we have been progressing we have met people who have felt the same, and it has sort of grown from there. People want a chance to try something new without having to give up something they love. We hope the USDP can help with that. Introduce players to a side of the game they may not know very well or been prohibited in the past from exploring.

Is the military encouraging it's members who are interested in politics to join the USDP? How much encouragment (if any) is given to members of the Training Corps to join the USDP?

Joshua Hoss: Once again I want to stress that we are not affiliated with the military. We do not use military equipment (military forum for instance) to recruit new members. As far as our relationship with the military goes, right now it is something that is moving along slowly. The USDP is trying very hard to not damage the military. We do not want non-military players to think that the USDP is the military - we are not. We are a separate entity.

I've made it very clear to everyone on the USDP staff that we are not to abuse our relationship with the military. In fact the other day we had an incident where (in my opinion) this relationship was pushed too far. It was not done by a USDP staff member, but a link was made between the military and the USDP. I contacted CJCS Jankems and made sure he knew this was not a USDP issue, and confirmed with him our attempts to keep it from being one.

We do not have any "hidden" recruitment policies with any branch, Training Corps included. We want people to examine all Political Parties and find the one that fits them best. We hope it is USDP, but in many cases it may not be. That is something we understand and respect. Most of our recruitment is being done by articles being published and by word of mouth only. This is something we appreciate and encourage, but only if it does not become an issue with the military or public in general.

Do you expect many members of the military who are currently in other parties to join the USDP? Do you think that by forming a party which is almost exclusively military you will further separate the military from the general community? Does the USDP plan to integrate fully in the general community, or will it be separate like the large majority of the military community?

Joshua Hoss: Honestly right now that is something we do not yet fully know. It is our hope that everyone, regardless of their involvement in the military, will at least look at our party's ideology and determine if it right for them. If a military player has a good experience with their current party then I would think they would remain there. If not, then the USDP becomes a new window for them to use. It is our goal to bring political and military players together. Once again we want those players who do not feel comfortable being restricted to only one part of the game or another. We want them to come to the USDP and have a resource to use to further their gaming experience. In the USDP they can be surrounded by players who feel the same way they do and who want the same things they do without compromising their game experience.

It is our hopes that the USDP can be used to integrate the military into the general society, but this is going to take time. There is a lot of mistrust between politicians and the military. We hope that the USDP can help repair any mistrust and work with both sides. Hopefully in the near future we will begin public programs (such as activity programs, games, etc) to get our new citizens more involved.

When the inevitable happens and your congress / high level government members are accused of pushing the "military agenda" regarding funding or foreign affairs moves, how do you plan to respond to this?

Joshua Hoss: Well each issue is going to have to be looked at individually. Lumping different discussions together because they may or may not have a common theme won't help anyone. The thing that has been most difficult about setting up the USDP is that it is a new concept. Other parties have had military members in them, but no party has been as strongly leaning towards the military as the USDP is.

We understand that this new concept is going come up as an issue at some point. One thing to keep in mind is that the USDP does not control every member. It serves as a meeting place for players who share similar (but not exact) ideas for playing the game. If there is an issue the USDP would have to look at the facts involved and move from there. It really depends on what the circumstances are. But once again, the important thing to take is that each USDP member is an individual who makes their own choices. The USDP serves as a sort of "community", but does not control any member.

We hope to have members who are from all aspects of the community, but that takes time. All parties have members who can take a hard line with one issue or another, we expect to not be any different.

What level of communication will the USDP have with the Joint Chiefs on political matters?

Joshua Hoss: Once again, we are not the military. We do not intend to represent the military, nor will they represent us. When it comes to the JCS we believe that they are free to do what they want (politically) in the game. If a JCS member chooses to join us that is their choice. Any JCS member who does join will be consulted on party affairs. It is important to make the distinction here of "consulted" and "controlled". No USDP member is controlled. What we want, as a pro-military party, is to help bridge the gap between the military and politicos. A part of that is getting the military opinion and advice on matters. These opinions/advice will be unofficial military opinions and reflect only the USDP member giving them.

It will be important to stay in good communication with the JCS to ensure that neither the USDP nor the military overstep their bounds with one another. This is very similiar to how political parties treat the PotUS. Usually PPs try to establish a working relationship with the PotUS without abusing that link. But, as I've said many times, the USDP is not the military. The USDP does not reflect the beliefs or ideas of the JCS, nor is it the other way around. They are two separate entities.

There is a concern that the USDP could seize control of the US, by inadvertently (or otherwise) using the perceived remnants of the military structure within the party to recruit from the military, and that the military structure will be used to facilitate a much higher degree of control over congressional elections. Do you think this is a legitimate concern? Do you think this could happen in the future, when there is a new generation of leadership?

Joshua Hoss: I'd say no. Once again this party is not the military. The USDP is not set up on a military structure, but a political one. eRepublik demands that as a political party we choose people to serve as "Party President', not "General of the party" or something like that. As for using the current military structure to recruit from, I think that was answered. We are working very hard to ensure that our relationship with the military is not abused. This means no recruitment threads on the military forum, no attempts to tie military ranks/positions with any party involvement, and no Training Corps political messages.

It is very important to me to not become a "military party". That isn't the goal of the USDP. We are pro-military, but we want to bring in people from outside the military just as much as we want military people. Really we want the USDP to serve as common ground for military players and political players, something that we feel is lacking in our current political climate. Something that was brought up on in both forums as well. We understand that the USDP is going to be watched with some suspicion, but that is to be expected. This idea hasn't really been tried in this way before, and with the recent changes in eRepublik we believe it is something that should be.

Dimension: Yes, it's a concern... but it's how parties have worked forever. You work for your target population. USWP goes for zombies. UIP goes for gays. USDP goes for military.

There is also a concern that while the party isn't officially military endorsed, the majority of people (and most worryingly, military people) won't be able to make the distinction and will confuse political ideas and directives, as well as voting suggestions coming from their superiors as military orders that they are then required to follow, and vice versa. Do you think this is a legitimate concern?

Joshua Hoss: I do, but only because that exact question keeps being brought up. I'm working very hard in my position as Chief of Staff of the USDP to ensure that we are not abusing our position or relationship with the military or political groups. Really this is something that will take a lot of hard work and effort over a long period of time. We need to ensure that new USDP members know that the USDP is not the military. This can only be done if the leadership of the USDP believes that and works to ensure that.

One thing that helps us right now is that we are set up like any political party. We do not use military ranks or status in determining party roles/jobs. A distinction between a player's military career, national political career, and party career has to be made and reinforced. This goes hand in hand with an earlier question about the communication levels with the JCS. We want the JCS to be able to approach us and inform us if there is an issue with a party member. We want other parties to be able to approach us and tell us if there is an issue with a party member.

As something new it is going to take a lot of hard work and time to get things running smoothly. We know that and want to work towards that.

Dimension: Yeah. Especially the way they're handling the image of the party itself. It may not be endorsed by the CJCS, but I'd say a good minority of the active mil population supports it, and that minority can easily become a majority.

Finally, is there any other concerns you wish to address?

Dimension: The fact that it's led by ex Generals is concerning, as that gives it some semblance of relevance.

Joshua Hoss: Just a few. First, ignore any spelling mistakes from me. I've never been the best speller. Second, all we ask for is a chance. We are not "AMP", we are not "Republicans", we are the United States Defense Party. We want to try something new and to make it succeed. If people feel the same way they are welcome to help. If they don't, then please just allow us an opportunity. Lastly, thank you for the interview.

No problem, it was a pleasure, hopefully this will give people a better picture of the USDP.

Joshua Hoss: I hope so.

___