Why America's Military Never Became a Threat to Democracy

America's Founding Fathers feared a standing army would inevitably threaten civilian governance. Yet 250 years later, the U.S. military remains a strange outlier among nearly every nation that has ever existed—maintaining its strength and popularity while never attempting a coup. How did America get this right when so many other nations, from Turkey to Latin America, have seen their militaries seize power? The story begins with George Washington, who inspired mutinous soldiers to become the first army in a thousand years not to threaten democracy. But Washington's example alone doesn't explain America's success. Structural factors—dispersed urban centers, a benign international security environment, and urgent domestic threats from Native American conflicts—created a weak federal army and strong militia system that prevented military consolidation of power. Today's guest is Kori Schake, author of The State and the Soldier: A History of Civil-Military Relations in the United States. We see many counter-intuitivie things, like how the Founding Fathers had it backwards. The creation of a professional military actually reduced challenges to civilian control. We know this because key crises tested this system that the US military was able to overcome without seizing power. They include Alexander Hamilton's ambitions to raise an army for foreign conquest, Aaron Burr's plot to overthrow the United States, Andrew Jackson's unauthorized invasion of Florida, Ulysses S. Grant navigating feuds between president and Congress, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Truman's firing of MacArthur during the Korean War, and confusion over nuclear launch authority during the Cold War. As the public increasingly pulls the military into partisan divisions, the question remains: can America's exceptional civil-military relations endure?