"Liberals" Hate the Military?

Everybody Hates Social Welfare

By Rodney D. Foxworth, Jr.

Evasion is a tactic that is masterfully utilized by conservatives, moderates, and "liberals." Take, for example, the recent article authored by New Republic reporter-researcher Rob Anderson, "Military Offensive." The only thing offensive, however, is the drivel that comprises Anderson's essay, in which the scribe asserts that "liberals" hate the military and wish to destroy it.

Anderson's essay is problematic on many levels – three in particular. First, Anderson equates so-called "military hatred" with "liberals," without defining or identifying liberals, outside of Cindy Sheehan and the other writers of 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military , who, in the words of Anderson, are "antiwar activists and journalists." Defining antiwar activists as "liberals" right off the bat seems to be quite an intellectual jump, as if conservatism automatically precludes one from being antiwar.

Also, the so-called liberals that make up the Democratic Party don't seem to take much issue with the military, having voted for or proposing increased military spending a majority of the time. Secondly, and most importantly, Anderson deliberately diverts "liberal hatred" from militarism and the military-industrial-congressional complex and directs it upon the military as our defenders of national security, at once exploiting our concern for military personnel ("[v]eterans are not receiving proper medical care") and maintaining that "liberals" have no interest in a strong national defense ("it speaks to the growing ranks of liberals who are uneasy with the idea of American strength, and the institutions that guarantee it").

Thirdly, Anderson provides no proper rationale for the supposed military hatred of the left, instead suggesting that it is because liberals are "increasingly uncomfortable with American power." As a writer for The New Republic, we can assume that Mr. Anderson has a strong intellectual pedigree, but it doesn't serve him well here: citizens—not necessarily liberal—are concerned less with the rise in military might than they are with the adverse social costs that arise from increased military spending at the expense of social welfare.

***

"Every gun that is made," someone once declared "every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Mr. Anderson would have us all believe that the person behind these words was some card carrying Green, a follower of Gandhi, or worse yet, Martin Luther King or Che Guevara. No, the person behind these words is none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th president of these United States and U.S. Army general of World War II, who stood before the American Society of Newspapers Editors in 1953 to deliver his famous " Chance for Peace" address. Eisenhower was never accused of being a "liberal."

What Eisenhower understood, and what thousands, if not millions understand today, is that the nation actually has priorities outside of "national security," as defined narrowly by pundits like Anderson, limiting national security concerns to military and defense.

This is something that Anderson and his ilk are either unable to understand or unwilling to acknowledge. It is very much a zero sum game: the more resources placed into the militarized state, the fewer the resources available for social welfare programs and education. Military expenditures increase as drastic cuts are made to educational and social programs.

While it is impossible to argue that we do not need a "strong" military, no better question has been asked in regards to the military than the one posed by child advocate Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund:

This is a question that commentators such as Anderson continue to sidestep, but one that continues to be raised by "liberals" like Edelman.

***

There is an age old adage that says you need to pick your battles. So when commentators like Anderson – alongside a chorus of military vets and ground troops – rightfully admit that our forces are being stretched thin, they might want to direct their criticisms to the powers-that-be who decide what battles are to be fought, rather than accusing "liberals" of hating the military. The answer then isn't to increase military spending, but to demand that the executive and legislative branches of government better prioritize (especially in lieu of domestic concerns, such as inadequate public school education), operate within their means—a concept that falls on deaf ears in debt crazy America—and administer military funds more efficiently.

That our troops are forced to operate with outdated and outmoded equipment despite hundreds of billions of dollars dedicated to "national security" makes little sense. It suggests malfeasance and unaccountability on the part of higher-ups.

Those of whom Anderson considers military haters are neither liberal nor conservative – they don't fit into neatly crafted political categories. Rather, so-called military haters are simply critical of the prioritizing of the U.S. government, and for good reason. While the Department of Defense increased their weapons procurement budget to $81 billion in 2004—from $60 billion in 2001—an additional 5 million Americans fell into poverty.

18 percent of the nation's children live in poverty, with an additional 22 percent labeled as low income, though the figures are far worse for traditionally disadvantaged populations such as African Americans, with corresponding figures being 34 and 27 percent, respectively. 9 million children—and millions more of adults—lack health and mental health insurance (veterans aren't the only ones receiving poor medical care), but a corporation like weapons contractor Lockheed Martin, the industry leader, receive some $60 million a day from the U.S. government.

Once the world envied when it came to primary and secondary education, America no longer ranks amongst the world's top 20, having made a Faustian compromise that has placed us at the top in military expenditure but has resulted in 60 percent of White  4th graders and 80 percent of Black 4th graders reading below grade level.

Despite these disheartening and frightening numbers, the president requested a 2007 military budget of $527.4 billion—with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan remaining unbudgeted and likely to cost an additional $100 billion. The president champions his cuts in nonsecurity discretionary spending as if it were a good thing, declaring in his most recent State of the Union address "Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of nonsecurity discretionary spending. . . .This year, my budget will cut it again."

While increasing military spending, millions of dollars would be cut from the food stamp program, child care subsidies, public housing programs, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, and job training programs, with billions of dollars cut from Medicaid, Pell Grants for higher education, and various other educational programs.

Excuse me as I suppress my excitement over cuts in nonsecurity discretionary spending. And it's not as though the budgets proposed by Congress are much better.

In Baltimore – where I reside – the median income family paid, on average, $1296 in federal income tax, with 37 percent of that earmarked for past and present military expenses. According to the military loathing War Resisters League, 49 percent of federal funds is hoarded for past and present military expenditures.

While this number is likely a bit excessive, it is also far more accurate than the 19 percent reported by the U.S . government, which includes Social Security and other programs that are funded separately from income tax as a part of federal spending, and includes past military spending with nonmilitary discretional spending. Such acrobatics are necessary for the government to validate bloated and inefficient military spending that makes corporations like Lockheed Martin wealthier each day, as cuts made to social and educational programs make it that much harder for marginalized Americans.

Instead of devoting precious time and space to attacks upon a concerned citizenry critical of government decision-making, Mr. Anderson and his peers should direct their criticisms at the growing number of political leaders who are indifferent to social welfare and the programs that make equitable access and opportunity possible.

Anderson's question should not be "Why do liberals hate the military?" but "Why do our leaders choose militarism and poverty over social welfare and children?" After all, how long can America remain a world power and military force without properly investing in its present and future?

***

Rodney Foxworth is a Baltimore writer and college student. An associate editor of LiP Magazine, his writings have appeared in publications such as the Baltimore Sun, Metro New York, LiP, Baltimore City Paper, The Black Commentator, and Dissident Voice. He is an occasional blogger at Brickburner.org.

posted 19 April 2006