There are reasons to think it’s a huge make work program, aimed at being acceptable to conservatives.
But there hasn’t been much talk about this idea in the mainstream. You’ll hear military spending is wasteful, that we need a smaller military – but you won’t hear many people call it workfare.
That’s why this little back and forth with Grover Norquist is unusual, and even the article by Talking Points Memo’s Ben Amburster:
NORQUIST: We also need to combat the idea that the Defense Department is a jobs program. Some people who call themselves conservatives who are actually Keynesian, make work, FDR guys. They laugh at that when we see an $800 billion stimulus package. We know that’s garbage. We know that money is wasted. We know those aren’t real jobs. You haven’t created jobs. It’s just government spending that makes this country weaker. The same is true for any dollar wasted in the name of national defense. It doesn’t create jobs. It takes money out of the real economy and puts it into the government sector
Mr. Norquist bringing up this critique of the military without prompting is a good sign. TPM picking it up and highlighting it is even better.
Thinking about the military as a gigantic make work program – an ELR of sorts – puts the entire military into an entirely different perspective.
(P.S. Yeah – I’ve been really busy – and it’s August! I took some time off)
One thing the US military does extremely well is waste money on bombs that are then destroyed in the process of destroying human beings. Talk about the ultimate wasteful spending.
Yes, spending all this money to blow stuff up is insanely wasteful.
Imagine you had the military working constantly on keeping U.S. infrastructure repaired. At some point soon, we would run out of stuff to fix.
Right now, the military spends a huge amount of money on contractors, weapons building, designing stuff to kill people. This above and beyond the people employed directly by the military.
No doubt the military wastes alot of money (mostly from massive cost overruns on the big ticket items), but it also does alot of good. Creating alot of jobs while accomplishing one of any governments most basic tasks (national security) is a good thing. The Army does actually build alot of infrastructure projects, unfortunately, they are mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of here at home.
I think a big overlooked thing when it comes to the military is the very positive social aspect. A lot of the kids who join the military come from lower income backgrounds, had a lack of good parenting etc. I know remember being shocked when some of the screw-up crowd kids from high school ended up joining the military and within a few years were some of the most mature kids around. It’s nice to have an institution where kids in need can get discipline, respect, training and a free college education.
As a vet, I agree with this in principle, but in practice, there is lot more to be said about the situation that exists, which is abysmal and it is ruining the US in many ways. I could write volumes about the good, the bad and the ugly, but I just want to say here than there are two sides of this and both are correct as far as they go. We need to see it in a comprehensive way that advocates increasing the good, reducing the bad, and eliminating the ugly.
I didn’t bring this up to slam the military. It’s mostly as a note of a little recognized way to look at the military, and this view seems to be gaining some traction out in the real world. It’s a bit odd that Norquist is talking about it, and then was picked up by the pretty liberal TPM as a note. Norquist is farther right than TPM is left, but this way of looking at the military should appeal to hard core libertarians and moderate lefties.
The good, the bad – these aren’t easy to separate when talking about the military. It does appear to be a jobs program, based on the amount of necessity and actual use vs. the amount of money spent every year on it.
It’s just a jobs program which appeals to conservatives.
The social aspect is huge. It’s a good thing for many people, and it changes their lives in a powerful and positive way. How can you put a value on this?
Of course, so many end up being right wing nuts, but thats a feature, not a bug, for the pro-military crowd.
Mike, I served during Vietnam and it was my military service that turned me into a radical. It was in the military that I figured out what was really going on, and I also knew at the time how the military was pulling the wool over Congress’s eyes.
My extended family was traditional Republican with many ultra-right wing “anti-communists.” So it worked just the opposite in my case, as it did with many others. There were lots of vets that returned to oppose not only the war but also the American Empire and its quest to control global resources regardless of the havoc being wrought on ordinary people’s lives.
The time period in question matters tremendously. People across the political spectrum regard Vietnam as massive waste of lives and resources. Easy to see that experience turning anyone into an anti-war type, which can extend into anti-military etc. But wars and the institution of the military are two different things. During peaceful times, kids can put their 4 years in, get whipped into shape and go to college. Certainly a distinction to be made between priniciple and practice.
In addition to being a jobs program, the military is also the single biggest govt R&D project. That’s where many of the billions in cost overruns to defense contractors go. Some you could call waste and corporate welfare, but many of the biggest inventions of the last century have come from defense related research, so it’s not all bad.
I would not say that I am anti-military at all, and admittedly I did get a PhD in part through veterans’ benefits, for which I am grateful. There are a lot of good things about military training and I think it was a mistake to repeal the draft. I would favor some period of national service for all, men and women, with the military being one option. America seems to be losing its sense of civics and civic responsibility as the foundation of freedom.
I am opposed to militarism based on nationalism and the use of the military chiefly for projection of power instead of defense and for economic reasons rather than legitimately national security.We are supposed to have a citizen military and civilian control of the military, but military contractors (mercenaries, really), a “professional military” (warrior class), use of military expenditure as a chief economic tool, and deployment of the military for empire-building are excesses that need to be ended.
That time you are referring to Tom, the VietNam era, is a lynchpin of the modern conservative movement really. Seeing our troops come home and turn against their institution horrified many conservatives. To have troops turn against the military was un thinkable to them and thats when they set out to change things. Evangelizing is now prominent in the military and its simply a way to make the troops unquestioning followers. Additionally we fight without too many troops on the ground now so its safer.
My dad was Army and I am not anti military per se. I think it would be a great jobs program actually. What Im most disgusted by is the fact that pure chickenhawks like Cheney and Bush get glorified by cretins while Kerry and others who actually served AND fought get demonized……. simply because they might raise taxes on rich people.
Greg, IMHO all liberal democracies should avoid establishing a professional military. Professional militaries are incompatible with liberal democracy.
BTW, if anyone is following Occupy Marines, Occupy Navy, etc., and also Occupy Police, one will find many combat vets now opposing the current regime, which they see as betraying what they risked their lives for and saw their buddies die for. Vietnam redux, because nothing has changed.