Sunday Discussion Group

May 13, 2007

Perhaps the single most frustrating aspect of contemporary political debate is the myth that somehow Democrats are anti-military, while Republicans are pro-military. David Broder, reporting from the DNC’s winter meeting a few months ago, observed, “One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of ‘Duty, Honor, Country,’ forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military.”

There was no reason for Broder to take this cheap shot, but more importantly, it was based on nothing but a media-driven myth. He probably just assumed Democratic activists harbor some kind of hostility for the military because, well, it’s one of those things that “everyone knows” is true — even though it’s obviously not.

The LAT noted today that Dems are cognizant of the myth and working to dispel it.

Ever since the Vietnam era, Democrats have struggled to overcome a notion the party is not just antiwar but antimilitary.

Now, sensing a chance to shed that image, Democrats are wrapping themselves in khaki and embracing the nation’s fighting men and women.

Even as they press for withdrawal from Iraq, congressional Democrats have proposed more money for armored vehicles, shorter tours of duty for Reserve soldiers and expanded programs to care for veterans.

On the campaign trail, party leaders and Democratic presidential hopefuls invariably couple condemnation of the war with expressions of sympathy and support for those fighting.

Will this work? Or are we still years away from changing misguided opinions, kept alive by a media that, despite all evidence, buys into the myth?

To be sure, Dems are doing everything possible to show their values and make clear their commitment to those who wear the uniform.

The reception has been positive, from even the most fervently antiwar audiences. Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) drew a cheering, whistling, foot-stomping reception at the state party convention in San Diego when she combined an assault on the Bush administration with heaping praise for U.S. troops.

“We salute them for their courage, their patriotism and the sacrifices they and their families are willing to make,” Pelosi told the crowd, which was speckled with signs calling for Bush’s impeachment and an immediate end to the war.

Pelosi said that instead of being honored upon their return, “veterans are being forced to cope with a system that is not equipped to care for them. Democrats will take proper care of our heroes and leave no veteran behind.” […]

Even antiwar groups are using a pro-troops message to make their case.

A new TV spot targeting more than a dozen Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Mary Bono of Palm Springs, features two retired Army commanders accusing Bush of ignoring his generals and weakening the military. “You did not listen, Mr. President,” retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste says in the ad, sponsored by VoteVets.org, a group of antiwar veterans. “You continue to pursue the failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps.”

Democratic pollster Peter Hart said the party has to “make up a lot ground” to make up to convince a majority of voters that its members can be as strong as Republicans on national defense, due to “perceptions that have been ground in over a long, long period of time.”

Are Dems making headway? What more can Dems do?

For that matter, isn’t it at least as likely that Republicans are entering an era in which they’ll lose their credibility on defense due to their spectacular and tragic failures on the issue?

I think the ‘support the troops/oppose the war’ meme has been very effective in shaping public opinion about the Iraq debacle. Whether it translates to the Democratic brand is still up in the air.

It wouldn’t hurt to point out the repub’s version of military support which seems to favor spending obscene amounts of money on orbiting space junk while the troops struggle to implement a non-existing plan without the proper equipment. Tours of duty are extended, as is the wait for health care when those tours are completed.

Republican support for the military begins and ends at the aerospace industry. The actual people in uniform are readily expendable.

  • The only “real” way to show you are “pro-military” is to keep throwing money at them, which the Dems are sure to do for the next generation. And the Repubs will keep saying the Dems aren’t throwing enough. It is a suckers game. The Dems need to have a plan and vision for what the military is, should be and can be. And they certainly need to control the definition of National Defense. I don’t see coming from any Dem leaders now. As long as they just strive to be Rebublican lite, they will lose the issue to the Rebubs.

  • I think a lot of politicians from overseas have a lot more of the ‘gift of gab’ than politicians in general do over here- they’re a lot more like the spot-on, great commenters on life in all its rich texture, like Mark Twain and Geoffrey Chaucer and Jonathan Swift. It’s hard to notice, but our politicians are a little more staid and don’t carry as textured and as reaching a message as regular people do when they’re sending up whoever they’re sending up.

    It’s easy to criticize Repubs for their ‘support’ of the military- just show them as they really are, and the types all of us have known at one point or another- wannabes, guys who love to talk about killing people and the military but who have almost know idea what it’s all about compared to how much they shoot their mouths off. Since this is what they are, it’s not hard to make people see them this way- you just have to find the right language. Attack their strength as a prerequisite to establishing our own.

  • Democrats support the troops and a guided military.
    Republicans support war profiteers.
    Democrats support the troops even when they’re done fighting.
    Republicans use the troops till they are done fighting.
    Democrats protect the troops asking what can we do for you.
    Republicans take the troops they have telling them this is what you will do for us..
    Our Democratic leaders have been there and done that.
    Our Republican leaders sent you there and play dress up.

  • An opening shot.

    From the outside, Americans generally seem among the most military-obsessed people on Earth. They’re certainly gun-obsessed. Distinctions between Democratic Americans’ insecurity and Republican Americans’ insecurity on the issue of military allegiance pale to insignificance when viewed in the context of the actual exercise of American military might around the world. No other country remotely matches America in that regard.

    The debate most of the rest of the world’s population would like to see is not some navel-gazing hairsplitting about who’s more pro- or anti-military, but who is more respectful of international law, who is more respectful of human rights, who is more respectful of cultural, religious and ethnic differences and diversity. That would represent a tonic breath of fresh air, at least as far as international regard of your sadly degenerating condition.

    Christians and Muslims seem incapable of letting go of each other’s throats. This tussle has been going on for centuries. It’s nothing new. What is new is the sophistication and destructiveness of the armaments available to both sides. As a result, a larger number of people, in addition to the military, are affected by these conflicts. So, however finely one dissects the apparent allegiances of adherents of different shades of political complexion to the military component of a society’s organization, it will always remain inadequate if bereft of reference to the context in which that military power operates. The military is not really the issue — every country has an army. The issue is the use to which that military power is, or may be, put.

    My impression is that Gen. Wesley Clark is uniquely distinctive in his understanding of this. He also appears to have the clarity, precision and erudition to be an indispensably valuable spokesperson in this debate. He deserves our support and encouragement.

  • There’s definitely a tension. The military as an institution since the COld War tends to run itself in ways that are completely at odds with democratic society – chosing to be bigger and secretive and resistant to any oversight. Just saw an article about thousands of nuclear workers since the 50s coming down with illnesses and having their claims dismissed. Just like Gulf War Syndrome. Military exempts itself from all sorts of environmental controls. Military enters into all sorts of secretive multi-million dollar contracts and is in bed with defense contractors, etc.
    But the most damaging thing is the out-and-out blatant lieing to the American people both during VietNam and now – and their treatment and attitude toward the press as an enemy. Republicans just embrace this stuff, just like they’ve embraced the use of torture an destruction of habeas corpus. The Democrats say “WTF?” And for this, the Democrats are the bad guys.

  • …kept alive by a media that, despite all evidence, buys into the myth?

    Don’t be a moron – they didn’t “buy into” anything – they have willingly “catapulted the propaganda.”

    I am so sick of reading self-proclaimed liberals that give the lying liars in the corporate media a free pass – as if its somehow an OOPS! that they are the main reason an AWOL alcoholic-cocaine addict was fraudulently hoisted on the American public!

    There was a time when REAL liberals built their dialog on the STRUCTURAL FACTORS that created these situations –

    THE MSM IS NOT A VICTIM HERE – they are taking their marching orders from the same folk’s that brought us the chimp!

  • the MSM that you claim “buys into the myth” has essentially covered up the treatment of Iraqi casualties and the scandal at Walter Reed.

    This isn’t really about the MSM being somehow “mistaken” or some type of victim.

  • The “dirty hippie pacifist Dems” notion will die around the same time the last baby boomer retires from the MSM. It’s a leftover artifact of misremembered historical experience, and nothing will dislodge it other than turnover.

    The good news is it’s becoming a less and less relevant notion. The chimp seems bound and determined to discredit every aspect of the consensus Republican conventional wisdom, from the efficacy of imperial war to the notion of lower taxes/smaller government to the idea that the devout make more moral political leaders. Boomers in the media will hang onto their ideas about the dirty hippies, but fewer and fewer will pay attention to them.

  • “From the outside, Americans generally seem among the most military-obsessed people on Earth”

    This is also true from the inside point of view. No real difference between the dem’s and Rep party regarding the use and size of the US military.
    Its a silly argument that one political party is soft on the military and its a lazy MSM sterotype that makes quick headlines and lower cost reporting.

    Lets also understand that the past 50 years both political parties have integrated the military establishment firmly within the economic life of major urban and southern cities. We are and have been the world’s leader in exporting military equipment and our GDP is dependent upon a robust amount of military spending. It.

  • The country needs to wake up to the fact the Republican appeal is a senile childlike Ronand Reagan B movie fantasy world where faith trumps facts and feel good hollywood scripts promise magic miracles. “If you believe with all your heart then your dreams will come true.”
    Disney gone evangelical neo-con.

    The distinction between Democrats and Republicans is one of developmental cognitive maturity. Wisdom based on science, hard data and real life experience versus magical thinking.

    The problem is how to sell Democratic intelligent options to a nation so willing to be soothed by coloring book candidates, fairy tale foreign policy and cartoon ideology.

  • Great comments on a great topic.

    I tend to think that the militaristic and authoritarian tendencies of the right are what fuel the perception of them being pro-military. Their readiness to use force is seen as strength, while the left’s preference for diplomacy — with force as an absolute last resort — is seen as weakness. Similarly, the never-questioning right is somehow seen as supportive and patriotic; the tendency of the left to question is seen as unpatriotic and unsupportive. The right believes that to be supportive, you must question nothing.

    The left believes that government should promote humanistic, social concerns as well as support the military. The right sees the world more in terms of survival of the fittest; social and humanistic concerns are thus seen as weakness, while projection of power is strength. The left seeks to live peacefully with it’s neighbors, the right seeks to vanquish them.

    So, differences in how the left and right “support” the military aren’t that different from how they approach other issues. Simplistic, group-think that favors aggression in a dog-eat-dog world drives the right, while more nuanced, critical approaches in a world where all are citizens drive the left.

    What keeps the myth Steve refers to alive is the same thing that makes the schoolyard bully appear stronger than the captain of the debate team.

    (I’ll bet I could edit that down to 3 sentences, but there are more important things to do today. To all the Mom’s out there, Happy Mother’s Day!)

  • The problem is that a notion has taken hold that one can only be “pro-military” if you’re pro-war. “Supporting the troops” has come to mean “ordering them to go kill people.”

    I’m not a pacifist, nor reflexively anti-war, but there are certain truths I can’t help but recognize. We have an enormous military, certainly orders of magnitude larger than necessary for “defense.” We’ve come to accept the notion that we have this right to deploy our military might around the world at the whim of our leaders–and that feeding this military with the most up-to-date, expensive weapons systems, whether or not they even make sense for our (themselves irrational) strategic needs, merits a whopping share of our budget.

    And we don’t even exercise particular diligence in tracking how that money is spent.

    It occurs to me that Democrats could use the military as the petri dish for any and all social welfare daydreams. Triple their pay. Give them all college scholarships, dependents too. Subsidize much nicer housing. Incredibly generous pensions. And pay for all this by cutting some of those weapons systems that were originally intended to deter the Soviets from pouring through the Fulda Gap. Let the other side attack us for “coddling the troops.”

    My overall point is that this debate, sooner or later, has to go way beyond the question of political perceptions and delve into how we spend our defense billions.

  • It is, without any shred of doubt, an insult to all American veterans—who have proudly worn the uniform of their nation’s armed forces—that Broder repeatedly defends the military pompousity of our “administrators” who have either dodged actual service for the fairytale of playing domesticated weekend warrior, or have simply not served at all by living on the magic carpet of bought-and-paid-for deferments. Compounding this insult is the additional fact that Broder himself served, from ’51 to ’53—yet will hurl insults ad nauseum upon others who served, simply because of political affiliation.

    For all those who feel that this war is of such paramount importance—promoting the “over there prevents over here” mantra—this nation should immediately create a “Volksturm” Expeditionary Tactical Team. Let these blowhards who cry out the need to fight this Bu$hWar go over to Iraq. Let the Broders of America, thus, be “VETT”ed….

  • Given that all the right wing “patriots” never served and never would serve – right up to and including their most likely candidate for President, George Romney – and that all kinds of Democrats not only served but served in difficult places (George McGovern, 35 missions over Germany in a B-24, John Kerry in a swift boat – both jobs you have to volunteer for), given there are more decorated veterans who are Democrats in the House and Senate than there are Republicans, it should be easy: the next time some right wing asshole goes off, just ask when they plan to go down and join up to go fight the great crusade.

    Keep hammering them for their hypocrisy: George Bush who went AWOL, Dick Cheney who “had other priorities,” the whole damn bunch of them.

  • How long has it taken to kill the notion that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility?

    Our grandchildren will be hearing that the Democrats are ‘soft on defense’.

  • Davis X. Machina #18 raises a good question and makes a good point. Of course, it’s as old as the day is long, but it is an important feature of the political landscape : the power of the MSM to create and maintain false myths for vested interests.

    Tony Blair recognized this problem and all but sold his soul to solve it. Yes, he made a deal with Murdoch (that’s your Fux News Murdoch). Murdoch destroyed the Left’s chances at the previous election with one front page headline in Britain’s most popular newspaper on the day of the election. It said : “If Labour wins will the last person to leave Britain please put out the light.” and showed a light bulb, and Labour duly lost.

    Blair knew what he was up against and solving it was top of his agenda. Without the media with him he had no chance. His great achievement, and genius, was turning the media around and getting them on board on Labour’s side. He spent months negotiating with the owners, conferencing with their boards, meeting the editors, and winning them over. The point was that they were blind and had boxed themselves in actually against their own better longterm interests. Blair was able to show them that the Tories were confused, deadbeat and already unpopular. They were yesterday’s team with no future. ‘New’ Labour offered fresh, vigorous policies based on service rather than power. A radical idea for some conservatives, but they bought into it.

    Is it possible that something like this could happen in America? That established and influential Democrats could get the media moguls’ ears enough to open their eyes a little? It would seem to be well worth a try.

  • I wish what you say were true, but the fact is there’s a faction of the our party that most certainly is anti-military. I campaigned for Wes Clark in 2004 and I don’t know how many times I heard, “I could never vote for a general,” or “He’s part of the military-industrial complex,” or “He’s a war criminal” or worse. None of these people knew jack diddly about Clark’s record of championing progressive causes or his liberal positions on the issues; they attacked him solely because of his military background and their own stereotypes about what it must mean.

    The good news is that their views are not common. The vast majority of Democrats are not anti-military. But there is a very vocal minority that gives the rest of us a bad name. Moreover, it forces our politicians to bend over backwards to make sure everybody knows they are not anti-military, and too often to take positions that don’t make sense out of fear they’ll fall prey to the Republican branding.

    More “good news” (ok, not particularly good for the military) is that Republicans are definitely NOT pro-military. And since actions speak louder than words, people are beginning to catch on to that little secret.

  • Republicans are trying to make it look like we’re against fighting the terrorists, and we’re not for fighting the terrorists. So we have to make it not look like that. We have to make it look like the difference is a difference on tactics, not a difference on whether to fight or not.

    Just say that the Republicans are a bunch of loud-mouths who don’t know that modern war should, most of the time, be more about brains than about brwn, and who don’t know the difference between fighting smart and fighting dumb. Point out that maneuver is the basic principle of warfare that has been known and practiced for thousands of years- no boxing champion or karate champion would ever fight you standing still. Every single one of them would move around. Sometimes, standing in one place and trying to keep fighting there is dumb. Dems want us to have the flexibility to move out of an area if fighting there is not helping us and to keep fighting the enemy elsewhere in a different way. Repubs want us to keep fighting the enemy in a way that doesn’t work because they don’t want to suffer personally or look dumb from a change in tactics.

  • when it comes to serving our country in the military, please take note of those distinguished politicians who happened to have other priorities when it came to serving in our armed forces. i think that says it all.

  • If you’re a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama, and you think it sounds corny to analogize to boxers and karate fighters, consider that these kinds of specific example concretize your terms a lot for the average voter- and you can demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about by adding on, “. . .and it goes the same for war, too.”

    Remember, you’re talking about something very specific and very comparable. You’re talking about picking your battles; you’re talking about moving out of the way of harm when it’s no good to be standing in the way of harm. It’s not like comparing the whole invasion and occupation of Iraq- a very complicated situation with no controlling rules- to a baseball game, a situation that is tightly controlled and regulated to allow only certain actions (as a Republican congressman recently did).

    Dems should not be afraid to drop the kinds of statements I am suggesting in a forceful, straightforward, “I’m just leveling here” manner. Dems have internalized a lot of bad lessons from the press, like that they can’t be critical- or can’t be critical and sound too clearly critical while they’re doing it- without seriously risking sounding like they made a faux pas. You have to try to find a way around that. You have to be able to say the kinds of things about Republicans I am suggesting, like calling them basically wannabes who are talking a lot of stuff about what’s going on in a war without necessarily thinking a lot about it or knowing a lot about it. You can’t be shy of criticizing them for the American people to the same degree they criticize you, and in the same really spot on terms you’d criticize them in private to your confidantes.

  • The most important thing to remember is to know in your own mind that all this stuff from the Republicans is just message, all the way through. If a Republican says in front of you that I’m just a dumb kid, it’s not because it’s his opinion that I’m just a dumb kid. It’s more likely it’s that he thinks the advice I’m giving is really helpful- it’s more likely he thinks I’m like having two of the really best Republican advisors on your side combined- and he’s trying to get you to stop using me.

  • Hey everybody,

    I was just reading my Sunday Chicago Sun-Times and what a surprise to see an article authored by our very own CB!

    Title “Wishing Upon A Czar” on the right hand side of page 3B.

    Looks like they got it from one of his posts ( “Wish Upon A Czar” ) over at “The American Prospect” http://www.prospect.org

  • To the Democrats: The military is its people, the troops.

    To the Republicans: The miltary is a company that deleivers a service. THE service.

    When one thinks about it that way, a consistent pattern emerges.

    Democrats see the soliders that need to be fed, clothed, protected, and healed to defend us.

    Republicans see the bombers, tanks, missiles, robots, ships, and subs that require the irksome expense of messy human beings behind each trigger.

    Eisenhower’s industrial-military complex needs to sell weapons to make the money they use to elect the people that vote to buy more weapons. Expensive profitable weapons. Who makes money when we recruit soldiers? Nobody. Their function is to use up the weaponry which will precipitate the need to buy more and bring in more money to the Republican benefactors. They are a means to the end which should be kept at as low a cost as possible so as to allow as much of the defenser budget to go to the weapons makers as possible.

    Fortunately, through the invention of private armies like Blackwater, soon troops themselves will be commodities to be traded. We can expect the cost of THEIR upkeep (armor, training, and other expensive luxuries) will need to be kept to a minimum as well, but the profit margin on the staff as well as the weapons should insure the Republicans stay competitive for the foreseeable future regardless of any reckless behavior by future presidents.

  • Looks like “Dick” Cheney may have to mobilize his private Brownshirt army of internationally criminal imperial corporatists:

    Wayne Madsen Report May 13-14

    The focus on the DC Hookergate story has now moved to Baltimore, and the firing by the Justice Department in December 2004 of the US Attorney for Maryland, Thomas DiBiagio. DiBiagio was fired, along with a number of other US attorneys, after George W. Bush’s re-election for political reasons. One of DiBiagio’s public corruption targets was the staff of then-Republican Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, some of whom had engaged the services of Madam Palfrey’s escorts.

  • Praise Allah for 60 Minutes. Otherwise I would never have realized that Willard M. Romney was responsible for “turning around Massachusetts”. Even though I was right cheer the whole time, unlike Willard, who in his last year as Guvner, was out of the State approximately 223 days, I missed the whole thing.

    I suppose I should have worked it out for myself. When you do 180’s on every position 2 years into your term I suppose that is turning around.

  • How ’bout my performance on Sunday? I’m auditioning for the sidekick spot in “Rona Barrett’s Washington, with Chrissy Matthews”. Don’t worry about the bad rug, my people are looking at something more realistic from the Roadkill Collection.

    • Comments are closed.