A Two-Sided Question
David Frum made an interesting point on last night’s Bill Maher show that’s worth repeating. (Sorry if it’s not very readable, I tried to transcribe his high-speed mumbling as well as I could)
The U.S. military does vote very, very heavily Republican and it would probably be a good thing if it didn’t vote so heavily Republican, even though it would cost us maybe a point or two, because the Army ought to be the Army of the whole nation. Instead of asking “Why are these soldiers so brainwashed?” that they support one party and not another what one (Democrats in particular) ought to look at their own party and say “What is it about the Democratic party that makes it so difficult for them to connect with the men and women in uniform?”
It’s a very interesting question and one I’ll definitely remember next time some Republican crybaby complains about journalists, scientists, and teachers who vote overwhelmingly senate. What is it about the Republican party that makes it so difficult for them to connect with the men and women who are the most informed about our country’s problems?
4 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It is not the Repugnicons who appeal to the military folk, it is the military that appeals to conservatives… mostly the ones NOT in power.
And instead of “with the men and women who are the most informed about our country’s problems” how about “with the most educated men and women in America?”
Neither is a silver bullet, but the first allows easy arguments about what it is to be informed, or about rightly vs. wrongly informed. The second has the same weakness but the arguement is harder for them to make despite their “liberal elite” meme.
Comment by Fr33d0m — April 16, 2005 @ 8:06 pm
Great point. I appreciate what the military does for us but I don’t count on them for info related to global strategy or politics or philsophy or a whole lot of other extremely important stuff.
I also liked what Natalie Maines said about the soldiers backing Bush because they’re scared and they need something or someone to focus on. For the most part they’re young and impressionable and stuck in a situation that definitely does not encourge independent thinking.
Comment by jim marquis — April 17, 2005 @ 1:35 pm
This is a good article from tompaine.com written late last year addressing some of the misperceptions that a few liberals have about the military:Military Misconceptions
Also, I can’t find the link right now, but a survey I read in Dec.2004 said that while most navy and Army officers are Republicans, the ranks are roughly split one third Dems, one third repubs, and the rest independent or apolitical. Not too surprising to me anyway, is that the Marines have a larger proportion of liberals then any branch of the military. I recently came across this marine’s blog, A Liberal Marines Progressive Perspective.
Also, it seems to me being from a three genertion military family, that most military are cultural liberals, but unfortunately buy the conservative BS on foreign policy. The military itself is a good example of liberialism, with fairness in promotions without regard to race or gender. And while their are internal office like political games to play to move way up the ranks, promotions are based on merit, not the good ol boy system.
Lastly; the single biggest thing progressives can do to moderate the political landscape in the military officer corps is to encourage public universities to allow ROTC programs. Average folks with moderate political opinions would then be a larger part of the officer class.
Comment by mike d. — April 19, 2005 @ 1:35 am
Check out the book “Full Spectrum Disorder,” author’s name escapse me. He went from fifteen years in the Special Forces to being a left-wing revolutionary. And it’s well-written.
Comment by Joe — April 19, 2005 @ 1:51 pm