Democrats, embrace Trump’s bigger military
President Trump’s proposed $54 billion increase in defense spending is stirring controversy. What Democrats might not recognize is that it offers them an opportunity for redemption.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says the spending boost would cause “far-reaching and long-lasting damage to our ability to meet the needs of the American people and win jobs of the future.” It’s time for liberals to rethink that sentiment.
Supporting the military — including Trump’s plan to add tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines — offers an opportunity to reconnect with Middle America’s working class, which perceives an emphasis on social justice as divisive. “Check your white privilege” isn’t a message that resonates with laid-off steel workers. The workers’ party is no longer appealing to the workers.
The problem is especially pronounced among men. Since 1954, the percentage of 25- to 54-yearold men in the workforce has fallen from 98% to 88%. Only one party is seen as addressing this issue. Men supported Trump by a 9-point margin, white men by 31 points, and white men without college degrees by 48 points.
Democrats need to acknowledge that one of the best and most realistic ways to support these people is by growing the military. I left the Army last year. It’s an innately human organization, made up of the same type of young men whom America is leaving behind.
Universal Medicare, living wages and free college for all: To liberals, these are Bernie Sanders’ campaign promises. To 1.5 million active-duty troops and their families, they are a reality:
uA million veterans and servicemembers received $12 billion in educational payments in fiscal year 2015.
uAs the Obamacare debate rages, servicemembers will remain insured. TRICARE supplied an average of $60,000 in benefits apiece to servicemembers and their families this past year.
There is plenty of legitimate criticism of defense spending. From President Reagan’s flawed “Star Wars” missile defense system ($200 billion) to the F-35 fighter jet under development ($1.45 trillion), there’s no shortage of boondoggles to prove that President Eisenhower’s warning of a military-industrial complex was downright clairvoyant.
But to cut the size of the military would be to shrink one of the most important social safety nets this country has left. In an era when bipartisanship is rarer than an on-time and under-budget defense project, shouldn’t we be looking for an arena where conservative and liberal interests intersect?
When we talk about downsizing the military, let’s think less about a monolithic war-fighting machine. It’s an organization that serves a direly underserved demographic. As we continue to automate and deindustrialize, opportunities for Middle America will continue to fade.
I’ll bet that Democrats will dismiss the only politically viable social safety net we’ve got. If they do, it will be at their own peril.