The Military Is More Liberal Than You Think

Here is a direct quotation from a column written by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times on July 23: "Asked by a Democratic lawmaker a while back why there weren't more democrats in the military, General Petraeus smiled slyly and said 'there are more than you think.'"

Now go to Colonel Steven Boylan of the General's public affairs office in Baghdad who said of the quotation that it is "in error, as he never made nor never would make such a statement."

Well, I certainly believe that Petraeus did not want to make such a statement given that it is inappropriate that a military officer make any partisan comment at all. But it does bring up an interesting question : Is the military more liberal than the clichés would have you believe?

The answer is "yes" and the reason that Obama will win the active duty vote this November.

Most people with whom I talk, often quite educated, think the military is made up of knife-between-the-teeth grunts, uneducated robots without any kind of free will whatsoever -- people who goose step to Republican philosophy and particularly the Bush cowboy mentality.

It is true that in the recent past most members of the military have voted Republican. This is because the GOP is far more likely to flood the military with cash and thus make the lives of the service member bit easier. However, I believe any sort of polling will show, on an issue-by-issue basis, that the military is mostly made up of people with a liberal mindset. And that is what Petraeus was talking about.

Let's take a look at the most ardent post-military political leaders in our nation today. Who are they?

John McCain -- Vietnam vet, former prisoner of war -- is a Republican. Robert Dole is a World War II hero. George Bush, the elder, is a World War II hero.

But now look at the rest of congress. The former military that serve in the House and Senate are mostly Democrats

Here are the political leaders with military experience who have taken prominent positions on defense issues. They are:

Wesley Clark - Democrat.
Jimmy Carter - Democrat.
John Kerry - Democrat.
Bob Kerrey - Democrat (winner of medal of Honor)
Max Cleland - Democrat.
John Murtha - Democrat.
Jack Reed - Democrat.
Daniel Inouye - Democrat. (winner of Medal of Honor)
Jim Webb - Democrat.
Charles Rangel - Democrat.
Al Gore- Democrat

Why do so many members of the military who decide on continuing in public service join the Democratic Party? There are several answers to this, here are a few:

1) Forty percent of the military is made up of ethnic minorities. Most of those, as is also the case with most of the Caucasian members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, come from the lower economic classes. These demographic groups have largely voted Democrat in the past and will continue to do so. When officers (the more likely to go into politics) live with their soldiers day in and day out, a certain empathy builds. It is unavoidable. Those officers begin to understand and respect the problems their soldiers and their families face or have faced on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, the primary reason that young men and women join the service is not their fetish for combat or killing but to satisfy the dire economic needs of their family.

2) The United States military is probably the most socialistic institution in the United States. Think about it. There is universal health care in the military (though we have seen how unconscionably horrific our medical attention has been to our soldiers in places like Walter Reed). Housing is available to all members of the military. Educationally, the children of the officers, even the Generals, go to a school with the children of the lowliest Private in the army.

The major institutions that produce our most elite officers come from a position of absolute meritoriousness as opposed to wealth or contacts. Right now Annapolis and West Point are two of the nation's most difficult colleges to get into. Those two schools, as well as the Air Force Academy and the Coast Guard Academy, are blatantly transparent in who and how they admit because they are federally funded. The students who are accepted have to come from the highest academic stock. Were a qualified high school student to be be rejected in favor of somebody because of that person's family's wealth or political connections, it would create a gigantic scandal, given that it is Congressmen who nominate (though do not appoint) cadets and midshipmen.

Just for myself to be transparent myself, I graduated from West Point in 1984.

3) Former soldiers will almost always gravitate to the anti-war party. This happens for obvious reasons. The men who have been in battle tend not to romanticize it and tend not to take it flippantly. The reasons for going to war need to be extraordinarily convincing before anybody who has taken a bullet, seen their friends take a bullet, or who has lodged a bullet in the enemy's brain will put their support behind a war. Recent history has shown that the Republicans are more likely to use the military as a tool of policy rather than as a tool of defense. That is unacceptable to anybody who has served.

4) Finally, and maybe most importantly, is the Iraq war itself. The Bush administration sent our soldiers in on a mission that was initiated either by a lie or by the greatest act of incompetence in the history of this nation's intelligence gathering. In battle, our soldiers were ill equipped and not properly supported. (The "surge" was needed because Bush didn't send in enough troops to begin with). Our wounded soldiers have returned him to find inadequate medical care. The "love" that the soldiers felt from Republicans in peacetime turned into neglect and apathy during war.

The latest poll from Military Times shows that less than half of the military identify themselves as Republicans. The poll goes on to show that much of this anti-Republicanism comes from the bungling of the Iraq war.

As of the start of the year, only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war, and 75% said the military is "stretched too thin to be effective."

A few weeks ago I was in Las Vegas playing blackjack. Two soldiers who were a couple of days away from being re-deployed to Iraq sat at the table with me. After a few minutes of conversation I asked them whom they were voting for. They both said they were voting for Obama (these two guys were white). When I asked them why, they very simply and honestly told me they want to vote for the guy that will get them out of Iraq.

I think this year we will see, for the first time, the active duty military voting for the Democratic candidate.

Comments

[army193]

When does it become socialism, if the constitution states it shall be the we the people that decide what we want, say like Universal Heath for all Americans that the majority of people want. We was not founded on capitalism.

[TommyMcCarthy]

One of the most common canards still believed by many in and out of the military is that Republicans support the troops because they are for increased military spending.

Generally speaking, Repubs love spending money on fancy weapons systems which, whether they work or not, are very lucurative for thier defense contractor buddies.

They're only "fiscally conservative" when it comes to spending money on the actual PEOPLE who make up the "troops" they so vociforously claim to support.
Hence, Walter Reed (once a synonym for the very BEST medical care in America) and every other horror story we all know about wounded G.I.'s having to beg for their rehab and bennies after these flag-waving hypocites abandon them.

Just like in the general economy, a 10.5 gazillion dollar contract with a corporation is necessary for "defense".­........it­'s only when actual PEOPLE benefit that it becomes "government waste.

Same as it ever was
tm

[FLGuardsman]

I agree with this blog. When I was Active Duty I was considered a liberal leaning Republican and was more conservative than almost everyone in all the units I was in. When I got out of the Army in 02 I saw what GWB and the R's were doing and didn't want any part of it. I am in the FL Guard right now, and my unit is probably 55%-45% Democrat or Democrat leaning. The only ones who are R's are the officers, and the Religious Conservatives. So I don't think it would be difficult for Obama to win the Military vote. That is if the Military members get to vote.

A lot of the members haven't registered for absentee ballots (I was one of only 6 who voted in the 98 midterms). And if they are registerd for absentee ballots then they still have to get them. I received my 2000 absentee ballot 3 weeks after the election. Part was due to the incompetence of my local elections office, and the incompetence of the military postal service (retreads who didn't want to be there were in charge of dispensing mail).

[Kassandra]

Come on! The neo-cons don't let the military vote. If they did john Kerry would be our president right now.

They're already starting the purging of the voter roles and the housing foreclosures help them tremendously with that as people are kicked out of their houses and can't get their "proof of residence" thingys back to the GOP. ( And I always thought it was the citizen, not the house that voted; I feel like such a fool!!!)

This is why the only way Obama will win is by a vast, informed voter turnout.

[1will]

The military may be more liberal "Than you think" but it's still mainly made up of Conservatives. I have a feeling the author would have given stats to back up his opinion if he could.
I'm sure our men and women in the military love hearing about Code Pink protesting Marine Recruiters in San Francisco, the mayor telling Marines they are unwelcome, protesters spiiting on Vets, the usual anti military Huffpost comments and all of the many ways you guys show your love for the men and women in our armed forces.

[SirReal1]

You served in which branch?

When?

Where?

If the answer is what I believe it is, you might consider not speaking about that which you do not know.

We've seen enough "chickenhawk Republicans" on this site, talking the same 'ole stuff, about how we "don't support the troops", but the truth is the majority of posters here, who have served in the Military, are mostly Democratic or Liberal in their political leanings.

Time for you to get back to your classes, isn't it?

[Berettasskeeter]

I served for 26 years in the Marine Corps, from '70 to '96, all over the world. I agree with 1will, so let me say it for him, "The military may be more liberal "Than you think" but it's still mainly made up of Conservatives. I have a feeling the author would have given stats to back up his opinion if he could.
I'm sure our men and women in the military love hearing about Code Pink protesting Marine Recruiters in San Francisco, the mayor telling Marines they are unwelcome, protesters spiiting on Vets, the usual anti military Huffpost comments and all of the many ways you guys show your love for the men and women in our armed forces."
Where and when and in which branch did you serve?
Semper fi

[MajorKong]

The whole "protesters spitting on vets" thing probably has happened about as often as flag burnings - almost never. That's one of those right-wing urban legends. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've never met anyone who's seen it first-hand.

[charmedgreenquark]

" I have a feeling the author would have given stats to back up his opinion if he could."??

See Bullet 4): "The latest poll from Military Times shows that less than half of the military identify themselves as Republicans. The poll goes on to show that much of this anti-Republicanism comes from the bungling of the Iraq war."

[JayW2]

When I was in the Army in the `70s, I always noticed that just like the military world was divided by class, enlisted vs. officers, the political leanings seemed to go the same way along those lines. Enlisted tended to be more liberal and often democratic, officers were more conservative and republican. Judging by comments I've heard from the military forces serving in Iraq today, I'd have to say things haven't changed much. There's a good web site that goes to some depth about those who served and those who didn't at: http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

An overwhelming number of Republicans are listed as "did not serve." Strange how they consider themselves the "patriotic" party.

[Bitsko]

Moderator, I hope you don't mind me sending this again. I typed it so fast I got a couple of things wrong. Thanks.

My dad was a poor central Massachusetts Irish kid from a Steelworkers Union family who joined the Marines and fought in the Korean war, went to a two-year college on the G.I. bill, then joined up with the Air Force, where he was with the U-2 program, as a sargeant, for twenty-five years. He was a lifelong liberal, and throughout 1972 wore his McGovern Million Member button under the lapel of his uniform. I don't remember him ever catching any flack for his views, but I suspect that was because the Air Force was probably the most intellectual of the service branches. He truly loved being in the Air Force, and was fascinated by the work he did. He also appreciated that the health care was superb and free, since he and mom begat a large brood of kids, because of which he also moonlighted as the night janitor of the building he worked in during the day.

I'm sure we were the only white family on the bases we lived on who had portraits of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr. on our dining room wall. He also had a picture of the jug-eared Prince Charles in his bedroom, but I think that was just his Irish sense of humor, and not a requirement of the Pentagon!

[Bitsko]

My dad was a poor central Massachusetts Irish kid from a Steelworkers Union family who joined the Marines and fought in world war 2, went to a two-year college on the G.I. bill, then joined up with the Air Force, where he was with the U-2 program for twenty-five years. He was a lifelong liberal, and throughout 1972 wore his McGovern Million Member button under the lapel of his uniform. I don't remember him ever catching any flack for his views, but I suspect that was because the Air Force was probably the most intellectual of the service branches. He truly loved being in the Air Force, and was fascinated by the work he did. He also appreciated that the health care was superb and free, since he and mom begat a large brood of kids. He also moonlighted as the night janitor of the building he worked in during the day.

I'm sure we were the only white family on the bases we lived on who had portraits of the the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr. on our dining room wall. He also had a picture of the jug-eared Prince Charles in his bedroom, but I think that was just his Irish sense of humor!

[Allablaze]

This belief that the military is conservative has always been a myth. The military has always had a disproportionately large number of southern whites in it's ranks. Their conservatism if it could be classified as such does not and did not necessarily stem from an understanding or adherence to conservative ideology, but more so from their own racism and a dislike of elitist northerners.

[SirReal1]

Rod,

I was fairly bemused by several statements in your article, but the one statement that absolutely shocked me was "Just for myself to be transparent myself, I graduated from West Point in 1984.”

If you graduated from "the Point" I must assume that you served your time on Active Duty, which makes so many of your statements utterly baffling to me as a 20 year Retiree.

I also find myself perplexed over the line of thought expressed in some of the sweeping generalities made in your article. Statements I really wouldn't expect from a well educated, thinking man, let alone a graduate of the finest Military Academy in the world.

I have to ask how you can make statements like:

"But it does bring up an interesting question : Is the military more liberal than the clichés would have you believe?

The answer is "yes" and the reason that Obama will win the active duty vote this November."

The belief you have is not supportable in any meaningful way. That the Military is "more liberal than the clichés would have you believe" should be a given, being that " clichés " are often erroneous and in this instance it would be all but impossible for this cliché to be accurate, but, to presume that the inaccuracy of a cliché will lead to more votes for the Democratic candidate in and of itself is sloppy reasoning at best.

(cont)

[SirReal1]

This is not to say that Obama will not garner the majority of the Military vote, but the reason will be far more complex than this simple explanation suggests.

You then made the statement:

"This is because the GOP is far more likely to flood the military with cash and thus make the lives of the service member bit easier."

Again, I find myself wondering how you can make this kind of generality. After a 20 year career, during which I was very diligent in monitoring the political decisions made in regard to my pay, allowances, and benefits, I found that nearly without exception it would be Democratic Administrations and Democratic Politicians that would support legislation that directly benefited the Service Members. I will grant that under Republican Administrations the Budget provided the Military often grew, but larger amounts of those budgets were designated for Weapon System development and procurement, increasing the size of the force, or providing for increased weapons systems, than for Soldier Benefits.

(cont)

[SirReal1]

From this you go on to say:

"I believe any sort of polling will show, on an issue-by-issue basis, that the military is mostly made up of people with a liberal mindset"

OMG man! On an "issue-by-issue basis"? I have to say that on many issues military personnel are generally a bit more conservative than their civilian counterparts. Religion, taxes, the size of Government, guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, crime & punishment, family, and resource utilization are some that immediately come to mind, but it wouldn't take a lot of effort to think of some more. That the "conservatives" do a good job of paying "lip service" to most of these issues, and also talk a good game on "individual freedoms, keeping government out of private lives, and patriotism" only helps their position with MANY Military personnel. I'm not suggesting that most of the Military is incapable of applying critical analysis to the claims and arriving at an educated decision, but, the Republicans do "speak to" the concerns of most Military personnel that I know, and it is difficult when many Democrats have been missing the importance of those concerns to the majority of the Military.

(cont)

[omaro]

Well, one statistic I saw recently is that Obama has received substantially more in campaign donations from enlisted military personnel than has McCain. I think this is well documented.

[ndifference]

Very few privates have children, but your point was made nicely anyway.

[JBS]

Maybe in the old green machine, but not in today's Army.

[FirstShirt]

Why would anyone think the military is not liberal?

The military was integrated by President Harry Truman years before the civil rights movement in the US. The military has had an active EEO system in place for at least 40 years.

Don't ever equate the willingness to bear arms in defense of your country with conservatism. Liberals and conservatives are both patriots and serve it proudly.

[Boomerwoman]

Yes. "Liberals and conservatives are both patriots and serve..proudly." The great republican lie is that democrats are not patriots. BS

[Berettasskeeter]

No, the Republicans do not say that Democrats are not patriots. We say that Liberals are not patriots. There is a difference.
Semper fi

[Bitsko]

"You can't judge a book by the cover." -- Bo Diddley

[Squalish]

"You can't judge a book by your crazy bigot uncle who claims that people of the author's particular race shouldn't be taught to write"

Conflating liberalism with the crime of Treason is not a reasonable point in civil discourse, it is the insane ranting of someone willing to embrace fascism for the country, for the sake of personal gain. It shouldn't require debunking, and when you choose to debunk it you give it value that it does not deserve.

[arvay]

Professional armies are more dangerous to freedom than conscripted armies.

The only way to assure a "representative" armed force would be to re-instate the draft -- and that's not going to happen. As the Pentagon found out in Vietnam, a cross-sectional, non-volunteer army more closely resembles the general population and is more likely to oppose and even undermine military strategy.

Whether or not there are many Democrats in the armed forces, it's a bad situation that we've got an ambitious cadre of professional officers sitting atop soldiers who are often recruited from economically disadvantaged populations.

Of course, there are those who volunteer to serve and defend their country, and who might disagree with some of us on the wars we're fighting. That's fair and just. And all of us should salute the bravery of those who serve -- this isn't a critique of their motivation but a danger signal flashing over their heads.

But a professional army risks creating a Praetorian force that answers to politicians with no effective inside representation from among the people at large.

[FirstShirt]

"The only way to assure a "representative" armed force would be to re-instate the draft -- "

Bad idea. And one probably suggested by someone who would get a deferment and not have to serve.

Guess who ends up being drafted and guess who gets deferments because they are in school? Draftees hate their fate and are unprofessional. Probably for a good reason.

[gorideabike]

Draftees soldiered fought and died as well as any RA. And could always get a little comic relief out of looking at the guy next to them and saying: "Yeah, but you volunteered for this." It is much better to take everyone if you really must have a war.

[arvay]

I wasn't suggesting that it's possible under current conditions. Probably not even desirable. But that doesn't change the fact that a professional army can be unrepresentative of the population at large, and subject to it's own ideas about what the nation should do. It's inherently more dangerous, politically, than conscripted forces.

[JBS]

So? Don't give ANY deferments.

[omaro]

There's no necessary connection between your two points. Universal service, such as is required in a number of countries--Germany, Israel, probably others--grants no student exceptions. A draft can be done in any of a number of ways.

[ofbbg]

Except that without them, you're defenseless against other standing armies. Just check out what happened to the Byzantine Empire! I know, that means you might have to crack a history book, but humor me just this once.

[Bitsko]

The Roman empire begat the Byzantine empire, which begat the the Ottoman empire, which begat modern Turkey. You might want to read a thicker history book.

[arvay]

The Roman army started as a volunteer force, but became professionalized as many farmers, displaced by slaves from their farms, joined up to survive. The Praetorian guard as powerful group that protected the emperors,drawn first from Spanish and then German mercenaries.

Eventually, they started decided who would be emperor.

BTW, I didn't say "standing" army, I said professional armies. The drafted force of WWII did quite well, you might see if you consulted a history book.

[MajorKong]

Yes, I recall how defenseless we were against the redcoats. Um, not so much actually.

[TommyMcCarthy]

"Arvay" says: "Professional armies are more dangerous to freedom than conscripted ones"....Huh??

As an esoteric discussion we could debate that untill either the cows came home or we quantified how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Down here on earth, of course, the idea that an army of conscripts is compatible with "freedom" is ...well...­.preposter­ous, as the fellow who is inducted AGAINST HIS WILL would be the first to tell you.

With respect,...you may have gotten off track with the notion that the military should be "cross-sectional" or "represent­ative",...­. which has little to do with the purpose of the military (or safeguarding freedom, for that matter)

The purpose of the military is to project force; ....i.e. to KILL PEOPLE AND BREAK THINGS,......... the credible threat of which will hopefully deter enemies of freedom sufficiently to make that unnecessary.

As we have seen in recent times (and ancient ones too!) ....the injudicious use of that force by the civillian leadership undermines not only the military's ability to project it,....but the very freedoms they are ostensibly defending.

The greatest testament to our OWN freedoms is that no one needs to be COERCED into laying down thier lives in it's defense. .........We volunteer willingly.

Regards
tm

[JBS]

I think you under-estimate the susceptibility of lower enlisted to propaganda. As you point out, most of the lower ranks come from the lower economic strata of our society, and after the republican's generation long assault on public education they aren't well equipped to logically parse the results of Bush's actions from his bombast.

[classicalmusicman]

Perhaps, but experience can be a great teacher. I'm not sure that Obama will carry the military vote, but he may get a lot more of it than might have been the case had Bush never been president and the Iraq war never have happened.

[S5Whiskey]

"Junior enlisted"...please.

[JBS]

Sorry. It was lower enlisted when I did so in 75. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

[KNadine]

My husband and I often get a good laugh at how the media chooses to portray military members. We are mostly fed this perception that soldiers are mainly white and from middle America. It's just not true. These are average folk who live average lives and come from every ethnic background and every walk of life. Why do you think there was such a surprise in the media that there were so many black soldiers greeting Obama on his Middle east tour? Because there are a LOT of Black people and latinos in the military. I think Obama will carry the military vote also. A lot of Republicans have a fairy tale perception of what the military is really made up of.

[syllepsis]

Not to mention, a fairy tale perception of what the military can accomplish.

[BlackJAC]

To paraphrase Giles Roblyer, head of the US Naval Institute: if the left mistakenly claims that soldiers are nothing more than hootch-burnign pawns of the military-industrial complex, then the right also mistakenly claims that soldiers are all heroic and virtuous and love God and fight only for justice. The simple fact that NCIS hasn't had an episode where the perpetrator is a sailor or Marine in at least two seasons definitely reflects the latter.

[ofbbg]

Those weren't black soldiers or Latino soldiers or Polish soldiers or Irish soldiers - they were AMERICANS!! Let's knock off this identity politics crap, shall we?