You have very effectively made the case that Republicans spend more money on the military than Democrats do.
Of course it is, if the issue at hand is a political one, as was the impetus for this thread. If you’re discussing the need for military spending in absolute terms, then you’re discussing the other issue I identified earlier, i.e. are the Democrats justified in being soft on defence.
I’m trying to fit neo-Marxist and Eisenhower’s quote together somehow - I get this image of Castro and Ike smoking joints in the Rose Garden.
Fidel: Your captialist-imperialist military bites.
Ike: Damn straight, but you got to admit - we look snappy in dress fatigues.
Seriously, I may have missed this if anyone said it in this thread already, but a debate over which party is softer on defense is kind of irrelevant after that-you-know-what-date. Handing the armed forces a few hundred billion more in the '90’s wouldn’t have stopped it, and a decently-funded military right now under GOP rule is still chasing you-know-who a year later.
Of course, irrelevance never stopped a politician. It used to be that if I listened to Republicans too much, I got the impression “Red Dawn” was mere minutes away. Now it’s more like a recruitment call for the First Crusade.
Since you are repeating yourself, Izzy, I will simply refer you to my earlier post pointing out that all expenditures must be justified or they’re just stupid.
Are Democrats “Soft on National Security”?
If your definition of soft is less hawkish than the Republicans, than you bet. But my definition of Soft means supporting less defense than is neccesary to protect the country. That has not been shown. The measure that would reduce military spending by even ONE percent failed among the Democrats. That is not even coming close to “soft on defense”.
Looking at things another way, Republicans are “soft on peace” and “soft on protecting our Civil Liberties” and “soft on rich people paying taxes”.
There is a difference between not wanting to throw obscene amounts of cash at defense and being soft on defense. Voting for a smaller defense buget, even one that is drastically smaller does not automatically make one soft on defense.
Kirk
It looks like the sides aren’t willing to agree on the terms of the debate.
Sam, you and Izzy define “soft on defense” as “less willing to support the military than Republicans.” Am I right?
Minty, you and Chumpsky define “soft on defense” as “unwilling to support a military sufficient to defend our nation.” Am I right?
Can we all agree that yes, Democrats support fewer military programs than Republicans?
Can we all agree that yes, Democrats support a military far larger than is necessary for national defense?
If so, what are we arguing about?
Daniel
I love this thread!
Sam, you’ve got them stammering.
Good argument. The list isn’t stupid. It answers the OP.
Fear Itself responds by saying republicans are:
This must be Democrat-speak for “strong on defense”.
Then minty seems to be in total denial. He has been reduced to picking through Sam’s cites like a supermodel at the all you can eat buffet looking for a tiny piece of something that he can refute.
Then when the Dems are finally facing defeat because all of the facts about them being soft of defense are true, they resort to complaining about the size of the defense budget?!
One minute you insist that Dems aren’t soft on defense and the next you complain that we spend to much on defense?
And then we get this whole “we’re not soft on defense, we just want the defense budget cut in half” arguments.
Lets get real, people. This is incredibly dishonest. Would it be fair to call myself “pro gun” if I choose to define that as only wanting police officers to have guns? How about “pro-choice” now means women have the right to choose if they want to use a condom or a diaphram, but abortions are illegal. If you want the defense budget drastically smaller then you are soft on defense. Just admit it.
Yes it is. If comparing the spending habits of Dems to Republicans isn’t fair then who should we compare them to? Iraq? Ancient rome?
This sentance = soft on defense.
I tend to side with the Republicans on military spending.
That said, I think the OP was not a neutral way to start a debate. No barb intended; few OPs here are. But just as an abortion thread that starts out askign which party is more pro-murder-of-babies, I think asking if the Democrats are soft on defense is not useful.
No one reasonably doubts that the Democrats are known for spending less on the military, and generally not in favor of as strong a military, as the Republicans.
But as several in this thread have pointed out, that’s not the whole question. For example, suppose I showed that the Republicans wanted to spend millions more on the A-12 project (the carrier-based stealth attack plane, cancelled in the early 1990s), while Democrats opposed it. Since the A-12 project ultimately was mismanaged into extinction, I might argue that the Republicans were “soft on defense” because they wasted defense dollars on a doomed project, and Democrats “hard on defense” for insisting that money be spent wisely.
This is merely a theoretical example, mind you.
But Minty was correct to offer analysis of the projects above. It’s not enough to show that Republicans wished to spend more money on the military. To truly make the point, you must show that the expenditures were justified, and would have built a sufficient military presence.
Of course, the two parties disagree on what is “sufficient military presence.”
For the purposes of this debate, born out of the “What should Democrats do now?” feeling of post November 5th, perhaps it is enough to note that if defining in detail what the right military readiness and strength is for us is beyond the experts, is certainly beyond the average voter.
But the average voter certainly has an impression that the Republicans are for a stronger military than the Democrats. And in times in which people feel their safety is threatened, they likely are going to vote for the party which they perceive is going to be more pro-military.
So perhaps, ultimately, the question is not how justified the military expenditures are, but in whether the Democrats can sell the vision that their less-expansive military funding is actually in the country’s better interests. It’s not enough to BE correct, in other words; you must SEEM correct.
I don’t believe they can sell that. If there’s no perceived external threat, then sure, the Democratic posture against wasteful military spending might resonate with the voters. But in times in which we feel at risk, I suspect the average voter is more likely to be swayed by the basic argument of, “More money for the military,” and not by detailed discussions of the justification or return on investment.
- Rick
You do realize that this is a non sequiteur, do you not?
The USSR fell apart after the Reagan build-up. Our “largest military threat” was very much in place. Let’s not try to revise history here.
Regards,
Shodan
First of all, don’t even think of lumping me in with that guy. I would strongly disagree with everything he’s ever said, except that he’s so far out there I can’t ever bring myself to take his posts seriously.
Second, I have already defined it multiple times in this thread. If they’re going to claim that Democrats are soft on defense, they have to show that the Democrats would leave the military incapable of defending he country and projecting American power around the world whereever it is appropriate and necessary. Since they can’t do that, they blather endlessly and pointlessly about how the Democrats spend less dough on defense than the Republicans do. No kidding. What else ya got for us?
Debaser, perhaps you didn’t bother to read the thread, but I specifically enumerated why each and every one of Sam’s 12 votes were stupid. As you will recall, several of them didn’t involve the American military at all, several more were overwhelmingly rejected by the very same Democrats he’s complaining about, etc., etc. Would you care to rebut any of those points (at least ScoobyTX tried on one of them), or would you just prefer to reiterate that I found them stupid without any context? God knows most of the R’s in this thread hate anything resembling context.
No, what I’m saying is two-fold. First, “soft on defense” cannot be measured simply by comparing what Dems would spend on the military with what the R’s would spend on the military. If I live in a $150,000 home, and my neighbor lives in a $160,000 home, does that make me “soft on housing”? 'Course not.
Second, the Republicans waste too much of the money that they spend on defense. (So do the Dems, of course, but the R’s are particularly good at that.) Specifically, they waste taxpayer moeny through their enthusiasm for overpriced, underperforming weapons systems, like the Star Wars fantasy and the B2, that are incapable or ill-equipped to handle the missions that our military now faces. Those funds would be far better spent on making the military more mobile (it will take two C-130s to transport one Crusader artillery system, which is so dumb it defies comprehension) and better able to respond to modern threats instead of Ye Olde Soviet Union.
That’s just so wrong I can’t believe you said it. Clinton cut the military budget by a mere 9.5%, nowhere near one half.
Compare away. But if you want to claim that Democrats are “soft on defense,” you’re going to have to show a lot more than just $R > $D. You have to show that $D = too little.
I assume, then, you would be in favor of diverting 100% of GNP into the military budget, then ritually burning it all as a sacrifice to Mars, God of War, to invoke his favor and protect us from the rest of the world? No? Like I said, if it ain’t a justified expenditure, it’s just stupid.
That is heavily dependent on how you define “national defence”, and undoubtedly on some military analysis beyond that.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but as I see it this thread is an outgrowth of the “Memo to Democrats” thread, and the question is a purely political one. Specifically, can the Democrats, by calling themselves “strong on defence” overcome the perception that they are in fact “soft on defence”? And my position, both in the previous thread and here, is that a party is defined by how they apply their political pressure and votes, rather than by what slogan they use. So that the Democratic position on defence is defined by the series of votes the Sam outlined, and similar such.
This does NOT mean that the Democrats are wrong, or even that they cannot win over the public to their point of view, as you suggest. But it does mean that in the public perception of defence and security related matters, Republicans will be perceived as being “stronger”. So that “strong defence” will not be a winning issue for the Democrats, and to the extent that the public decides to emphasize the issue - a lot, these days - it will continue to hurt the Democrats.
Izzy, nobody is saying that Democrats can get rid of the “soft on defense” perception by saying, “Nuh uh!” If that’s what you’re arguing, you’ve not got a controversial position.
If you’re arguing that Republicans will always seem stronger on defense, you’ve got a more controversial position. I believe, if I understand Minty correctly, he’s arguing that Democrats oughtta be claiming to be smarter on defense, putting money where it’s needed.
I agree with you that Republicans are currently winning this perception battle. I agree with you that it’ll be an uphill battle for Democrats to make people feel safe under their watch. Although I’ll point out that I felt a lot safer last decade than I do this decade so far, it’s impolitic to point that out: when people feel threatened, arguing with their leader doesn’t win you any points.
I don’t agree with you that defense spending needs to be a millstone around the Democratic neck. Democrats need to reframe the issue, as one of sufficient defense, as one of lower taxes, as one of improving our safety by acting multilaterally in the world, as one of not making ourselves such a huge honking target for the world’s religious zealots.
This is, I know, an uphill battle, but I think it’s one that Democrats oughtta be fighting.
Daniel
Sure it’s stupid, if you’re just going to sole-source it to Mars without any competitive bidding.
That’s a good chunk of my position, though on a broader level, it’s about defining what we want the military to do. Obviously, the parties have somewhat different priorities on that point.
Bricker: 
So, minty would have us believe that the Dems are really strong on defense, despite all their votes against spending to improve it.
OK - how about votes on using the military?
Take for instance the 1991 Gulf War resolution.
Those who voted against it in the Senate:
1 Republican
0 Independents
23 Democrats
Were these fringe elements in the Democratic party? Nope, unless Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, and Joe Biden are on the outskirts of the Democrats.
In the House
1 Independent
1 Republican
66 Democrats.
Including Dick Gephardt.
The resolution authorizing force against Iraq? Most House Democrats (126 vs. 81) voted against it. (Republicans split 215 to 6 in favor.) In the Senate, 21 of the 23 no votes were Democrats, 1 was Republican and one Independent.
What would that be - nothing?
Regards,
Shodan
Just wanna point out that Eisenhower was a Republican.
Well you won’t find any disagreement from me on the Gulf War. I supported it at the time, and my only reservation now is that Bush the Elder couldn’t be bothered to finish the war.
But the question is whether the Democrats would render the military inadequate for completing its mission, not whether the mission is assigned in the first place. Plus, just ask Compsky what a warmonger Clinton was during his years in office, and see how many Democrats you can find who opposed the use of force in Afghanistan (despite Bush the Younger’s incredibly short-sighted chicken act at Tora Bora). It’s not like the Democrats are adverse to the use of force when they deem it appropriate.
I am not going to re-visit this. Sam gave you a good thrashing here and everyone reading this thread knows it. The R’s and consistantly for military spending and the D’s are consistently against it. This point has been conceeded to by you.
**
But, at the beginning of this thread you were singing a different tune. Once you realized that yes, the Dems are soft on defense you started trying to justify it, attempting to change the focus of the debate.
**
I have already said: if it’s unfair to compare the Dems to the Republicans then who should we be comparing them to?
**
Don’t twist my words. When did I mention Clinton? I was paraphrasing what people were saying right here in this thread. I used quotes from you and two others to emphasise my point.
**
Taxpayers and voters know that if they want a stronger military then they should vote Republican. If they want a weaker military then they should vote Democrat.
If you want to argue the merits of additional military spending then that is a different subject.
FTR, I tried many a preview but the hampsters wouldn’t let me.