# Liberals are not serving in the military enough. What ought to be done? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403 "2006-01-04T15:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/1 "2006-01-04T15:30:50Z")
Right off the bat, I ought to spell out that this is a very long term trend that seems to be unrelated to the current war. So Bush-bashing needn’t enter into the equation. And the facts don’t really seem to be in dispute either. Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science professor who studies military-civil relations, noted in 1999 that Republicans outnumbered Democrats eight to one in the college educated officer corps. Among enlisted members, Feaver noted more parity, but the Democratic numbers were certainly boosted by African-American and Hispanic military members, who aren’t necessary across-the-board liberal, but who do vote Democratic historically. [Cite.](http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html) The implication of this is that conservatives are far more likely to join the military than liberals are, in an all-volunteer force. Indeed, liberals have largely passed on joining altogether, though most liberals are far from being pacifists. Now, there are positives and negativs to this. One underreported positive is the good effect Christian enlistees had on military morale. Robert Kaplan quoted an Army colonel to this effect in [the Atlantic:](http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200403/kaplan) > [@](#): > > The full flowering of the middle ranks had its roots in the social transformation of the American military, which, according to Wilhelm (a liberal who voted for Al Gore in 2000), had taken place a decade earlier, when the rise of Christian evangelicalism had helped stop the indiscipline of the Vietnam-era Army. “This zeal reformed behavior, empowered junior leaders, and demanded better recruits,” he said. “For one thing, drinking stopped, and that killed off the officers’ clubs, which, in turn, broke down more barriers between officers and noncoms, giving the noncoms the confidence to do what majors and colonels in other armies do. The Christian fundamentalism was the hidden hand that changed the military for the better. Though you try to get someone to admit it! We never could have pulled off Macedonia or Bosnia with the old Vietnam Army.” However, it does have downsides, and one of them is a restriction of the number of viewpoints available for decisionmaking in the military. Liberals complain that the military has tunnel vision, and cannot see beyond a limited perspective as it goes about its mission. But if few liberals join, that perspective won’t be brought to the conference tables, wardrooms, and briefings. And the military can only find and promote that talent that shows up in the first place. Lots of criticism is showered on politicians who advocate a military solution but haven’t served. What will happen in the future, when far more decision makers who haven’t served are members of the Democratic party? I think it is necessary for more liberals to join the military. Their country needs them there. What would it take for them to want to join, in an all-volunteer force? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/2 "2006-01-04T15:57:40Z")
Regine change. Gender parity. A commitment to international law. A track record of our military only being called up to defend our country against direct attacks or to intervene for transparently humanitarian emergency purposes (e.g., ending genocides) or as part of international law enforcement, which would _also_ have to have a clean and fair track record. Oh, and better benefits wouldn’t hurt. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/3 "2006-01-04T15:59:03Z")
That Regine babe has definitely got to mend her ways though. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/4 "2006-01-04T16:03:26Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Regine change. > > Gender parity. A commitment to international law. A track record of our military only being called up to defend our country against direct attacks or to intervene for transparently humanitarian emergency purposes (e.g., ending genocides) or as part of international law enforcement, which would _also_ have to have a clean and fair track record. > > Oh, and better benefits wouldn’t hurt. Just to note, Professor Fever cited the disparity between conservatives and liberals in the military in the waning years of the Clinton Administration, which made moves in these areas. So it seems to me that conservatives will serve the military regardless, while liberals won’t serve even a Democratic administration in this way, in nearly comparable numbers. So I see a big problem with your answer, for this reason. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/5 "2006-01-04T16:06:50Z")
In my direct experience with liberals, dislike of the military is core value, much like being pro-environment and anti death penalty. That said, more liberals might join the officer corps if military recruiters were not _persona non grata_ at many colleges and universities. ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/6 "2006-01-04T16:08:29Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Regine change. > > Gender parity. A commitment to international law. A track record of our military only being called up to defend our country against direct attacks or to intervene for transparently humanitarian emergency purposes (e.g., ending genocides) or as part of international law enforcement, which would _also_ have to have a clean and fair track record. > > Oh, and better benefits wouldn’t hurt. It seems to me that if we inforce international law wed be in way to many wars. Im not quite sure where I fit on the liberal conservative scale (Im actually not quite sure if I fit at all) but I would be more likely to join the military if I thought that we would only be protecting oursleves, more of a military and political isolationists ideal. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/7 "2006-01-04T16:28:03Z")
Why is this a problem? Joining the military implies a certain support for what they are doing. And frankly I havn’t agreed with much of anything they’ve done since around WWII. I don’t care who got us in the war, I think it is wrong to get involved in wars overseas against people who have not attempted to attack US soil. Although not all liberals are pacifists, most prefer diplomacy to military might. There are plenty of liberal foreign relations majors. The military lifestyle also goes against the liberal grain. Most liberals arn’t very pleased with the idea of following orders, and want more autonamy when it comes to them and their family. They tend to be shit-stirrer and non-conformists- something that doesn’t work out too well in the military where you surrender a good portion of your right to make decisions. Furthermore, gender and sex-preference discrimination pisses them off. I consider the US military to be a patantly sexist institution. Why would I join that? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/8 "2006-01-04T16:34:35Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I think it is necessary for more liberals to join the military. Their country needs them there. What would it take for them to want to join, in an all-volunteer force? Liberal for the most part here. Gay too. Since one of those things doesn’t match with the conservative ideal of a military recruit, I have had to sit out. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/9 "2006-01-04T16:35:44Z")
Nothing like an unjust, futile war to transform conservative soldiers into liberal civilians. Our John Kerrys are being born on the streets of Iraq even as we post. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/10 "2006-01-04T16:37:34Z")
The military is a volunteer force. So the only way it can attract more liberals is to make itself more attractive to liberals. But I don’t think that’s going to happen. To give an example, would the armed forces be willing to overturn what many liberals perceive as their anti-gay policies? Many liberals, straight or gay, do not wish to join an organization which they believe is intolerent. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/11 "2006-01-04T16:48:26Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Lots of criticism is showered on politicians who advocate a military solution but haven’t served. What will happen in the future, when far more decision makers who haven’t served are members of the Democratic party? Don’t we already have a good idea what will happen when decision makers with minimal to no military service record advocate a military solution? We’ve seen it with two presidents: GWB & Clinton\* and their administrations. Detractors point to the lack of a military service record; supporters reply that a military service record or lack thereof is irrelevant. So to answer your question, you’ll see more of the same heaped on Democrats without a service record. There are (at least) two inquiries in this OP: 1) the effect on the military of fewer Democrat soldiers; 2) the effect on politics of fewer military veteran Democrat politicians. It seems to me that in response to the second inquiry, this thread is meant to go one of two ways: 1) a discussion of the relevance of a military service record for policy makers; or 2) a discussion of the impact of having fewer military veteran Democrats as policy makers. If it’s the first, then it seems to be a baited question, so I’ll leave it alone. If it’s meant to go the second way, then it seems to be coupled with the assumption that a greater number of conservatives with military service records will necessarily lead to a greater number of conservative politicians with military service records, but that’s not necessarily true. I don’t know that this is strictly a Democrat issue, and I think that would be the more interesting trend to look at whether we are we losing a military veteran politician class across the aisle, and if so, how that will impact “the future” ? That is of course if a military service record is relevant to a person’s ability to perform as a policy maker with the ability to employ a military solution. - I am aware of GWB’s service record, but think it clearly within the “minimal” part of the phrase “minimal to no.” ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/12 "2006-01-04T16:52:54Z")
I’ve always been told that one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives was that liberals favored change coming from a mandate from the masses, whereas conservatives favored direction coming from an authority figure operating within a defined power structure. These two ideas are not opposites, necessarily, but their goals tend to be mutually exclusive. If this definition of the difference is accurate, it makes sense to me that liberals wouldn’t do too well in the military… whereas conservatives would. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/13 "2006-01-04T16:59:41Z")
Well, there are liberals in the military, and some of them do quite well indeed. The commanding officer of my last ship was a New York City raised Democrat, and he was quite socially liberal. The colonel quoted in the OP was a liberal Gore voter, and the military attache to Mongolia. This was a difficult and politically sensitive position, and it appears that this colonel did the job very well. More liberals like him, doing jobs like that, I think we all could appreciate. They are not there in great numbers, though, compared to conservatives doing similarly good jobs. And again, I think this presents a danger in limiting the viewpoints available when options are hashed out. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/14 "2006-01-04T17:00:41Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Lots of criticism is showered on politicians who advocate a military solution but haven’t served. What will happen in the future, when far more decision makers who haven’t served are members of the Democratic party? There are something like 37 veterans running for congress (non-incumbent) this year, and almost all (35 or so) are running as Democrats. Whatever the case may be in the military, in politics the Democrats are the party of veterans. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/15 "2006-01-04T17:03:12Z")
> [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > There are something like 37 veterans running for congress (non-incumbent) this year, and almost all (35 or so) are running as Democrats. Whatever the case may be in the military, in politics the Democrats are the party of veterans. Like I said, more conservative veterans does not necessarily lead to more conservative veteran politicians. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/16 "2006-01-04T17:08:53Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Lots of criticism is showered on politicians who advocate a military solution but haven’t served. What will happen in the future, when far more decision makers who haven’t served are members of the Democratic party? > > I think it is necessary for more liberals to join the military. Their country needs them there. What would it take for them to want to join, in an all-volunteer force? There isn’t any shame in not serving, nor is there any intrinsic reason why having served is useful _except_ that first hand knowledge of the horrors of war makes one much more reluctant to use military force. Why don’t liberals want to sign up? We’re lovers, not fighters. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/17 "2006-01-04T17:09:10Z")
Chicken and egg thing. Are the liberals sitting out because the military is too conservative, or is the military too conservative because the liberals are sitting out? To echo what some have said above, it’s a matter of mindset. Liberals tend to be anti-militarist by inclination, and skeptical of the uses to which militaries are put. As a liberal, I can’t point to much that happened in the 20th century (or any century) where militarism turned out swimmingly for the people involved. Liberals would like to think that the problems the world faces are better off solved in a non-military way. Hey, call me a crazy idealist if you like, but how well have your military interventions turned out, on balance? Like Vietnam, for example? Here’s another thing – in the US, the military soaks up a huge chunk of the budget – a third or more, depending on who’s counting. I for one would like to see that money spent otherwise – health care for everyone, more money for education and national parks, more money on alternative energy, etc., etc. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/18 "2006-01-04T17:10:47Z")
This is a bullshit “debate,” based on a falsehood. Right in your own cite, it says that > [@](#): > > Professor Feaver estimates that about one third of enlisted troops are Republicans, one third Democrats, and the rest independents, with the latter group growing. You cannot simply handwave away the Democrats because they are minority members. Is it your argument that an even greater proportion of Democrats than Republicans should serve in the military? Why is that? Otherwise, I would suggest that approximately one-third equals one-third, and this thread is a partisan abomination. Like most propositions by Republicans, it appears to be based on a lie. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/19 "2006-01-04T17:11:07Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > And the facts don’t really seem to be in dispute either. Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science professor who studies military-civil relations, noted in 1999 that Republicans outnumbered Democrats eight to one in the college educated officer corps. Among enlisted members, Feaver noted more parity, but the Democratic numbers were certainly boosted by African-American and Hispanic military members, who aren’t necessary across-the-board liberal, but who do vote Democratic historically. So what you’re saying is management tends to vote Republican, while labor is more likely to vote Democratic? Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403/20 "2006-01-04T17:15:51Z")
Interesting thread, **Mr. Moto**. I wonder if the correlation is as strong, or stronger, with respect to religious views. Does anyone know if research has been done regarding the degree and type of religiosity in the military? Are they more or less devout than the general population? How do they break down, percent-wise, for Catholic, the various Protestant sects, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, etc.? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-are-not-serving-in-the-military-enough-what-ought-to-be-done/338403.md?page=2)