Why Won't Democrats Fight

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An age-old stereotype is that the Democratic Party is the champion of the poor and the repressed, while the Republicans are the protectors of the rich and elitist. Another stereotype - this one with more validity - is that the American military is staffed by the poor and the poorly educated, the youthful unemployed and the inner city's underprivileged.

Why is it then that the armed forces are overwhelmingly Republican or right-leaning? A recent Army Times poll of 4,165 military members shows that only 13% are Democrats. 59% claim to be Republicans (down a bit from studies done earlier), and 20% are independants, of which over two-thirds support Bush.

If the Democrats are the champions of the poor and needy, and it is the poor and needy who end up serving in the military - not the rich and favored, how can it be that the Democratic Party does so miserably poor in elections where military votes are concerned. I have an idea or two on the whys and wherefores, but I'm sure I'm wrong.

Essentially, defending the country is done by Republicans, and a 13% upstanding individuals. Since the generall electorate is demarcated nearly 50-50 Republican/Democrat, but 87% of those fighting are not Democrat it should be fair to ask.

Why Won't the Democrats Fight?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,447 • Replies: 79

No top replies

Re: Why Won't Democrats Fight

Lusatian wrote:

Why is it then that the armed forces are overwhelmingly Republican or right-leaning?

IMO, the Republican party is more militaristic, and those drawn to the military may well simply have an inherent afinity for more militaristic parties who are more inclined to spend more money on said military of which they are a part.

Kinda like how I like the boss that has the greatest tendency to fund my department more substantially.

Similarly, social workers and teacher and the like may be drawn to a more social-focused party.

Quote:

Why Won't the Democrats Fight?

This is intellectual dishonesty Lusatian.

A similar intellectual deceit would be to say:

"Why don't republicans teach?" on the basis of there being less republican professors than Democrats.

It's specious reasoning, that both conflates a demographic with a more broad action (for example, while there may well be fewer Democrats in the military than Republicans this does not mean they do not fight) aa well as makes a deceitful flame-bait on the basis of willful ignorance of causative factors.

But I have a more interesting question:

Why is your only stock and store'on A2K flame-bait? You do yourself a disservice here.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why Won't the Democrats Fight?

They're not dumb enough to join the army?

Actually it is very simple, republicans are conformists. Their focus on being tough on crime (those who do not conform), the inrollerance for deviance (among some of them) and the tendency to be cought up in religion are all conformist traits. The army is a very conformist organisation, in which any individualist would be bound to feel out of place.

0 Replies

Re: Why Won't Democrats Fight

Craven de Kere wrote:

IMO, the Republican party is more militaristic, and those drawn to the military may well simply have an inherent afinity for more militaristic parties who are more inclined to spend more money on said military of which they are a part.

Now that is a prime example of incredibly simplistic reasoning on your part. To say that the prevalence of right-leaning members in the military is due to militaristic tendencies in the individuals involved is both ingenuous and unacquainted. The most common reasons for enlisting in the military has been shown to be Job Training Opportunities, College Money, Patriotism, in that order.

So are you saying that the military somehow weeds out the Democrats who are interested in job training or patriotism. Which brings out another point. While the Democrats are staunch patriots the lack of them in the armed forces indicates an unwillingness to serve (even temporarily), their country. I should add "in the military" as for all I know the Post Office is saturated with Democrats.

0 Replies

Not because Republicans are militaristic in the "inherent" sense. But Dems have screwed up the military every time they get their hands on it. Those kids, for the most part know the GOP knows what to do with the military and will properly fund them. (One of Craven's points)

The Dems choreographed VietNam and Mogadishu. Johnson was fighting VietNam politically instead of militarily. A complete disaster. Clinton let Bin Laden go when we had him in our sights. Dems play politics with the military--and just don't have the stomach to make the hard calls.... Clinton nickel and dimed Mogadishu, and ran out with his tail between his legs after the most disgusting treatment of US service personnel I have seen to date.

Carter's helicopters laid out twisted in the Iranian desert --an utter failure.

Dems--don't do military. Service people know it.

0 Replies

When I was in the military, I noted that there is a mindset that goes with serving. Everyone is gung ho for the cause. Even the ones who would on the outside be liberal are militaristic. While in the service I voted for Barry Goldwater, the man who prophesied we would lose 40,000 in Nam. I was of the opinion that I should re-enlist and volunteer to be sent to Vietnam in '64. On being released I made up my mind to do it, but needed to take a month or two vacation first. In that short time I learned enough about the war to instead join the protestors. Had I become a career man I would never have become a liberal.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Had I become a career man I would never have become a liberal.

It's as simple as this, money. Republicans like to use government money to invest in military programs, regardless of cost. Star Wars ring a bell? Democrats like to focus the money, hold companies accountable and not give money away willy nilly to large defense contractors.

Republican programs end up like the F22. . . $80Billion to develop and $140Million a piece, where democrat programs, like the JSF, have a price tag of $15Million development and $25million cost. The difference in the F-22 and the JSF is minimal at best.

They then hear their higher ups talking about how the Republicans are for the military. I've witnessed this first hand through experience. I would be curious though what the %'s are for inlisted vs officers.

I have a family history in the DOD and the commercial side of defense. My entire family has voted for the republican in the past, but they are all now voting for Kerry. It's because they saw what went on with the drumbeat of war (I also like to think I opened up there eyes a little bit as well Smile

)

0 Replies

Democrats won't fight?? Where'd you get that idea????

http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washtimes.com%2Fcommentary%2F20041015-093801-5048r.htm

Everywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
'Cause summers here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy
Tell me what can a poor boy do
'Cept for sing for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in this sleepy L.A. town
There's just no place for a street fighting man

A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man

Do you think the time is right for a palace revolution
Where I live the game to play is compromise solution
Well then what can a poor boy
'Cept for sing for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in this sleepy L.A. town
There's just no place for a street fighting man

A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man

Well what else can a poor boy do?
Well what else can a poor boy do?
Well what else can a poor boy do?
Well what else can a poor boy do?

Hey my name is called disturbance
I'll shout and scream, I'll kill the king, I'll rail at all his servants
Well what can a poor boy do
For sing for a rock 'n' roll band
In this sleepy L.A. town
There's just no place for
For a street fighting man

A street fighting man
For a street fighting man
A street fighting man
For a street fighting man
A street fighting man
For a street fighting man
A street fighting man
For a street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man
A street fighting man

0 Replies

Re: Why Won't Democrats Fight

Lusatian wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
IMO, the Republican party is more militaristic, and those drawn to the military may well simply have an inherent afinity for more militaristic parties who are more inclined to spend more money on said military of which they are a part.

Now that is a prime example of incredibly simplistic reasoning on your part.

Either that, or an example of reading incomprehension on yours. To wit:

Quote:

To say that the prevalence of right-leaning members in the military is due to militaristic tendencies in the individuals involved is both ingenuous and unacquainted.

Show me where I said that in the "prime example" you imagined.

Quote:

The most common reasons for enlisting in the military has been shown to be Job Training Opportunities, College Money, Patriotism, in that order.

This does not preclude a relationship between militaristic personalities and a military Lusatian.

Quote:

So are you saying that the military somehow weeds out the Democrats who are interested in job training or patriotism.

No. I am saying that the military enviroment appeals to a personality type to whom Republican ideology usually appeals.

Quote:

Which brings out another point. While the Democrats are staunch patriots the lack of them in the armed forces indicates an unwillingness to serve (even temporarily), their country. I should add "in the military" as for all I know the Post Office is saturated with Democrats.

You do well to add "in the military" thusly avoiding a fallacious equation of military service to service to the country.

I'll note that the distain you exude is, in my opinion, the type of self-important arrogance that often gives the military a bad image.

0 Replies

To start with, this is a bogus argument.

The Army Times sent email surveys to 31,000 subscribers. 4000 answered and the results were that the majority of those that answered claimed they were republican.
To make this unscientific poll mean that the majority in the army are Republican or that the majority of subscribers even are republican is complete nonsense. The ONLY scientific conclusions that can possibly come from this survey are the answers that were sent in. You can not use it to claim anything beyond that since the survey was NOT scientifically random and there was no adjustment or attempt to recontact those that didn't respond. We can argue all day about members of the military are more or less likely to be Republican but this survey proves nothing one way or the other.

A grunt on the ground in Iraq is not a likely subscriber to the Army Times. In fact the Army Times claims that most of its subscribers are lifers.

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

It's as simple as this, money. Republicans like to use government money to invest in military programs, regardless of cost. Star Wars ring a bell? Democrats like to focus the money, hold companies accountable and not give money away willy nilly to large defense contractors.

Republican programs end up like the F22. . . $80Billion to develop and $140Million a piece, where democrat programs, like the JSF, have a price tag of $15Million development and $25million cost. The difference in the F-22 and the JSF is minimal at best.

They then hear their higher ups talking about how the Republicans are for the military. I've witnessed this first hand through experience. I would be curious though what the %'s are for inlisted vs officers.

Joe, Joe. Obviously your family "history" in the DOD leaves a bit to be desired. You compare the F-22 and the JSF as if that indicates a parallel. Perhaps while you websurfed you failed to read the rest of the short news bulletins the DOD were releasing. For starters any comparison between the two is akin to the juxtaposition of a tug and a sailboat. The F-22 is a superiority fighter, while the JSF is a strike fighter as its name happens to suggest. While this most likely means nothing to you, it makes a world of difference on the ground. An F-22 is an air-to-air aircraft designed to eliminate any fighter from any air force in the world in a theater war. The JSF is a air-to-ground bird destined to replace the A-10 Warthog, among others. Since air-to-air combat is so much more complex and reliant on technological differences, the cost of producing a next generation fighter is far higher than one to produce a weapon against a target the never changes, i.e. things on the ground.
Another point of interest is that the F-22 was developed and fielded almost entirely during the Clinton Administration. Guess that "history" hasn't helped much. Also, I would think the %'s of "inlisted" vs officers would be very similar to what it is now as careerists whether "inlisted" or officer think rather alike.

0 Replies

Re: Why Won't Democrats Fight

Craven de Kere wrote:

You do well to add "in the military" thusly avoiding a fallacious equation of military service to service to the country.

I'll note that the distain you exude is, in my opinion, the type of self-important arrogance that often gives the military a bad image.

I'm sure you'd like to write anyone's opinion off as "self-important arrogance", especially if it casts some you admire in less than stellar light. The military is not the only means to serve, however, it is the most dangerous way to serve when your country is at war. It is remarkably easy to serve in a Post Office or in a stateside hospital where the threat to your life is low to none.
I don't think less of anyone who hasn't served, unless that individual spouts diatribes and lectures on opinions and topics that would require service of someone somewhere. When said individual does he becomes a "moocher" as described by Ayn Rand - one who will critize and interject but who hasn't served under arms. There was a time when military service was considered an honorable duty. Though somehow in recent times being a protestor throwing eggs at deploying troops and obstructing midday traffic became the paradigm of patriotism.

Tsk, tsk.

0 Replies

That would be George Bush and VP Cheney.

0 Replies

Re: Why Won't Democrats Fight

Lusatian wrote:

I'm sure you'd like to write anyone's opinion off as "self-important arrogance"

No, I'd actually rather not. This is just a facile dismissal.

Quote:

...especially if it casts some you admire in less than stellar light.

Lusatian, your broad, sweeping flamebait is hard to take seriously, and I have no certain person I admire in mind when I respond except yourself, whom I wish would employ more rigorous critical thinking and do himself better justice on A2K.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

We can argue all day about members of the military are more or less likely to be Republican but this survey proves nothing one way or the other.

A grunt on the ground in Iraq is not a likely subscriber to the Army Times. In fact the Army Times claims that most of its subscribers are lifers.

Exactly!!!

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

parados wrote:
We can argue all day about members of the military are more or less likely to be Republican but this survey proves nothing one way or the other.

A grunt on the ground in Iraq is not a likely subscriber to the Army Times. In fact the Army Times claims that most of its subscribers are lifers.

Exactly!!!

Exactly wrong. Take a look at the breakdown charts here.

0 Replies

About the United States Postal Service:

40-percent of USPS workers served in the military.

The USPS is self-sustaining. It is not funded by tax dollars.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Joe Republican wrote:
parados wrote:
We can argue all day about members of the military are more or less likely to be Republican but this survey proves nothing one way or the other.

A grunt on the ground in Iraq is not a likely subscriber to the Army Times. In fact the Army Times claims that most of its subscribers are lifers.

Exactly!!!
Exactly wrong. Take a look at the breakdown charts here.

I think it's interesting to note from those pie charts that a higher percentage of those deployed since Sept. 11, 2001, in a combat zone, would vote for Bush, than those who were not. Seem backwards to anyone?

0 Replies

Maybe those who have not been deployed are more anxious about their possible deployment than those who have.

0 Replies

The pie graphs breakdown some important points. One is that troops that have been deployed since 9/11 are still mostly in favor of President Bush over Pretender Kerry. The trend holds firm when including Guard and Reserve troops, simultaneously disproving many Democrats claims that troops that have experience Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Guard and Reserve are becoming disillusioned with the current administration. There is a small number of military members that are disgruntled, but most support the president.

Lash pointed out correctly that the past Democratic presidents have all embroiled themselves in military bungles, largely due to the approaching the military as a political or diplomatic tool. (Clinton - Somalia [disgraceful], Carter - Iran [cowardly and disgraceful], LBJ - Vietnam [first defeat, disgraceful]). These snafus have left many military members with an almost eternal distaste for Democratic politics. Clinton, by far, excaberated the problem with Mogadishu being merely one of the pathetic military decisions that "commander-in-chief" was responsible for. His completely flaccid responses to Khobar Towers, Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole cause many military members to blame him for enboldening Al-Qaeda into 9/11.

Seems like the lack of Democrats in the military would be in keeping with the quality of Democratic military leadership.

0 Replies

Why Won't Democrats Fight

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know