Scroll down an inch or two to get to the meat and potatoes of the articles.
Vegetarians can scroll down an inch or two to get to the tofu and brown rice.
Just for fun: watch the 2 lines of header above and press your F5 key

Friday, January 2, 2009

Everything You Know About Republicans and Democrats Is Wrong (more)

Myth:
Republicans are "strong" on national defense.
Democrats are "weak" on national defense.

You can't reach that conclusion from peace-time defense spending. Check out this chart (PDF, 30 KB).

• President Carter's defense spending was up nearly 50% over the Ford years.
• In his first 2 years, the increases in defense spending under Reagan matched the increases under Carter. Then the rate of growth in defense spending slowed sharply. This is because of the "Peace Dividend" hypothesis that in peace time it's OK to cut (or slow the growth of) military spending. Of course, that's only true when Republicans make those spending cuts.
• George H.W. Bush extended that thinking into actual cuts in defense spending - except for the Gulf War year, where the military budget increased.
• President Clinton continued the spending cuts trend in his first term in office. Note:
  • he did so with the encouragement of the new Republican majority in Congress
  • when Clinton (a Democrat) continued the trend started by the Republican God (Reagan) the Republicans' "Peace Dividend" became known as "gutting the military"
• For 2 years into his 2nd term, Clinton continued the "Peace Dividend" spending policies; in his final 2 years, military spending showed the largest annual increase since WWII (up 43.5% in one of those years).
• In George W. Bush's first year the defense budget was cut 22.6%. That one year's cut was nearly double the total of ALL of the cuts in Bill Clinton's 8 years. If there were ever a "gutting the military" - that was it.
  

Doing the math:

1. Both parties participated in increasing and decreasing military spending, occasionally boasting of the "Peace Dividend" resulting from spending cuts.
   
   • The Republicans implemented and pursued the concept of cutting military budgets and reaping the benefits on the form of the "Peace Dividend."
     
   • A Democrat - President Clinton - continued that trend (although Republicans derided their idea as "gutting the military"). Clinton also increased military spendingnear the end of his term.
   • George W. Bush disemboweled the defense budget. That action became known as "fiscal responsibility" or "incredibly stupid" - depending on who is opining.
2. Using a fiscal policy to measure a committment to national defense shows a draw.

Perhaps performance is a better measure?

• Who was in charge during World Wars I & II? Both were victories, both run by Democratic presidents. Advantage: Democrats.
• Korea? Eisenhower ran on a platform of getting out of that war. He delivered a stalemate. Non-advantage: GOP.
• Viet Nam? The GOP started it, but didn't really commit to the effort. Both sides fumbled for a while. Nixon ran, in 1968, on a campaign promise to use his "secret plan" to "win with honor." In 1972 he ran the same scam on Americans. End result - the USA "CUT-AND-RAN." Dishonorable mention: Democrats. Double down disadvantage: GOP.
• Middle East (Beirut, 1983)? CUT-AND-RUN. Another disadvantage for the GOP.
• Gulf War? With a true international coalition, and with funding by Kuwait (and some other oil-rich Arab states), the good guys won - but left the aggressor in power. Advantage: GOP, unless you count leaving Saddam as the head of the defeated aggressor.
• Somalia? The UN bailed out, leaving us a choice: leave with them, or stay to tilt at windwills that were armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Sounds like a stalemate: no win, no loss... not counting American lives.
• Balkans? A true "Mission Accomplished" story. Genocide crushed. War criminals captured and brought to justice. The cost in American lives, 2: one in a non-combat vehicular accident, one suicide. Total. Period. Oh - and they love us in that part of the world (even in the country most vanquished - Serbia). Huge advantage: Democrats.
  
• Afghanistan? Leaders of Al-Queda and Taliban still alive, still free, still mocking us. Afghanistan has reasserted its place as heroin supplier to the world. Our troop losses are increasing. The locals are ticked off because we placed in power a puppet government that is cruel to its citizens and is completely ineffective outside the capitol city. Purple thumbs? Hardly....
• Iraq? In time there will be shelf upon shelf of books describing the total, complete, utter failure of the mission. We got Saddam and a few other bad guys. Our cost
  
  • in lives lost
  • soldiers maimed
  • American families disrupted
    
  • long-term fiscal calamity
  • esteem in the eyes of the people whom we allegedly helped
  • strength of our military
    
  • world leadership
Our only hope is that we learned something from the fiasco.Triple-double disadvantage to the umpteenth power: GOP

When it comes to national defense there are 3 big lessons from the 20th/21st centuries:

1. Pick your battles carefully.
2. If real peace with real honor and a real good outcome matter, have the Democrats in charge. Democrats tend go to war with intention to win, always with the skill to do it.... and with the leadership to rally us 'round the flag. What's more, they learn from their successes AND their mistakes.
   
3. Whatever you do, don't go to war when led by Republicans. Their track record is terrible.
   

posted by Recovering Republican® © ™  # 12:01 AM

Don't forget to visit BlackBox, the best of tech talk (in plain English), and please read/honor the legal stuff in the left-hand pane of this page

Archives

December 2007   January 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009  

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]