Assertion #5

5. War endangers both.

If capitalism is not the answer, can the possibility of spreading democracy by force suffice? Our foreign policy must be built on the knowledge that war can never be a first option because of the inherent dangers—win or lose—that it brings. The difficulties of spreading democratic values coercively do not need further emphasis. Suffice it to say they are immense and it seems that force is as likely to bring about a rejection of such values as imbed them. Additionally, no matter how successful such interventions might be,[1] the threat of America becoming a real empire of coercive force is an anathema to, and a betrayal of, the democratic revolution itself. Thomas Jefferson wrote that even if such a path resulted in America becoming “dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”[2]

Studies have been done that assert that war itself is not a direct threat to democracy,[3] but such studies seem to put excessive focus on the mere survival of democratic forms and institutions rather than their progressive health or the dangers they face. One such danger lies in the side effects of the economic needs of a powerful military. As Meade writes, throughout history wars have been a threat to democratic institutions: even for the losers

Wars cost money, piling up debts that concentrated power in the central government and forced most of the population to labor and pay taxes to support the minority that owned the government bonds issued to cover the debt; wars built up a concentrated economic and political machinery dependent on government funds, addicted to secrecy, and with a permanent interest in discovering ever new dangers abroad; they also made the development of strong standing armies and navies inevitable, a development that, historically has often been fatal to republican liberty.[4]

As Frederick Ogg wrote, while the military results of war itself might be impossible to predict, one thing was certain. America can depend on the fact that it will lead to more "‘big government’ functioning in a big way-more power wielded by public authority than ever before…a more colossal mechanism of controls, a more numerous bureaucracy, an economy more completely underpinned by government initiative, participation, and support.”[5] In the large scale ‘world’ wars, and even the more limited actions in Korea and Vietnam this has been exceedingly true. Since then the mechanisms have been less extreme, but still real. The war excuse (and the only period since 1947 where there was no overarching 'war' being fought was a few odd years between 1991 and 2001) has allowed even avowedly 'small government’ Republicans to become pork-ladling spenders, and Democrats have been just as, or even more, complicit. Though often mocked, the threat that Eisenhower warned of, “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,” [6] by the military-industrial complex might not be immediate, but it remains very real.

Secondly, there is the danger of an increasing disconnect between those who serve to protect the values of the citizenry of the United States and the citizens themselves. As Sir Henry Sumner Maine wrote, at the foundation of the Republic: "The difficulties of popular government which arise from the modern military spirit…could not perhaps have been determined without actual experience." The increasing disjunction between the values and standards of the United States’ AVF (all-volunteer force) and the average citizen might be as over dramatized by some as it is ignored by others. The topic however is a very interesting one that requires more than this brief space to flesh out adequately. Andrew Bacevich does so very nicely in his book, “The New American Militarism,” a book that comes very highly recommended. We are obviously far, far from becoming another Turkey, a country whose ‘foundational’ institutions are only maintained through consistent interventions (coups) by the military, but the seed of danger has been planted and is seemingly receiving excellent care.

---

[1] Peceny, Mark. “Forcing Them to Be Free.” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3. Sep., 1999, pp. 549-582.
[2] Meade, op. cit., pp. 185
[3] Reiter, Dan. “Does Peace Nurture Democracy?” The Journal of Politics. Vol. 63, No. 3 (Aug., 2001), pp. 935-948
[4] Meade, op. cit., pp. 186
[5] Ogg, Frederic A. “American Democracy--After War.” The American Political Science Review > Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 1942), pp. 1-15
[6] See Paul Koistinen’s work: “The "Industrial-Military Complex" in Historical Perspective: The InterWar Years,” for a very interesting discussion on the early origins of such worries.

*Also see the section on War and Big Power Politics in Sheldon Richman's article, "The Goal is Freedom: Class Struggle Rightly Conceived."