Draft

[theapportioner]

Do any of you guys support the concept of a military draft?

I do, on the following grounds:

1. A volunteer-only army is a form of institutionalized discrimination on the basis of income (in the United States). That's not to say that the benefits aren't helpful to those who need it - I'm sure they're worth it, if you stay alive and don't get maimed.

2. Having a draft would make the threshold for going to war considerably higher. No way we'd be involved in our current adventures in Iraq if we had one. The rich will always get out of it, but it's the middle class that's going to have to go, and many of them won't like it.

3. If we do have a draft (in which case, in our current political climate, the war would probably have be strongly justified), it's our fucking duty to serve.

[Helm]

I see what you're saying. I'd rather the US didn't go to war on other grounds than people being afraid of a mandatory draft, but hey, if that works.

[Sethomas]

I support a mandatory draft, but in such a form as some European systems that the vast majority of recruits are actually assigned to domestic problems, civil engineering and such. There would have to be a lottery involved for who gets assigned to domestic or foreign affairs, as it'd be sad to see the rich building bridges while the poor get shot. I personally believe that citizenship is something that should be earned, despite my general opposition to war.

[kahljorn]

How does that work, exactly? It makes no sense to draft everybody to help with the war then tell them to sort mail or build a bridge.

[El Blanco]

In some countries, you go serve a determined length of time (1, 2 years, whatever) once you hit 18. Depending on your skill and their needs, you get assigned somewhere.

But, its not nessicerily military front line kind of stuff. A lot of it would be domestic security, disaster relief etc etc National Guard type of stuff.

[Helm]

greece is one of these countries. When you hit 18, depending on whether or not you go to school after ( if you do, you're drafted after) you have one year mandatory service. What your 'skills' are is irreleveant, you're randomly assigned to ground, air or naval forces, and you spend 3 months in training in weapons blah blah and the rest sitting on your ass in some military base somewhere, doing to odd civil service or paperwork for the goverment.

[kahljorn]

But, common sense would have it that if there's an actual war alot of the people doing "Civil work" would be siphoned off to do "Front line" work. Just like how the reserves are sent to war once there's a war. I don't know, just in light of the fact that we need soldiers for war, it would make no sense to tell people that a draft would draft them for civil duty when chances are they will be sent to the frontline.
I'm reading slaughter house five by kurt vonnegeht(i know i spelled that one wrong) right now. THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It also makes a lot more sense to go to war with people who want to fight, rather than those who are forced to.

[theapportioner]

All valid objections, certainly. No doubt Rumsfeld et al. would rather have a bunch of willing, "professional" soldiers.

But do you think that an all-volunteer army makes, for most people, an abstraction out of war? Iraq becomes this "other" thing, distant from our lives, when it should be everybody's concern.

I'm just wondering what impact the elimination of the draft has had on civic responsibility in the States.

[AChimp]

Ah, but the ones who are forced to fight are also the ones who want to get out of it alive the most. ;)

[The One and Only...]

Am I the only one who thinks that app's idea of a volunteer army being inherently discriminatory hilarious?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But do you think that an all-volunteer army makes, for most people, an abstraction out of war? Iraq becomes this "other" thing, distant from our lives, when it should be everybody's concern.

Pardon me for being crass, but you don't necessarily want the people to be overly involved. We have a civilian military, led by civilians, people to serve and protect the constitution and those civilians. Presidents, much like soldiers, often have to do unpleasnat and difficult things, such as sending someone's child to foreign soil to die. Regardless of the cause, that's a pretty tough thing to do, and it's perhaps a burden/responsibility that shouldn't be left to the masses.

I also think we should give the public the benefit of the doubt in terms of their actual awareness about this war. Poll numbers have been pretty down on it lately, primarily b/c it's beginning to look like an endless situation with no clear exit strategy or resolution. People tend to love going to war for noble causes, but they're not too fond of nation building and all that unpleasant after stuff. Goes again back to my point about the impulses of the public. But I think the general public has a pretty good finger on Iraq.

I'm just wondering what impact the elimination of the draft has had on civic responsibility in the States.

Well, I think that depends on what you consider "civic responsibility" to be. Despite low enlistment rates, Americans are considered to be pretty big on volunteerism (particularly the younger generations). Groups like AmeriCorps, PeaceCorps, and Teach for America ae still pretty strong. The non-profit industry is almost suffocating from too much involvement and not enough cash.

If you're getting at some kind of compulsory service, not necessarily military in nature, well I'd be down with that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Am I the only one who thinks that app's idea of a volunteer army being inherently discriminatory hilarious?

Yes.

[The One and Only...]

You people lack a sense of humor.

[theapportioner]

I also think we should give the public the benefit of the doubt in terms of their actual awareness about this war. Poll numbers have been pretty down on it lately, primarily b/c it's beginning to look like an endless situation with no clear exit strategy or resolution. People tend to love going to war for noble causes, but they're not too fond of nation building and all that unpleasant after stuff. Goes again back to my point about the impulses of the public. But I think the general public has a pretty good finger on Iraq.

I get the impression that most people think "yeah, this war kinda sucks" but are more concerned about the next Hollywood blockbuster or the sale on lawnmowers at Wal-Mart. Or other "serious" matters like white person kidnappings. Polls can be misleading in that they don't usually reflect how much people care about, or are engaged in a certain topic. It's also a media thing, so I don't mean to oversimplify the issue.

If you're getting at some kind of compulsory service, not necessarily military in nature, well I'd be down with that.

Sounds like a good idea, although I'm not sure how one'd go about implementing it on a mass scale. Knowing our government, we'd probably end up "volunteering" for companies like Monsanto or Merck.

[Sethomas]

Anyone else find OAO's naïvité forged by self-imposed Libertarian indoctrination just, well, sad?

[Helm]

Very well said. Yes.

[mburbank]

I favor a draft, but only if it's for both sexes, and only to see the transparent machinations the Bush twins engage in to get out of it.

[ziggytrix]

Max, I bet somebody could pitch that as a reality show.

[The One and Only...]

What's discriminatory about the military is not the fact that it is volunteer-based, but rather that it markets itself toward lower-income individuals.

Now, I'm not saying that the military isn't corrupt and doesn't need change. What I am saying is that the fact that it's based on voluntary soldiers is not, in and of itself, the problem.

[mburbank]

If there were some assurance that they'd take you and transport you far, far away from an internet connection, I'd be for it.

[dreaddi]

Wouldn't a draft be for both sexes anyway?

[El Blanco]

No, only men register when they turn 18.

And, Max, as much as OAO can be a pretentious jackass, he raises a valid question. Especially when you factor in that in the era of the totally volunteer military we have, minorities are proportionatly equal throught the branches, including the officer corps and administrative duties.

I know I don't have to tell you about the accusations going on during the Viet Nam Conflict in regards to black soldiers.

[mburbank]

OAO will need to raise about a billion valid points and no blowhard self adressed psuedo intellectual valentines before anything he says becomes slightly less tainted then month old roadkill monkey.

Has anyone looked at how volunteer service plays out against CLASS as opposed to race? Because I think a really shitty job market and really expensive higher education costs drive poor people into the service. I'm not referencing a study here, I'm putting out a hypothesis.

Choice or not, there's ethics here. Suppose we instituted some new protocol where you could get college tuition and a steady job just for submitting to the types of medical experiments currently allowed only on animals. The benefits to society are unquestionable, it'd be purely by choice, but I think ethically it would be kind of nauseating. That's how I feel about a 'volunteer' army during wartime, or most expecially during 'war' time.

[GAsux]

Just wondering how many of you have actually served in the military. I know there are a few.

I think the discrimination thing is a load of donkey shit. But what do I know. I am 100% certain that some branches of the service absolutely target certain demographics, but to make a statement so broad to imply that there is some form of discrimination going on is absurd.

When I joined the military I made less in my first two years then I did before I joined. I'm not unique. Additionally, while officers typically make up roughly 1/4 of each branch, all are college educated. In my branch, for example, of those college graduates, only roughly half received a tuition scholarship.

Further, my own personal experience which has involved relatively extensive interaction with all four branches has led me to believe that for the most part the kind of folks you find tend to be middle class types.

I believe there are far fewer military members who joined to avoid dire poverty than some of you seem to imply.

[The One and Only...]

Has anyone looked at how volunteer service plays out against CLASS as opposed to race?

Was that not what I just said, you overweight aging hippie?

What's discriminatory about the military is not the fact that it is volunteer-based, but rather that it markets itself toward lower-income individuals.

You can use logical fallacies against me all you like, but damn, give me some credit.

[ziggytrix]

I believe there are far fewer military members who joined to avoid dire poverty than some of you seem to imply.

It's not about whether they target the poor more than the middle class or whatnot. It's rich people getting richer when we go to war, and poor and middle class people getting their kids sent back home with missing limbs or in a box that is revolting to me. :(

[Immortal Goat]

Was that not what I just said, you overweight aging hippie?
I don't know if anyone's ever told you this, but you are completely outrageous :|

[Emu]

Was that not what I just said, you overweight aging hippie?
It's just that everyone ignores your posts, now. :rolleyes

[theapportioner]

First, a clarification:

I never meant to convey that a volunteer army is necessarily or inherently discriminatory - the "(in the United States)" tag in the original post is meant to convey the notion that, here, it is discriminatory in practice.

Also, it's my understanding that you don't find too many military people whose families are from the top 25% income bracket. Is that correct? Why is that? I imagine that not all of them are flaming liberals.

[El Blanco]

How many of the top 25% are police officers or firefighters or teachers or any other hard, underpaid, thankless job? Is there some big conspiracy there?

It's not about whether they target the poor more than the middle class or whatnot.

Strange, that seems to be exactly what the conversation is about.

[mburbank]

Aging absolutely, overweight, a bit (I am 43, after all) but a hippie? That word ceased to have any real context around the time I turned ten. It is outrageous of you to say so, though.

And if you are VERY hard to pay attention to, you have no one but yourself to blame, you infantile, naval gazing, bag of ever so much less than you imagine.

[GAsux]

Apportioner,
My point earlier about asking how many people have actually been in the military here bears some relevance I think. Statistically I'm sure you're absolutely correct. Bill Gates is not dying to join the Army.

What I was getting at is that being an actual member of said occupation, I can tell you from first hand experience that the military is not choked full of impoverished, uneducated folks who had no other way out of destitution. As I also stated, I believe you'll find the majority of military folks to be relatively average middle class Americans.

AS for why the top 25% people aren't rushing to sign up, I'd imagine the fact that you aren't going to make a lot of money and therefore be able to maintain the lifestyle you're accustomed to may have something to do with it.

[ziggytrix]

It's not about whether they target the poor more than the middle class or whatnot.

Strange, that seems to be exactly what the conversation is about.

I was expressing my personal opinion, which was quite obvious if you actually bothered to read the sentence immediately follwing the one you quoted. I hope it isn't too much to ask you to resopnd to the sentiment of a post, rather than just deconstructing little bits to reply to in order to make yourself feel witty. >:

edit: mad

[ItalianStereotype]

a draft is somewhat pointless, except as an employment opportunity.

it takes years to train a good soldier, years. when you come out of basic, you're not a good soldier yet. that's why it's basic. if a draft is reinstated, it most likely means that we're running out of troops and the front is already really hot. well, no enlisted man is going to want to run a midnight mission with some green nursing a conscript syndrome. it would be much better to focus on retention, in my opinion.

[El Blanco]

It's not about whether they target the poor more than the middle class or whatnot. It's rich people getting richer when we go to war, and poor and middle class people getting their kids sent back home with missing limbs or in a box that is revolting to me. :(

The second sentence expresses your opinion. The first however, is constructed in such a way that makes it seem as though you are referencing the rest of the conversation.

Now, if you want people to think you are simply stating your own opnion instead of expanding upon the conversation (and missing the point), you should make the statement in such a way that doesn't seem to be two different thoughts.

[ziggytrix]

Fuck you, asshole. Ha ha just kidding. :)

See how the second sentence references the first one to expand on the sentiment that you are a jerk? And how I started a new paragraph to convey a sperate thought? Does that blow your mind or what?

My point is that regardless whether they target lower class or middle class, it won't be upper class fighting the wars, even though it will be upper class starting the wars. Except in a draft scenario, the rich kids gotta go fight, too.

Do you still think I'm "missing the point"? I still think you're an asshole. ;)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you're getting at some kind of compulsory service, not necessarily military in nature, well I'd be down with that.

Sounds like a good idea, although I'm not sure how one'd go about implementing it on a mass scale. Knowing our government, we'd probably end up "volunteering" for companies like Monsanto or Merck.

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this now, but I read the thread again, and became interested.

Anyway, regarding the infrastructure for national service, well it's already there. Like I said, AmeriCorps is already set up, as is the PeaceCorps and TFA. I served for a year with AmeriCorps, and I loved it. I learned a lot in that year.

The problem with AmeriCorps is that it is constantly under attack from the anti-govt. crowd. Sometimes with good reason, because some AmeriCorps programs are quite worthless. But usually they just hate it b/c "you shouldn't get paid to volunteer." And Clinton created it, so there ya go. There was a good book on the passage of the National Service Act called "The Bill."

So anyway, the ground work is potentially there, if we were so inclined.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Not entirely related, but still in line with the conversation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/politics/24troops.html?pagewanted=print

July 24, 2005
All Quiet on the Home Front, and Some Soldiers Are Asking Why
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, July 23 - The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.

From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?

There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions.

There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.

"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology.

Members of the military who discussed their sense of frustration did so only when promised anonymity, as comments viewed as critical of the civilian leadership could end their careers. The sentiments were expressed in more than two dozen interviews and casual conversations with enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, midlevel officers, and general or flag officers in Iraq and in the United States.

Charles Moskos, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University specializing in military sociology, said: "My terminology for it is 'patriotism lite,' and that's what we're experiencing now in both political parties. The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."

Senior administration officials say they are aware of the tension and have opened discussions on whether to mobilize brigades of Americans beyond those already signed up for active duty or in the Reserves and National Guard. At the Pentagon and the State Department, officials have held preliminary talks on creating a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals.

In an interview, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said that discussions had begun on a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military.

When President Bush last addressed the issue of nationwide support for the war effort in a formal speech, he asked Americans to use the Fourth of July as a time to "find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street."

In the speech, at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, Mr. Bush mentioned a Defense Department Web site, Americasupportsyou.mil, where people can learn about private-sector efforts to bolster the morale of the troops. He also urged those considering a career in the military to enlist because "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."

While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel.

"For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early."

David C. Hendrickson, a scholar on foreign policy and the presidency at Colorado College, said, "Bush understands that the support of the public for war - especially the war in Iraq - is conditioned on demanding little of the public."

Mr. Hendrickson said that after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just as after the recent London bombings, political leaders urged the population to continue life as normal, so as not to give terrorists a moral victory by giving in to the fear of violence.

But he said the stress of the commitment to the continuing mission in Iraq was viewed by the public in a different light than a terrorist attack on home soil.

"The public wants very much to support the troops" in Iraq, he said. "But it doesn't really believe in the mission. Most consider it a war of choice, and a majority - although a thin one - thinks it was the wrong choice."

Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., who served as commandant of the Army War College and is now retired, said: "Despite the enormous impact of Sept. 11, it hasn't really translated into a national movement towards fighting the war on terrorism. It's almost as if the politicians want to be able to declare war and, at the same time, maintain a sense of normalcy."

General Scales said he had heard a heavy stream of concerns from current officers that "the military is increasingly isolated from the rest of the country."

"People associate being an officer with the priesthood," he added. "You know, there is an enormous amount of respect, but nobody wants to sign up for celibacy."

Private organizations like the Navy League of the United States that support the individual armed services have identified the tension and are using this theme to urge greater contributions from members now in the civilian world.

"We have recognized that and we have tried to sound the alarm," said Rear Adm. Stephen R. Pietropaoli, retired, the executive director of the Navy League.

"As an organization that is committed to supporting them by ensuring they have the weapons and tools and systems to fight and win, and also at the grass-roots level by providing assistance to families," Admiral Pietropaoli said, "we are aware that the burden has fallen almost solely on the shoulders of the uniformed military and security services and their families. We have used that in our calls to action by our members. We have said: 'We are at war. What have you done lately?' "

Morten G. Ender, who teaches sociology at West Point, has been interviewing soldiers, their spouses and cadets since the Iraq war started in 2003. Because the all-volunteer military is a self-selecting body and by definition is not drawn from a cross-section of America, he said, those with direct involvement constitute a far smaller percentage of the country than in past wars.

Mr. Ender said that the "rhetoric from the top" of the civilian leadership of the United States "doesn't move people towards actions."

Most Americans support the military, he said, and "feel like there is somebody out there taking care of the job."

"They say, 'I'm going to support those people, I believe in those people and God bless those people,' " he said. "By doing that, they can wash their hands of it."

[davinxtk]

Pardon me for being crass, but you don't necessarily want the people to be overly involved. We have a civilian military, led by civilians, people to serve and protect the constitution and those civilians. Presidents, much like soldiers, often have to do unpleasnat and difficult things, such as sending someone's child to foreign soil to die. Regardless of the cause, that's a pretty tough thing to do, and it's perhaps a burden/responsibility that shouldn't be left to the masses.

If you ask me, Kevin, the masses don't really have enough burdens and responsibilities, globally speaking. In case you haven't noticed, Americans on the whole are spoiled brats, sociopolitically. I just ran a quick search (and amittedly did not research the figure much) but only 51.3% of voting-age Americans actually exercised that right in 2004. Americans don't have enough to answer to in today's world and it would probably do our population a shitload of good to look itself and the rest of the world in the eye, look past their SUVs, neatly trimmed lawns, high-paying office jobs, or better yet, their slums, drugs, and grunt work, and grow the fuck up a bit.

Compulsory service would force people to realize that there's life out there beyond their closed-minded little world.




Edit:
Kevin, that article runs paralell to my argument.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think you get into dangerous territory when you use voting stats (which were actually up in 2004) to rate civic involvement.

"Americans don't have enough to answer to in today's world and it would probably do our population a shitload of good to look itself and the rest of the world in the eye, look past their SUVs, neatly trimmed lawns, high-paying office jobs, or better yet, their slums, drugs, and grunt work, and grow the fuck up a bit."

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't personally have the SUV, trimmed lawn, and the job.....wait, let's word that more appropriately: The three kids, the mortgage, the doctors visits, all the other bills, the mid-level job that probably doesn't pay you what your worth, etc.

People work very hard in this country, and they do so with the hope of having the family, raising the kids, and living the so-called American Dream. I don't think it's that people are voluntarily disconnected, I think it's often all they can do just to get by and stay up to pace.

[davinxtk]

My mom (note: not my parents) has the three kids, the mortgage, can't afford the doctor's visits (I personally haven't had as much as a physical since I was 12, which was free from the public school system at the time -- we make too much money for MassHealth and not enough for real health insurance) and barely keeps her own company afloat in a seasonal economy. I was the kid in school who wore the same clothes every day because mommy couldn't afford any more. The kid who got made fun of because he was on the laminated lunch ticket. I know very well how hard people work in this country, but that doesn't give them any excuse to be completely apathetic and ignorant to the world. Besides, those aren't even the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fucking yuppies with their summer homes and 72" plasma screen televisions on hydraulic lifts with stressed mahogany chests built around them (and yes, i've seen and operated such a device in more than one summer home). The people my mother is essentially a slave to to keep my sisters fed and clothed. The people who need to understand what the middle and lower classes in this country go through, because maybe then they'd vote a little more sensibly -- not for the president who gives their bracket the biggest tax cut and hates the homos.

I think compulsory military (or civil) service would do a whole lot of good for America. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But take a good look at where that opinion has gotten us thus far.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Besides, those aren't even the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fucking yuppies with their summer homes and 72" plasma screen televisions on hydraulic lifts with stressed mahogany chests built around them (and yes, i've seen and operated such a device in more than one summer home). The people my mother is essentially a slave to to keep my sisters fed and clothed. The people who need to understand what the middle and lower classes in this country go through, because maybe then they'd vote a little more sensibly -- not for the president who gives their bracket the biggest tax cut and hates the homos.

Ok, well, you started off saying that civic involvement was needed from these people. But statistically, the upper-class "yuppies" you're talking about do in fact vote more often than the lower-class folk.

But you changed it to "vote a little more sensibly," rather than simply voting. If voting "sensibly" means not voting for Republicans, then I think you're missing the boat on this argument. :/

I think compulsory military (or civil) service would do a whole lot of good for America. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But take a good look at where that opinion has gotten us thus far.

Well, I guess I'm struggling to see what body of work we're comparing us to. Are you saying compulsory service would increase turnout in the voting booth, or are you saying increased turnout would put Democrats in the White House....?

[ziggytrix]

hell it might even get a 3rd party candidtate in the white house if the other 50% of the nation voted. who knows!

edit: heh, who the fuck do i think i'm kidding :rolleyes

[GAsux]

I know this is a bit off topic with regards to civic duty and some kind of mandatory service program (which I support by the way, just not in a military capacity), but at what point does a person cross into becoming a "yuppie"?

I suppose I'm guilty of it to as I make a lower middle class wage and live in a predominantly affluent, upper middle class neighborhood. I get a little touchy when I see "yuppies" driving around town in their Beamers and H2s towing their fancy ski boats, etc.

But at what point do those people transition from becoming "successful" to being dreaded "yuppies"? My only point here is that I'm not convinced that having money or being successful is necessarily cause to slander a person. Isn't that what we're all working towards anyway? To improve our financial situation?

If I could afford an H2 and a nice boat, to be honest I would. Not becuase I'm a dirty yuppie, but because I'd love to have one to drive and like boating. It's sort of like how when a band you love starts to gain popularity and suddenly becomes a "sell out" because their music became popular.

Again, my apologies for derailing the train of thought here, just seems interesting to me how we as a society seem to resent people with money until we become those people ourselves.

[ziggytrix]

You're talking about jealousy.

If I had enough money to buy a Hummer - I'd usue it to pay off my mortgage.

[davinxtk]

Kevin, it doesn't have anything to do with Democrats or Republicans. You're jumping to the partisan line too quickly. What I'm saying is that they'd vote on real issues and real problems, not the ones that the media kicks up to obstruct our view of the nation's real concerns and problems. I don't like the Democrats or the Republicans particularly, neither party rests enough control in its people.


And you're right, there were two seperate arguments there, but both are valid. If everyone in the country served in a civil or military capacity at some point in their lives, it would give them a damn good reason to want to control what the government was doing. The life experience would also put them more in touch with the reality of the nation.



And GA, I'm definitely not the right person to try and get class-based character judgements out of. If I had my way I'd have a newish reliable car, a decent sized home of my own and food for my family. So would you, and everyone else in the country. I'm not into this disparity, I don't believe that people should be in such different economic standing, provided they work. Of course different work deserves different and sometimes greater rewards, but this capitalist economy has gotten entirely out of control. It bugs the living shit out of me that one of my mom's clients owns three houses, right on the beach, two of which he only uses for three months out of the year and then lets sit while he lives in his mansion in Connecticut and yet my mother received a foreclosure notice in the mail because she can't afford to maintain our vehicles, our car insurance, our telephones, internet, and mortgage payments, even with myself and two of my friends helping her out by paying rent. Her client is actually a very nice man who helped us out of another sticky situation three years ago by loaning my mother money (which she paid back in full). He doesn't, however, work. He got to the top of a computer company and sold it in late 2000, right before the economy shit the bed. He hasn't worked since, and he's bought, remodeled, and/or refinished four houses since then. He has money becuase he was in the right position at the right time, not be cause he works. I don't necessarily begrudge him this as much as I do the system which allowed for it all to happen.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kevin, it doesn't have anything to do with Democrats or Republicans. You're jumping to the partisan line too quickly. What I'm saying is that they'd vote on real issues and real problems, not the ones that the media kicks up to obstruct our view of the nation's real concerns and problems.

The military tends to vote Republican. They're already involved in service, do they vote on media contrived issues, rather than "real" ones? Or was this in reference simply to those who don't vote?

[ziggytrix]

Military votes Republican because - and this is almost a direct quote from military friends/family - "it's voting for a pay raise".

[Emu]

There was an interesting post on a Google newsgroup a while back where someone said that the reason Republicans outnumber Democrats in the military is the same reason liberals outnumber conservatives in academia. I'll try to dig it up again.

[davinxtk]

The military tends to vote Republican. They're already involved in service, do they vote on media contrived issues, rather than "real" ones? Or was this in reference simply to those who don't vote?

I would venture to guess that many of them have, in recent years, voted based on "media contrived" issues. I think with all of the activity that our armed services have had abroad lately that many of our soldiers have quite the unique perspective on how Americans are seen globally and why.


I'm apparently going to have to remind you that I'm not just talking military service, either. If America were to conscript every 18 year old who wasn't in school for even just a single year of service we would have more man-power than we'd know what to do with. We'd have the numbers it would take to control a hotbed like Iraq with our eyes closed, and without a back-door draft. We'd have the numbers to send real aid to places like Rwanda. The Army Corps of Engineers would be massive, not some dinky 35,000-member troupe. And when those who were in school finished -- like Helm said -- we'd have a volume of educated individuals getting real-life experience working for the government before entering the workforce.

This is without mentioning those who are already part of our all-volunteer army, career military or not, and the amount of people exposed to this sort of thing who would opt to continue their service.

I honestly don't see much of a downside to this, except someone might claim that it's the government trying to control its citizens. Our title as "land of the free" might be in slight jeopardy if we all actually have to do something for our nation to live here.


And before you mention it: no, paying taxes doesn't count for shit compared to the life that many of our citizens have chosen.

[kellychaos]

What I was getting at is that being an actual member of said occupation, I can tell you from first hand experience that the military is not choked full of impoverished, uneducated folks who had no other way out of destitution. As I also stated, I believe you'll find the majority of military folks to be relatively average middle class Americans.

The middle-class demographic is what I experienced as well. What doesn't work is the fact that there is still no an equal social distribution in the military and there isn't enough of a military population to do the thing our current president wants to do (Let's be thankful for that.). I believe what Kahl (I think) said in the beginning about our government representatives and upper class individuals may think twice about being militarily aggressive because their children MAY have to suffer the consequences. In addition, I can guarantee you that the demographic of those that serve in a draft army era will be decidedly lower class. It's been that way through history. I don't have any feasible anwers to solve that. It's just the way it is, I guess.

[GAsux]

For the record, while statistically I suppose you might be able to demonstrate that military members generally vote Republican, I believe the divide is far smaller than you think. Again, I can't back it with numbers, just my experience.

Additionally, while perhaps during the Reagan era the "republican President=better pay and benefits for the military" theory might have rung true. I don't find so many active military folks stating that anymore. The only people you hear that from are the older retiree types.

In fact, statistically, some of the biggest pay/benefit increases in 20+ years came under the Clinton Presidency. I believe in spite of the rhetoric you'll find that the current Republican administration has been far less military friendly than it would seem on the surface.

[ziggytrix]

And they seem to love to cut veterans' benefits too!

I was primarily quoting a then 27 year old airman who'd just got back from the 'sandbox' during the 04 elections, so I'm talking about at least one current, active military folk, and I'm pretty sure he was just repeating something he heard a thousand times, since he went on to say he was voting for Kerry. *shrug*

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm not trying to imply that service men and women have it better under a Republican, I'm just stating avery general fact (and I have friends/family to verify that perspective, too :)).

I'm apparently going to have to remind you that I'm not just talking military service, either. If America were to conscript every 18 year old who wasn't in school for even just a single year of service we would have more man-power than we'd know what to do with. We'd have the numbers it would take to control a hotbed like Iraq with our eyes closed, and without a back-door draft. We'd have the numbers to send real aid to places like Rwanda. The Army Corps of Engineers would be massive, not some dinky 35,000-member troupe. And when those who were in school finished -- like Helm said -- we'd have a volume of educated individuals getting real-life experience working for the government before entering the workforce.

I think that'd be great, but I don't think it would make Americand vote the way you think they should. :P

[davinxtk]

Where was that part of my argument?
I said that they'd have more real-world experience and understand the issues that this country and this world should be concerned with better than they do now, not that they'd all be commies.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Right, but the implication was that people were lacking that world perspective now, meaning that the way they vote now is wrong, i.e. for Bush. No?

[davinxtk]

Yes, I do believe that people vote for the wrong reasons these days. That doesn't mean that I think people would or should all vote the same way -- but if you ask me, they should all at least vote, armed with real information.

And yes, if you want to make a specific example of that, you could use George W. Bush. You got me, Kevin, I don't think Americans made the right choice, nor did they make it for the right reasons. Imagine that. My point was more that if people really knew what was going on in the country and the world, both Kerry and Bush would have been laughed off the fucking ballots.

[Helm]

Right, but the implication was that people were lacking that world perspective now, meaning that the way they vote now is wrong, i.e. for Bush. No?

No. Lacking that 'world perspective' is what is wrong, under what Davin says. That's his whole argument. Voting for Bush is not inherently wrong. People vote for Kerry while lacking the 'world perspective' as well. The Bush implication is reaching, and to push it derails this argument. Which is that regardless of what people go on to vote later, at least they would be making an educated choice. The focus is on awareness and knowledge as the foundation of a solid democratic system, not them gradually making one a democrat (or republican).

[kellychaos]

Are we to assume that the choice of nominees are based on some kind of merit system? :lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

No. Lacking that 'world perspective' is what is wrong, under what Davin says. That's his whole argument. Voting for Bush is not inherently wrong. People vote for Kerry while lacking the 'world perspective' as well.

That's not what he said right before you. :/

The Bush implication is reaching, and to push it derails this argument. Which is that regardless of what people go on to vote later, at least they would be making an educated choice. The focus is on awareness and knowledge as the foundation of a solid democratic system, not them gradually making one a democrat (or republican).

No, talking about some ambiguous concept such as "world perspective" is what derails the argument. What are we talking about specifically? I think the implication is that smarter people making smarter choices would vote for a third party, or someonething along those lines.

I however think (and I'm certainly not being original here, since there is a political science school of thought here) you can argue that voters make very rational decisions, in their turnout, in who they vote for, etc.

People often vote for the guy they find least offensive, mainly because they have no time for government. Some might argue that that's perfectly rational, too.

And yes, if you want to make a specific example of that, you could use George W. Bush. You got me, Kevin, I don't think Americans made the right choice, nor did they make it for the right reasons. Imagine that. My point was more that if people really knew what was going on in the country and the world, both Kerry and Bush would have been laughed off the fucking ballots.

And were they "armed with real information," what would've happened? Whom might they have chosen?

I don't care if you dislike Bush, Davin. I didn't vote for the man either. I just think that what you perceive to be a more "wordly perspective" is actually just a lot of your own subjective opinion.