Views » October 5, 2001

Publishers Notes

By Bob Burnett

As George W. Bush rolls out his agenda in the form of detailed legislative proposals, it becomes clearer that we are heading for a major ideological battle in Washington. On the one hand, we have a conservative program of immense tax cuts for the wealthy and a massive increase in military funding. The net effect will be a return to huge federal deficits and a draconian decrease in social services. On the other hand, progressives will push for an increase in these social services and will attempt to strengthen the social contract. In elemental terms this will be a conflict between a “tax cut and spend” philosophy and a “tax and spend” philosophy.

Interestingly, neither Republicans nor Democrats question that we will have an increase in the military budget≠≠they merely argue about its size and what it will be used for. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore actually proposed a larger increase in military spending than Bush. Only Ralph Nader had the temerity to suggest that we should actually decrease military spending.

Democrats have abandoned talk about the peace dividend. Outside of the comments of a few hearty Congress members like Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Barbara Lee (D-California), the concept isn’t mentioned. Yet recent polls indicate that Americans are not all that enamored with either a big tax cut for the rich or a massive military buildup. So a viable alternative would appear to be: cut the military budget, use these funds to strengthen the social contract, and give everyone but the rich a tax cut. This would move Democrats away from the “tax and spend” opprobrium to a more appealing “cut taxes and reduce overall spending” stance.

So what keeps this from happening? Why can’t there be a peace dividend? If you ask longtime Washington observers, they typically respond in one of three ways. It’s the fault of the peace movement, which has gotten old and tired; it’s the fault of Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council who, in an effort to capture independent and Republican voters, embraced the conservative defense philosophy (“mine is bigger than yours”); or it’s the fault of the entire Democratic Party, which has positioned itself as pro-defense in an effort to lure back white male voters.

Each of these responses makes sense—superficially. But looking closer at the conventional explanations, they raise more questions than they answer. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the peace movement hasn’t gotten a lot of press attention or generated a lot of excitement. However, the basic point made at the end of the Cold War—that there is no good reason not to spend less on defense and divert this spending to social services—was valid then and remains valid now.

While Clinton and the DLC certainly have moved the Democratic Party to the right and have embraced the Republican defense posture, many progressive Democrats question our continuing need to spend as if those “Russkies” were knocking on our door. Why do these Democrats speak so softly?

Finally, if the stealth Democratic strategy is to embrace defense spending in order to lure back white male voters (“Look! We’re tough on Communism! We support our armed forces!”), it’s not working. In the last presidential election, Democrats lost the white male vote across the board, a repeat of what has happened for the past 30 years.

So other factors must be sought to explain why the campaign for the peace dividend has diminished. We need to understand what these are before we can stand toe-to-toe with Bush and the conservative onslaught—a confrontation that will require building the strongest possible case for the peace dividend.

In this spirit, I would like to suggest that Democrats and progressives have lost the campaign for the peace dividend because they have also lost the campaign for family values. These seemingly separate subjects are connected in a way that cuts below the superficial analysis of the Beltway pundits.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  There are no comments on this article yet. Start the discussion below.

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured An Invasion Foretold
Wall Done
On the Attac

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Bob Burnett

• Organizing the Religious Left
  Berkeley polymath Rabbi Michael Lerner returns with his latest book, The Left Hand… morePosted on March 1, 2006
• The Georgia Preach
  Jimmy Carter's new book about fundamentalism is long on diagnosis, but thin on remediesPosted on December 15, 2005
• First Person: Porto Alegre
  About 100,000 people marched through the streets of Porto Alegre, Brazil, to mark… morePosted on February 4, 2003
• Publisher’s Notes
  When Bush, Cheney and the conservative ideologues pontificate on the American appetite for… morePosted on August 6, 2001
• Publisher’s Notes
  Typically when you bring up the subject of values progressives flinch, as if… morePosted on May 28, 2001