Colbert Conservatism & the Cost of Permanent War

by: David Sirota

Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 09:15


A few weeks back, I wrote a column looking at how the media and political establishment spends an inordinate amount of time pretending to be outraged at the cost of priorities like health care while simultaneously ignoring the ballooning cost of permanent war-making. I was met with a wave of angry email from conservatives - not at the Pentagon profligacy I referred to, but at criticism of Pentagon spending itself.

So this week, I responded with another column digging deeper into what we know about Pentagon spending. A preview:

- "All told, every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on these programs and agencies next year. By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100." - Cato Institute

- "The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes." - Hearst Newspapers

- "President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II." - National Journal's Government Executive Magazine

These are numbers that were released well before President Obama's expected Afghanistan escalation - an escalation that will (according to figures reported in the New York Times) drive the annual cost of that war alone to about $80 billion a year - or roughly the annual cost of the health care bill being debated in Congress.

As you'll see in the column, I cite some archconservatives - including John McCain - who have in the past courageously pointed out just how bloated our Pentagon budget really is. So the idea that you have to be some sort of ultraliberal to worry about defense spending is absurd. All you have to be is someone concerned with the long-term finances of our country - and that's why I think my old boss, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), may get some real traction with his proposal for a war surtax to pay for Obama's expected (and, IMHO, ill-advised) Afghanistan escalation.

That my original column pointing out basic budgetary reality was criticized so vehemently and aggressively by so many conservative readers suggests that throughout America, our political discourse has been reduced to caveman-ish sloganeering - in this case: "Pentagon spending, good; Pentagon criticism, bad." As I say in my column follow up this week, the reaction proves that many conservatives see Stephen Colbert's joke that "reality has a well known liberal bias" as a statement of truth - rather than a wisecrack.

Read the whole column here.

The column relies on grassroots support -- and because of that support, it is getting wider and wider circulation (a big thank you to all who have helped with that). So if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

David Sirota :: Colbert Conservatism & the Cost of Permanent War

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Don't worry David (4.00 / 5)
Certainly by taking this foolish action opposed by the Democratic base but supported by conservatives, the Obama White House will dampen Republican opposition and push forward with their progressive agenda.

/snark

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


"couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars" There is no accounting. Period. (4.00 / 2)
There has never been any serious accounting at the Pentagon that was worth it's name. Any corporation working with such horrible bookkeeping would have gone bankrupt long ago, or been shut down by federal agencies. This isn't exactly a secret, just the elephant in the room nobody is speaking about. Afaik there has never been any serious political attempt to change this, prolly because it's much too hot a topic. And the current administration, with its lackluster aproach at reforms, certainly won't bring a change.

Depends on what you mean by this (4.00 / 5)
Afaik there has never been any serious political attempt to change this, prolly because it's much too hot a topic.

Most Americans, when they are given a sense of what we actually spend in the budget, are perfectly willing to make large cuts in defense military spending. It's only because our politics treats military spending as free money that the Village can get away with this.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
Uh, no, no real attempt to bring proper accounting to the military! (4.00 / 1)
I wasn't talking about defense cuts, David. But, of course, an annual growth rate of 5.7% certainly isn't sustainable in the long run (in healthcare, this is seen as a problem. In defense, not at all). And spending more than the rest of the world combined doesn't make any sense at all, fer sure.

[ Parent ]
Uh, no misunderstanding, I'm speaking about ACCOUNTABILITY! (4.00 / 1)
The fact that the Pentagon isn't able to correctly account for all it's costs and payments, in a way that is the standard for corporations. Maybe this is even deliberately so, enabling the generals to hide more controversial costs out of sight, who knows. But it sure is scandalous.

[ Parent ]
Sure thing - my point was that it would not be politcally hot (4.00 / 2)
among voters, only among the Village.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Yup. But who wins when it's the village vs. the voters? (4.00 / 1)
Somehow, the village's issues seem always to be much hotter to the average politicians than any voter interests, right?

[ Parent ]
The Village wins, as long as we continue to play their game (n/t) (4.00 / 2)


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Time to CHANGE the effing rules of the game! (4.00 / 1)
Hey, wasn't there a guy last year who promised to do exactly that? Damn, what became of him? Looks like he's already become corrupted by the village...

[ Parent ]
Or just stop playing games altogether. (0.00 / 0)
The far right isn't playing games; it's waging all-our war on the left and America.  Maybe we should stop thinking of politicking as a game and start viewing it for what it has degenerated into.  Then we can start fighting back effectively.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
Wrong Metaphor (0.00 / 0)
The issue was about whether you take the rules as given or challenge the rules. Wars can also be lost because one side plays by the other side's rules.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure it is. (0.00 / 0)
In war, the only "rule" is to win.  That may not fit into the neat illusion we've come to adopt when thinking of warfare, but that's the truth of it when you strip away all the BS.  Musashi Miyomoto won over fifty duels before retiring to write his treatise on swordfighting, a work that is still followed by Japanese businessmen today.  His "strategy," or "rule," was to win.  The method for achieving victory changed with the circumstances, but the goal always remained the same: win.

You did make a salient point about warfare.  Winners make the enemy fight on their terms; they don't fight on their enemy's.  The left has been fighting on conservatives' terms for far too long.  We need to reverse this.  This can really only happen when we realize what kind of fight we're engaged in and what needs to be done to win it.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.


[ Parent ]
We're actually in agreement about the main point (4.00 / 1)
Winners make the enemy fight on their terms; they don't fight on their enemy's.  The left has been fighting on conservatives' terms for far too long.  We need to reverse this.  This can really only happen when we realize what kind of fight we're engaged in and what needs to be done to win it.

That's exactly what I meant to express with "the rules of the game," and regardless of how you say it, it's an under appreciated and crucial point.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
I'm just concerned about the terminology. (0.00 / 0)
Calling anything having to do with politics a game, even if it's only for lack of a better word, I think carries the danger of not taking the matter seriously.  I'm not saying you don't; I'm just saying that it is very easy to fall into a mode of thinking that allows a person to think of politics as something other than what it is.  Didn't Carl von Clausewitz say, "[w]ar is a continuation of politics by other means"?  I think the reverse is also true: politics is the continuation of war by other means.  The far right got this a long time ago.  That's why they went to the trouble of purging saner members in their takeover of the Republican Party, and why they slowly bought out the Democrats with their filthy money.  It's why they never compromise, never take no for an answer, never back down even when everyone else is against them.  They've committed themselves to total ideological war.  That's how they think.  The left still seems to think it can win this war by "playing" by the rules of a "game" the enemy doesn't think is a game.

I think if we're going to get anything positive done, we have to stop using words like "game" and "play" when discussing politics.  I think we'll need to adopt terms words like "war," "strategy," "tactics," "defense," and most importantly at this stage, "offense."

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.


[ Parent ]
Btw, David, isn't there an "l" for "liberal mole" missing in "Cobert"? (0.00 / 0)
I know, I should be the last guy to point out the typos of others, but in a frontpage headline, this is a bit embarassing...

Ah, now the good "l" is there, thx. Hmm, isn't Colbert actually an acronym... (4.00 / 1)
..standing for 'Courageously offensive liberal bedeviling egocentric rethuglican TV-pundits'?

[ Parent ]
OH Senate candidate Jennifer Brunner (4.00 / 1)
is asking some of these questions downblog.  The only way the White House is going to change course is if more people in official Washington start making these sorts of demands: Time to Bring Home the Troops Home

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

More good news (4.00 / 2)
From the News Desk: More Pols Line Up Against Escalation In Afghanistan  Add MA Senate candidate Martha Coakley and potential UT Senate candidate and House Republican conservative Jason Chaffetz to the list, which already included MA Senate candidate (and House member) Michael Capuano.

It's hard to disagree with this:

Opposing an unpopular war is the smart political play.

Primaries give us leverage to get people on the record, which can help change these dynamics. Anyone know what Brunner opponent Lee Fisher's position on escalation is? And how about Sestak doing the wrong thing while Specter actually gets the better of him on this issue?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
The point I totally fail to understand: What about Iraq? (0.00 / 0)
Shouldn't the US withdraw their troops from that theatre first? There are still 120000 soldiers there, more than in Afghanistan. That's the promised withdrawal? Why is nobody calling for them to be send home?

[ Parent ]
Let me do that right now (4.00 / 1)
We should be withdrawing faster, and should actually withdraw (not just so called "combat troops") from Iraq. I suspect the reason is that Obama campaigned on withdrawing, and there is a plan to do so in place. It's easier to oppose something being made worse than a failure to change a status quo quickly enough.  It's hard to mobilize people for these things as they are less clear cut (these are reasons, but not necessarily good ones). I would like to see more attention to the issue - it is dangerous to allow it to fly under the radar.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Hey, one point where we agree: "more attention to the issue"! (4.00 / 1)
It's a start.
:D

[ Parent ]
wars bought and sold (0.00 / 0)
None of this back and forth about the DOD budget will begin to sink in until American voters begin to grasp the systemic nature of the military [now terrorist] industrial complex. War and defense spending are at the heart and soul of the American economy. For better or for worse.

It's not just that the money spent on "national security" here is double that spent by the rest of the world combined, nor the 700 plus military installations we have scattered across the globe. Instead, it is the manner in which war and defense are embedded in the very corridors of power [economic on Wall Street, political in Washington] like few other institutionalized relationships in America.

Change that and nothing will ever remain the same. Change it not and all the arguments for "just war" and "making the world safe for democracy" are just so much rhetorical bullshit.


I always think this should be approached with a very simple frame: (4.00 / 1)
Cut the military budget by X%, and raise the salaries of enlisted men by X%. Ringfence training, body armour and programmes to help troops re-establish themselves in civilian life after they leave the forces, but everything else is on the table.

This brings in concern about troop safety, helps to preserve the better bits of the army and adds a nice class warfare angle to the issue too.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox