THE WAR IN IRAQ AND THE ECONOMY The war in Iraq ranks second behind the economy as the country's most pressing problem and most Americans think the cost of the war has contributed to the country's economic woes, including two-thirds who think it has contributed a lot.
HOW MUCH HAS THE IRAQ WAR CONTRIBUTED TO U.S. ECONOMIC PROBLEMS?
A lot 67%
Some 22
Not much/not at all 10
Americans who think going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do are less likely to think the war is responsible for the country's economic problems.
Arguing over whether or not Democrats should run on the economy or whether or not they should run on Iraq is a false choice. Instead, Democrats should run on a platform that Iraq is hurting the economy. While that is not the only reason the Iraq war needs to end, and while Iraq is not the only reason the economy is struggling, the simple principle that the war is bad for the economy not only connects the two issues, not only makes for a simple campaign slogan, and not only is something that nine in ten Americans believe, but, as I have argued in the past, it would be the clearest, transformative, progressive message Democrats have run on in decades. Implicit in the message is that war in general, and excessive military spending in general, is bad for the economy. Once people accept the message, they will be less willing to go to war, and less willing to spend freely on the military, in the future. And thus, we start to strike a blow against the untouchable symptoms.
The message is our there. The public is ready to accept it. We just need a critical mass of Democrats willing to put it front and center in their campaigns. And then, we will really have something big.
As already linked by fladem in quick hits, this is it. This is the message that is both the winner for 2008, and for a long-term progressive mandate for sweeping change in governance:
More than 7 out of 10 Americans think government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the economic troubles in the United States, according to results of a recent poll.
In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last weekend, 71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy. Twenty-eight percent said they didn't think so.
The argument over whether Democrats should run on Iraq or run on the war is not a useful argument. Ultimately, both are temporary messages that do not carry a mandate for comprehensive progressive change. If Democrats winning an election on Iraq, the rationale to vote for Democrats disappears when the Iraq war ends, since few Democrats are running a message that all wars in the Iraq mold should be avoided. Also, if Democrats win on the economy, the rational to vote for a Democrat ends either when the economy turns bad while Democrats are in power, or when the economy is doing well while Republicans are in power. Eventually, one of those to contigencies will come to pass.
However, winning an election on the platform that war spending is bad for the economy is exactly the sort of mandate for change that we need to order to end the national security state, reduce military spending, and implement the comprehensive reforms of The Responsible Plan When 71% of Americans view spending on war to be a drag on the economy, the justification to reduce military spending is accepted by a supermajority of the public, and skepticism about engaging in future military operations of this scale is cemented in the public consciousness for decades. If war spending is understand to be bad for the economy, then over the long-term people will want to spend less on the military, engage in fewer wars, and attack the root cause of wars like Iraq in order to prevent them from happening. Winning an election on the platofrm that Iraq is bad for the economy thus becomes a long-term progressive mandate.
The idea that war spending is bad for the economy is also, brilliantly enough, exactly the message we need to win in 2008. .It fueses the two main issues in the minds of the electorate, Iraq and the poor economy, into a simple elevator pitch that people already understand and accept. About 60-65% of the nation thinks that the Iraq war was a bad idea, 75% think that the economy is bad, and so it makes sense that about 70% of the country think that spending our money in Iraq is hurting the economy. The country already believes this message, and so we are halfway home. Now, in order to lay the groundwork for challenging the untouchable symptoms of our national problems, we just have to start explictily running on this message. This is our mandate for sweepign progressive change in governance. Let's step up and grab it.
Back on Christmas, Matt wrote an article called Five Untouchable Symptoms detailing five major problems facing the country that even leading Democrats rarely, if ever, address. Four of those five problems actually revolved around only two issues: America's extraordinarily high levels military spending and incarceration rates. Just how bad is the incarceration rate in America? According to a new study from Pew, 1 in 99 American adults are currently in jail. From the New York Times article on the report:
For the first time in the nation's history, more than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, according to a new report.
Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.
Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.
In 2007, according to the National Association of State Budgeting Officers, states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections. That is up from $10.6 billion in 1987, a 127 increase once adjusted for inflation. With money from bond issues and from the federal government included, total state spending on corrections last year was $49 billion. By 2011, the report said, states are on track to spend an additional $25 billion.
While this is only 2% of the public sector economy, like military spending and corporate welfare, it is also not an area of spending that is ever seriously questioned by any major politician. These areas of government spending are also major reasons why government spending continues to explode, even under the guidance of so-called fiscal conservatives and libertarians. Invariably, these areas of spending also disproportionately favor red areas of the country and pro-Republican demographics. It is a vast economy of hypocrisy, where conservatives talk about the need for personal responsibility and to cut government spending, but ultimately greatly expand, and redirect, federal and statewide spending in order to fatten the wallets of their strongest supporters.
Breaking and redirecting current government spending patterns away from these industries is also a key to building a long-term progressive governing majority. Not only would it shift the balance of economic power in America, but it is also a key to de-funding the right. I'd love to see a study of how much conservative directed government spending of this nature ends up in Republican campaign coffers or in the bank accounts of the institutions that keep the Republican Noise Machine working. That flow of money is truly the circle of life untouchable political symptoms in this country.
STATE BLOGS
