Military Spending

Ronald Reagan came into office pledging to spend less on government. Yet he increased the military budget significantly. Was this a contradiction?

In the summer of 1995, the conservative House of Representatives cut billions out of programs for the poor – $137 million from Project Head Start alone. Yet the conservative House, ostensibly committed to budget cutting, allocated to the military $7 billion more than it had requested. It also supported the reinstitution of expensive and controversial Star Wars research (see References, D2, S. Lakoff and H. F. York, 1989).

Why are conservatives, who say they want to spend less on government, allocating much more to the military than it even requests in inflated estimates? Given that the Cold War is over and we are not in danger of invasion, why do conservatives want to increase military spending, even though it means bigger government?

In the Strict Father model, it is the duty of the strict father to protect his family above all else. By the Nation As Family metaphor, this implies that the major function of the government is, above all else, to protect the nation. That is why conservatives see the funding of the military as moral, while the funding of social programs is seen as immoral.

There is more than a little irony in this. The military is, on the inside, a huge social program, with its own health care, schools, housing, pensions, education benefits, PX discounts, officers' clubs, golf courses, and so on – all paid for at public expense. But the military represents the strength of the nation, and strength has the highest priority in the Strict Father model.

Moreover, the military itself is structured by Strict Father morality. It has a hierarchical authority structure, which is mostly male and sets strict moral bounds. The ethic of moral strength has priority: Everything is keyed to hierarchical authority, self-discipline, building strength, and fighting evils. It is the principal governmental institution that embodies Strict Father morality. Supporting the military as an institution is supporting the culture of Strict Father morality. This makes the military sacrosanct to conservatives. Since it functions in support of conservative morality, conservatives see it as worthy of support even beyond its protective function.

Liberals, focusing on issues of nurturance, see other priorities as more important than the military. They note that the U.S. spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. Given that we are not in danger of being invaded, and given the end of the Cold War, liberals see no need for much of the military spending. At present, the U.S. is prepared to fight two wars on two fronts, which is seen as overkill. We still maintain 100,000 NATO troops in Europe, which to many liberals is pointless. Much of the money spent on the military could be spent in much better ways, strictly from the point of view of cost-effective government.

But to conservatives, support for the military is support for conservative values. People who go through the military often enter with Strict Father moral values or acquire them. To spend less money on the military is to weaken Strict Father morality – and political conservatism. Correspondingly, for liberals, spending less money on the military means freeing up more for social programs. That, for liberals, is a means to a moral end.

Поиск по сайту: