For a media that is primed only to cover politics as a conflict between a red team and a blue team, this bill is basically a nonentity. And given the press’s squeamishness in covering the military more broadly—emblematic most recently in the disastrous coverage of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, itself a product of the mass media’s cozy relationship with camera-ready celebrities from the military and intelligence fields—little effort goes into even suggesting that there might be anything remotely controversial about military spending. All of this is happening, it’s worth adding, in a presidential administration that has wound down both the war in Afghanistan and the drone war.
The coverage of the Build Back Better Act has been an entirely different beast, and it can be hard to parse the logic why. Its provisions are not just popular with the public but exceptionally popular and, in most cases, on a bipartisan basis: By and large, Americans want universal pre-K, cheaper prescription drugs, and paid family leave. But the bill has ended up being defined not by its merits, or by the public’s needs, but rather by headline-ready conflicts between politicians. On one front, Republicans insist that the bill is too large and will lead to inflation, while conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin have raised a host of vague objections.
This is catnip for the political press: the usual partisan conflict with the added thrill of one party in disarray. These objections have thus been pushed into stories over and over again in print and on cable news, cementing them in the minds of voters. On a second front, there is a gaping empty space that the media’s coverage has left unfilled, due to a lack of effort in explaining what programs will or could end up being funded or expanded by the actual bill, and an unwillingness to offer a comparison to other types of government spending—such as military spending, which is always deemed to be “must pass.”
The comparison is instructive. Both parties have no problem swiftly moving through a gargantuan military spending bill. Meanwhile, one containing a host of social spending programs and increases is endlessly debated not on its merits but on its cost: Can we really afford to spend $400 billion over 10 years on universal pre-K? Can we do so now at a time when gas costs more than $3 a gallon?
Touchstone033 on December 9th, 2021 at 14:38 UTC »
The irony is that the Pentagon often gets equipment or budget that it doesn't want. You'll often seen proposals from the military to cut certain planes, say, but they get them anyway, thanks to the military industry's lobbying efforts and representatives terrified of cutting manufacturing jobs.
Ages ago, I actually wrote a piece about this and the battle over funding for the F-22. Basically, defense contractors build the various components over widespread areas in the US, in multiple Congressional districts. The components for the F-22, for example, were built by 1,000 different companies in 44 different states. And we're talking high-skilled and well paying manufacturing jobs.
It could be that no one wants, say, a super expensive and non-useful fighter jet, but the big companies are beholden to their shareholders and ever-increasing revenue, the smaller subcontracting companies rely on the contracts to stay afloat, the workers need the money (beats greeting at Walmart!), local governments (and schools) rely on the property taxes and economic boost the business brings, and congressional representatives would be raked across the coals and booted from office if they voted for something that resulted in the loss of all this juicy financial goodness for their communities.
A lot of people here in the comments railing on defense spending depend on it -- likely without even knowing about it. Basically, we're caught in a trap of our own making.
Alternative-Pizza-46 on December 9th, 2021 at 13:28 UTC »
CrispyRSMusic on December 9th, 2021 at 12:38 UTC »
The military industrial complex