Posted on 11/06/2006 5:29:26 AM PST by Neoliberalnot
The military isn't full of poor, uneducated kids, but it doesn't look anything like America. November 3, 2006 SINCE John Kerry "botched" a joke and implied that those without education "get stuck in Iraq," political leaders from both parties have been piously describing U.S. troops as valiant young Einsteins in desert camouflage. But deep down, a lot of them probably think Kerry is right.
If those grunts were half as smart as members of Congress, they'd be on Capitol Hill getting sucked up to by lobbyists instead of sucking up dust in Baghdad's bloody alleys — right? Demographically, the military is profoundly different from civilian society. It's drawn disproportionately from households in rural areas, for one thing. For another, the South and Southwest are substantially overrepresented within the military, while the Northeast is dramatically underrepresented.
Compared to civilians, members of the military are significantly more religious, and they're also far more likely to be Republicans. A 2005 Military Times poll found that 56% of military personnel described themselves as Republicans, and only 13% described themselves as Democrats. Nationwide, most polls suggest that people who define themselves as Democrats outnumber those defining themselves as Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Thank God.
It's true. It's the cities that determine if a state is red or blue. Looking at a state map by county will show a significant part of NY to be red. NYC carries the state, sadly.
The South has more citizens who love God and country more than in the North.
Speaking as a North Easterner, you are quite correct. It's amazing how many folks around here consider themselves to be citizens of the world, or would agree to a statement like "All countries have equal worth, including America".
I've also gotta say, Church Attendence isn't what it could be, although Catholic-wise, we get our share of C&E'ers (Christmas and Easter) so atleast people know where The Church is located.
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
send to dem neighbor:
The military isn't full of poor, uneducated kids, but it doesn't look anything like America.
Rosa Brooks
November 3, 2006
SINCE John Kerry "botched" a joke and implied that those without education "get stuck in Iraq," political leaders from both parties have been piously describing U.S. troops as valiant young Einsteins in desert camouflage. But deep down, a lot of them probably think Kerry is right.
If those grunts were half as smart as members of Congress, they'd be on Capitol Hill getting sucked up to by lobbyists instead of sucking up dust in Baghdad's bloody alleys — right?
Most of our current political leaders didn't waste any time serving in the military. Like Vice President Dick Cheney, they had "other priorities." As recently as 1994, 44% of members of Congress were veterans. Today, it's only 26%. And despite the mandatory "I adore our heroic troops" rhetoric, most on Capitol Hill aren't steering their own children toward military service. Only about 1% of U.S. representatives and senators have a son or daughter in uniform.
For many in Congress, serving in the military is a fine thing to do — for all those poor schmoes who don't have any better options, that is.
During the Vietnam War, the controversial student deferments helped keep most affluent and educated young men out of the military, while those without college opportunities were far more likely to be drafted. Today, the military continues to attract many young men and women from less-affluent families by offering job training and scholarships.
But recent studies of military demographics suggest that today's military is neither uneducated nor poor. Statistically, the enlisted ranks of the military are drawn mainly from neighborhoods that are slightly more affluent than the norm. The very poor are actually underrepresented in the military, relative to the number of very poor people in the population.
That's mainly because the military won't accept the lowest academic achievers. The Army limits recruits without high school degrees to 3 1/2 % of the pool, for instance, while the Marines won't accept recruits without high school degrees. Poverty correlates strongly with high school dropout rates, so these rules significantly limit the access of the very poor to military service.
At the same time, they ensure that enlisted members of the military are more likely than members of the general population to have high school degrees. The same pattern holds for commissioned officers. In 2004, for instance, only 4.2% of officers lacked college degrees, and a whopping 37% held an advanced degree of some sort, compared to only 10% of adults nationwide.
The myth that the military is mainly the province of the poor and the uneducated is grossly misleading, and it's also dangerous. It obscures the far more worrisome gaps that have recently emerged between the military and civilian society.
Demographically, the military is profoundly different from civilian society. It's drawn disproportionately from households in rural areas, for one thing. For another, the South and Southwest are substantially overrepresented within the military, while the Northeast is dramatically underrepresented.
Compared to civilians, members of the military are significantly more religious, and they're also far more likely to be Republicans. A 2005 Military Times poll found that 56% of military personnel described themselves as Republicans, and only 13% described themselves as Democrats. Nationwide, most polls suggest that people who define themselves as Democrats outnumber those defining themselves as Republicans.
And though the average member of the military is neither poor nor uneducated, social and economic elites are dramatically underrepresented in the military.
Frank Schaeffer — coauthor with Kathy Roth-Douquet of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service" and "Baby Jack," a novel about a father who loses his Marine son in Iraq — notes that the percentage of enlisted military personnel from households with more than $60,000 in annual income is close to zero. Military recruiters don't even both to recruit in affluent neighborhoods: They know no one's going to sign up. At elite universities — Harvard, Stanford and Yale, for instance — the percentage of graduates who enter the military is minuscule.
All this should bother us — a lot. The United States needs a strong and adaptable military — and in this globalized world, the importance of the military both in U.S. foreign policy and domestic politics is likely to increase, not decrease, in the coming decades. But a democracy needs a military that's not radically out of step with the values and hopes of civilians; and those who volunteer to risk their lives in our name deserve civilian leaders who understand something about the realities of service and combat. If we want an effective military that serves a healthy democracy, political and economic elites ought to shoulder more of the burden.
If political elites don't like the thought of getting stuck in Iraq themselves, they should consider the results of a recent study. Duke University researchers Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi analyzed data from the period between 1816 and 1992 and found that "as the percentage of veterans serving in the executive branch and the legislature increases, the probability that the United States will initiate militarized disputes declines by nearly 90%."
Want to make sure that the U.S. never again gets stuck in a pointless and aggressive war? Draft Congress!
After all the CRAP the Dims have been saying about our US Military personnel over the past 2 years would you if you were a Dim, want to allow "any" Military person to vote this election cycle?
The Dims have made our Military folks so angry that even the Dim ones will vote Rep.
Arkansas is down there, below Louisiana in per capita income--they haven't had time to recover from the Clinton years yet.
Bottom line, the military is made up of the best of America.
Well whose fault is that??
The Economist Article may have been a few years ago, and they specifically named LA and Miss. Ark and Ala were next, but still close to the national ave. It seems that the Mississippi river economy hasn't been as good as it could. LA has had corrupt leadership it seems like forever.
It's the cities that determine if a state is red or blue.
Pennsylvania is a perfect example of that. The five counties in the Philadelphia area and the six in the Pittsburgh area consistently swing the state blue.
Somewhat related to that is the almost criminal negligence the PA R party has show in turning a blind eye to voter fraud in Philadelphia (can't speak to what goes in in The 'burgh). The margin in 2004 was 144,00, about the same as the results in Ohio (119,000), where you heard all the whining and nashing of teeth.
If what I saw, visiting many polling places in the city was any indication of what went on in other areas around the city, PA should have ended up comfortably in the Bush column.
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
I'm not from the South, but all I have to do is watch the beginning of a NASCAR race to see the stirring patriotism of Southerners - it makes me with I WERE a Southerner. Even though NASCAR has now spread all over the country, it's still viewed as a Southern phenomenon, and it's beautiful.
Another point to consider is the concentration of large military bases in the South and West since WWII. The big bases that once existed in the Northeast are mostly gone. Kids growing up in areas near large bases are more exposed to the military as they grow up. In addition, many retired military personel end up making their homes near the bases where they served and raise their children to have a positive image of military life.
There is definitely a long standing tradition of patriotism in the south. You see it with flags flying on homes, stickers on vehicle bumpers, and in multiple other ways.
There are a lot of bases in the South, but I disagree with your theory that this causes more kids to show an interest in the military. Early in our country's history, the North had a strong military culture. However, that has clearly changed. During Vietnam, I attending a major state University in the South. When the Kent State shooting caused demonstrations by the thousands in California and Northeast, at my University, about a hundred freaks tried to take over the admin building. There were about a thousand guys that wanted to throw the freaks out on their butts, but the campus cops protected them.
Your Apology Is Not Accepted, Mr. Kerry(Rabbi Aryeh Spero)
Human Events Online ^ | Nov 02, 2006 | Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Posted on 11/05/2006 7:21:27 PM PST by kellynla
How “smart!” An evasive, half-hearted apology on a website. How brave! How very un-soldier-like.
Apologies aside, Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been “outed.” In the world of John Kerry and other leading liberal Democrats in the Northeast, the military is for those who are not smart. After all, smart people become lawyers, investment bankers, journalists or professors. That there are Americans both smart and patriotic who wish to serve their country via the military is something alien to those whose life is devoted to service of self and personal ambition.
That among the regular citizens there are people who use their brains to defend the country is incomprehensible to those who see brain-power application only for dissent and agitation against American society.
Kerry’s statement reflects much more than what he and elitist liberals today believe about the military. It expresses their overall view of Southerners, religious people, Midwesterners, and those from modest families here in the East most likely to volunteer for military service.
This is no longer your father’s Democrat Party. While much of the rank-and-file of the party remain union members and those who keep a family tradition of voting Democrat, the leaders who now set the tone of the party are hard-core, affluent leftists. These leftists are not your old-fashioned by-gone Communists from the poor, teeming neighborhoods of urban America. These are immensely wealthy egoists intent on controlling and social-engineering our society.
The elitists dwelling on the coasts who ridicule the military are convinced they are brainier than the average American, and long ago pledged their allegiance to transnationalism over Americanism. There is no war they would support if its purpose solely benefited America. Only wars of transnational concern or those for the rights of politically correct groups are, for them, justifiable. Battling for the globe is noble, not, however, for America.
What else can one expect from those whose self-hood and fraternity are linked not with Columbus and Lansing but Paris, Geneva and Stockholm? After all, these are the people who care more about terrorist rights and the Hague than the safety of Americans on Main Street, U.S.A.
The Kerrys, Clintons, Deans, Kennedys, Soros’ and Peter Lewis’ share none of the social values with ordinary Democrats. In fact, most of the elitists leading the Democrat Party today do not in their daily life have anything in common with those still voting for them -- they don’t frequent regular eating establishments, their children attend toney private schools, and they would be horrified if their daughter married the son of a machinist in Pontiac, Mich.
They “loathe” the military because they, themselves, can’t do what the soldier does. They lack the soldier’s courage. They are uneasy about that which is brought about through brawn. They lack the grace of one able to acknowledge traits found in others, not found in themselves. These are courageous-less people who are incapable of bucking the latest fashion, trend, and the approval of European “sophisticates.” For them, courage and being “smart” means valuing and understanding the positions of America’s enemies more than the beliefs of our own country.
We’ve come a long way since military service was admired by all. It was valued so back in World War II because, then, everyone had a family member in uniform. Today’s better-than-thou-liberal rarely has a child or brother or cousin or friend in our voluntary army. Knowing no one in it, they no longer identify with it. “Our people” don’t go into the Army. For them, soldiers are simply statistics and not real flesh and blood. In their cocooned life, none of them live with the anguish and heart-pounding fear of those answering the door wondering if the messengers have come announcing the battlefield death of the person who is their life.
They disdain the military, also, because military victory works against their aspiration of themselves deciding our country’s fate through their vocations: “negotiation” and “understanding.” They despise the military since it replaces our need for them.
Why do liberals seem to have so little gratitude or sense of indebtedness to those who serve in the military, to those who defend our freedom? Obviously, feeling so superior to the rest of us, there is no place in their heart for gratitude for those they view as beneath them. They are snobs -- so far removed from what American people are.
No, it’s not about the Iraq war. It’s not even about apology. It’s about your liberal elitists, stupid! And that’s why we cannot vote for you and the Democrat Party wherein you reside.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732973/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.