Branding America: "Welfare State" or "Warfare State"? (open thread)

There are two ways to ascertain what America's priorities are: top-down or bottom-up. As we live in a democracy (or in America's case, a representative democracy), there is lots of room to play tug-of-war over the nation's priorities. We can argue along ideological grounds ("This nation was founded on...", or "This nation, in a modern world, ought to...") or we can argue along fiscal lines ("There is only so much revenue, so we need to spend according to..."). The Economist has an interesting piece covering recent statements by revered war-hawk conservatives justifying continued and unabated military spending, even at the expense of paying for social services and social safety nets (otherwise known as "entitlement" programs, the pejorative language used in anti-welfare state rhetoric). And then there is this strange (to me) quote from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2007:

“Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance. All these so-called nontraditional capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning, and strategy—where they must stay.”

whereby he clearly mixes a few metaphors (the Economist piece frames the purpose of the military is to ensure safe global trade).

My question is this: Given how interconnected and globalized the world truly is today, the many intractable problems there are to solve both domestically and internationally, the fact that the US is running record deficits, and an incredibly hot debate over federal spending, taxation, and jobs....what ought the tagline for the USA be for the next century? The United States of America: Welfare State or Warfare State?

Below is a chart that shows the Federal Budget according to spending allocations (in other words, priorities), and here is a comprehensive list of US military spending compared to other countries.

Comments are desired and welcome.

Comments

[James Cole]

I think it is unfair to call military funding either "top down" or Warfare.

Our troops do more for social good and policing than they fight wars. They provide medical services, distribute aid -- all the things that are normally called Welfare.

And we, the people, are mostly in favor of supporting our troops. To me this is "bottom up" not top down.

My big concern is wether or not it makes sense for us to spend so much money taking care of citizens of other countries while citizens of our own country are sufferning.

[Wayne Moses Burke]

While this is an important debate for our time, I think it also (like so many today) is mis-framed as an either/or scenario. The truth is that we have to plot our course from where we are, not where we wish we were. To some extent, we are a welfare state but each person is going to define that line differently. We certainly don't want to lose our competitive advantage which in large part is driven by our strong belief in individuality. Welfare (and all that implies) challenges that individuality and turns us towards being a community-driven society. Clearly, the far edge of this is communism, which is not who we are, either.

In terms of being a warfare state, we are the strongest military in the world but to what ends? If I remember correctly, Secretary Gates quote above references the military's role in peace keeping and country building around the world, and not at home. There are complexities to the military attempting to be the diplomatic face of the United States, but you can't combat terrorists with more terror (which is largely the goal of having a military - the last resort is to use them).

If the goal here is figure out America's global brand for the 21st Century, I think you're starting in the wrong place for this discussion. I think you have to start with inspiration. What does America actually stand for? Why is it that even though people in other countries may rally against us as the great Satan, they will send their kids here to be educated and even move here if the opportunity arises? I think this speaks to a bizarre manifestation of our fierce protection of the individual's rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness: We only extend that protection to Americans, and that means that we need to defend that right against outsiders and foreigners.

Nonetheless, I think that's the brand: individual rights. It doesn't require branding so much as it requires a little guidance. How do we soften our foreign policy and international activities so that we are not perceived as only protecting those rights for Americans, but actually promoting them for the rest of the world as well?

I think this is a pretty simple initial perspective to agree on, and from there we need to seek additional common ground, realizing that our commonalities are so much greater than our differences. From this standpoint, we need to move forward, protecting the country while supporting each and every citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Rudolf Bultmann]

First - the US' fixation on military might is a classic example of paternalistic castration anxiety. Our very believe system springs from a "might makes right" mentality that now leaves us in a position where the fact that we are the second most powerful military power means we are no longer "right."

Second - it's time for us to understand that it's no longer about us. We cannot dictate anymore. We have to accomodate.

The challenge is that every empire in history has refused to go gently into this particular night. Our self-identity is so wrapped up in being "#1" that we cannot emotionally make this change.

[Lina Srivastava]

Picking up on one of Wayne's arguments, it's interesting to think of the U.S.A.'s brand as individual rights, when that notion is so deeply ingrained in the U.S. character. That stance of championing individual rights -- which is indeed a unique US strength-- might create problems in the realms of diplomacy, state-building, or military-supported efforts at aid or development, since many cultures are organized more along collective or community rights and decisions, as opposed to individual will. But there is indeed a pull, whether for immigrants or people encountering us abroad, from our culture of fostering opportunity, advancement and self-actualization for individuals. So how, in the face of all the intractable problems Gong outlines above (as well as a really nasty political movement towards advancement for the chosen few), do you continue to bottle that brand and keep re-embedding it on a local, national, global level?

And just two little notes on the word "Welfare." First, I'm not convinced the U.S. military has the cultural knowledge or expertise to engage in state-building or diplomacy. As an institution, there is absolutely much it can contribute to the conversation, particularly in terms of physical and organizational infrastructure -- and I'm glad the "nontraditional strategies" are making their way into its own culture-- but there are other entities better suited to the work and its mission creep into this world brings welfare and warfare closer together. Second, I'd argue against using the word "welfare" at all, because what you describe above regarding the global stage is more aligned with aid or development work, state-building, diplomacy, etc., and not welfare, which as a term suggest domestic benefits.

[Chris Tacy]

This is a false choice.

Actually, it's a series of false choices - presenting us with the sort of easy binary choice that human beings love.

It's a brilliant example of how someone can manipulate groups of humans through the creation of what seems like a logical argument. We have a weakness (as a species) in that we are creatures of pattern recognition. This helps when we are looking for threats to our safety from marauding predators. But it leads to us creating Forced (fake) Patterns out of nothing.

A canny person can take advantage of this by presenting a series of overly simplified dichotomies that express deep fundamental opinions, and then sequencing them in an order that creates an apparent (false) pattern.

This causes us to see what we perceive as a logical argument that ties into deeply held beliefs - creating an end-run around logical decision-making and questioning. By tapping into the illogical and creating an apparent pattern we are given an excuse for accepting an overly simplified binary choice (something we would always prefer).

The problem is -- it's never that simple. And by building an argument on a series of cascading fake binary choices, the end choice is completely without rational meaning.

But we like answers - not questions.

"Top down or bottom up"? -- Yes (and no)
"Military spending or social services"? -- No (and yes)
"Domestic or international"? -- Both (but neither)
"Welfare or Warfare"? -- Your mother was right (but so was your father)

Black + White == shades of gray

[swgkzs swgkzs]

Very, very nicely done! rugugl rugugl - moncler doudoune uk.

[tissot replica watches]

If you do not desire to fork out a large payment to purchase a genuine high-class wristwatch, you may want to think about replica rolex yachtmaster watch as a replacement.Way rolex masterpiece watches offer great dress yourself in and still continue for some time now.You can actually come across many online retailers focusing on the particular sale made of top quality replica rolex air-king watches.Your fake omega seamaster watches even now retains a look and feel more or less identical to a real watch without an individual the need to expend a large number of hard cash.