Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Will the new House Dems take on the War Lobby?

By       Message Medea Benjamin       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   2 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 11/25/18

Author 3852
Become a Fan
  (25 fans)

From Counterpunch

- Advertisement -

By Medea Benjamin and *Nicolas J. S. Davies

From youtube.com: What Happened to That Blue Wave? {MID-328305}
What Happened to That Blue Wave?
(Image by YouTube, Channel: David Pakman Show)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

A new Democratic majority will take charge in the U.S. House of Representatives in January, thanks to a remarkable rebound in public participation in U.S. elections. Based on early data, it appears that over 49% of eligible voters showed up at the polls this year, compared to a 70-year low of 36.4% in the last mid-term in 2014. More than ever before, the Democrats should thank young voters for their success, as 18-39 year-olds appear to have voted for them by a two to one margin.

- Advertisement -

An incredible 71.6% of 18-29 year olds voted for Senator Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016. So it should be no surprise that the 2018 "Blue Wave" in the House is the youngest, most diverse and most progressive new class of Democratic House Members in many years, ready to fight for the issues that Sanders ran on in 2016 and that many of them have been working on in their own communities.

But an issue that will seriously affect young people for decades to come, i.e., the direction of U.S. foreign policy, hardly featured in the 2018 campaign. Few new Members of Congress have a background in foreign affairs, so the new House Dems may face a bit of a shock when they discover that all their domestic priorities are held hostage by a huge "war tax" that drains off well over 60% of federal discretionary spending for weapons, war and military spending.

Even for those who have little personal interest in foreign policy, tiptoeing around this "elephant in the room" as past Congresses have done will permanently cripple and under-fund all their other priorities, from healthcare, education and clean energy to tackling structural poverty in one of the richest countries in the world.

- Advertisement -

Half a century ago, Martin Luther King broke "the silence of the night," as he put it, to address this insidious conjunction of foreign wars, record military spending and domestic poverty in his historic "Beyond Vietnam" address at the Riverside Church in New York City. Dr. King hailed the Johnson administration's poverty program as a "shining moment" in the struggle against poverty in America and spoke clearly about what had doomed it to failure: the Vietnam war.

"Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war," King said. "And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."

Today, although the U.S. is not fighting a war on the scale of Vietnam and the Cold War is long over, Defense Secretary Mattis' budget request for FY2019, after adjusting for inflation, is 18% more than the wholesale diversion of resources that Dr. King decried in 1967.

The obstacles to confronting this structural problem will not come only from Republicans. They will also come from hawkish, corporate Democrats who routinely vote with a near-consensus of Republicans to approve the military spending bills that mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future and wars that destroy the lives and the future of millions of our neighbors around the world.

Money For Votes For War

As we documented in the CODEPINK 2018 Peace Voter Guide & Divestment Record, many of the Democrats with the most hawkish voting records are the same ones who rake in large campaign contributions from the U.S. arms industry. Former President Jimmy Carter calls U.S. campaign finance and corporate lobbying a system of "unlimited political bribery." This bribery, when it leads to record military spending, amounts to paying people to vote for weapons and wars that kill people.

- Advertisement -

A large portion of the 2019 Pentagon budget includes a $235.5 billion request for "investments" in new weapons and equipment, the largest amount since President Obama's escalation of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan peaked in 2011.

The ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee -- the committee that reviews, amends and approves the Pentagon budget -- is Adam Smith (WA-9). It is hardly a coincidence that Smith received $261,450 in campaign cash from the arms industry in this election cycle, the second largest haul of all House Democrats. In 2016, Smith voted with a large majority of Republicans and only 15 other Democrats to keep selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.

In the midterm elections, Adam Smith was challenged by a young peace activist and democratic socialist, Sarah Smith, who won 31.7% of the votes, despite an 11 to 1 imbalance in campaign funding. Ms. Smith called the military industrial complex "horrifyingly bloated" and decried runaway militarism:

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace and author of Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection. 

Medea Benjamin Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ten Reasons to Move Cheney's Book to the Crime Section

Tom Cotton is the Worst Bully in the Senate ---- Here Are 10 Reasons Why

Hillary Clinton and Saudi Arabia

The Egyptian General and the Gladiola

Dear Jon Stewart, Sane People Protest Crazy Wars

Julian Assange: Wikileaks Has the Goods on the Deaths of Innocent Iraqis Killed by the US

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments


Don Smith

Become a Fan
(Member since Feb 25, 2009), 22 fans, 128 articles, 563 quicklinks, 1611 comments, 45 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Rep. Adam Smith is called a progressive, and a great hope for pacifists, in this Politico article Democrats going nuclear to rein in Trump's arms buildup. (The title they chose for the article is rather unfortunate.)

Adam Smith also wrote an article in Defense One decrying Pentagon secrecy: The Pentagon's Getting More Secretive -- and It's Hurting National Security.

Though Adam Smith is not as progressive as his opponent Sarah Smith -- he won the general election with about 70% of the votes -- and though he has accepted contributions from military contractors, he is a smart, reasonable guy who "gets it" about military waste, secrecy, and adventurism.

Given the power of the Blob (military industrial complex) reining it in is a formidable task. But Smith has been moving to the left with his district. (I live in his district, attend many of his town halls, and have spoken with him many times.)

This is an issue where we can move the needle. Of course, we need to do this responsibly.

Submitted on Sunday, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:41:58 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

George W.Reichel

Become a Fan
Author 86924
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Apr 1, 2013), 5 fans, 1135 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Both parties are wings of the same dirty bird.Outliers are marginalized

Submitted on Wednesday, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:45:55 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment