Army Times; the military’s shift Left
The Army Times writes that members of the military are slowly shifting to the Left in their political leanings. That’s because they’ve begun to accept the social engineers’ programs like gays in thee military and women in combat. But it also states that support for the President has fallen from 30% to 15% in their poll.
At the same time, they report that “44 percent think both major political parties have become less supportive of military issues in recent years” which is what they should really take away from their little poll, not that military folks are more liberal.
The military has always supported gays in the military – I knew of a few who were in when I was in and as long as they did their job, I didn’t care. My views on women in combat haven’t changed either and I think I’m in line with most members of the military when I say that all women should have the opportunity to prove that they can meet the current, time-tested standard and serve with men. I knew a few of those women, too. But, I don’t think anyone would accuse me of being a liberal. So, the folks at Army Times are reading what they want in the poll. Conservatives are defenders of equal opportunity for all Americans, in the traditional sense, not the new liberal backwards definition where everything is normed to groups.
The truth is that members of the military are as conservative as ever, but they’re not Republicans. The GOP has lost our faith. The first people to call for cuts to personnel costs during the current wars were Republicans – Bachman, Graham, McCain, Coburn – the same people who sent the troops to war in the first place.
Republicans didn’t have the political and testicular fortitude to avoid sequestration and they’ve done nothing since the White House plan took effect to change it and restore funding to the military. They’ve done little to hold the Pentagon’s feet to the fire to cut wasteful spending. Republicans cleaved to the personnel cuts because it’s the easiest thing to cut without much thought or plan.
Chief Tango, who sent us the Army Times link, also sends this from the National Review, which picks up on what I’ve written above;
Those service members who consider themselves Republicans have slowly dropped from nearly half of those surveyed to just 32 percent this year. The Times poll notes that “increasingly, readers are more likely to describe themselves as libertarian (7 percent) or independent (28 percent).” Democrats and liberals make up some 8 percent of the poll respondents.
The take away is; people in the military don’t trust politicians, and that’s not new. What’s new is that we used to trust Republicans more than we trusted Democrats to fight for us while we’re fighting for the country. That’s not true anymore, at least in the perception of the troops. The Democrats have been very good at saving welfare and food stamps for their traditional constituents, but the Republicans have been very bad at representing their traditional constituents – the military and veterans, the people who earned what they expect from the government.
Category: Congress sucks, Military issues, Veterans Issues
Prime reason why I identify politically as conservative and not Republican.
@NHSparky……..ditto for me!
Nice piece, Jonn.
Damn right.
I think since Obama fired so many, and drove so many out, no wonder all that is (ahem) left, are the majority of people who agree with him.
Pisses me off, with all the arming up going on in Russian and China (let alone Iran) -but I digress.
I’ve long been a Registered Independent.
I don’t identify with either of the scum sucking bastards; to be fair. They’re all the same type of rodent with two distinct taxonomies.
Ehhhhh, I’m a registered Republican since 1990 or so, but over the course of the last elections I have become more independent. I’m just too dam lazy to change my affiliation.
Does it really matter who you are registered with other than for Primary elections and such? I mean if your a registered Republican, and you vote for a Democrat, who cares?
No surprise they push an article like this. Quite a few us believe the reasoning is because they are forcing those out who think differently in the matter. It helps their other causes to deconstruct the military into nothing.
In a lot of other countries, a 15% approval rating by military personnel would trigger a military overthrow of the government. Just saying….
I think your being generous with 15%. In some countries, the military owns you.
Corporatists politicians on both side of the aisle have been bought and paid for by monied interests. The legislation that passes has shown rather nicely who both parties have been serving, and it isn’t the American people.
The problem with being an independent is there is no really viable 3rd way candidates. Consequently I am left with the feeling in the voting booth that I am really voting for a lesser of two evils and not for an ideal I can be excited about and support wholeheartedly.
As much as Obama has been painted a card carrying socialist one only need to review who has received the most benefit from his presidency to ascertain that he’s also a corporatist sellout for the 1%.
WIthout a realistic alternative our country will eventually mirror Central and South America, with a tiny fraction of the population holding all the wealth while the balance of the population struggles for the scraps in a decaying infrastructure and weakening educational system.
A wealth gap that continues to widen between the middle and upper class has never been good for the United States, we are well on our way to seeing that gap continue to widen with little to nothing being done to reduce that gap through job opportunities. A service sector economy with an uneducated populace will not grow skill intensive blue collar work that pays well.
We can talk all we want about how great the tech industry is in the US, but none of the components are manufactured here anymore, that means those industries are already migrating. Failing to recognize the importance of domestic manufacturing has cost many an empire its empire. Perhaps we can yet find some leaders to address that reality.
The number of libertarian, independent or just plain apathetic leaning servicemembers (at least from my experience) dwarfs the numbers of republican and democrat and have for years.
I myself am a libertarian leaning registered Independent
Nicely put.
“For Obama’s supporters, the cultural changes he’s overseeing are on a level with President Truman’s 1948 order that desegregated the military and put it at the forefront of the national push for racial equality.” That may be true for Obama’s supporters, but for the rest of us, it’s bullshit. Racial equality and having a sexual preference for one’s own gender, cross dressing, or any other deviancy are not remotely related. For starters, there remains the question of whether homosexuality is exclusively a matter of nature, nurture, or some combination of the two. (In that regard, the very term “sexual preference” strongly suggests the answer, doesn’t it? ) Whatever the answer, the most immediate difference between racial and sexual-preference inequality is that former can be triggered only by one’s skin color while the latter cannot. Sexual preference speaks to behavior and one can choose to advertise it or not. I do not know whether you are a homosexual unless you tell me so or engage in some behavior that signals that you are. With rare exception, I do know your race merely by looking at you. And then there’s that matter of history. This deserves little comment and no detail. It is patently ludicrous for anyone to suggest that racial discrimination and discriminating against a person, say, for his sexual preference for trannies (trannys?) is remotely similar. Me, I’m staying in my camp, thanks, along with my fellow unenlightened dinosaurs.
Yep. Last time I checked, sexual acts are the result of voluntary conduct on someone’s part. Heredity is not.
Conduct may legitimately be regulated. Heredity, not so much.
So you are thinking folks are gay because of a choice?
Who do you know who would choose that willingly?
I’ve made lots of choices in my life, sucking a dick was never and will never be one of them….I can’t imagine any circumstance under which someone would choose to be a homosexual.
Why choose a difficult unacceptable life of misery?
Discrimination is just that discrimination based upon some aspect of the person being discriminated against.
Even if gay were a choice, which I do not believe it to be, people choose a religion all the time. If it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because they choose to believe in a fairy tale involving various saviors, prophets, magical, mystical beings who alter the outcomes of sporting events then I would argue choice of sex is right up there in importance with fairy tales.
What you asked: “So you are thinking folks are gay because of a choice?”
What I wrote: “For starters, there remains the question of whether homosexuality is exclusively a matter of nature, nurture, or some combination of the two. (In that regard, the very term “sexual preference” strongly suggests the answer, doesn’t it? ) Whatever the answer…”
What you asked, separately, but my response covers them both: “Who do you know who would choose that willingly?” […] “Why choose a difficult unacceptable life of misery?”
What I answer: Personally, I know of no one, but go ahead and Google “pretending to be gay” for a few minutes. You will learn that people are pretending to be gay in order to get a job, be accepted into grad school, and for other purposes.
What you stated: “Discrimination is just that discrimination based upon some aspect of the person being discriminated against.”
What I say: True. And water is wet.
What you say: “If it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because they choose to believe in a fairy tale involving various saviors, prophets, magical, mystical beings who alter the outcomes of sporting events then I would argue choice of sex is right up there in importance with fairy tales.”
What I say: I’m fairly confident that one day sexual preference will be constitutionally protected, as I am confident that your reasoning in support of it will not appear in the Supreme Court’s decision regarding it. In the meantime, there is discrimination and then there is illegal discrimination on account of race, gender, national origin, ethnicity, and religion. Sexual preference is not on that list.
TEA!
The Army Times has about as much credence with me as the National Enquirer. In fact, the National Enquirer probably has better journalistic standards than the Army Times. In regards to the two political parties, Huey P. Long said it best, “The Democrats are selling highpopalowram and the Republicans are selling lowpopahighram.” He said this in the 1930s and it has only gotten worse. Dear leader has made certain that milquetoast, leadership prevails at the upper levels of the Army, Dempsey, Odierno, etc…This is what you get.
You are aware that Long was a huge proponent of wealth distribution – right? As well as someone who wanted to rule by fiat vice laws?
No matter how wrong it is the rest of the time, even a stopped clock is correct twice in 24 hours.
The miliatry is more politically diverse and there is nothing worong with that. It is made of of people from all across America; it’s America’s Army. Increasingly it comes from people already associated with the military (sons & daughters of military vets and families) and new or naturalized citizens.
Sir, the problem is not the political diversity of the rank and file, the issue is the leftist political leanings of Senior leadership. More and more that leadership has been seen to serve as a “Yes” man to the current leftist administration, even going so far as to damage the Service in their bid for personal political power.
[…] Conservative: Protesters Crash Memorial Service For Slain NYPD Officers This Ain’t Hell: Army Times – The Military’s Shift Left Weasel Zippers: Obama Administration Crams In A Whopping 1200 Regulations Right Before New Year […]