[The Left]

Rosa Brooks: Was Kerry right?
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?

ADVERTISEMENT
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!


Rosa Brooks: Was Kerry right? - Los Angeles Times


I think educated people can clearly see that Kerry was right, and should NOT have apologized to the far right.

[hey!_Zeus]

As far as young people imagine the military is a microcosm of young American society. Except I don't think a lot of rich young folk are joining the forces in proportionate numbers if at all.

As admitted by many enlistees, their reasons are many but the most important one is for educational reasons and the rich have the cash.

Going out plundering and killing was just a vague afterthought.

I suppose you even get some who join just hoping to kill for pleasure like earlier Americans who killed indians for fun.

[typoon]

Those without Education? Um Excuse me but I know A LOT of people in the military who had a good education. They Joined because they felt they wanted to serve their country. So does Kerry consider himself one of the "uneducated Dimwits" that he implies since he was in the military? He doesn't seem to be doing too bad for himself. There are many prosperous Business people who have done very well in Business after getting out of the military. Kerry is an idiot

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Those without Education? Um Excuse me but I know A LOT of people in the military who had a good education. They Joined because they felt they wanted to serve their country. So does Kerry consider himself one of the "uneducated Dimwits" that he implies since he was in the military? He doesn't seem to be doing too bad for himself. There are many prosperous Business people who have done very well in Business after getting out of the military. Kerry is an idiot

Um, were you paying attention at all? Kerry's <em>joke</em> was a jab at <em>the Bush administration</em> and not at the military. He was insulting the intelligence of the administration, not of the soldiers.

[Kerrigan]

The response to Kerry's remarks is just an instance of reverse political correctness.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by The Left 

Rosa Brooks: Was Kerry right?
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?

ADVERTISEMENT
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!


Rosa Brooks: Was Kerry right? - Los Angeles Times


I think educated people can clearly see that Kerry was right, and should NOT have apologized to the far right.

perhaps military service should be compulsory like it is in many countries in europe.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Um, were you paying attention at all? Kerry's <em>joke</em> was a jab at <em>the Bush administration</em> and not at the military. He was insulting the intelligence of the administration, not of the soldiers.

it came off badly no matter how you slice it.

[The Left]

sometimes the truth hurts eh?

[houstonmacbro]

the truth about his comments? the impact of his comments?

elaborate...?

[Buckaroo]

Kerry is LEFT. He is never right.

[houstonmacbro]

yeah. i think he's kinda tired. i mean, he looked tired in 2004 and looks even worse now.

he needs a nice long vacation, some good boom-boom, and a decent tan.

[The Left]

Kerry should have never apologized, after the polls close it will be obvious that his statements while unpopular were in fact true.

[Dakar²]

Heh, I'm beginning to have suspicions about who Left is.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Heh, I'm beginning to have suspicions about who Left is.

HUH? what is up with that?

[Dakar²]

I know, that post was whack.

[ink]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

perhaps military service should be compulsory like it is in many countries in europe.

Definitely. This "professional warrior" is far too close to "gladiator", in my opinion.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Heh, I'm beginning to have suspicions about who Left is.

He started badly yesterday by quoting Fox News.

[The Left]

it made my point very well no?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

He started badly yesterday by quoting Fox News.

Yep.

So Brit Hume is posting here during commercial breaks.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Heh, I'm beginning to have suspicions about who Left is.

Yup. Someone trying for a little bit of some last minute reverse psychology to teach us the error of our (lefty)ways and to scare voters to vote Republican.

[marden]

If the upper class was all THAT smart they'd realize that America's enemy is quietly battling all around the world (...quietly as far as WE are concerned, that is, because the jihadists know that average Americans don't concern ourselves with the far flung and or 3rd world nations...) and has their interests in it's sights.

All the things that rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans hold dear is specifically pointed to in the Koran as hateful.

Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism. Material wealth and global business interests. And more.

If they were smart they would urge their fellows to help combat the aggression so that it doesn't come to a head as a world wide shooting war.

Or maybe they actually think it's hopeless and they just want to enjoy the good life as long as possible and then when the end comes just let it come.

Like dancing and drinking on the deck of the sinking Titanic.

True to form, quitting in the face of adversity.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yup. Someone trying for a little bit of some last minute reverse psychology to teach us the error of our (lefty)ways and to scare voters to vote Republican.

Maybe it's Mojo.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

If they were smart they would urge their fellows to help combat the aggression so that it doesn't come to a head as a world wide shooting war.

And vote for a party that is just as opposed to "Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism." as the jihadists?

[Weezer]

One of my best friends in undergrad graduated with an ivy league degree, and promptly joined the military. **** you Kerry.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by The Left 

it made my point very well no?

You proved who is easily fooled 'round these parts, yeah.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Heh, I'm beginning to have suspicions about who Left is.

who are you? the political police?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by marden 

True to form, quitting in the face of adversity.

Or thumbing our noses at those who would try to change how we live our lives from outside.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

who are you? the political police?

who are you? the inquisitive member police?

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

who are you? the inquisitive member police?

eh don't fret it, its a great night

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And vote for a party that is just as opposed to "Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism." as the jihadists?

That's as damning a statement about America as Kerry's statement was about the military.

You're saying that liberals would choose pleasurable vices over defending their very way of life!

Are liberals really THAT short sighted or are they really addicted hedonists?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Or thumbing our noses at those who would try to change how we live our lives from outside.

Well, THAT will show em!

That's the liberal equivalent of Bush's, "Bring em on!"

[The Left]

Originally Posted by marden 

Well, THAT will show em!

That's the liberal equivalent of Bush's, "Bring em on!"

well lets be realistic, we've had to put up with "bring 'em on" for 6 years. What goes around comes around.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Weezer 

One of my best friends in undergrad graduated with an ivy league degree, and promptly joined the military. **** you Kerry.

Oh come on. Is the American military any different than the Canadian one?? By far and away the large majority of members have little to no post-secondary education.

Everyone knows someone with education who went to the military. It happens. I'd be willing to bet it's a huge minority though.

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

That's as damning a statement about America as Kerry's statement was about the military.

You're saying that liberals would choose pleasurable vices over defending their very way of life!

Are liberals really THAT short sighted or are they really addicted hedonists?

lol! You said that. I was just responding using the logic of your attempt to convince "rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans" to vote Republican.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh come on. Is the American military any different than the Canadian one?? By far and away the large majority of members have little to no post-secondary education.

Everyone knows someone with education who went to the military. It happens. I'd be willing to bet it's a huge minority though.

greg

There are more HS grads in the military than in America, % wise.

And more than 95% of the military officers are college graduates.

The military is better educated than the general population.

Is that different than in the Canadian military?

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

well lets be realistic, we've had to put up with "bring 'em on" for 6 years. What goes around comes around.

That wasn't the point of the comment and Bush only said, "bring em on," once.

Apparently, what "goes around" rattles around in your head for years.

[marden]

Originally Posted by marden

If the upper class was all THAT smart they'd realize that America's enemy is quietly battling all around the world (...quietly as far as WE are concerned, that is, because the jihadists know that average Americans don't concern ourselves with the far flung and or 3rd world nations...) and has their interests in it's sights.

All the things that rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans hold dear is specifically pointed to in the Koran as hateful.

Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism. Material wealth and global business interests. And more.

If they were smart they would urge their fellows to help combat the aggression so that it doesn't come to a head as a world wide shooting war.

Or maybe they actually think it's hopeless and they just want to enjoy the good life as long as possible and then when the end comes just let it come.

Like dancing and drinking on the deck of the sinking Titanic.

True to form, quitting in the face of adversity.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And vote for a party that is just as opposed to "Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism." as the jihadists?

Originally Posted by marden

That's as damning a statement about America as Kerry's statement was about the military.

You're saying that liberals would choose pleasurable vices over defending their very way of life!

Are liberals really THAT short sighted or are they really addicted hedonists?

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

lol! You said that. I was just responding using the logic of your attempt to convince "rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans" to vote Republican.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

If the upper class was all THAT smart they'd realize that America's enemy is quietly battling all around the world (...quietly as far as WE are concerned, that is, because the jihadists know that average Americans don't concern ourselves with the far flung and or 3rd world nations...) and has their interests in it's sights.

All the things that rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans hold dear is specifically pointed to in the Koran as hateful.

Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism. Material wealth and global business interests. And more.

If they were smart they would urge their fellows to help combat the aggression so that it doesn't come to a head as a world wide shooting war.

Or maybe they actually think it's hopeless and they just want to enjoy the good life as long as possible and then when the end comes just let it come.

Like dancing and drinking on the deck of the sinking Titanic.

True to form, quitting in the face of adversity.

You seem to think that "rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans hold dear" "Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism. Material wealth and global business interests. And more."

You seem to think that "Drinking. Drugs. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. Atheism. Material wealth and global business interests. And more." are "specifically pointed to in the Koran as hateful"

You seem to think that "rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans" should "urge their fellows to help combat the aggression so that it doesn't come to a head as a world wide shooting war" so that they can continue to enjoy that would you think they hold dear.

And you seem to think that, somehow, those who would combat this mythical aggression don't also oppose, at least as much as the jihadists, those things which you think "rich Americans, educated Americans, liberal, rich, educated Americans hold dear".


There is no "benefit of the doubt" given by you here.

[The Left]

back on point, it is obvious Kerry's comments had the reverse results than most thought they would

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

back on point, it is obvious Kerry's comments had the reverse results than most thought they would

Isn't that the way things seemed to work for Inspector Clue-so?

A fitting comparison. Thanks, The Left!

Hey, it looks like your post had the reverse result than you thought, as well!