Yves here. It is sobering to see what the Democratic party propaganda machine is cooking up and will probably succeed in selling. The messaging boils down to “War is love”. And that means you can expect a Kamala administration to be all in on the strategy of more military spending at the expense of social safety nets and domestic infrastructure.
Needless to say, this approach looks awfully late stage USSR, when the Soviets were faced with having to contend with both the US and China as hostile interests/strategic competitors. Except then, the US successfully cultivated China while the USSR failed to try to dial down China border tensions, while here, we worked hard to and prevailed at driving Russia and China into pretty tight mutual support on both the economic and military front.
By Peter Bloom, a Professor at the University of Essex in the UK. His books include “Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Globalization” (2016), “The CEO Society”, and most recently “Guerrilla Democracy: Mobile Power and Revolution in the 21st Century.” Originally published at Common Dreams
The Democratic Party’s attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power.
In an already historic presidential campaign featuring the rising threat of Christian nationalism, assassination attempts, and the sudden switch of a presidential nominee, one of the most under-the-radar but worrying developments has been how the Democratic Party has increasingly sought to associate its militaristic policies with a campaign centered on “hope” and “joy.” This strategic move, while politically savvy, raises profound questions about the nature of progress, the role of military power in shaping global politics, and the future of American democracy. As the United States grapples with the genuine threat of far-right extremism and the specter of Trumpism, it becomes crucial to critically examine the Democrats’ approach to national security and foreign policy.
The Democratic Party’s emphasis on hope and joy in their political messaging is not new. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, with its iconic “Hope” poster and message of change, set a precedent for this approach. In the face of growing authoritarianism and global instability, the Democrats have doubled down on this strategy, presenting themselves as the guardians of democracy and harbingers of a brighter future.
However, this narrative of hope and progress is increasingly intertwined with a commitment to maintaining and even expanding American military dominance. Nowhere was this more evident than in Vice President Kamala Harris‘ acceptance speech, where she seamlessly blended aspirational rhetoric about preserving democracy and promoting economic opportunity with a promise to ensure that the United States remains “the strong, most lethal fighting force in the world.”
This juxtaposition of hope and militarism creates a troubling paradox. On one hand, the Democrats present themselves as champions of peace, multilateralism, and global cooperation. On the other, they continue to advocate for policies that perpetuate a cycle of global conflict and divert resources from pressing domestic needs.
The Democratic Party’s deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions. Despite rhetoric about creating an “opportunity economy” and investing in social programs, the reality is that trillions of dollars continue to flow into military spending. This massive allocation of resources not only prevents real investment in creating a more equitable and sustainable society but also fuels global conflicts and instability.
The growing marketplace for surveillance technology globally further complicates this picture. As the United States seeks to maintain its technological edge in military and intelligence capabilities, it simultaneously exports these technologies to allies and partners around the world. This proliferation of surveillance tools raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for authoritarian abuse.
The Dangerous Conflation of Militarism with Progress and Democracy
One of the most concerning aspects of the Democrats’ approach is the attempt to link militarism with concepts of multilateralism and global cooperation. This rhetoric, championed by President Biden and his predecessors, suggests that a strong military is essential for maintaining international order and promoting democratic values abroad.
However, this conflation ignores the complex realities of global politics and the often counterproductive effects of military intervention, where even legitimate support for regimes can turn into a profitable opportunity for weapon’s makers. By framing military power as a tool for promoting democracy and human rights, the Democrats risk legitimizing interventions that may ultimately undermine these very values.
The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally. At home, the massive defense budget diverts resources from critical investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental protection. This misallocation of funds perpetuates economic inequality and hinders efforts to address pressing social issues. Globally, the United States’ military-first approach to foreign policy has often led to unintended consequences. From the destabilization of entire regions to the creation of power vacuums that give rise to extremist groups, the track record of American military interventions is far from unambiguously positive.
Perhaps most troubling is the way in which militarism is being normalized and even celebrated within ostensibly progressive political discourse. By linking military power to concepts of hope, progress, and global cooperation, the Democrats are fundamentally reshaping the way Americans think about the role of force in international relations. This normalization process makes it increasingly difficult to question or challenge militaristic policies. When criticism of military spending or interventions is framed as opposition to “hope” or “progress,” it becomes easier to marginalize voices calling for a more peaceful and just foreign policy.
The US embrace of surveillance technology as a tool for local and national security raises serious questions about the compatibility of these practices with democratic values. While presented as necessary for protecting citizens from threats both foreign and domestic, the expansion of surveillance capabilities poses significant risks to civil liberties and privacy rights. Moreover, the export of surveillance technologies to other countries, including those with questionable human rights records, undermines the Democrats’ claims to be champions of democracy and freedom. This contradiction between rhetoric and action further erodes trust in the political system and reinforces cynicism about the true motives behind foreign policy decisions.
The Rising Threat of “Hopeful” Militarism
The Democratic Party’s approach to militarism presents a unique danger in American politics, one that diverges significantly from the overt hawkishness often associated with their Republican counterparts. While figures like Trump and the far-Right occasionally denounce “endless wars” – even as they continue to support the military-industrial complex – the Democrats have crafted a narrative that intertwines militarism with a vision of global progress and democratic idealism.
This rhetorical strategy embodies a distinct form of hypocrisy. By framing military interventions and the maintenance of global military supremacy as essential components of preserving and spreading democracy worldwide, the Democrats have effectively weaponized hope. They present militarism not as a necessary evil, but as an integral part of an optimistic, forward-looking vision for both domestic and international progress.
The risk lies in how this framing normalizes and even glorifies military action. When couched in the language of hope, democracy, and global cooperation, policies that perpetuate conflict and divert resources from crucial social needs become more palatable to a progressive audience. This rhetorical sleight of hand allows the Democrats to pursue interventionist policies while maintaining the moral high ground in the eyes of their supporters.
Furthermore, this “hopeful” militarism creates a false dichotomy: either support military action or abandon the cause of global democracy. By conflating military might with democratic values, the Democrats make it challenging to envision alternative approaches to international relations and conflict resolution. This narrative effectively silences critics, painting them as pessimists or isolationists who lack faith in American ideals.
The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions. When military interventions are framed as necessary steps towards a more peaceful and democratic world, it becomes easier to overlook the immediate human cost and long-term destabilizing effects of such interventions. The rhetoric of hope acts as a veil, concealing the harsh realities of war and occupation behind a facade of noble intentions.
This approach also shores up support for the military-industrial complex among those who might otherwise be its critics. By aligning military spending with progressive values, the Democrats create a cognitive dissonance that allows their supporters to reconcile their desire for social progress with continued investment in weapons and warfare. This effectively broadens the base of support for militaristic policies, making substantive changes to America’s foreign policy approach even more challenging.
The Democrats’ “hopeful” justification of militarism represents a sophisticated form of propaganda. It coopts the language of progress and democracy to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex, all while presenting itself as a force for global good. This approach not only perpetuates harmful policies but also corrupts the very ideals it claims to uphold, turning concepts like hope, democracy, and progress into tools for justifying military dominance.
Recognizing and confronting this rhetorical strategy is crucial for anyone seeking to challenge the prevailing paradigm of American militarism. It requires a willingness to question even those narratives that align with our values and to critically examine the gap between hopeful rhetoric and the often harsh realities of military action. Only by disentangling our aspirations for a more just and democratic world from the machinery of war can we begin to forge a truly progressive approach to global affairs.
Reimagining Security and Reclaiming Hope
As we confront the challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to global inequality, it is crucial to reimagine our approach to security and progress. True hope for the future lies not in maintaining military dominance but in addressing the root causes of conflict and instability.
Investing in diplomacy, international development, and conflict resolution could yield far greater returns in terms of global security than continued military buildup. Similarly, redirecting resources towards education, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure could create genuine economic opportunities and improve the lives of millions of Americans.
Challenging the dominant narrative of militarism as progress will require concerted effort from civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and engaged citizens. By highlighting the true costs of militarism and presenting alternative visions for national security and global cooperation, these groups can help shift the public discourse.
The Democratic Party’s attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power. While the threats posed by far-right extremism and global authoritarianism are real, the answer does not lie in perpetuating a cycle of militarism and conflict.
True hope for the future lies in reimagining our approach to national security, global cooperation, and economic progress. One where movements social movements around the world can unite to support one another in resisting and replacing economic and political oligarchs locally and globally. By challenging the normalization of militarism within progressive discourse and presenting alternative visions for a more peaceful and just world, we can reclaim the concept of hope from those who would use it to justify endless war and surveillance.