[lbo-talk] progress

Paul paul_ at igc.org
Tue Mar 6 08:20:44 PST 2007


Yoshie writes:
>On 3/5/07, Paul <paul_ at igc.org> wrote:
> > But I was really trying to take the discussion in a different direction. I
> > wonder if what drives many enlisted recruits is more the (quite justified)
> > fear that they will wind up worse off than their parents. Relative
> > poverty, rather than absolute poverty. Am I right that spending your life
> > worse off is something that your people in the US still find scary and
> > humiliating?
>
>I believe that applies to military recruits, but doesn't that also
>apply to most working-class people younger than baby boomers,
>including those who have college education and white-collar jobs?

Certainly. As neo-liberalism has progressed the "new insecurity" has risen up the ranks even into the "middle class". And, as we have discussed on LBO, in continental Europe this has even become a major free-standing political issue (eg la precarite in France).

But there is a great question of degree. For some young working class people may mean having to live longer with your parents or in a mobile home, etc. But for others the stakes may mean an entire life of bleak prospects and personal "failure", even though they see themselves as entirely competent (and, in some cases, "entitled"). In addition to identifying the forces that drive enlisted volunteers, I am also thinking of how this may effect their behavior in the military at a time of great strain, and more likely, what will happen to the majority that leave the military in their 20s.

It may be a serious mistake to assume either that the enlisted military (especially the non-elite segments of the land army) are exclusively driven by absolute poverty OR a "cross section of America" (although no doubt there is plenty of both). IF, IF, the hypothesis is correct that there are a significant chunk of volunteers that are exceptionally vulnerable to becoming declasse, then under the right (wrong) circumstances they may take a turn very different than mainstream society. For better - or worse - they may break with the "typical" American.

Why dwell on this? Is it worth looking to micro-data? As illustrations of why we should keep an open mind (NOT as predictions): think of Timothy McVeigh (coming of age in the rural Buffalo area, as it started to collapse), Terry Nichols (crushed by the mid-western farm crisis). How will today's Iraq vets turn out? What if it all ends as a horrible "waste" under President Hillary Clinton who is "blamed" for it all -- with these vets discharged into, say, a deep recession and structurally few prospects anyway? Or: under Bush and then McCain how long will the ranks suffer quitely if Iraq is seen as obviously a "lost cause" and they are suffering just to save a politician's embarrassment?

In subtle but critical ways, these troops may NOT be a cross section of America. And it may matter a lot.

Paul



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list