Priorities in a one-party system

The theme over the past three weeks is clear: Democratic Party elites reject policies that would improve the conditions of working-class life, but fully back policies that do the opposite. On July 21, the Democratic Party released its 2020 platform, and on July 27 blocked an amendment to include Medicare for All in the platform. Within that period, the majority of House Democrats opposed Rep. Mark Pocan’s amendment — which would have converted 10 percent of the Department of Defense budget to coronavirus relief and social programs — and supported Trump’s budget request for the military by passing the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate echoed the House proceedings: on July 22, most Senate Democrats opposed Sen. Bernie Sanders’ amendment — which also called for a 10 percent conversion from the defense to non-defense budget — while the majority approved the Senate version of the 2021 NDAA on July 23.

Establishment Democrats’ simultaneous rejection of Medicare for All and support for Trump’s military budget indicates that the party’s fiercest “resistance” occurs along class, rather than partisan, lines. Polls indicate that nearly 70 percent of all Americans and more than 85 percent of Democratic voters support Medicare for All. Only 22 percent of the DNC’s platform committee voted for the Medicare for All amendment. Realigning federal spending priorities by confronting the military-industrial complex is approaching Medicare for All’s level of public support: according to a recent survey conducted by Data For Progress, 56 percent of all US voters and 69 percent of Democratic voters support converting 10 percent of the military budget to fund public health and other social programs. Only 18 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for a more appropriate allocation of public funds.

It is not the party’s base that determines which policies powerful Democrats support. If it did, Democrats would not align themselves with conservatism’s inherent militarism. Rather, when it comes to the US military budget, campaign contributions are a better predictor for how congressional Democrats will vote. The defense industry largely gets what it pays for: the more money a congressional Democrat accepts from the sector, the higher the probability that that representative or senator will vote how the defense industry wants them to vote.

Senate Democrats and the military-industrial complex

Bernie Sanders’ amendment would have converted $74 billion in military spending to social spending. Aside from representing a more appropriate (and popularly-supported) use of public funds, converting even such a small amount from the war economy to the non-war economy would have produced hundreds of thousands of new jobs. A $74 billion investment in healthcare, for example, creates 547,600 more jobs than an equivalent expenditure on the military.

The Democratic Party platform calls for “conduct[ing] rigorous annual audits of the Pentagon.” Of what value will these audits be if there is no penalty for failure? Since the Department of Defense failed its first and only audit, Congress has repeatedly voted to increase the military budget. Defense industry campaign contributions help cement the military-industrial complex’s culture of unaccountability.

There are 46 Democrats in the Senate. Had public attitudes amongst Democratic voters been represented in this chamber, 32 Senate Democrats (69 percent) would have both supported Sanders’ amendment and opposed the NDAA. Instead, only eight Senate Democrats (17 percent) chose to represent this (super)majority opinion.

House Democrats and the military-industrial complex

Democrats control the House. Instead of using this political power effectively, the chamber authorized Trump’s budget request through a bill that Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee named after the committee’s Republican ranking member.

Adam Smith, Democratic Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, supported the impeachment inquiry on the grounds of corruption: “The American people deserve to know how the President leveraged congressionally authorized taxpayer dollars for his own personal interest.”

How Smith leverages congressionally-authorized funds for his own personal interest is clear.

There were 228 House Democrats who cast votes for both Pocan’s amendment and the NDAA. Had public attitudes on defense spending been reflected during roll call, at least 157 (69 percent) would have supported Pocan’s amendment and opposed the NDAA after the amendment failed. There were only 41 (18 percent).

Methodological notes

• Data refers only to members of Congress who cast votes both for the 10 percent reduction amendment and the NDAA. While all Senate Democrats voted for both, Rep. Nydia Velázquez did not cast a vote for the NDAA (but she did vote Yes on Pocan’s amendment). So far this election cycle, she has taken in $6 in defense industry campaign contributions. As House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi will not vote until the conference version of the NDAA. So far this election cycle, Pelosi has taken in $59,402 in defense industry contributions.

• Campaign financing data from Open Secrets. House figures refer to total defense industry campaign contributions accepted from 2018 to so far in 2020. Senate figures refer to total defense industry campaign contributions accepted from 2015 to so far in 2020.

• There is no campaign financing data available for Tulsi Gabbard via Open Secrets for the 2020 election cycle. In the 2018 election cycle, Gabbard accepted $8,404 in defense industry contributions.