The main disagreement that I think could get in the way of an effective coalition was over the draft. George Wilson argued that the All-Volunteer Force does not represent a cross-section of America and that, therefore, we should return to the draft. If we did, he argued, the rich and powerful would start paying more attention to the huge human cost of war because their children would be more likely to be in the military. I pointed out to him that the best demographic study I know of, done by economist Tim Kane, then at the Heritage Foundation, found that the All-Volunteer Force is fairly similar to the U.S. society. The exception, noted Kane, was that “wartime U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural, on average, than their civilian peers.” I should have also noted that during the Vietnam-era draft, the rich and powerful by and large found ways of keeping their male children out of harm’s way. Lawrence M. Baskir and William A. Strauss showed this in their excellent book, Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War, and the Vietnam Generation. But Ralph Nader added to Wilson’s argument, advocating that if the United States goes to war, the sons and daughters of Congressmen be drafted. I didn’t get a chance to comment on this at the event, but Nader is proposing that sons and daughters be made temporary property of the state simply because of their parents’ actions.
Here are excerpts of an email I sent him about this.
I was intrigued by your last column about a left-right dialogue on anti-war and related issues. Our views on war and peace coincide almost exactly. But there is a major difference: I come from the left, way left, way far left (having been a MoveOn local coordinator for a time is one of the least leftist activities I've engaged in). So it struck me that if you and I could have a conversation and bridge some gaps, we could begin to build the sort of left-right understanding that could underpin future coalition attempts.
As an example of where this could lead, let me start by picking up on the issue of the draft, which you mention in your column as a source of disagreements, and see whether the gaps might be bridgeable. You and Milton Friedman before you, and I'm sure many others on the right have eloquently made the case for why a draft is an inefficient way to recruit soldiers in the military. I am happy to concede that this is a valid theoretical argument against a draft. However, whether the efficiency loss would be big or small is an empirical question. You may be better aware than me of research articles that have attempted to measure the efficiency loss of a draft. I'm not familiar enough with this literature to pass a judgment, but I think it would be fair to say that reasonable people could reasonably differ on whether they find any of this research persuasive. In addition, people on the left are often inclined to be willing to give up some efficiency if a policy would achieve some other desirable objective. In particular, if a draft is an inefficient way to fill the ranks of the military, then waging wars with a conscripted army would be costlier, and therefore less likely to pass a benefit/cost test. A war fought by draftees might be less popular at home and might end sooner. Whether that would be the case in practice remains hypothetical at this time. So on the issue of efficiency, it seems to me that the left-right gap is not very large: both sides can agree that conscription is inefficient; that how large the efficiency loss would be is an empirical question and that attempts to measure it statistically are imprecise. Both sides could also agree that it is reasonable to give up some efficiency to achieve some other desired objective, but also agree that different people may not always be willing to make the same trade-offs.
The arguments that you report from George Wilson and Ralph Nader are based on the notion of moral hazard: people are more likely to take risks if they are insured against the costs of their choices. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar led their troops from the front line. George W. Bush and Barack Obama don't. So it is a lot less risky for them to pick fights with other countries. This is a perfect example of moral hazard, and I would think that people on the right could acknowledge it as a valid theoretical argument. But like the argument about efficiency, the importance of the moral hazard argument is also an empirical question: would George W. Bush have ordered the invasion of Iraq anyway if he had known that he or his children would have had to go bust down doors and dodge sniper fire and IED's? We may think that he would have had more incentives to seek peaceful accommodations but it's hard to say whether his decisions would have been different. Similarly, it is not clear to what extent the parents and relatives of soldiers who were sent to Iraq or Afghanistan were more likely to demand that the troops be brought home, even after correcting for the self-selection bias. Again, it seems to me that the left-right gap is not that large: both sides could agree that moral hazard is a legitimate concern; that a draft could possibly reduce the incentives to start wars, but that there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the impact of a draft on moral hazard would be large, small or even insignificant. This is again an empirical question for which we don't have an immediate answer.
Another argument for the draft is adverse selection. Since the military is the ultimate enforcer, the military has the power to topple democratic governments. In fact this happens frequently throughout the world. The military is more likely to play its role of ultimate enforcer impartially if its members are a representative cross-section of society. Then a general or even a President trying to dissolve Congress would not be able to count on the support of the military operating as a block. But if people self-select to join the military, and if people from one end of the political spectrum were more likely to join than those from the other end, then coups become more likely. Since a draft selects people at random, then the military is more likely to be a representative sample of all opinions in society and therefore less likely to act as a block in support of a military take-over. Most people on the left are under the impression that right-wing military coups have been a lot more frequent in the last century that left-wing military coups, so you might understand that people on the left would be especially sensitive about this issue. And it seems to me that it would not be too hard for people on the right to acknowledge that adverse selection is a valid theoretical argument for conscription. Yet again, it's an empirical question as to whether conscription would truly make a difference. It may be that the all-volunteer force is currently a pretty representative sample of society anyway and does not currently lean heavily either to the right or the left. So here again the left-right gap does not seem too large: both sides could acknowledge that adverse selection and the possibility of a coup if the military were to lean too heavily in one direction is a valid theoretical concern, and both sides could agree that it's an empirical question as to whether any imbalances have or could soon reach the critical point where democracy would be threatened. And both sides could presumably agree that conscription may not be the only way to redress any imbalances caused by self-selection into the military, and that maybe special incentives or targeted recruitment efforts in some sectors of society would work just as well.
Sometimes, arguments for or against the draft are expressed in terms of fairness: Conscription is not very different from indentured servitude or slavery, and that is unfair. A draft is a tax on the draftees and no one else, and therefore unfair. I think most everyone on the left and the right could agree to this. Again whether this tax is large or small is an empirical question. But the fairness argument goes in the other direction too: people on the right would also readily acknowledge, I think, that individuals who are poor and uneducated have a lower opportunity cost of joining the military since they have fewer lucrative civilian options. This alone could lead the poor and minorities (who tend to be poorer) to be over represented in the military and therefore die in disproportionate numbers in America's wars while the rich have more options to choose to do something else. A draft could send some rich kids to risk their lives too, which can be seen as fair. I acknowledge that this is more an argument about the unfairness of the income distribution leading to unfairness in who pays a price for wars, but it seems to me that people on the right could acknowledge that this is a valid point nonetheless even if they don't think that the income distribution is particularly unfair. As with all previous arguments, whether this is important is also an empirical question. It seems to me that when it comes to the fairness of a draft, people on the left and the right could agree that there are many ways of defining fairness, that different people could have different opinions about what is fair, and that different people may have different degrees of aversion to unfairness, or different willingness to accept some unfairness as the price for achieving some other objectives. We do not have to agree on everything, but we have to respect the validity of each others' opinions.
Finally, let me add that personally I am not swayed by any of the arguments above. The pros and cons are too murky to lead me to a definitive conclusion. What clinches the debate for me is morality. The Kantian Categorical Imperative says in a nutshell that an action is morally possible if it can be universalized without contradiction. In other words: how would I feel about being drafted? If my answer was: "I'd be OK with it, I would just do my duty for my country" then a law that either drafted everyone or set up a lottery where anyone has an equal chance of being drafted would be morally possible, though not necessarily desirable. But my answer is: "I would not like it at all." Why not? Because I view the current military activities of the United States as unjust. This is not a pacifist stance: If Viking raiders landed on our shores or Mongol hordes descended from the steppes intent on raping, killing and plundering all before them, I would willingly participate in the effort to repulse them. In fact, I would also find that it would be a moral duty for everyone to help in defending the peace, including joining the military. But in the 21st century, the American military is engaged in unjust wars of conquest throughout the world. Participating in these wars is morally indefensible and I could not willingly participate in them. Therefore it would be immoral for me to support a law that would draft other people in the military to do what I do not want to do. In the end, I would oppose a draft, just like you, but for a different reason.
In my view, bridging the left-right gap starts with acknowledging the issues, acknowledging the validity of theoretical pros and cons, acknowledging that many issues cannot be resolved without empirical data and that available data are not always convincing, and acknowledging that different people may weigh the importance of various factors differently. If we do all this, we would likely find that we have a lot more in common than we initially thought.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment