America's post-heroic demography
James Pinkerton has an interesting column which suggests that Americans' low tolerance for casualties and less than rock-solid resolve on the Iraq War may be partly attributable to a demographic reality -- the fact that most American families have less children than they did sixty years ago and that the percentage of the population under 19 is only 27 % . I know very little about demographics, but it seems to me that they are (it is?) neglected as a tool for interpreting public opinion and other kinds of cultural phenomena, so I find Pinkerton's premise suggestive, at least.
On the other hand, I would ask some non-expert questions of Pinkerton. First, Pinkerton contrasts the drop in support for the Vietnam War in 1968 with the American public's willingness to stand by Lincoln and the Union cause (despite devastating casualties) in 1864. Why does he not contrast it instead with a war which was much closer in time to Vietnam -- WW2? Those wars were very different kinds of wars, obviously, but they both occurred while the draft was in place, and the demographics of the American family were similar in both cases. I suppose WW2 is an anomaly, in that it's arguably the only war of the twentieth century that Americans had to fight. Would the demographics have as great an impact on public resolve if America were faced with another such war -- or if Americans perceived the Iraq War in the same way? Second, what effect does the existence or non-existence of the draft have on public resolve, and is the influence of family demographics mitigated at all by the fact that we have a volunteer army? Third, can the influence of demographics be magnified or diminished by cultural factors, such as widespread disparagement of the military or, conversely, an ethic of honoring the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers? I keep reading that the military tends to vote pretty heavily Republican. So how does that happen? Are they Republicans before they join up (which would seem to be the most likely scenario)? If so, is there a cultural component to the decision to volunteer for military duty, and does that component likewise come into play when the public's resolve is tested? [It would also be interesting to take a look at the demographics of families who have sons or daughters in the military to see if they differ significantly from the demographics of the population as a whole.]
On the other hand, I would ask some non-expert questions of Pinkerton. First, Pinkerton contrasts the drop in support for the Vietnam War in 1968 with the American public's willingness to stand by Lincoln and the Union cause (despite devastating casualties) in 1864. Why does he not contrast it instead with a war which was much closer in time to Vietnam -- WW2? Those wars were very different kinds of wars, obviously, but they both occurred while the draft was in place, and the demographics of the American family were similar in both cases. I suppose WW2 is an anomaly, in that it's arguably the only war of the twentieth century that Americans had to fight. Would the demographics have as great an impact on public resolve if America were faced with another such war -- or if Americans perceived the Iraq War in the same way? Second, what effect does the existence or non-existence of the draft have on public resolve, and is the influence of family demographics mitigated at all by the fact that we have a volunteer army? Third, can the influence of demographics be magnified or diminished by cultural factors, such as widespread disparagement of the military or, conversely, an ethic of honoring the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers? I keep reading that the military tends to vote pretty heavily Republican. So how does that happen? Are they Republicans before they join up (which would seem to be the most likely scenario)? If so, is there a cultural component to the decision to volunteer for military duty, and does that component likewise come into play when the public's resolve is tested? [It would also be interesting to take a look at the demographics of families who have sons or daughters in the military to see if they differ significantly from the demographics of the population as a whole.]
posted by Kate Marie | 11:42 AM | Permalink
|
7 comments
7 Comments:
Interesting. Some cite the same demographics (smaller families) as a cause for the priest shortage. That is, parents want grandchildren, so they discourage their few children from entering the religious life. [I wonder if there's a shortage in religions that allow their religious to marry?] But others blame the reluctance of Americans to sacrifice, in general.
I've often wondered if the excess number boys in China, where baby girls are in short supply, would lead to more agression on the part of the ChiComms -- you know, get rid of those extra boys who might cause trouble. But, perhaps the fact that those boys may be only sons will motivate their parents to become anti-war activists, should their boys be called up.
I posted a comment that doesn't seem to be showing up, C.I.V., so forgive me if I end up saying the same thing twice.
You make a good point about China. I have seen demographics cited as a factor in the greater aggressiveness of societies where there is a disproportionate percentage of young males (in China, and also in some of the states that produce terrorists).
I DO think that Americans in general are more reluctant to make such huge sacrifices and that the influence of demographics might be mitigated if there were an ethos of sacrifice -- which is why I brought up the statistic that our volunteer military seems to lean Republican.
The arab states can blame their "excess males" problem on their religion. The polygamous lifestyle results in having to get rid of extra males, as is reported in the recent news story on Lost Boys.
CIV's plan A solution for China, India, and the arab states is to convert them all into conservative Christians. Eventually doing what comes naturally will even things out.
Plan B is for India (where girl babies are often killed because the families can't afford to pay dowries to their future in-laws) to collect dowries for their daughters from all those desperate families of single Chinese sons. Or would that create a giant Sino-Indo state that would compete against the USA? Hmm. Back to plan A.
CIV has heard (but not researched) that most of our military comes from the South and the middle of the country. Don't know if there is more of the ethos of sacrifice or just plain patriotism in those parts.
CIV finds it very sad that, unlike the US Army, terrorists don't seem to have a problem with recruitment, even though their "enlistees" are not fighting for freedom and are, in many cases, EXPECTED to die.
I read that article on "Lost Boys," C.I.V. -- very interesting and sad that it's happening here in the U.S.
"CIV has heard (but not researched) that most of our military comes from the South and the middle of the country. Don't know if there is more of the ethos of sacrifice or just plain patriotism in those parts."
-- Maybe it's both. You know, those backwards Southerners and Mid-Westerners still believe in corny things like that. :)
The left would say that they are ignorant and poor. Too dumb to know better than to enlist and too poor to have any other options.
The left is an ass.
The left is an ass?
Stewdog, that sounds downright Dickensian.
Post a Comment
<< Home