Obama’s Attacking the GOP For Boosting Military Spending. Is He Nuts?

How you look at things.
Aug. 1 2012 8:00 AM

Hunt the Hawk

Obama’s new ad attacks Romney for increasing military spending. Is the attack crazy or brilliant?

1343822250211
Screen shot of President Obama's ad against Mitt Romney's military agenda.

BarackObama.com

President Obama has just released a new TV ad. He’s picking a fight with Mitt Romney over—can you believe this?—the defense budget. The ad says Romney, unlike Obama, would “increase military spending.” Is Obama crazy? Isn’t it political suicide to argue for a cheaper military?

William Saletan William Saletan

Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. He’s the author of Bearing Right.

Apparently not.

Democrats have long suffered for looking soft on defense. Remember Mondale and the nuclear freeze? Dukakis in the tank? Clinton and the gay ban? Kerry and the $87 billion? Democrats always preferred less money for national security, but they never admitted it. Just a week ago, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Obama pledged, “We will maintain our military superiority. It will be second to none as long as I am president.”

Advertisement

The new ad abandons this pose. Using Iraq War footage and a fat aerial photo of the Pentagon, it comes out proudly for a leaner defense budget:

Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up. And now we face a choice. Mitt Romney’s plan? A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires. Increase military spending. Adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama’s plan: a balanced approach. Four trillion in deficit reduction. Millionaires pay a little more.

I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. So I looked up the latest poll data and compared it to previous years. And you know what? That ad isn’t crazy. The polls have been moving. Obama has caught Romney on what’s now, by some measures, the losing side of the issue.

For six years, the percentage of Gallup respondents who think we spend too much on defense has outpaced the percentage who think we spend too little. Since 2008, the percentage who are very satisfied with the nation’s military strength has increased from 30 to 35, the percentage who are dissatisfied has shrunk from 30 to 23, and the percentage who say our national defense isn’t strong enough has plunged from 47 to 32—a two-decade low.

Every year since 2001, the Pew Research Center has asked Americans whether strengthening the U.S. military should be a top priority, a lower priority, or not a priority. This year, the percentage who called it a top priority fell to an all-time low (39), while the percentage who said it shouldn’t be a priority rose to an all-time high (23). In Harris polls since 2008, the percentage favoring defense cuts has increased from 35 to 42. A table published by Harris this year tracks public opinion on 19 budget areas since 1980. Of these, defense is the only item on which support for cuts has increased.

Other polls taken in the last eight months confirm the pattern. In December, Reuters asked Americans which of six budget items we could “afford to cut back on.” Defense was the most commonly selected option, outpolling education, Medicare, and Social Security. In February, CBS/New York Times interviewers asked a national sample “which of the following programs would you be willing to change in order to cut spending?” Thirteen percent picked Social Security, 15 percent picked Medicare, and 52 percent picked the military. A simultaneous National Journal survey offered respondents five areas—Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid, and defense—and asked whether, in each case, “spending should be cut back a lot, some, or not at all to help reduce the deficit.” Defense was the only target on which an affirmative majority agreed, with 60 percent endorsing cuts and only 35 percent opposing them. In April, an academic consortium headed by the Program for Public Consultation asked U.S. adults whether, in view of the federal deficit, Congress should raise some taxes, “reduce national defense spending,” or “reduce non-defense spending.” Respondents were invited to choose any combination of these options. Twenty-seven percent endorsed tax hikes. Fifty percent endorsed cuts in non-defense spending. Sixty-two percent endorsed defense cuts.

Among independents, the issue looks particularly dangerous for Romney. In Gallup’s February sample, twice as many independents said we spend too much on defense (48 percent) as said we spend too little (22 percent). In the CBS/Times sample, when independents were asked “which of the following programs would you be willing to change in order to cut spending,” only 13 percent chose Social Security, and only 14 percent chose Medicare, while 53 percent chose the military. In the PPC sample, when independents were shown the 2012 defense budget and were instructed to propose a new level for 2013, they cut it, on average, by more than a quarter.

Romney and other Republicans, blaming Obama for the prospect of across-the-board defense cuts, seem to think they have a good issue against the president. Maybe they’re right. Or maybe they’re too busy fighting the last war to notice that the battleground has changed.

William Saletan's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:

Latest Twitter Updates
    Follow William Saletan on Twitter.

    TODAY IN SLATE

    Justice Ginsburg’s Crucial Dissent in the Texas Voter ID Case

    The Jarring Experience of Watching White Americans Speak Frankly About Race

    Here’s Just How Far a Southern Woman May Have to Drive to Get an Abortion

    The Most Ingenious Teaching Device Ever Invented

    Marvel’s Civil War Is a Far-Right Paranoid Fantasy

    It’s also a mess. Can the movies do better?

    Behold

    Sprawl, Decadence, and Environmental Ruin in Nevada

    Space: The Next Generation

    An All-Female Mission to Mars

    As a NASA guinea pig, I verified that women would be cheaper to launch than men.

    Watching Netflix in Bed. Hanging Bananas. Is There Anything These Hooks Can’t Solve?

    The 2014 Kansas City Royals Show the Value of Building a Mediocre Baseball Team

      News & Politics
    The World
    Oct. 20 2014 1:50 PM Why We Shouldn’t be Too Sure About the Supposed Deal to Return the Abducted Nigerian Schoolgirls
      Business
    Moneybox
    Oct. 20 2014 2:16 PM Even When They Go to College, the Poor Sometimes Stay Poor
      Life
    Outward
    Oct. 20 2014 2:19 PM A Procedural Rule Could Keep Gay Marriage From Ever Reaching SCOTUS Again
      Double X
    The XX Factor
    Oct. 20 2014 1:10 PM Women Are Still Losing Jobs for Getting Pregnant
      Slate Plus
    Tv Club
    Oct. 20 2014 7:15 AM The Slate Doctor Who Podcast: Episode 9 A spoiler-filled discussion of "Flatline."
      Arts
    Brow Beat
    Oct. 20 2014 2:39 PM Gwen Stefani Does Her Best Rihanna Impression on New Song
      Technology
    Future Tense
    Oct. 20 2014 1:51 PM Will Amazon Lead Us to the Golden Age of Books? A Future Tense Event.
      Health & Science
    Medical Examiner
    Oct. 20 2014 11:46 AM Is Anybody Watching My Do-Gooding? The difference between being a hero and being an altruist.
      Sports
    Sports Nut
    Oct. 20 2014 10:23 AM Where I Was Wrong About the Royals I underestimated the value of building a team that’s just barely better than mediocre.