Late last week, I came across a fascinating article published at Mondoweiss highlighting a recent study positing that Hilary Clinton may have lost the election to Donald Trump partly as a result of her well documented lust for imperial war and aggression.
Here are a few excerpts from the piece:
An important new study has come out showing that Clinton paid for this arrogance: professors argue that Clinton lost the battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in last year’s presidential election because they had some of the highest casualty rates during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and voters there saw Clinton as the pro-war candidate.
By contrast, her pro-war positions did not hurt her in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California, the study says; because those states were relatively unscathed by the Middle East wars.
The study is titled “Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House?” Authors Francis Shen, associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Dougas Kriner, a political science professor at Boston University, strike a populist note.
And here are the authors themselves on the moral hazard at work here. The people who decide are not suffering as much.
America has been at war continuously for over 15 years, but few Americans seem to notice. This is because the vast majority of citizens have no direct connection to those soldiers fighting, dying, and returning wounded from combat. Increasingly, a divide is emerging between communities whose young people are dying to defend the country, and those communities whose young people are not.
No nation can remain a cohesive unit for long under the above circumstances. Not to mention the fact that it’s extraordinarily unethical.
Here is another powerful excerpt from the paper:
Imagine a country continuously at war for nearly two decades. Imagine that the wars were supported by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Continue to imagine that the country fighting these wars relied only on a small group of citizens—a group so small that those who served in theater constituted less than 1 percent of the nation’s population, while those who died or were wounded in battle comprised far less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the nation’s population.
And finally, imagine that these soldiers, their families, friends, and neighbors felt that their sacrifice and needs had long been ignored by politicians in Washington. Would voters in these hard hit communities get angry? And would they seize an opportunity to express that anger at both political parties? We think the answer is yes.
Their argument is obviously aimed at coastal elites, which have more power than rural communities over decision-making, but far less to lose. The authors are unsparing about the very different experience of war for different communities.
When the United States goes to war, the sacrifice that war exacts in blood is far from uniformly distributed across the country. And in the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, constituencies that have suffered the highest casualty rates have proven most likely to punish the ruling party at the polls.
In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for example, seven states have suffered casualty rates of thirty or more deaths per million residents. By contrast, four states have suffered casualty rates of fifteen or fewer deaths per million. As a result, Americans living in these states have had different exposure to the war’s human costs through the experiences of their friends and neighbors and local media coverage.
The four states with the lowest rates are NY, NJ, CT and Utah. All but Utah voted Democratic. Overall, rural states have higher casualty rates, and the authors find pretty significant inverse correlations between state income and education medians and casualty rates. Though it must be noted that Vermont suffered the worst casualty rate– more than 41 deaths per million– and it is home to the most vociferous antiwar candidate, Bernie Sanders, but was also very safe for Clinton.
People in the tristate area where I grew up should think a bit more deeply about support for imperial wars abroad, especially when their families aren’t as willing to make the necessary sacrifices.
Here’s Krayewski’s summary again, emphasizing the policy takeaway from the study:
The president’s electoral fate in 2020 “may well rest on the administration’s approach to the human costs of war,” the paper suggests. “If Trump wants to maintain his connection to this part of his base, his foreign policy would do well to be highly sensitive to American combat casualties.” More broadly, the authors argue that “politicians from both parties would do well to more directly recognize and address the needs of those communities whose young women and men are making the ultimate sacrifice for the country.”
The most effective way of addressing their needs is to advance a foreign policy that does not see Washington as the world’s policeman, that treats U.S. military operations as a last resort, and that rethinks the foreign policy establishment’s expansive and often vague definition of national security interests.
Reason also covered the study:
The paper—written by Douglas Kriner, a political scientist at Boston University, and Francis Shen, a law professor at the University of Minnesota—provides powerful lessons about the electoral viability of principled non-intervention, a stance that Trump was able to emulate somewhat on the campaign trail but so far has been incapable of putting into practice.
The study, available at SSRN, found a “significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.” The statistical model it used suggested that if Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin had suffered “even a modestly lower casualty rate,” all three could have flipped to Hillary Clinton, making her the president. The study controlled for party identification, comparing Trump’s performance in the communities selected to Mitt Romney’s performance in 2012. It also controlled for other relevant factors, including median family income, college education, race, the percentage of a community that is rural, and even how many veterans there were.
“Even after including all of these demographic control variables, the relationship between a county’s casualty rate and Trump’s electoral performance remains positive and statistically significant,” the paper noted. “Trump significantly outperformed Romney in counties that shouldered a disproportionate share of the war burden in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
For all his nice campaign rhetoric, Liberty Blitzkrieg readers will be well aware of my serious concerns when it comes to Trump’s foreign policy and his sincerity regarding keeping the nation out of unnecessary imperial wars. Nevertheless, if it’s true that Hillary’s war lust materially impacted the 2016 election, this unquestionably would be a great thing. It means real issues are finally coming to the fore of U.S. politics, and that populism truly is ascendant and isn’t going away. Hopefully members of Trump’s team are aware of the study and will make him memorize its contents.
If less imperial violence can in fact become a winning election theme, then we are indeed making some real progress.
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
One can site a multitude of reasons for her loosing, like she’s plainly crooked and deceitful, many dead bodies in her wake, she has no remorse for the Benghazi fiasco, she lies constantly about nearly everything, she takes no responsibility for her faults and actions, she is an angry person and that comes across; she gave Uranium to the Russians and benefited with Clinton Foundation donations in the millions, as did Bill with extraordinary speaking fees; she has taken large sums of donations from our enemies or supposed enemies, she has fomented wars in Syria, Libya and other locations in support of neocon collective domination and world govt. I could go on and on…. The populace of this country recognize what the democrats are about and it is not for the people…. it is all about Hilary and her ilk.
her war mongering is still endangering us all. how could the north koreans look at what happened in libya, the only country to ever give up a nuclear weapons program, and not come to the conclusion that they cannot negotiate away their nuclear arsenal.
I am from PA and changed parties. I never voted straight Democrat when I was one, but the Democratic party that once was, is not. That is why she lost! She ran a smear campaign and said nothing as to what she wanted to do to make our country better, especially for the working man and woman. She was more INTERESTED IN becoming the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT THAN WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING HER SALARY!! This is the land of the free, not FREEBIES as our last president deemed it to be. Working citizens are tired of seeing illegals, people not willing to work, paying for health insurance that is more than a house mortgage, etc. Nothing is free…..someone is paying for it that being the working man and woman! The choices you make in life lead you to where you are now! If you choose to have 5 kids, then you better be prepared for the bill that comes with it. If you want a cell phone, internet, nice car, house, etc….get ready to work for it instead of looking for handouts. People need help when they fall on hard times regardless of your income…that was how it was supposed to work……it is not a lifestyle to live off working men and women who are legal citizens paying for your choices. It is wrong, and America was not meant to be that way! It is a sad day in America when you have health insurance and the EPIPEN costs a small fortune….but you have an opioid addiction… and NARCAN is available….wth? again paid for by taxpayers…..something wrong with that picture! You want to come to America…get processed legally like other legal citizens have done! Until the Democratic party gets it…..they will never win again…never! Deservedly so….the working man and woman are tired of the nonsense!!! I could guarantee you that I will 99.9% never again vote for a Democrat…they are not for the middle class whatsoever!!!
“Land of the fee and the home of the slave’ as built into the design. The middle class is going away.
Any lust issues were from her husband. However, Benghazi didn’t help. Currently, with the landlord maggot as President at least we know his priorities that is keep his and his families “rentals full.” The rest of his parroting are nothing but “red herrings.”
Tell you what, Ricardo. They’re both maggots.
The point is that the maggot named Hillary was openly promoting war as the answer and the other one wasn’t.
I agree that this is good news, Michael.
There may be some small overall effect from war casualties affecting voter decision, probably on a scale with those who are war conscious and made a decision not to vote for Clinton because of her pro war demeanor. Generally the American public seems not to care very much about the wars perpetrated in their name as long as there is no stoppage of major league sports, wedding dress tv shows and plenty of fast food to go around and the myths of America’s goodness are perpetuated so that the truth doesn’t filter through to the point of becoming sentient. The two professors may be making a psychological play to raise the importance on the political positioning of candidates and parties regards making war on other peoples in the interests of a western plutocracy? If so I’m all for this effort.
BRF, this:
“Trump significantly outperformed Romney in counties that shouldered a disproportionate share of the war burden in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
is not a coincidence.
Also, if you’ll remember, the American public’s reaction to Obama, Kerry, and Clinton’s attempts to sell an invasion of Syria with US ground troops in 2013 was overwhelmingly negative.
What worries me now is if Trump decides to employ a “bi-partisan” sales pitch to ramp things up militarily in the middle east (See: Quatar and Iran) the public may be more amenable to the idea.The end result still being more American soldiers either killed or maimed for life all because of the Elitist’s unquenchable thirst for more material wealth and power.
Which goes to back my sentiment that BOTH the high casualty areas within the USA (if duly given MSM coverage for propaganda reasons) and more likely, as you pointed out with the public resistance to direct US involvement in Syria, even greater numbers of anti-war conscious voters that could have swung the election in the more closely contested areas. This is what the study supposedly found, focusing on the high casualty areas. But as we do not have information on how the study was conducted, we do know ‘studies’ can and often do come to desired conclusions.
As for Trump, I don’t believe he has much control over the government and its agencies which will operate as they wish while the play acting,of giving deference to the “Chancey Gardener” president will continue. You can bet your last dollar Putin knows he is dealing with a non entity as far as being able to make and effect policy in Trump.
As for the sales pitch to ramp up the public in accepting more war only a vocal minority will be in opposition while the rest of America goes about its normal life. I notice you concern over more war only singled out what would be American KIA and wounded. Have you ever considered the death , destruction and human suffering of those attacked illegally by the American military and the CIA pacification death squads that follow in the wake of the criminal invasion; which usually targets anyone submitted whatever nefarious reason for extermination, often amounting to genocide as in Vietnam, El Salvador, Iraq and Afghanistan under ‘Phoenix’ like programs?
Addendum: American’s love their Hollywood films that make the American myth. At the end of Eastwood’s “The Unforgiven” the character William Muney states in his drunken rage after killing all the local cadre that the towns folk had better tow the line or he would come back and “burn all of your houses, kill you and your families and all of your friends” which is the carbon copy of what the Phoenix Program states as it objective and modus operandi.
rodham’s war mongering lust?? how about chump’s?? this guy is ready to blow up the world.
What? Does not people want to support rulers that promotes meaningless wars at the cost of the lives of their young? That’s nothing new. But fortunately the US can go on with its destruction of the world with less and less casualties amongst their own. Killing with drones is very popular. Killing blindly by dropping bombs from high altitude also works well. Creating hell by some hellfire missiles safely launched from a ship. And upcoming: the killing robot. I am sure US voters can soon can perform their Great democratic duty without being bothered by the wars they are running. And while we are into statistics:How many middle easternes are killed for each american soldier? Perhaps the question is too complicated? Say instad, how many popcorn do you actually eat compared to those lost on the floor?
These continual wars may seem meaningless to the larger public but make no mistake they are of great and serious import to the plutocracy that runs the USA and the rest of the west. Otherwise all the points you made are entirely valid.
Follow the red ink money trail. Government (Legislators, Fed, treasury, taxpayer funded intelligence gathering pedophiles, etc.). Whose responsible? Whose accountable? No one. And the crimes go on. Does the executive branch police itself? No way. Over the last two hundred and forty plus years there have been some attempts at executive responsibility and accountability but then they are drowned out in red ink and we start over from the depths of greed, etc. The maggots are in charge. Perhaps we will get lucky and they will eat each other up.
Pennsylvania resident, usually registered unaffiliated, switched to dem to vote for sanders in primary, refused to vote at all in general election (for first time in my life) because of Clinton warmongering. I had no particular belief Trump would necessarily be less interventionist, but appreciated his campaign intention to pursue good relations with Russia, especially around Syria, and had a very specific sense of the damage Clinton intended to do. Glad it’s been subject to study.
Libyan Army Spokesmen Says Hillary And Obama Colluded With Terrorists In Libya
There was little coverage in the media last weekend that Trump was able to broker a deal for a ceasefire in Syria between the United States, Russia, Syria, Isreal and Jorden.
It’s funny how the media doesn’t mention a major reason why Clinton lost is because there was massive voter fraud during the primaries. For example, the students who lived in dorms at UC San Diego were deined ballots in the California primary because they didn’t put their dorm room number on their voter registration. In Brooklyn over 250 voters wer purged from the voter rolls before the Democratic primary. This election exposed the Democratic Party for what it is a corrupt party run by imbeciles. There is lawsuit against the DNC for ofraud and the media is not giving this suit coverage. The DNC’s argument is yes they rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton.
Another reason why Hillary lost is because Americans don’t like the Cultural Marxism the party was pushing in the form of identity politics. The 1960’s left sold out and are doing the bidding of the corporatist oligarchs. The left creates faux social causes to divide American and to try to eliminate the individual. All of leftist groups take money from the 1% in the form of grants to pay for their salaries and faux protests. The Democratic Party and the left see the minorities as cash cows to exploit while doing nothing to improve their lives.
Trump gained support because he brought up the issue that political correctness and social engineering is bulls$t. One reason why Marxism and totalitarian governments fail is because you can’t control people. Another reason why Trump is that people get angry when their basic needs aren’t met. The voters didn’t want to hear about bathrooms or other faux social causes while their living standards are rapidly becoming third world. Bernie Sanders addressed these issues and he able to start a movement that would have brought real change. Unfortunately Bernis Sanders sold out to the Democratic Party.
It’s unbelievable the group of people who were directly affected by war casualties were the angry ones during the election. Just shows you how oblivious the rest of the people are who weren’t directly affected by war casualties. The problem is people continue to think they are all separate beings. When the exact opposite is true.
I’m extremely upset by the senseless, illegal, USA gov. wars of aggression without being directly affected by casualties.