Blog #6: Progressive Era & Anti-War Speech

War is prevalent amongst every society. It dates far back in history from ancient Mesopotamian societies into modern times. War is one of the oldest acts known to man and perhaps that's why it keeps arising as an issue and why newspapers rally in support of it, war is in our nature. But I doubt this is the case.

Living things inherently want the survival of their species and humans are no different. We want to survive and we want our friends and family safe and well too. This is contradictory to the idea of war as with war comes massive bloodshed and loss. War is not without casualties, both civilian and military from all parties involved. The lives lost is an ugly fact of war. War has many ugly sides.

Another consequence is that there is economic loss associated with war. War used to provide victors with access to new land, wealth, and resources they otherwise couldn’t acquire; however, this is not the case today. The world is more interconnected than ever and if an individual or society does not possess a resource they can strike a deal and have the necessary materials transported to them. If anything, war hinders this ability to acquire resources. War causes countries to implement travel bans and place embargo sanctions as a result of war. More economic loss comes in the form of military spending. Since wars such as the one in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has experienced major economic setbacks within its borders. Money invested in war would have been better put towards services (e.g. green energy, health care, education) or public infrastructures. Both of these options allow for an improved U.S. society and increased job opportunities, as opposed to fighting wars in other countries. War has also contributed to the significant fall of GDP in America.

If war has all these negatives, why hasn’t there been any massive protests and policy against war since the Vietnam War in 1968? And why is it difficult to find coverage speaking out against war? Surely war can’t be a popularly supported belief?

News websites including ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative speak out against war, however they are never at the forefront of news. These sites advocate for less government oversight, more citizen freedoms, protection of US borders, and the rights of individuals. The sites also call attention to the atrocities of war that often become obscure, hidden like a needle in a haystack under a pile of pro-war articles. This is because while war is harmful for the average citizen, it's good for government business and news stations alike.

War may hurt businesses, but it is great for government profits. The Pentagon, who debatably influences war legislation, has spent over 14 trillion dollars since the start of the war in Afghanistan. The funding for these wartime efforts in other countries comes at the expense of modernizing our own military forces and weapons. Pro-war voices justify the support to other nations by stating this in turn will provide the government with support from other world leaders who depended on the U.S. for protection during their challenging times This is how the U.S. government keeps its funding and power. Similarly, lobbyists from the Military Industrial Complex employ over 700 people per year, which is more lobbyists than representatives in Congress. The sheer amount of lobbyists alone ensures their voices get heard. War can also provide economic gain, as invaded areas are looted by militaries and private contractors, despite the moral implications and lack of authorization. For example, Syria currently is challenged with oil looting.

Moreover, the government favors war because “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed”, according to Mao Tse-tung in 1938. War allows individuals to shift accountability off of them onto others. Politicians can use other countries as scapegoats to their own misdoings. Furthermore, war is pursued by politicians as an attempt at global hegemony. Government money gets directed to rebuild foreign areas and regions which creates a dependency on and power for the U.S. government. War also helps promote their political agenda because they can promise to be the one to bring about change, which usually rallies a good amount of support. Truth be told, they don’t want change so long as they keep getting elected. Officials will say what they need to justify war, and they will get newspapers to agree, in order to continue to promote their brand and power.

Newspapers comply with pushing pro-war stories as war makes for more interesting news. With war people need to constantly keep reading to stay up to date and so news articles play to the conflict. There have been plenty of times in history where massive conflicts were peacefully resolved and war avoided, but history doesn’t focus on these instances of peaceful resolution rather violent wars.

Between history books conveying war as solutions rather than problems, politicians secretly rooting for war, and news catering its stories, it's no wonder the American public doesn’t protest against war. Their information has been so biased they view it as necessary for protecting the interests of our Nation. It doesn’t help that America glorifies war through labeling soldiers as heroes and having pro-war movies. Due to all these factors, most Americans are in favor of war and so when they seek out news they look, albeit subconsciously, for pro-war articles executing confirmation bias.

This is the real reason anti-war news gets lost in the mass flow of information. Opposition to the war would mean we as a nation are wrong for engaging in it and people and politicians don't want to hear that perspective. Therefore, people don’t want to read about it, and newspapers don’t want to write about it. And so anti-war voices get censored and silenced in today's media.