Van Jackson and Michael Brenes
What does economic inequality have to do with great-power competition? Much more than you might think. Congress and the White House currently direct resources toward the national security state and away from programs and policies that support the public welfare. There is no inherent compromise between investing in defense over social welfare—but in the United States, we have a politically imposed trade-off between “guns and butter.”
Geopolitical rivalry provides legitimacy for policies that undermine economic freedoms. Many of these are justified in the name of “national security,” which too often functions as a euphemism for militarist policies that foment aggression while starving the welfare state. The consequences of militarism stretch far beyond the battlefield, worsening economic inequality and foreclosing even the prospect of economic democracy, which operates on the presumption that economic disenfranchisement breeds electoral disenfranchisement.
No comments:
Post a Comment