Building a Winning Popular Front Peace Movement

Raymond Barglow
March, 2003

“The total influence [of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry] -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.…  In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”  (President Eisenhower)

 “It could be argued that if September 11 had not happened, the American military-industrial complex might have had to invent it.” (Mary Kaldor)   

“We are only just beginning to see the emergence of a global consciousness .... a growing sense of a single, mutually dependent, human community.... Given human beings’ love of truth, justice, peace, and freedom, creating a better, more compassionate world is a genuine possibility." (The Dalai Lama)

Summary: A winning left/liberal strategy in the United States will be one that brings together within a re-invigorated peace movement the great majority of Americans whose interests are not served by militarism.  

This peace movement will aim to diminish violence in all of its forms, and will draw its inspiration from a vision of the world that is generous and informed by our highest ideals of human solidarity, democratic participation, and care for the environment.

Building this movement is going to require, however, that we rethink traditional categories of social class and political allegiance.  Although a progressive political strategy must of course take into account the division of our society into social classes, we would do well to recognize that a politically crucial dividing line in this country today falls between the military and non-military sectors of the economy (and, correspondingly, between two worldviews: militarism on the one hand, and a non-violent/peaceful approach to life on the other).  Huge military expenditures are in fact harmful to the overall flourishing of the U.S. economy, excepting the military sector and those industries that depend on it.

A majoritarian, popular front peace movement will be based in the non-military economy, (health care, education, housing and commercial real estate,  agriculture, non-military capital goods and information technologies, entertainment, and other consumer goods and services), forging an alliance of relatively progressive business interests in this domain (i.e. not anti-union corporations that pay workers a pittance and ruin the environment) with traditional left/liberal constituencies.  Only such a broad alliance is capable of opposing and gradually dismantling the military-industrial complex, thereby freeing up resources to satisfy basic human needs for adequate housing, nutrition, education, health-care and a non-polluted environment.

This popular front strategy may be found unsatisfying to some leftists, because it involves allying with relatively liberal, non-military corporate interests.  But politics today as in the past is about crossing boundaries and making alliances – that is the only approach that can possibly work. 

The Republican Party is more closely aligned with the military-industrial complex than is the Democratic Party.  Building an effective progressive movement in this country will require work within the Democratic Party to disaffiliate the Party from the war-makers and war-preparers, and to align it instead with most Americans’ economic interests and ethical ideals.

Within the Democratic Party there will of course remain the different interests that exist today.  Organized labor, notably, will still find itself at odds with corporate interests.  An alliance of these various constituencies around a peace agenda does not mean that internal Party contradictions get shoved under the rug.  The point, however, is that with fewer resources wasted on the military, the non-military economy (within which the great majority of Americans earn their living) will benefit tremendously.

A populist peace movement that democratically and authentically represents Americans' best interests and highest ideals -- that helps us all connect with one another in creative and cooperative ways that come naturally to human beings -- is within our reach.

Progressive political forces in the United States are somewhat in disarray these days.  We know we are opposed to the reactionary transformation of our society that has been occurring since the events of 9/11.  But what is our alternative?  Is there a path forward that can unite and advance our disparate left/liberal causes?   There is.  Our strategy should center around a unifying aim: the reduction of military spending in favor of investment that is more humane and economically more sensible.  In short, we should be spending much less on armaments and armies and much more to meet human needs such as health care, housing, and education. 

This is, of course, not a novel proposal. But especially today, given the recent inflation of military expenditures in this country, it provides the key to building a winning left/liberal coalition. Michael Klare states the case well:

"As we move closer to the abyss, we begin to glimpse our historic mission: to envision and promote a peaceful, non-imperial future in which the United States cooperates with other states in constructing robust international institutions capable of resisting aggression, averting global environmental catastrophe and protecting the rights of all."

 Why the Traditional Left Approach has Failed

 Traditional left/liberal strategy, with its attention focused on invidious class differences, advocates first of all a reduction in the gap between the wealthy and the poor, and assumes that from this change many others will follow, including a more peaceful social order. 

The peace-movement strategy recommended here, while it certainly acknowledges the need for economic and social justice, views the effort to create a more equitable society as currently best served by a movement that unites to demilitarize the current social order.

This traditional left’s demand for social justice, i.e. for a redistribution of society’s wealth and resources that takes from the “haves” and gives to the “have-nots” is certainly a valid one.  Yet, it is not the sole demand around which a winning progressive movement in the United States can be built.  This traditional demand is inadequate inasmuch as it restricts the attention of our political efforts to redressing the division of society into economic classes, whereas the division that is politically crucial today – crucial for building a winning progressive movement in the United States -- is an overlapping but distinct one: the division between military and non-military sectors of the economy. 

We on the left have perennially focused our attention upon the horizontal dividing line between owners of capital above and workers below.  The problem with this perspective is that tends to obscure other ways in which modern societies are riven.  Especially significant today in the United States is the contradiction between military and non-military interests that divides the ruling and ruled classes internally.  Karl Marx characterized the history of societies following the disintegration of primitive communism as a history of class struggle.  There is a truth in this.  But it would be equally valid to say that human history has been a history of conflict between war-making parties on the one hand, and advocates of peaceful conflict resolution on the other. 

The Economics of Militarism

 The diagram below greatly simplifies an economic structure that contains diverse interests, allying and colliding in complex ways.  The diagram highlights one particular contradiction – between military and non-military sectors of the economy – that is strategically relevant to our current political situation.  To be sure, many corporations do no fall cleanly into one sector or another.  Computer hardware and software firms, for example, often have some military contracts, although the bulk of their business is typically with the civilian sector of the economy.  Similarly in the automotive industry, a fraction of production provides jeeps and other vehicles to the military.  Hence the line between military and non-military production divides many companies internally. 

United States Economy

In this chart, the horizontal line divides social classes, whereas the vertical divides economic sectors.  We would do well to pay much more attention to the vertical divide, which distinguishes the military-industrial complex from the remainder of the economy.  A popular front strategy will draw its support from working people in the lower left quadrant, but also from relatively liberal forces in the non-military capitalist class and with trade-union oriented workers in the military sector.   Taken in combination, these groups represent the vast majority of Americans. 

An economic analysis that is relevant today will begin by recognizing that the ruling elites do not compose a monolithic class.  Militarism is in the interest of the armaments (and associated) industries.  It may serve as well the oil companies.  But it is detrimental to other capital interests.  

As indicated in the diagram, the Republican Party is more closely aligned with this military-industrial complex than is the Democratic Party.  In the Sunbelt states that vote conservatively, armaments industries and military bases exert more influence than they do elsewhere.  You can see this split here in California – in places like Orange County and San Diego, where military industry flourishes, President Bush receives strong support.  Northern California has less military industry than its Southern neighbors, and is correspondingly more liberal.  (Companies like Apple and Sun sell to the military, to be sure, but they are far less dependent on that market than are the armaments manufacturers.)  In the Bay Area for example, information, communications, and biotech industries, rather than military plants, predominate.  And Gore won the Bay Area overwhelmingly in 2000.  It is true that the Democrats are tied to the military economy too, but they aren’t bound quite as tightly to that economy as are the Republicans.  Building an effective progressive movement in this country will involve joining with Democrats to separate the Democratic Party more clearly from the military-industrial complex and to align the Party with most American’s interests. 

Within the Democratic Party there will of course remain the different interests that exist today.  Trade unions, notably, will still find themselves at odds with corporate interests.  An alliance of these various constituencies around a peace agenda does not mean that internal Party contradictions get shoved under the rug.  The point, however, is that with fewer resources wasted on the military, all of the participants in the non-military economy will benefit tremendously. 

Militarism is increasingly detrimental to the economic interest of the majority of Americans.   But many of them do not realize that.  Take medical doctors, for example.  Most of them vote Republican, it is true.   But we can make a compelling argument that vastly inflated military expenditures, championed by the Republican Party, take away resources from health care.  Hence doctors can be brought into the majoritarian peace movement we aim to build.

Is Militarism in Most if not All Americans’ Best Interest? 

A popular front peace movement has to face squarely the question: To what extent does the flourishing of the U.S. economy depend on global markets that are secured by the “protection” afforded by the military?  It has long been an axiom of political analysis – a premise that is accepted by many on the Left -- that “trade follows the flag.”  Although most jobs in the United States do not fall in the military sector of the economy, and do not directly depend on that sector, a classical anti-imperialist thesis holds that global empire provides the United States with markets, resources, and an inexpensive and virtually inexhaustible labor supply.  That empire, presumably, can be assured and maintained only by the projection of military force worldwide. Hence, the enormous military budget in this country serves the economy as a whole and is in most Americans’ economic interest.

This thesis calls for re-examination and revision.  A compelling argument can be made that the great majority of Americans does not benefit economically from a national security state that is armed to the teeth.  For most Americans, the costs of maintaining such a state far exceeds its hypothesized economic benefits.  This is particularly true of minority communities in the United States.  Militarism is effectively racist, since vast military expenditures commandeer resources that could be devoted to rebuilding the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure, including impoverished urban environments.  

A case in point is the potential Iraq war.  Is the war basically about oil – the crucial ingredient that greases the wheels of capitalism?  And is that why Democratic and Republican politicians alike enthusiastically support the path to war?  Yes, oil resources are at issue, and indeed triumph over Iraq may lead to cheaper oil in this country, but at what expense?  Purely from an economic point of view, we would do much better to stop wasting so much petroleum and reduce our dependence on this limited resource.  (This point has been elaborated by others.) 

In short, while a war in Iraq could serve the economic interests of oilmen and military contractors, enthusiasm for it is not driven by most Americans’ economic interests.  (See also the Appendix to this essay.) 

In  fact, the military buildup in the United States is harmful to the overall flourishing of the economy, excepting the military sector and those industries that depend on it.  Barash and Webel explain this in their book Peace and Conflict Studies (pages 258-259): 

1. Employment.  Although military spending creates jobs, it almost invariably results in fewer jobs than would be generated by the same funds spent for civilian purposes….
2. Inflation.  Military spending is perhaps the most inflationary way for a government to spend money….
3. Deficits.  Governments can only obtain military forces by paying for them.  The immense federal deficits of the Reagan administration, for example, occurred largely because the U.S. government chose to lower taxes while dramatically increasing military expenditures.
4. Productivity….  Military economies tend to dominate scientific and R&D (research and development) activities, thereby robbing the civilian economy.  As a result, there is a strong inverse correlation between military spending as a function of gross national product (GNP) and growth in economic productivity….
5. Unmet social needs.  Resources spent on the military are not available to be spent in other ways….  Expenditures for submarines, missiles, and machine guns, for example, are deleted from money available for hospitals, day care centers, and schools….

War and Human Security

 The origins of militarism are psychological as well as economic.  If we can effectively communicate to the American public a deeper understanding of the motivations behind militarism, and if we can speak to the public fears that conservative political leaders incite and exploit, then we can win over the majority of Americans to a progressive political perspective.  

And we can do so without wishing away the real dangers from which a national security state allegedly protect us.  Although armaments manufacture is a domain of vast over-investment in this country, we do need to recognize that hostile militarist/terrorist forces abroad do exist.  While it is true that the American government has helped create some of these dangers, e.g. by supporting totalitarian regimes worldwide, we now need to intelligently address, rather than minimize or wish away, the consequences of their rule. 

Al Queda, too, is a threat that has to be taken seriously. True, the United States’ provocative actions in the world – the support our government has given to repressive regimes worldwide, for example – does generate hostility.  We in this country need to change U.S. foreign policy that is rightly perceived abroad as serving the ends of empire.  At the same time, though, we shouldn’t sidestep the challenge of preventing, as best we can, terrorist actions, whatever their origins may be. 

War, however, is no longer a viable way of resolving conflicts within or between nations, if it ever was. (It is pretty clear, for example, that a U.S. war against Iraq, aside from its devastating consequences for the Iraqi people, would hardly make our lives here in the United States more secure.)  Much more promising would be the extension of international humanitarian law, as well as increased efforts by the world community to foster non-violent conflict resolution and to alleviate circumstances of material scarcity that encourage ethnic hatreds and aggression. In her on-line essay “Beyond Militarism, Arms Races and Arms Control,” Mary Kaldor points out that war-making assumes new forms today, and that increasingly. 

violations of humanitarian law and human rights law are no longer 'side effects' of war, they represent the core of the new warfare. Therefore taking seriously humanitarian law is one way of controlling the new warfare…. If the legitimacy of modern states derived from their ability to protect borders against external enemies and to uphold the law domestically, then the legitimacy of global governance is likely to be greatly enhanced by a humanitarian regime that takes ultimate responsibility for the protection of individuals and for upholding international law. I am not implying a single world security organization. Rather I am talking about a collective commitment by states, international organizations and civil society to act when individual states fail to sustain these norms and to do so within a framework of international law. 

This peace-making approach is far removed from current U.S. foreign policy, which doesn’t even recognize the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court.  Despite current Republican control of the U.S. federal government, however, there is good reason to believe that a humane, left/liberal political perspective can make a comeback.  As John Judis and Ruy Teixeira argue in their book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, we are capable of building a successful democratic, non-violent movement in this country.  Judis and Teixeira also submit that the Democratic Party will be one of the most important vehicles of that movement. 

The “Peace Movement” Needs to be Broadly Defined

Electoral politics is, however, only one expression of an international “peace movement” as it should understand itself and be understood by others.  The peace movement represents an ecumenical, non-violent approach to life that is present wherever and whenever people speak up or vote or recognize in some other way that armaments and violence do not provide the answers to human problems.   Here in the United States, a peace movement may organize anti-war demonstrations in the streets.  But opposition to the sale and distribution of firearms, whether it occurs across gun counters or between nations, also belongs to this movement.  Asking a city council to investigate violent misconduct on the part of the police, attending a PTA meeting and speaking out against the spanking of children in schools, supporting a shelter for battered women – all of these belong to a peace movement, broadly defined. 

This “peace movement” does not, however, necessarily recognize itself as such.  Gun control advocates in Wichita may not think of themselves as belonging to the same camp as anti-war protestors marching through the streets of Rome.  And people working in these campaigns may be unaware of community organizing in Delhi to ban the practice of bride burning.  Yet all of the efforts of this kind are linked, it seems to me, by a deeply held belief that human beings have the capacity to resolve their conflicts in a non-violent manner.  This insight is a profound one, and can serve as an ethical foundation for an effective and international peace movement. 

These days, however, it is not peaceful conflict resolution but war preparation that preoccupies our nation’s leaders.   Although that preparation is contested by the peace movement, it has fairly broad political support.  The recent electoral successes of the Republican Party demonstrate one thing very clearly: the virulence of militarism.  It has an appeal – psychological as well as economic and cultural -- that seems easily to trump more humane and rational forms of diplomacy.  It has long been recognized that militarism is characterized by a Manichean splitting between “good” (our side) and “evil” (the “enemy,” insanely dedicated to our destruction).  This dynamic provides a psychological underpinning for nationalism and authoritarianism.  Leftists rightly point out that militarism is an expression of economic interests.  This is an important, but limited, insight.  Notoriously, people's fears (combined with greed -- e.g. for foreign oil reserves) are swept up into militarist jingoism even when it doesn't serve their own economic interests at all.  Early in the 20th century, Wilhelm Reich explained this cogently, when he observed the appeal of German militarism and nationalism to a large fraction of the German working class. Today as much as ever, we need to inform our political action with this understanding. 

 (More might be said here, to elaborate the cultural and psychological basis of militarism.  Relevant here is the work of Critical Theorists such as Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas.  George Lakoff, in his book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, also makes a valuable contribution.  Relevant as well are Freud's Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, and a set of essays entitled On Freud's Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, edited by Ethel Spector Person. Also germane, of course is Wilhelm Reich’s Mass Psychology of Fascism.) 

A peace movement that successfully unites diverse constituencies is unimaginable within a perspective that sees the Democratic and Republican Parties only as Tweedledee and Tweedledum.  Some of us were naïve to conflate the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates in 2000.  More recently, the Democrats did not fail in the off-year election simply because of lack of nerve or moral fiber, as some critics have been insisting.  In large part they lost because of the crude emotional appeal of militarist values and policies.  Human fears are easily preyed upon, and the prospect of war – one that is fought far away and promises not to result in many domestic casualties -- may keep people's minds off other matters, including their economic circumstances.  It’s true that the Democrats have failed to offer imaginative and persuasive alternatives to war against Iraq.  To be sure, an authentic turn toward peace will require a much more fundamental economic and cultural transformation than the Democratic Party is prepared to envisage at this time.   Gentleness, non-coercive approaches to conflict resolution, and sensitivity to the suffering of others are not a way of life that our culture encourages.    Becoming a more peaceful and humane nation will require a transformation of the underlying priorities and values of our mass media, schools, and workplaces.  This transformation will be as profoundly personal as it is political -- as much a spiritual and ecological transformation as a “political” one in the narrow sense.  We have much to learn from Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King’s teachings, from traditions such as Tibetan Buddhism, Liberation Theology, and the Jewish Renewal movement.  Being peaceful amounts to more than advancing an antiwar argument in a political meeting or marching in an anti-war rally.  There is a deeper, life-changing realization as well, a recognition of the intimate ties that link us to one another and to our natural surroundings. 

The above analysis can help us formulate a progressive, winning strategy for reforming government institutions and policies.  Most Americans will benefit economically and live more securely if state investment shifts away from the military sector into non-military, more humane domains including education, health care, and housing construction. 

War isn’t inadvisable only for economic reasons of course.  We oppose it because of its massive destruction of human life and resources.  During the 20^th century, it became evident to most people on the planet that war is an abomination.  In the second half of the century, the dangers of nuclear annihilation led to the widespread recognition that another major war would be catastrophic. The war in Indochina reinforced a worldwide perception that military campaigns are senseless catastrophes.  In the post-Cold War era, the proponents of militarism, based economically in armaments industries, have had to counter this perception and to relegitmize war.  As always in the past, militarist parties stoke human fears and advocate violent measures against presumably intractable “forces of evil.” 

War is not a policy only of state institutions.  Warlords and mercenaries, too, have perennially used war to aggrandize territory and power.  Today, non-state sponsored armies and paramilitary forces ravage communities worldwide.  Yet it is militarism’s symbiosis with centralized political authority that has largely shaped the modern world. City-state and nation-state governments typically mediate a competition between military and non-military economic interests.  Wars, says, Ekkehart Krippendorff, 

are "made" by states - and not by "the people", and do not represent an outlet for collective aggressive instincts. Neither do wars "break out", they are prepared, planned, and decided by the political classes, groups, and/or individuals as instruments of policies (that these people often need and require popular support is secondary - though the fact that such support can also be used to overcome internal contradictions, with their appeal to "national unity" - is not secondary).

The very formation of the modern nation state in the 17th century grounded political rule in military economics and values.  Yet, ruling classes are seldom united in their support of militarist policies.  The progressive movement in this country would do well to concentrate today on the split between the military and the non-military economy.  On both sides of this division we find capitalist interests.  On both sides we find working class interests.  On the non-militarist side you will find most of the liberal members of the ruling and ruled classes.  On the other side you will find the more conservative members of the ruling and ruled classes.  But it is non-militarism that is in the best interest of most Americans. 

Ours should be a populist strategy that brings together within a re-invigorated peace movement the majority of Americans whose material interests as well as ethical values are not served by militarism and jingoism.  Such a “popular front” strategy may be found unsatisfying to some leftists, because it involves allying with relatively liberal, non-military corporate interests.  But politics today as in the past is about crossing boundaries and making alliances – that is the only approach that can possibly work.  Our movement has the potential to attract even those whose livelihoods depend on military employment.  For it is not utopian or naïve to recognize that we all stand to benefit from a more peaceful social order.

Hence we would do well not to use the divide between non-military and military sectors of the U.S. economy to mark a border between "us" (good, virtuous) and "them" (evil, the enemy).  Our politics is an inclusive one. We can draw here upon the peace movement's understanding that people whose lives are economically dependent on military expenditures have legitimate concerns.  Our aim is not simple destruction of military technologies and jobs, but rather disarmament that takes into account the need we all have for meaningful work that contributes to the well-being of others.

A Possible Alliance between the Peace Movement and the Democratic Party 

Although the Green Party can make a valuable contribution in opposing militarism, let's concentrate here on the Democratic Party, because it will play an essential role in helping us to build a majoritarian peace movement. 

There have been some Democratic Party politicians who have advocated a sensible approach to terrorism and to the Iraqi situation specifically.  The humane liberalism of people like late Senator Wellstone favors a more peaceful and equitable America, and supports working through the UN to resolve international conflicts.  The Republican Party, on the other hand, is organized and managed by its military backers, and stands four-square behind the proposition that the U.S. should rule the world.  (This distinction between the two parties has become clearer during the past decade, as Southern whites have continued to switch their allegiance from the Democratic to the Republican Party.  This electoral shift is most apparent in Southern counties where military bases and armaments manufacturers are located.) 

Indeed, the Democratic and Republicans by no means answer to the same economic interests.  See the Center for Responsive Politics website http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=D:

 Defense: Long-Term Contribution Trends,
by Party (as of the beginning of September 2002):

 As the diagram illustrates, the military sector of the U.S. economy gives to the Republican Party nearly twice as much money as it gives to the Democratic Party.  Not surprisingly, this support goes predominantly to pro-military candidates in both Parties.  It is noteworthy as well that officers in the U.S. military vote overwhelmingly for Republicans.  The ratio of Republican to Democratic voters among officers is currently above 6:1.

 In brief:

1.     The Democratic Party is less beholden to the military economic sector than the Republican Party is.

2.     Some Democratic politicians are less beholden to the military than others are.

To evaluate this difference between the two major Parties within a larger context, it is useful to see that other sectors of the economy give more of their support to the Democrats -- their strongest support comes, in fact, from the communications and information industries (phone companies, television, movies, music, computer equipment and services): 

Communications/Electronics: Long-Term Contribution Trends,
by Party (as of the beginning of September 2002): 

 When we go beyond the military-related industries to examine the larger cultural context within which militarism exists, we see the same pattern of differential support for the two major Parties.  For example, here are statistics from 1990 through September of last year on the economic support that the Parties receive from gun control advocates and opponents: 

Contributions from Gun “Rights” Groups 

Contributions from Gun Control Groups

It’s true that these contributions are small, compared to the amounts given by major industries to candidates of the two major parties.    Yet the lopsided character of these contributions indicates, once again, a substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Appendix: Economic Prosperity and Militarism – What is the Relation?

Does the overall prosperity of the economy require the projection (at the current level) of U.S. military power abroad?  It has been argued above that it does not.  However, Clarence Lo, a sociologist (and friend) who teaches at the University of Missouri, points out that the military sector not only consists of companies producing military goods, but also involves industries that are related to a U.S.-centered global empire: oil/energy; mining (Kendecott Copper); international construction (Bechtel); shipping; global agriculture/chemicals/biotech; and finance capital/international banking/associated Wall St. and D.C. law and PR firms, all of which have a huge stake in loans and investments overseas and in maintaining market-oriented regimes through military force. 

Clarence Lo goes on to say that: 

Most of the top levels of business are Republican: there are a few exceptions in entertainment and … in Silicon Valley.  (See Domhoff's Who Rules America). In defining a Democratic Party economic sector, one has to do so in terms of human service work especially in the state sector: education, social workers, health care (but here, the core should be defined as workers such as nurses rather then administrators and HMO owners).  Many of these workers are women (gender gap).

The only hope is … a genuine welfare state that will begin to move away from the logic of commodification, as suggested by Offe, and Esping-Andersen's Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.  All of this suggests that the unifying cry to the popular front peace movement should be: invest not in war/oil Empire, but rather in people/human needs/social security/infrastructure/new energy and environmental technology. The union/minorities part of the Democratic Party would support this cry; the business side of the Democratic Party does not. A peace movement can work in the Democratic Party but the peace issue will split the Party as it did in the 1968 and 1972. 

Clarence Lo’s points above are well taken.  We do need to formulate an anti-militarist strategy in such a way that a vast majority of Americans are on our side.  The successs of most US-based companies does not depend on military might on the scale that the U.S. commands.  To be sure, the fossil fuel industry and companies with military contracts benefit from the society’s vast military expenditures.  But how important are those contracts to the flourishing of the economy as a whole?  I have some familiarity with the biotech industry (especially the medical side of it), and it would clearly benefit much more if fewer resources went to the military and more resources went into biomedical research and development.  With regard to oil, while recognizing that fossil fuel interests are basic to the U.S. conflict with Iraq, Lo points out that: 

The policy of increasing consumption of energy, the need for energy, and the need for supplies of oil from the Middle East may be in the interests of big energy companies, but it is definitely not in the interests of the people of the United States.   Even if we could seize all the world's oil and use it, the combustion of that fuel would put the 220 billion tons worth of carbon dioxide into the world's atmosphere.   This would cause irreversible and rapid global warming and ecological catastrophe.  Nevertheless, U.S. elites are committed to a policy of helping the oil companies profit by grabbing the world's oil. 

That policy is detrimental to the interests of most Americans.