Here's the military policy plank of the 1972 Democratic Party Platform. (Note: The Democratic Party nominee for president, George McGovern, went on to lose every state except for Massachusetts, winning fewer electoral votes (17) than any other major party nominee in American history -- a dubious achievement that would be surpassed twelve years later by Walter Mondale, who won only 13 electoral votes.)
Military Policy
We propose a program of national defense which is both prudent and responsible, which will retain the confidence of our allies and which will be a deterrent to potential aggressors.
Military strength remains an essential element of a responsible international policy. America must have the strength required for effective deterrence.
But military defense cannot be treated in isolation from other vital national concerns. Spending for military purposes is greater by far than federal spending for education, housing, environmental protection, unemployment insurance or welfare. Unneeded dollars for the military at once add to the tax burden and pre-empt funds from programs of direct and immediate benefit to our people. Moreover, too much that is now spent on defense not only adds nothing to our strength but makes us less secure by stimulating other countries to respond.
Under the Nixon stewardship of our defense policy, lack of sound management controls over defense projects threatens to price us out of an adequate defense. The reaction of the Defense Department to exposure of cost overruns has been to strike back at the critics instead of acting to stop the waste.
Needless projects continue and grow, despite evidence of waste, military ineffectiveness and even affirmative danger to real security. The "development" budget starts pressures for larger procurement budgets in a few years. Morale and military effectiveness deteriorate as drugs, desertion and racial hatreds plague the armed forces, especially in Vietnam.
The Democratic Party pledges itself to maintain adequate military forces for deterrence and effective support of our international position. But we will also insist on the firm control of specific costs and projects that are essential to ensure that each defense dollar makes a real contribution to national security. Specifically, a Democratic Administration should:
Plan military budgets on the basis of our present needs and commitments, not past practices or force levels;
Stress simplicity and effectiveness in new weapons and stop goldplating and duplication which threatens to spawn a new succession of costly military white elephants; avoid commitment to new weapons unless and until it becomes clear that they are needed;
Reject calls to use the SALT agreement as an excuse for wasteful and dangerous acceleration of our military spending;
Reduce overseas bases and forces; and
Rebuild the morale and military tradition of our armed forces through creative programs to combat drug abuse, racial tensions and eroded pride in service. We will support reforms of the conditions of military life to restore military service as an attractive career for men and women from all segments of our society.
By these reforms and this new approach to budgeting, coupled with a prompt end to U.S. involvement in the war in Indo-China, the military budget can be reduced substantially with no weakening of our national security. Indeed a leaner, better-run system will mean added strength, efficiency and morale for our military forces.
Workers and industries now dependent on defense spending should not be made to pay the price of altering our priorities. Therefore, we pledge reconversion policies and government resources to assure jobs and new industrial opportunities for all those adversely affected by curtailed defense spending.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1972
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
