Public Confidence in Military Lowest in Decades
There has been a steady decline the last five years.
Gallup (“Confidence in U.S. Military Lowest in Over Two Decades“):
Americans are now less likely to express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the U.S. military, with a noticeable decline that has persisted for the past five years. The latest numbers are from a June 1-22 Gallup poll that also captured record lows in public confidence in several public institutions.
Here’s the graphic (interactive at the link):
We’re within the margin of era of post-Vietnam attitudes. Coincidence?
At 60%, confidence in the military was last this low in 1997, and it hasn’t been lower since 1988, when 58% were confident. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s — during the Cold War and amid threats to U.S. power, including the Iran hostage crisis — between 50% and 58% of Americans were confident in the military. Confidence generally improved during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s. It then surged after the Gulf War victory (to a record-high 85% in 1991) and again after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Confidence generally held above 70% for the next two decades, until dipping to 69% in 2021 and declining further since then, following the poorly executed exit from Afghanistan.
While losing two wars was bound to reduce confidence, I don’t think that’s the primary factor. It was 15 points higher after we pulled out of Iraq, a much costlier and bigger loss than the one in Afghanistan.
No, like pretty much everything else, this is a reflection of the political climate.
Throughout nearly all of the past 48 years, Republicans have been the most likely to express confidence in the military, and they remain so today — but the rate has declined by over 20 percentage points in three years, from 91% to 68%.
Independents’ confidence has dropped nearly as much — by 13 points, from 68% to 55% — and now independents have less confidence than Democrats do. While Democrats’ confidence rating did rise after President Joe Biden assumed office, those gains have disappeared in the past year.
Gallup’s Mohamed Younis looks at the numbers and concludes,
Public perceptions of the U.S. military have fluctuated dramatically over the past five decades. The aftermaths of the Gulf War and 9/11 were followed by resounding upticks in confidence in the military. The latter of these surges ushered in an era of elevated confidence lasting nearly two decades.
Now that the U.S. has completely withdrawn from both Iraq and Afghanistan, the two most significant military legacies of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., confidence in the military has continued to decline among the public. The declines this year were across all party identification groups, with Republicans remaining the most likely to express confidence and independents becoming the least likely.
As one who pays more than a little bit of attention to civil-military relations, I don’t think this is a function of anything President Biden has done but rather owes to the effort by Republican partisans and the Republican Infotainment Complex (especially Fox News and Tucker Carlson when he was still on the network) to portray the military as having “gone woke.”
The U.S. military is simultaneously one of the more conservative institutions in American society and a change agent. By its very nature, it demands loyalty to country and those higher in the chain of command. It demands putting duty to the mission and others above one’s own interests, including personal safety. Institutionally, it’s very resistant to changes that will impact esprit and disrupt its culture.
At the same time, both because it’s subordinate to civil authority and has to compete with the civilian job market for talent, it has grudgingly accepted change. President Truman forced the integration of Blacks as equal members. While that change was met with resistance and caused plenty of strife in the barracks, it had massive positive effects on racial progress. A succession of Presidents forced the gradual expansion of the roles available to women. More recently, a combination of court rulings and Presidential action forced the armed forces to allow gay and transgender people to be allowed to serve openly.
The combination of these two seemingly contradictory impulses is interesting. The brass was, understandably, forced to make these changes kicking and screaming. Once they ran out of options, though, they did what leaders do and carried out the orders as if they were their own.
This gave them little choice but to take a stand during the Black Lives Matter movement. To remain silent would have been a failure to keep faith with some 17 percent of the force.
Similarly, whatever their personal feelings about trans servicemembers, they had to stand up for them when President Trump was disparaging them and trying to reverse their eligibility to serve. They were, at that point, full-fledged members of the team and it would have been shameful to abandon them when they were under attack.
Some leaders were a little too overzealous in pushing back against Carlson and others making fun of things like flight suits for pregnant women and the introduction (finally!) of flak vests that were designed to accommodate breasts. But their instinct was laudable.
And, while I think he likely exceeded his legal authority in doing so, Secretary Austin (a retired Army four-star) taking bold action to take care of female members suddenly stripped of abortion rights due to the happenstance of where they were ordered to serve was not only commendable but demanded by the ethos of the service.
Naturally, though, this puts the US military smack dab into the culture wars. And, going back to 2016, that has mostly meant that Republicans and Democrats alike have more confidence in the military when their guy is in the White House; their support levels have almost mirror imaged over this period.
What I can’t explain, though, is why self-identified Independents—who have historically had the lowest confidence in the military—have fallen off so precipitously since 2019. That group does seem to more closely track our performance in wars than the two partisan groups.
Returning to a point Younis mentioned but didn’t circle back to, the same survey showed rather stark drop in confidence in institutions across the board.
Indeed, we’re approaching the lowest levels of confidence in the period Gallup has been asking these questions.
There’s a certain chicken-egg quality to all of this. It’s not surprising that the public has low confidence in these institutions, all of which are smack dab in the middle of the culture war fight. Then again, part of the reason that the polity was so ripe for Trump (and, for that matter, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the populist left) was a sense that the system has failed us.
Setting aside politics, I still find the “confidence in the military” complicated. For example, I have been impressed by the success of the services in keeping out or expelling bad actors. Given the nature of the military it is going to attract violent losers looking for a legal way to vent their worst impulses. When these types of people are revealed after a tragedy or an insurrection, it’s not surprising that many of them had a connection to the military, but it’s a good sign that so many of them washed out early on. I was truly worried that a fanatic like Boykin had risen to the top ranks, but he seems to have been an anomaly.
On the negative side, I have no confidence that our military appreciate the tax dollars they get or are good stewards of those funds.
And on the concerned side, I have worried for years that the military as a whole is much too focused on technology and too little focused on the ability to fight a sustained war wrt logistics, ammunition, boots on the ground, etc.
Another cause for concern – how many contractors we use, even in battlefield situations. My impression is that the military relies on civilians who cannot fight, and indeed must be extraordinarily protected, to cook food, drive trucks, build and maintain infrastructure, etc.
Wow…that’s a mouthful of tripe.
C’mon, the reason for the sense that the system has failed us is because the GOP, which is now MAGA, has been yapping about the system failing us for decades, while they do their damndest to systematically dismantle the system. Meanwhile Democrats are busy working to make the system work for everyone.
There is no Chicken and Egg question…the mutation happens in the Egg. The Egg has to come first.
Ans so it is with with crap like this. The GOP/MAGA is the Egg. The mutation is within that party.
@MarkedMan: My son tells me that there is a degree of resentment among the troops who have to sit shotgun in vehicles protecting the contractor/civilian driver who is making approximately 5 times the money the soldier is making.
If it is true that loss in confidence in the military both tracks with general malaise about American authority, and has direct correlation with respondents’ own partisanship, then I’m not sure there’s been a serious loss in confidence in the military — aside from the Middle Eastern debacles.
Seems more like we are projecting onto the military how we feel about the broader goverment on any given Sunday. How much of our views about “the military” itself are actually changing, if indeed our views are based mostly on election outcomes?
Does Biden have legal authority as commander-in-chief to ensure abortion access for servicemembers via interstate travel? I don’t get why the focus is on Austin at all. Does he not serve the President, who serves the People — the majority of whom support abortion rights?
Exactly. Columnists constantly moan, “Why are we so divided?” We are so divided because FOX/GOP profits from division and works very hard to make us so. GOPs have nothing substantive to offer so they have to run against an enemy, real or imagined.
Another post today notes the weakness of anti drag show laws. If it’s a question of guns or regulation, the NRA or ALEC write the laws very carefully. Nobody actually cares about Drag Queen Story Hour beyond being able to posture for the folks back home. They need enemies, not victories.
And thank you James, for noting the military don’t support whatever because they’re “woke”, but because direction from above, but more compellingly “manpower” shortages, make it necessary.
@Daryl: Look, there’s no question but that the Republican Party started going over the deep end with the rise of the Tea Party and then went completely over it when Trump became the nominee. But there’s also a major populist sentiment in the Democratic Party that we saw with the Occupy Wall Street movement and then the Bernie Sanders boomlet, etc. They’re not equivalent but they’re born out of the same frustration that the party elites are more interested in protecting elite institutions—the bases of both parties hated the bank bailouts in particular—while screwing over the little guy.
@MarkedMan:
Famously at Bastogne, but also on other occasions, the cooks and bakers were handed rifles and put in the line. They were a combat reserve. Now they’re an asset that needs to be protected. Any time I hear that “force protection” is a priority it make me nervous. The mission is supposed to be the priority, always. I wonder how much of the “force” being protected is physical assets and contractors.
I’m waiting for the survey that shows how little public confidence there is in pollsters. Seriously, can’t these people find real jobs?
@James Joyner:
How about it started with W’s feckless pro-“oil bidness” “leadership”, or Nixon and Wategate, or Goldwater in ’64, or Eisenhower being drafted to run in ’52 because the heir apparent, Taft, Mr. Republican, was a RW nut job bound to lose for the sixth straight time, or Hoover’s reluctance to deal with the Depression, or… I’m not really familiar with early 20th and late 19th century party history. The current situation has been building for a very long time.
We have two parties competing to see who can stand up to ‘the man,’ and only one still able to continue to carry out the duties of the man.
On my side of the fence Democrats are slow to accept that we are also a party of big business. We have the big tech and consumer companies, the creative industries, the green industries. At the same time, as astonishing as it may seem, the military, along with the rest of professional government, is on our side. We are at least as much ‘the man’ as they are.
Americans, being as always utterly ignorant of, well, anything really, don’t grasp that when a recent POTUS was calling for an uprising to overthrow the government, the US military stayed in their barracks, true to their oaths. This is a rare thing in the history of the world, and we should be pleased and proud that we have a professional, committed and loyal military.
Right now the military is standing up for women’s rights to abortion. We should take that on-board and recognize a friend.
@James Joyner:
You’re only proving my point.
The Tea party wasn’t the beginning. Reagan and Newt were the beginning. Waging war on the middle class all the while claiming they were looking out for the little guy. Union busting, cuts to the social safety net, tax cuts for the rich, dark money politics, etc. ad nauseum.
The Occupy movement was born of frustration with economic inequality and the influence of money in politics… the very things that Reagan and the GOP were responsible for creating and promoting.
There is no both-sides here. The GOP is the Egg.
There is no sane country on our planet that want’s to tangle with the U.S. Armed Forces and that is the most important measure of its success. Opinions that seek to undermine our nation’s fighting forces are ill considered and those in political leadership who cater to such views are a menace to the national security needs of our democratic-republic.
Trump said that he knew more than the generals; also he preferred pilots who weren’t captured in referring to John McCain. The leader of the GOP openly disparaged the military and called the fallen losers. Before that, swiftboating and purple heart bandaids were GOP staples.
Once again, this is due to what is known as “network effects” of the RW Media Ecosystem. When you have vertical monopoly of Radio, TV, Billboards, Social Media, Music, and Religious influencers…your message will penetrate very deeply into a community. Humans are conditioned to believe messages that come in multiple mediums through multiple figures higher than themselves in the social hierarchy.
The only thing keeping the ecosystem from completely turning on the Military is that the institution tends to vote Republican…therefore it has to tread slowly.
When are Democrats going to bring the Info War to Republican turf? Even Zelensky sent some drones to Moscow to show “if I’m at risk. You’re at Risk”(a Jim Brown-ism). There are Left-leaning evangelical churches and preachers—their message should be amplified….especially if they are in Red States or countries. You have to build a vertical pipeline to the people you want to influence if you want network effects. In other words, preach to the choir—then expand the size of the choir.
Completely a function of Congressional mandates for the DoD to “lean-up” without a subsequent reduction in mission scope by the CINC…COMBINED with the power of the Defense Contractor Lobby.
We could absolutely have people in uniform do those jobs…but then Congress would never fund a 3+ million person military that comes with long term pension and health care obligations. Then the Defense Contract lobby would pull out their stops for their piece of the taxpayer action.
Every GAO study has shown DoD to been within tolerance of waste for similarly sized organization with global scope. Yet voters will always believe waste is rampant…just because
@ James
“Culture wars” implies that two sides are engaged in a fight. What we actually have is Republicans ginning up mountains out of molehills (if they are even that) to distract people from how disastrous Republican governance tends to be.
@anjin-san:
Have to disagree a bit on this. From the GOP/MAGA point of view we have attacked their religion, attacked their way of life (guns) and attacked some pretty fundamental notions around gender, all while guilt-tripping them over our racial history. We literally tore down some of their iconography in the form of Confederate generals.
From their POV we are attacking God and The Family and of course, guns. Also from their POV, they are merely trying to hold on to what is tried and true: God, male supremacy and gun worship. We’ve pushed them hard on social issues. We’re right, but we are not quiet or respectful or willing to go slow.
My analysis is that we pushed too far, too fast, and with little to no preparation of the battlefield – rather like a military formation that thought it was chasing an enemy in a rout only to discover that the enemy has rallied and is on its flanks. To extend the analogy the enemy have taken some strong defensive positions in the form of black letter law, and we will have a hell of a time retaking that ground. Ground which, in my opinion, we lost through hubris.
Thankfully the enemy has also over-reached. We may be saved by the stupidity of our enemies, but if we were less stupid ourselves we wouldn’t now be on the defensive.
@Michael Reynolds:
Fun aside: Pokémon Go has been around longer than the Confederacy. We should be replacing Confederate generals with Charmander, Squirtle and Pikachu.
Back to the point
I’m not sure my brother even knew about women’s sports before the anti-trans panic got him very invested in who can play them.
Do you remember who open carried guns back in 2008? Lunatics that were widely condemned.
Who opposed vaccines? A bunch of people eating granola, plus the polio virus.
As often as not they are creating a fictitious way of life (or being spoon fed one by their media) that they are defending.
@Gustopher:
On the one hand there’s reality. OTOH there’s what one believes. They believe we started this. They are at least partly right. Let me give you one small example: it was a thing on Twitter for a while to insist that people not identify themselves as men or women but as cis-male or cis-female. Less than 1% of the population was attempting to impose their own views on the rest of the population.
Now, was this ever the official position of, say, AOC or of trans rights groups? I doubt it. But it was a thing, may still be for all I know, and it’s an example of a stupidly self-harming bit of arrogance and insensitivity. It’d be nice if politics wasn’t played out in the lowest (or loudest) common denominator world of Twitter, but again, reality is not the same as perception.
And I know this comment will likely bring on the, ‘It doesn’t matter what we say, they’ll find something to hate,’ excuses. But that’s both incorrect and defeatist. Not to mention hypocritical as our side squeals like stuck pigs over any failure to immediately adopt the latest euphemism. We seem to care deeply about microaggressions while insisting that it doesn’t matter what we say or how we say it.
On our side we have (thank God) abortion. That’s a case where we represented the status quo and they are the radicals trying to ram their ideology down everyone’s throat.* That’s a strong position for us. If we can make this election about abortion, we’ll do fine.
*It’s always down the throat, never up the ass, or in a nostril.
The hot take for the last day or so is
Of course, hidden in the reporting is that the majority (60+) of both sexes are neither, possibly the “independents” who have the largest decline in confidence in the military. That seems likely to be problematic for recruiting given 12-graders are the target populations. The services could target the liberal young women as the gender equity gap for active duty is huge with only 18% being women. (The DoD demographics report didn’t report sub-categories of male/female)
@JKB: As a service, I’m providing the sources where your data point can be found. You seem to have neglected to offer that service:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/high-school-boys-trending-conservative-bucking-narrative-liberal-younglings
https://newamericangovernment.org/high-school-boys-trending-conservative-bucking-narrative-of-liberal-youth/
Why you don’t want readers here to know that you get your information from
is a question for which I have no answer. (But don’t particularly care about, either. It’s your credibility, not mine. And it may explain the Charles Murray fascination.)
ETA: And yet again (sigh…), you’ve managed to close your comment with a pithy comment that fails to reveal why your data point is “the hot take.” Once again, we’re forced to ask “What was that about?” (This point, on the other hand, I AM curious about.)
@Michael Reynolds:
Well, I definitely agree that liberals make both tactical and strategic errors in pursuing our goals. Liberals have a tendency to dance in the end zone when they win on things like marriage equity – kicking the other guy when he is down may provide a sugar high, but it only increases the divisions we are facing and makes the next battle a little harder to win.
I also wonder about things like he/him/his. I don’t see the benefit, and I would be pretty annoyed if someone tried to impose this on my email signature. I certainly saw examples of PC running amok when I was in school back in the 90s. Making a huge issue out of bathrooms in 2015, when we had a presidential election right over the horizon, was an expensive mistake.
OTOH, I think Gustopher has a good point about the perception of attacks on a fictitious way of life. I once had a Facebook comment directed at me along the lines of “Real Americans will not let you destroy Christianity” – my wife was literally sitting next to me reading the Bible at the time.