Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/19/AR2005081900815_pf.html

Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters

By Terry M. Neal

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM

There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.

When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at "influencers" such as parents, teachers and coaches.

But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?

Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.

The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.

But she made it clear that her support only went so far.

"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."

The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.

This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: "Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds."

I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.

"Clearly it was to talk to influencers," she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions "are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service]."

Why?

"In part because the economy is strong," said Robbins. "In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served."

So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?

"I disagree with your premise," Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels."

Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, "One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make."

Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join.

So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55-44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.

The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51-49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.

Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.

This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?

Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.

By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?

Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.

Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.

I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.

David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.

Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.

Back during Vietnam, "the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military," said Segal. "The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments."

Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.

Segal said that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented in the modern military. The Army was able to provide socio-economic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether it was a normal recruiting year.

Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.

Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level to five being the highest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.

One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up largely of the least and most educated, with Republicans congregated near, but not at, the top.

So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.

While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.

Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.

The trending I thought was interesting.

[Kilmer17]

Interesting.

But Im also not suprised that enlistment is down during a war.

I'll be curious to see what the numbers look like after the war.

[@DCGoldPants]

why after?

[Kilmer17]

I think there will be a problem if, after the war, the enlistment level doesnt return to it's pre-war numbers.

It doesnt concern me that enlistment is down during a war. I expect that to happen.

[Prosperity]

I think if they just offer more money especially for colleges they might get a lot of more kids in the lower brackets. Obviously this wouldn't really do much for the affluent kids, but heck even I was considering joining the military (actually the Airforce) at one point. I would have done it, but I thought it would take too much time away and coming back to college at 22+ as a freshmen would be a bit akward so I decided against it and it isn't like they would pay for all of the education anyway.

[@DCGoldPants]

I guess my point of this was the folks who were saying "We support the war, but its not for our kids"

[Kilmer17]

I think that's basic human nature.

[Prosperity]

The fact is not many people really think the US is in danger, after 9/11 yes, but not so much anymore. Without that idea, and without a financial incentive (actually it would hurt an affluent person to join the military) then there is really no reason for affluent people to join. If they support war then they are hypocrits, but is that really surprising?

[herrmag]

I think that's basic human nature.

Agreed.

[Thiebear]

Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.

Nothing like not having a study or doing any research BUUUUTTT i'll just go ahead an talk about it anyway as a hard core reporter.....

If this goes on another year, there will be aproblem.. But if it ends in June of next year college, errr I mean people that want to be soldiers will be right back in....

[chomerics]

Great read, and it poses an interesting dichotomy, why are people who support the war the least willing to truly support the war with their family?

It is truly a simple generalization, but there is a bit of truth to it. I would be interested to read the studynad the %'s. This does not say that wealthy Americans did not enlist, there were many that did (Pat Tillman for ex.), but the majority of people were from the lower class. I would also like to know if the %'s decreased since the start of the war from the top economical class.

This is a good topic, and I think it should be discussed.

[airborneskins]

I think if they just offer more money especially for colleges they might get a lot of more kids in the lower brackets. Obviously this wouldn't really do much for the affluent kids, but heck even I was considering joining the military (actually the Airforce) at one point. I would have done it, but I thought it would take too much time away and coming back to college at 22+ as a freshmen would be a bit akward so I decided against it and it isn't like they would pay for all of the education anyway.

Well if this was the only reason that you did not join, go talk to a recruiter.. Because now, while you are on active duty, they pay 100% of your tuition/books etc..

[NavyDave]

Please my family is pro military and a majority of us served and at the same time our mothers were against us joining but we didn't ask her opinion and just signed up then told her.

One smack upside the head later my dad said he was proud of me and my mom came around which was evident by the care package in bootcamp and when deployed.

If you are patriotic, rich and have options hey I aint mad atcha.

We had several electronic techs who were from well off families that experienced the boarding school and nanny environment but felt more like he belonged when theywere in our division because of the comraderie

[codeorama]

I guess my point of this was the folks who were saying "We support the war, but its not for our kids"

Sorry, but that doesn't suprise me at all.

My uncle and cousin are diehard Bush/GOP/War supporters, but there's no way in hell my cousin would enlist to show his true support, and my uncle wouldn't let him if he wanted to.

That's one of the things I find most disturbing about the "stereotypical" conservative (not picking on anyone here in particular). They are all gung ho for the war, they love their country, they have the "these colors never run" bumper sticker on their car, but they don't "really" support the war effort by joining the militar or sending their kids. :2cents:

[Prosperity]

Well if this was the only reason that you did not join, go talk to a recruiter.. Because now, while you are on active duty, they pay 100% of your tuition/books etc..

If I could have put off service till after I was done my education I would have gone through with it, but I think they make you serve then you can come back to college. So if they pay for undergrad (postgrad too?) then I would have, but from their website I see this:

"Real Education Assistance

The Air Force Tuition Assistance (TA) program is designed to help active-duty personnel pursue voluntary, off-duty educational opportunities. Currently, the program pays 100% (up to $250 per semester hour or equivalent) of the cost of college tuition with a limit of $4500 per fiscal year. Courses and degree programs may be academic or technical and can be taken from two- or four-year institutions on base, off base or by correspondence."

4500 a year is hardly 100%, even at JMU that won't cover all of it. IF I had chosen to go to American that would be about 10% of the total cost ($40,000+ a year).

[airborneskins]

If I could have put off service till after I was done my education I would have gone through with it, but I think they make you serve then you can come back to college. So if they pay for undergrad (postgrad too?) then I would have, but from their website I see this:

"Real Education Assistance

The Air Force Tuition Assistance (TA) program is designed to help active-duty personnel pursue voluntary, off-duty educational opportunities. Currently, the program pays 100% (up to $250 per semester hour or equivalent) of the cost of college tuition with a limit of $4500 per fiscal year. Courses and degree programs may be academic or technical and can be taken from two- or four-year institutions on base, off base or by correspondence."

4500 a year is hardly 100%, even at JMU that won't cover all of it. IF I had chosen to go to American that would be about 10% of the total cost ($40,000+ a year).

Never said it was from a major institution. I know quite a few soldiers (in the Army) who have had it all paid for. I guess it all depends on what your major is..

[@DCGoldPants]

Major? Don't you mean choosing between Junior College and a 4 years school.

[Prosperity]

Major? Don't you mean choosing between Junior College and a 4 years school.

I think they might pay more if you major in engineering than say women's studies.

[Ignatius J.]

Some of the articles premises ARE flawed. For one, the most rich people in this country are pretty consistantly democrat. It's something like people making 100,000 to 1,000,000 a year are mostly republican but then it switches again when you get to the real blue bloods. (At least I've heard this before)

If you're a pretty smart person though, isn't the obvious thing to do to take ROTC so that you serve AFTER college? (and therefore not as an enlisted man)

[NoCalMike]

This article just goes to show that it is rather easy to support something that you aren't making personal sacrifices for.

[Thiebear]

The article doesnt actually SHOW anything... it speculates and guesses...

Like most articles with no real work behind it.. it lacks in facts and numbers.

But thats o.k. because he had a deadline to meet so he even borrowed another article to make this one.

[twa]

The article and a lot of the people posting are making assumptions imo

Another thing ,NO ONE sends thier kid

[airborneskins]

This article just goes to show that it is rather easy to support something that you aren't making personal sacrifices for.

OK and I made personal sacrifices for, and I still support..

[airborneskins]

Another thing ,NO ONE sends thier kid

[chomerics]

Some of the articles premises ARE flawed. For one, the most rich people in this country are pretty consistantly democrat. It's something like people making 100,000 to 1,000,000 a year are mostly republican but then it switches again when you get to the real blue bloods. (At least I've heard this before)

If you're a pretty smart person though, isn't the obvious thing to do to take ROTC so that you serve AFTER college? (and therefore not as an enlisted man)

The people who make over $10million a year are 60% democrats, but the people making between 100,000-10 million are over 60% republicans. There are something like 5 million people making between 100,000 & 10million and something like 10,000 making over $10mil.

I believe it is something like that.