As of January 24th 2019 nine Democrats have announced their candidacy for the 2020 Presidential race.

Right now all the candidates are putting out their messages. As Michael Brooks of The Majority Report put it, they are "cutting a lane for themselves" in the primary.  (We used to call it their core brand proposition, but that's so 2000 and late.)

Here's a New York Times summary story on who has announced they will run and who might run.

The Times summary has the conventional wisdom on each candidate and their signature issues.  For example: Warren, middle class under attack from big corporations and Wall Street's influence on politics;  Sanders, “Medicare for All,” and free college tuition.

But what I didn't see in any summaries or signature issues were candidates' views on National Security. This issue is critical and must be addressed because the United States spends an estimated $1.2 trillion per year on defense.  

Pentagon spending now consumes nearly 70 percent of the discretionary federal budget.

Even if we just count direct US military spending, the figures are enormous. At $610 billion in 2017, US military spending accounted for more than a third of the world total. This dwarfs the $294 billion spent by our potential adversaries—Russia spent $66 billion; China, $228 billion.

From Progressives Need a New Way to Talk About National Security ,  by Joe Cirincione and Guy T. Saperstein


Now is the time for democratic candidates to really get how huge the military funding is and start talking about better ways for the country to use that money.  Will Harris talk about this?  Gillibrand and Gabbard didn't. Maybe someone like Washington Governor Jay Inslee will bring it up.

What all Democratic candidates need to know is that the polling shows that  the voters would rather money go to infrastructure and social programs than policing the world. 

But of course the Military Industrial Complex won't let go of any money without a fight. Last week's Madam Secretary, Strategic Ambiguity, was a great illustration of how defense contractors will lie, cheat, steal, threaten and scare people into voting for weapon systems that are inadequate, aren't wanted or needed, and make us less safe.

My favorite scene from the episode is this short clip. 

The Madam Secretary writers, Barbara Hall and Matt Ward, explain the issue and put Presidential Candidate Elizabeth McCord in the position of pointing out the problems with the whole system while the Secretary of Defense and the President explain that yes, a defense contractor can "shake them down."

My favorite line in the clip is when the secretary of defense defends the fighter jet  and the shakedown for more money by saying, "Cost overruns are a feature of defense contracts."

In this next clip the head of the group within the state department who works with the military on allocation for defense spending explains how untrammeled corporate greed distorts our foreign policy.

Show Me The Brightest Timeline

Madam Secretary shows viewers possible solutions and what the characters are up against. If Elizabeth is going to fight the Military Industrial Complex when she is President, she needs to realize she will be attacked, both behind the scenes and in public.

If President McCord cuts funds for a jet fighter 200 people making the wing fluid delivery system for the jets in a congressional district in North Dakota are going to need jobs. What can they do instead? Fluid delivery systems for commercial jets? High speed rail? Solar heating and cooling systems?

President Elizabeth McCord needs to have a vision that acknowledges the current national security budget and a way to redirect it to positive things.

Maybe she picks up the Green New Deal as the positive change she wants to make. That can include a number of projects, many of which would need money that is currently going to the Military Industrial Complex.

Real candidates can define what the Green New Deal means and what it can do. Fictional Candidate McCord can start showing the projects and programs she would create to cope with climate change. I liked the idea of a Climate Change Service Corps to deal with emergencies and a cabinet post to prepare and manage climate disasters. 

The Madam Secretary writers showed that Eisenhower predicted and understood the problem.  The interstate highway system had long straight stretches so that the military could land a bomber on them if necessary. Probably not going to happen, but it helped justify the money for the interstate under "National Security".