The Elusive American Peace Dividend: An Investigation

Donald Trump, the President of the United States, often takes public pride in promoting tariffs and enhancing the nation’s self-sufficiency in economics. However, the U.S. military involvements overseas are subtly shifting towards less evident engagements. An important question arises – why has the American public not enjoyed the benefits of what should be their peace dividend? If indeed the era of ceaseless wars fueled by political antagonism and sphere-of-influence dominance is nearing its end, and if the world is gradually finding equilibrium through an economic struggle of influence rather than militaristic means, then what has happened to the financial windfall? Why have we not seen significant reinvestment in our education system, our infrastructure, and our healthcare, or at least a robust plan for our nation’s future?

The quandary does not merely lie in the individuals holding the reins of power, but it also extends to our acceptance and normalization of a government, that benefits from warfare but fails to reap the benefits of peace. For years, we have witnessed the public’s tax dollars being funneled into the reservoirs of defense contractors, all the while being sermonized about fiscal prudence. As the international conflicts gradually recede, instead of reaping the benefits of this decline, silent reticence replaces the dividends of peace. We are told that war is a necessary protector, but what safeguards are in place against the aftermath of warfare – the oh so destructive remnants of financial deficit, emotional distress, economic inflation, and the never-ceasing enlargement of bureaucratic machinery, even when the dire sounds of battle have faded.

Children growing up in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks deserve far more than a languid descent into economic slowdown and the encroachment of a surveillance state. If our nation is wealthy enough to fund wars, it can surely afford to invest in a new economic model. This model should ideally be designed to channel the profits of peace back towards the citizens from whom the wealth originated in the first place. Donald Trump was presented as the entrepreneurial outsider, the man who would ‘drain the swamp’ and alter the status quo dramatically. Some of his economical policies, such as tariffs, certainly sound promising as we keenly anticipate their outcome. Any patriotic American citizen would crave a thriving domestic manufacturing sector and access to more affordable goods.

However, upon scrutinizing these policies, familiar flaws emerge. These include ample subsidies for the affluent, wavering trade policies, and tax cuts that have significantly inflated the deficit while hardly making a tangible impact on the income of the working class. Is this truly a crusade against cronyism, or merely a repackaging under a different brand? Here raises one more question: Is it even possible for a candidate – regardless of their political persuasion or lack thereof – to disrupt a system architected to reward war, resource extraction and stir global turmoil as the tools of influence?

Let’s venture to ask: How would it look if the rising generation of leaders were those who didn’t induce fears of losing rights, economic failure or dread of reading alarming news about drone strikes, proxy warfare or institutionalized treachery? In these tense times, a leader’s likability is not a demonstration of weakness, but rather signifies stability. With partisanship worn out and global power dynamics being redefined, a close relationship with our political leaders appears to be a peculiarly relevant tool of influence. Perhaps, this aspect could reenergize people’s engagement in elections and their enthusiasm for change. Therefore, modernity, cultural growth, and technological advancement should consistently reflect change over the years.

The need of the hour is leaders who appreciate that economic indicators like CPI/PPI, GDP, and per capita income are much more than mere acronyms that can be casually dropped during TV news talks. We need policymakers who are ready to dive beneath the surface and ask more profound questions. Why is it that GDP continues to rise but wages remain in a stagnation phase? Why do consumer prices inflate at a rate that outpaces the average person’s income growth? How come legislative victories don’t seem to result in benefits trickling down, but instead seem to indirectly benefit political careers, corporate welfare schemes, and the pockets of cronies?

As I learned during my study of wealth disparity analytics like the GINI coefficient, figures can highlight inequality, but seldom provide an in-depth understanding. To truly grasp the complexities of disparity, we need narratives that illustrate human experiences: stories of displacement, unmanageable debt, and unfulfilled dreams placed on an indefinite hold.

A renowned saying in economics states, ‘There’s no free lunch.’ But looking at the delicate dynamics of modern warfare, one might notice how the elite have been enjoying a free meal at the expense of others for quite some time. As global conflicts begin to dissipate, it’s only fair that the public receives its due course. We should link military budget reductions, public funding cutbacks, the eradication of domestic economic ‘threats,’ and aggressive foreign trade policies directly to individual tax relief, economic benefits, and public investment.

Consider this a call for closing the open-ended financial support to the Pentagon and redirecting those funds towards local budgets assigned for providing housing, improving education, and fostering innovation in small businesses. We need to gradually transition from a defense-oriented budgeting structure towards a more dignified one. It’s clear that peace should be profitable for everyone, not just for defense contractors.

The essential resources are available out there. The public is prepared and looking forward to a change. With combats cooling down across the globe, it begs the question – where is our portion of the peace dividend?