Princeton study that you're referring to
doesn't appear to hold up. Again, there's no way we'd be in as many conflicts (or any?) if businesses had their way
Interesting article. It looks like policy splits around close to 50/50, favoring the rich by a fairly small margin. I started reading the actual Princeton study awhile back but got sidetracked, I'll have to pick that up and finish it. Sifting through data and figuring out who's right, how right they are, etc, can be difficult, and it's tough to discern how accurate the framing is.
The second part of your post is purely unsubstantiated opinion, and again, the businesses that profit from war are getting their way. I don't think Star Bucks is exactly starting anti-war rallies, nor do I think Good Year is lobbying to pull us out of the ME, nor suffering from our involvement.
Sure, but if the model is that business interests are dominant in general, foreign policy seems to suggest that it is flawed. Business contributions to campaigns pull in different directions and don't appear to influence policy on high-profile issues at all. I think you can make the argument that defense-related businesses care more about foreign policy and lean harder and thus can "win" even if the bulk of corporate interests are against them, though that still seems silly, as you don't see defense-related businesses openly lobby for war. So you end up arguing that politicians are proactively acting in what they see as the best interests of those businesses.
But defense contractors 100% do contribute to politicians and do profit from conflict, that's not debatable. They're tied into the media as well. GE even owns 49% of NBC, for example. It does appear to track with their foreign policy as well as how the MSM reports.
There seems to be a very strange reluctance of people all over the spectrum to acknowledge that people in charge of foreign policy do what they think is best, even if they're wrong.
Perhaps, but that's an opinion. I'm not saying that's not the case 100% of the time, but I expect politicians to side with who is giving them money, and in policy, this has shown to be true. This is why progressives are making a point of only taking money from small donors, and why they're almost always outspent by "establishment" politicians taking corporate PAC money. Atop this, there is a direct correlation between successful campaigns and how much money went into financing them. None of that up for debate.
I think the issue is that we're fairly constrained in terms of what we can really do, but the out-of-power party always has to insist that the in-power party is acting stupidly or evilly. So when there's turnover, there isn't big change, and true believers have to explain that
Well both parties have been consistently pro war.
I think all of them benefit from peace.
That's a meaningless statement though. How does it benefit Burger King if we're not invading every ME country in existence? Does Bic sell more pens in peacetime? Would Microsoft's business improve if we didn't have a bazillion military bases?
War is generally bad for business. Low-level conflicts with countries that aren't major trading partners aren't particularly damaging to individual businesses (except through opportunity costs),
You contradict yourself here. Also, war is not bad for business if
A)You make any item whatsoever that is used in war (including raw materials to make xyz items)
B)If it doesn't effect your business.
but it's not something they'd support either.
That's irrelevant. Also, defense contractors and anyone who can make money from conflict would be undercutting their profit margins if they didn't support war. The controversy here is the same as with Private Prisons, which profit from keeping people locked up. General Smedley D Butler, a Marine Corps general, even gave a speech on this pre-WWII entitled "War is a Racket", citing examples of companies that profited from it. That there's companies that profit from war is not debatable, nor is the fact that defense contractors advertise on MSM and give money to politicians. This is not to say that every foreign policy decision that every politician makes is at the behest of the MIC (I'm sure there's plenty of reasons, however it'd be foolish to not take into account where their donations are coming from and how that tracks with policy), but certainly taking money from xyz businesses influences policy. The entire purpose of donating money to politicians is to effect policy. You don't see average people donating to the campaign of someone they don't support, and there's no reason to believe it's different with corporations.
Outside a situation where interest rates are at zero and we're in a recession, military spending crowds out other forms of spending and slows the economy down (also, some people believe it "creates jobs," which is wrong except in the situation I outlined earlier in this sentence).
Perhaps, I'm certainly not an expert on economics, but the economy doesn't appear to be slowing for the wealthy. That aside, I've seen how it crowds out other spending, at least in the public sector. We always have money for war. Many politicians and pundits don't question massive hikes to our already insanely bloated military budget, but say "where are we gonna get the money?!?!" when people talk about things like healthcare and education.