Millennials are a divided generation; those over 30 remember the world before the war on terror, while younger millennials have a hard time remembering when the nation was not at war. Generation Y is typically anti-war, and these voters gravitate towards candidates who run against a hawkish foreign policy — from Ron Paul to Barack Obama — but 2016 could end that tradition.
An Economist/YouGov poll released on Wednesday found that millennials were split; 48 percent planned to vote for Hillary Clinton, 24 percent for Trump, 11 percent said they’ll cast their ballot for Gary Johnson, and another 4 percent said Jill Stein.
Recommended Stories
According to that poll, most millennials supporting Clinton were doing so to vote against Trump. Fifty-eight percent were against the Republican billionaire, while only 39 percent were for the Democratic nominee.
Yes, part of that is based on rhetoric and demeanor — Trump hasn’t always been the best at selling himself. It also has a great deal to do with policy; millennials believe the Republican nominee will get involved in another war, and they don’t believe Clinton is nearly as big of a hawk.
In that same poll, 62 percent of millennials believed that Trump would get the U.S. involved in another war, while only 45 percent believed the same about Clinton.
This opinion is largely based on old resentment against Republicans for launching the war in Iraq, as well as some of Trump’s statements on how he wants to “kick the sh*t” out of ISIS.
When it comes to actual foreign policy, Clinton is clearly the more hawkish of the two major party candidates.
During several foreign policy speeches and Republican primary debates, Trump has worked hard to try to separate himself from the foreign policy of Clinton and George W. Bush.
“Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure. We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and thrive,” said in a foreign policy speech on Aug. 15.
He said he would never look to topple over foreign dictators in the hopes of building a democracy, the way Bush did in Iraq or Obama did in Libya.
“If I become president, the era of nation-building will be ended,” Trump continued. “Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of radical Islam.”
Clinton, on the other hand, has a long history of supporting military intervention.
“By any reasonable measure, Clinton qualifies as a hawk, if a nuanced one. Though she has opposed uses of force that she believed were a bad idea, she has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others,” Micah Zenko wrote in Foreign Policy.
Her donors know they can count on her to increase foreign intervention. Clinton has received twice as many campaign donations from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics than Trump.
According to OpenSecrets, Clinton has received more than $417,000 from the military defense industry, while Trump has raised just $116,000.
Millennials should follow the money, the endorsements, the policy, and the people who surround the candidates, and realize a vote for Clinton is a vote for war.
