The winners and losers of Chris Coons’ foreign policy
Speaking Security Newsletter | Advisory Note for Organizers and Candidates, n°42 | 7 September 2020
Foreign policy is always for some people but not others — as a result, it produces winners and losers just like any domestic policy (so ‘national security’ ≠ security for all of us). I evaluate the foreign policy of Senator Chris Coons from Delaware (of the Foreign Relations and Appropriations committees) on these grounds below. Reading about this guy engenders some serious levels of cynicism, but I promise if you hang in there until the end you’ll hear about his primary opponent, Jess Scarane, and you’ll feel much better.
Situation
Coons is known as “the GOP’s favorite Democrat,” probably for his relentless support for obscene levels of military spending and utter contempt for social programs. Coons has voted for every single one of Trump’s defense budgets (Fiscal Years 2018-21). Factoring in the costs that fall outside DOD budget authority proper, Coons has endorsed a $129.3 billion increase in military spending since Obama’s last budget (FY 2017).
Coons said Medicare for All is “pie in the sky.” But with respect to military spending, we’re already very much in the sky:

^Red box: increases in military spending Coons endorsed under Trump.
Who Coons’ foreign policy is for: The war industry
Take Lockheed Martin, the defense industry giant that has given Coons $33,000 so far this election cycle. Because most of Lockheed’s revenue is derived from DOD contracts, the increase in military spending under Trump probably explains the $4 million+ pay raise for its CEO since 2017:

^Source. Specifically, a $4,256,460 pay boost from 2017 to last year. In 2019, the CEO took home 200x the median salary at Lockheed. The limit in federal agencies is I think like 5:1. This is one reason why defense budgets are basically inequality machines.
Who Coons’ foreign policy is for (2): Coons
So far this election cycle, Coons has accepted $58,476 in war industry campaign contributions. To add insult to injury, Coons is a relatively cheap proxy for defense contractors. Prior to his July vote on the latest iteration of Trump’s military budget, Coons had taken in $54,436 from the defense industry. That’s still a lot (and corrupt), but for the 20 other Senators who voted the same way (against Sanders’ amendment and for Trump’s military budget), the average defense industry payout was over $223,000. Coons’ haul is even less than the average amount received by the 8 Senators who voted for modest defense cuts:

Who Coons’ foreign policy is NOT for: Delawareans
Does Coons vote the way defense contractors want him to vote because Delaware relies on war industry cash? No, it’s the opposite:

^Source.
That works out to $134/person from the 2018 budget’s defense contracts. The average U.S. taxpayer paid defense contractors $1,704 in 2018. So most Delawareans likely end up in the red from the levels of military spending that Coons supports, while Coons himself profits. This is how to flip the bird to your constituents using defense legislation.

^Source.
Who Coons’ foreign policy is NOT for (2): Americans
Voting for the $129.3 billion increase in military spending under Trump implies voting against funding something else, and the benefits that that something else would have brought about. An example:
Jobs created from a $129.3 billion investment in defense: 890,100
Jobs created from a $129.3 billion investment in healthcare: 1,844,700
So Coons effectively voted against creating 954,600 jobs by choosing to align with Trump throughout his tenure. In case there was any question where he stood, he recently confirmed his anti-jobs position by voting against Bernie Sanders’ amendment that would have converted $74 billion in military spending to social spending, which itself would have produced 547,600 more jobs in healthcare than an equivalent investment in defense.
Who Coons’ foreign policy is NOT for (3): Our working-class peers abroad
Coons voted against S.J. Res. 54 (ending US support for Saudi-led atrocities in Yemen) on 20 March 2018, but then changed his mind and supported it on 28 November 2018. Here’s what happened in Yemen (with US support) while he was making up his mind:

^Source. Keep in mind that Coons is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and that we’re literally paying him for this shit).
Jess Scarane for Congress
Through her foreign policy platform, it’s clear that Scarane understands that one cannot be anti-war without being anti-imperialist: the platform includes repealing the AUMF, bringing US troops home, and dismantling the military-industrial complex (in the MIC’s place: Green New Deal and Medicare for All).
But what makes her foreign policies so great is how they intersect with her domestic policies. For example, one of the ways Scarane addresses militarism abroad is by recommending that we “massively scale back foreign military financing” while confronting militarism at home by ending the 1033 program (the domestic component of US military aid). Another example: her commitment to labor rights here extends to our working-class friends abroad. Scarane wants to regulate US multinational corporations “so that they have to pay fair wages in every country they operate in.”
In short: Coons’ focus is on perpetuating militarism. Scarane’s is on improving everyday life for the (global) working class. The election is on September 15.
Thanks for your time,
Stephen (@stephensemler; stephen@securityreform.org)
P.S. — Coons’ foreign policy is clearly appalling. Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank, has given Coons’ campaign $22,400 in this election cycle alone. So in addition to supporting Jess Scarane and other down ballot progressives, please consider becoming a supporter of SPRI. Unlike establishment think tanks (like CFR), we rely exclusively on small donations.