So, if you create a Space Force you need a Space Force National Guard, right? It makes sense, I guess. Of course, it’s not necessary in the strict sense. Space guardsmen can remain attached to the Air Force and Army reserves, as they are now. But if we’re going to treat the Space Force as a legitimate and separate branch of the military, shouldn’t they be organized similarly to the other branches?
You probably don’t care much either way, and I can’t blame you for that. There’s something inherently giggle-worthy about the Space Force and it’s hard to take it as seriously as we probably should. Members of the armed services committees in Congress have to consider these things, however, and they’re trying to hash out the correct structure.
It might not surprise you to learn that some congressional delegations are more invested in the idea of a Space Force National Guard than others. It comes down mainly to money. An independent force will get new facilities and extra spending, and states like Hawaii, Florida and Colorado where much of the space activity is focused will stand to benefit.
So, for example, two of the biggest advocates for the standalone Space Guard are Democrat Jason Crow and Republican Doug Lamborn of Colorado. Both serve on the House Armed Services Committee and they teamed up to pass an amendment authorizing the policy in this year’s annual defense policy bill.
The White House and Pentagon aren’t on board, perhaps for different reasons. The Biden administration thinks it’s a waste of money, while the top military brass wants more control over how space resources are spent without having to deal with the hassle of lobbying from National Guard advocates.
But Colorado, which hosts NARAL and the Air Force Academy could pull in more federal dollars, and so we see this rare example of bipartisanship from Reps. Crow and Lamborn.
This is actually how Congress is supposed to function. Not every issue is partisan, and there is serious work to do. Rather than going on cable news or repeating political talking points, members of Congress should be working in concert across party lines to benefit their states and constituencies. I don’t say this as some wide-eyed idealist. We have to compete with other nations. Our national security depends on us being able to craft sensible policies. That’s done in committees, and it involves a balancing act that takes into account various interests.
The debate over the Space Force National Guard isn’t about empty bipartisanship or centrist posturing. We don’t need every solution to come down to what the most conservative Democrat or most liberal Republican will tolerate. We need more legislating that brings in Coloradans as an interest group, where the state’s interests take precedence over partisan politics.
This kind of work is discouraged by the filibuster in the Senate because bills become all or nothing. When a Republican can get an amendment passed that helps their state, he or she is less likely to oppose final passage of the bill. Yet, if they aren’t allowed to vote on the bill in the first place, what incentive do they have to invest their time in it?
A lot of this cooperation still goes on in Congress, but it’s largely hidden. You can witness it if you watch a bill being marked up in committee on CSPAN, where members of the minority will introduce constructive amendments and actually win support from the other side. But Republicans typically don’t want their own party base to know they’re doing this because it adds legitimacy to whatever Marxist schemes the Democrats are supposedly pushing.
I don’t know if the Space Force National Guard is a good idea or not. But I do know that we need legislators doing more work on this type of issue, and less work on obstructing and undermining the other side.
We’d see more of this if we didn’t have the filibuster because bills would actually come to a vote, and that would give the minority the incentive to play a constructive role.
