Parades Are Great, but We Shouldn't Venerate the Military

America’s founders were deeply suspicious of a standing army.

As military parades go, the celebration in Washington, D.C. turned out to be an innocuous affair and not the triumph of fascist pageantry its loudest critics feared. Soldiers paraded in period uniforms and old and modern equipment rumbled through the streets (and roared overhead) in sufficient quantity to satisfy most history buffs. Nary a uniformed coup plotter was to be found. But the event was expensive, expending tens of millions of dollars to celebrate the birthday of the Army (and the president) at a time when the federal government's profligate ways already have its finances in dire straits. It was also a somewhat odd spectacle for a republic built on foundations that included suspicion of a strong military.

History on Parade

"Joined by tens of thousands of spectators, President Trump presided over a military parade celebrating the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, a pageant of soldiers in Revolutionary War uniforms, Sherman tanks from World War II and heavy equipment from every modern military conflict," reported Aaron Zitner, Joshua Jamerson, and Douglas Belkin of The Wall Street Journal.

The New York Post published video of troops marching in uniforms from the Revolution, the Civil War, both world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the present day.

If, like me, you've dragged a patient spouse (and an eager son) through weapons displays and air and space museums, it was like having a visiting exhibit roll down the road. That saved the price of admission for many people—except, of course, the parade wasn't really free. As Reason's Billy Binion pointed out, the cost of the parade "is currently estimated to come out somewhere between $25 million and $45 million for an approximately 90-minute event." And that doesn't include the cost to repair what that equipment did to pavement, or to gather the leavings of participating horses, mules, and dogs. Repairing and gathering if anybody notices, that is—after all, it is Washington, D.C.

But another cost is incurred by whittling away at the country's philosophical foundations when we unreservedly celebrate the military. While a national defense is necessary and the sacrifices of individual members of the military should be recognized, we should never forget the risks inherent in a large military—risks that preoccupied the founders.

America's Long Discomfort With a Standing Military

In 1776, with revolution underway, Samuel Adams praised part-time militias as the "natural strength" of a free country. He cautioned in a letter, however, that "a standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens. They have their Arms always in their hands. Their Rules and their Discipline is severe. They soon become attach[e]d to their officers and dispos[e]d to yield implicit Obedience to their Commands."

Ultimately, the Revolution was won largely by the Continental Army, with significant contributions from militias, irregulars, and, of course, Dutch finance and abundant French military aid. But that didn't resolve serious concerns about the dangers of maintaining a standing military. Among those worried about what armies had done in the past and might do in the future was James Madison.

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty," Madison warned at the federal constitutional convention in 1787. "The means of defence [against] foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

George Washington, the leader of the Continental Army during the Revolution and the first president elected under the Constitution, had strong doubts about the wisdom of maintaining a substantial standing military. In his 1796 farewell address, he advised those who want the United States to survive and prosper to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

In his own 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower, former supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe, maintained a similar skepticism. He warned that "only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

None of these men were pacifists of any sort; two were former military officers who fought and led troops in combat. But they understood that maintaining a large military is expensive and dangerous. Big, powerful militaries have an unfortunate history of building their own bases of loyalty, exercising influence over policy decisions, and all-too-frequently displacing civilian political leaders to try their hands at governing—usually badly, as they discover that market forces don't respond to orders and open societies are, happily, far more unruly than military bases.

The Military Is One of the Few Institutions Still Trusted

It's no secret that institutions throughout the western world and especially in the United States are shedding public trust. That includes the military. But the military is one of the few institutions that remains in high regard among a majority of the public. According to Gallup, as of 2024, 61 percent of survey respondents have confidence in the military. Thirty percent say the same of the U.S. Supreme Court, 26 percent of the presidency, and 9 percent view Congress with confidence.

Pew Research finds that 79 percent of Americans have confidence the military will "act in the best interests of the public," compared to the 33 percent who say the same about elected officials.

In other countries with similar erosion in government legitimacy, military leaders have been tempted to seize power themselves—and have sometimes done just that. As recently as 2021, military officers in France and Spain openly flirted with the idea of coups, though the efforts, thankfully, petered out. These are exactly the sort of perils that worried Adams, Madison, Washington, Eisenhower, and others.

At a time of rising international tension, the U.S. needs a military that effectively defends the country from foreign threats. But Americans shouldn't venerate that military beyond the limits of its effectiveness in its assigned role or the sacrifices of its members.

An occasional parade can be a lot of fun. But let's remember the potential costs—and not just in terms of dollars, but also to the foundations of the country.