Politics & Power Quote by David Broder

The sting in Broder's line is that it treats a budget choice as a moral tell. Wars have always been sold with lofty language, but they have also traditionally come with a price tag the public can see and feel: higher taxes, rationing, war bonds, some unmistakable sacrifice that makes the costs legible. Broder is pointing at a modern sleight of hand: a war made politically painless up front by refusing to attach it to an immediate bill.

The specific intent is accusatory but measured, a journalist's version of "follow the money". "Declared war without financing it" isn’t just a fiscal critique; it’s an indictment of accountability. If citizens aren’t asked to pay, they’re also less likely to scrutinize. The subtext is that democratic consent has been quietly rerouted. Instead of a public debate that includes tradeoffs, the costs are deferred into deficits, borrowed against the future, and absorbed through inflation, reduced public services, or later austerity. The public still pays; it just pays later, and less transparently.

Context matters. Broder was writing in the post-9/11 era when the U.S. pursued major military campaigns while also cutting taxes and expanding entitlements. That combination wasn’t accidental; it was a political strategy that kept the home front calm and consumerist, as if patriotism could be outsourced to the troops alone. Broder’s dry phrasing makes the cynicism land: the most radical thing here isn’t the war-making, but the decision to spare voters the discomfort that might have stopped it.