Geopolitical rivalry provides legitimacy for policies that undermine economic freedoms. Many of these are justified in the name of “national security,” which too often functions as a euphemism for militarist policies that foment aggression while starving the welfare state. The consequences of militarism stretch far beyond the battlefield, worsening economic inequality and foreclosing even the prospect of economic democracy, which operates on the presumption that economic disenfranchisement breeds electoral disenfranchisement.

What does economic inequality have to do with great-power competition? Much more than you might think. Congress and the White House currently direct resources toward the national security state and away from programs and policies that support the public welfare. There is no inherent compromise between investing in defense over social welfare—but in the United States, we have a politically imposed trade-off between “guns and butter.”

What does economic inequality have to do with great-power competition? Much more than you might think. Congress and the White House currently direct resources toward the national security state and away from programs and policies that support the public welfare. There is no inherent compromise between investing in defense over social welfare—but in the United States, we have a politically imposed trade-off between “guns and butter.” The book cover for The Rivalry Peril, white and black type on a red field.

Geopolitical rivalry provides legitimacy for policies that undermine economic freedoms. Many of these are justified in the name of “national security,” which too often functions as a euphemism for militarist policies that foment aggression while starving the welfare state. The consequences of militarism stretch far beyond the battlefield, worsening economic inequality and foreclosing even the prospect of economic democracy, which operates on the presumption that economic disenfranchisement breeds electoral disenfranchisement.

Such a claim might be jarring to some because war can, sometimes, supplement economic prosperity. Mobilizing for World War II helped end the Great Depression and initially contributed to the postwar boom. The outbreak of the Korean War offered a boon to U.S. unions and the U.S. manufacturing base during the early 1950s. So-called military Keynesianism has provided well paying, often unionized jobs for thousands of Americans since the early Cold War.

But in times of widespread and extreme inequality (which is the case today), war, or “great-power competition,” creates greater economic precarity. Not only does rivalry empower the already powerful; it further marginalizes the powerless. Great-power rivalry with China has helped concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, rather than creating a healthy econom