"Some do of course but the majority, from what I can see, oppose offense spending, the huge expenditure of funds designed to not repulse invaders at our own borders but instead to play policemen to the world and make boogeymen out of any culture not our own. "

There is zero threat of the military of either Mexico or Canada from invading. Nor is there any threat of any other country using their military to invade the US.

THEREFORE, if you assume that the only use of the US federal govt having a military is to repel invaders from our borders, then, if you are honest, you are against ANY military spending. [At most you would support a state national guards with primary purpose of handling natural disasters and any large scale rioting. With provision that federal govt could use these forces in the unlikely event of an invasion.]

But it's simply isn't true that Dems don't want to spend money on the US military- the Democratic Party has been a major political party since the founding of this nation and from the period of the "world wars" the dems have been mostly in favor in have a strong US presence in the world whereas the Republicans "got lost in the wildness" because they had tended to be isolationist.

The primary purpose of the Federal govt is foreign relations and maintaining the nation security against hostile powers- but these can be boring to the voter and politicians want to promote those things which will get them votes.

You **could** say that the federal govt is at war with it's individual states- and has a sort of constant Marshal Plan.
The only reason the federal govt is involved in all matters normally involving the individual state, is because of the notion that these states have failed in some way.
So the federal govt is fighting a war against it's "failed states"- so from this "angle" everything federal govt spends money on is actually military spending.

This "war" with the states is traceable to when the US was actually at war with it's states- the America Civil war.