• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans

Oct 27, 2017
347
#1
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/11...re-militaristic-and-pro-war-than-republicans/

So the Intercept just put out a good piece about polling reflecting a troubling change in values among the Democratic Party's electorate, mainly them becoming more favourable of militaristic/interventionist policies in the Middle East and in Europe as a counterbalance to the GOP's perceived isolationism. This results in weirdness such as Democrats supporting keeping the troops in Afghanistan more than independents and Republicans, when in 2008 a majority of Democrats supported a full withdrawal. Another example is the rapid turnaround of Democratic opinion on inttervention in Syria (negative to positive).

This, coupled with the reverence for national-security state officials, makes me and other leftists concerned about the future of the Democratic Party once Trump is gone. Will the militarism and jingoism continue and for how long? How will it affect our foreign policy going forward?

President Donald Trump’s December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the anti-war wings of both parties, but largely provoked bipartisan outrage among in Washington’s reflexively pro-war establishment.

Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country’s most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump’s decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon.

But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump’s Syria withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump’s announced intention to withdraw half of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping troops there than Republicans and independents.

This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan:
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. “Those who voted for Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS,” Edwards-Levy wrote, “while Trump voters said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility.” (Similar trends can be seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump has moved away from his posture of the last two years — escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians, as he repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign — to his return to his other campaign pledge to remove troops from the region.)
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It’s inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation — which will endure long after Trump is gone — is well under way.
What are your thoughts on this ERA? Do you think that the Democratic Party is becoming too jingoistic or militaristic?
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,190
#2
This is bullshit in every way. Democrats don't want fighting, they just don't want to irresponsibly pull out of bad situations we created recklessly without a plan.

The dishonest hit-pieces just keep rolling in.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,349
#9
>Glenn Greenwald article

Nah fam. Not even once. Life is too short for that Tucker Carlson and Russia apologizing hack

The last paragraph is fucking insane.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,705
Ann Arbor, MI
#10
Glenn Greenwald is a fucking idiot. He has no clue what he is talking about. Yet another useless Bernie Bro who knows jack shit about the Democratic party.

So letting not wanted our anti-ISIS allies being slaughtered by regional powers is jingosim?
Apparently being responsible is now pro-military. Thanks Greenwald.
 
OP
OP
Sokrates
Oct 27, 2017
347
#12
That last blurb in the OP is ridiculous. But that level of analysis is pretty typical for the Intercept.
MSNBC literally brings in the same people that lied to Congress about the scope of the mass surveillance and the drone program. I remember people being critical of these people during the Snowden leaks, then suddenly flipping the script the moment Trump got elected.

Makes me bothered to see the architects of the Iraq War like Bill Kristol on tv too.
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#13
So letting not wanted our anti-ISIS allies being slaughtered by regional powers is jingosim?
To be fair, the situation falls squarely on our shoulders, and more specifically, the poor management of the Syrian Civil War during the previous administration. We exacerbated matters, and in effect have done more harm than good there.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,693
#14
That's because we live in an era where if X is doing something, and he's from the opposite party, you must do Y, the opposite, no matter what X or Y actually are.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,633
#15
How condescending is it to conflate agreeing with specific republicans about our president and accepting all of their views about everything?

We get it, Glenn, everyone but you is stupid.
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,553
New Jersey
#18
Seems well reasoned, but i think he should stipulate that it is a democratic establishment and the media establishment that is attempting to groom voters.

Voters arent any more inherently in favor of this than they are against their own interests. I'm wondering why people are talking about the last quote in particular? We've seen plenty of overtures to the right these days, to the point of MSNBC basically going on a hiring spree of tons of bush neocons on their channel. CNN doesnt even need to be talked about.
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#19
MSNBC literally brings in the same people that lied to Congress about the scope of the mass surveillance and the drone program. I remember people being critical of these people during the Snowden leaks, then suddenly flipping the script the moment Trump got elected.

Makes me bothered to see the architects of the Iraq War like Bill Kristol on tv too.
There was actually an interview on Democracy Now where the guest discussed just that, and how the ex-Obama administration had taken up residence at the news networks.
 
Nov 14, 2017
5,373
#21
Of course Intercept would write this.
You mean Glenn, who consistently misses the forest through the trees. Name one Dem candidate actively running on putting more boots on the ground in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and potentially Iran?

The opposition to the latest pullout was the asinine way it was done, and how deliberately Trump's foreign policy is shaped by his friendship with dictators. Glenn consistently dances around this in all of his writing.

Senate Democrats (and Republicans) unanimously voted to condemn Saudi Arabia for the Khashoggi killings and to pull back from the war effort in Yemen, which Trump continues to support.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,635
#22
To be fair, the situation falls squarely on our shoulders, and more specifically, the poor management of the Syrian Civil War during the previous administration. We exacerbated matters, and in effect have done more harm than good there.
To be frank, said war likely would not have occured if not for HE Bush's illegal war.

But that isnt entirely fait. A grand majority of the population was for the continuation of these wars for decades. It isn't just a reflection of the thr administration, it is a reflection of who we as a population are
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,504
#24
To be fair, the situation falls squarely on our shoulders, and more specifically, the poor management of the Syrian Civil War during the previous administration. We exacerbated matters, and in effect have done more harm than good there.
and the Kurds in their graves will feel better knowing we left to not cause trouble.
 

marrec

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,516
#25
It's a reaction to Trump's isolationist policies but I believe it's also a reaction to the reprieved reality that pulling out of Iraq created a power vacuum which was filled with ISIS.

Also, the intervention in Syria was clearly motivated by humanitarian feelings rather than jingoistic fervor. I believe this is an intentional misinterpretation of the polling by The Intercept, specifically Glenn Greenwald.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,885
Arkansas, USA
#26
That last blurb in the OP is ridiculous. But that level of analysis is pretty typical for the Intercept.
For Glenn Greenwald especially, he comes to his own conclusions as a result of specious reasoning all the time. His life mission is a vendetta against the US security state and it often causes him to miss the forest from the trees.
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#27
To be frank, said war likely would not have occured if not for HE Bush's illegal war.
Sure, but that's irrelevant to the point. We've had Republican AND Democrat administrations now essentially act as outright warmongers. Probably because it's good for business.
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#29
and the Kurds in their graves will feel better knowing we left to not cause trouble.
The irony is that, while they are our allies, so are the people who aim to eliminate them. We certainly haven't done anything in their best interests, from my perspective.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,136
#30
What fucking bullshit.

Questioning Trump's foreign policy is not pro-war. The man has enormous conflicts of interest and makes policy decisions based upon his gut. Not based upon a careful consideration of a nuanced foreign policy derived from reading his daily briefings.

And this ignores:
-Ripping up the Iran Nuclear Deal
-Trump wanting to escalate tensions with Iran
-Trump wanting to strike NK
-Trump also exploring conflicts with Venezuela.
-Trump labeling Canada a national security threat.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,635
#32
Sure, but that's irrelevant to the point. We've had Republican AND Democrat administrations now essentially act as outright warmongers. Probably because it's good for business.
Not sure if my edit addresses this, but remember that we have term limits in place as well that could be a problem. Democrats have been stuck on clean up duty for a while and therefore never gets to be a Santa

History never was, or never is irrelevant. Knowing how we got here is also knowing why we got here now.
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#36
Not sure if my edit addresses this, but remember that we have term limits in place as well that could be a problem. Democrats have been stuck on clean up duty for a while and therefore never gets to be a Santa
I'm not just talking about clean up duty. We involved ourselves in the Syrian conflict further, and ended up arming the bad guys. That falls on Obama, regardless of the origins of the conflicts in the region.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,105
#39
I wonder if this is peak "Trump does it, therefore it's bad".

Trump's odd embrace of withdrawing troops and less intervention in foreign policy is one of the only good things about his platform.

If the Democrats aren't the party of anti-intervention/anti-war, then fuck em. That's a staple of liberalism in my book. Thankfully I'm sure there are many Democrats who agree with me, and this article is not the be-all end-all on this topic.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
#41
Weird how Glenn is now furrowing his brow over Democratic recalcitrance in the shifting Middle East policy, especially considering where that shifting position moves Russia on the world stage.
It's not weird at all, it's Glenn Greenwald just consistently being a piece of shit. The guy was a Ron Paul supporter. This piece is coming from a guy who has no problem getting paid to appear on Tucker Carlson's show. The consistent friendliness with white supremacist types is not an accident.
Who the hell listens to Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Max Boot? They are consistently dunked on.
On foreign policy? No one. Social policy is what's driving people like Rubin, Kristol and Boot to the Dems, not foreign policy. And the foreign policy crappiness is much more containable within the Dems than within the GOP.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,238
#43
Remember how Glenn Greenwald complains about how evil MSNBC is but then goes on Tucker Carlson's show. It's like, my dude, if you want to call US cable news hack pawns of the establishment, then by all means because that's completely valid, but maybe it sort of weakens that argument when you go on a republican propaganda show.
 
Oct 25, 2017
850
#44
I think Democrats actually just want the world order to not be upended at such a critical point. By idiot fascists. In favor of entities that would transparently be worse in virtually every way.

We've got to banish the Republican party before we can realistically sort all of the problems the Democratic party has. That's a consequence of the way we conduct our elections and how the government is assembled. Whether that would happen or not I leave to your imagination, but it's the only chance.
 

marrec

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,516
#46
It's not weird at all, it's Glenn Greenwald just consistently being a piece of shit. The guy was a Ron Paul supporter. This piece is coming from a guy who has no problem getting paid to appear on Tucker Carlson's show. The consistent friendliness with white supremacist types is not an accident.
lol I was being sarcastic
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#47
I wonder if this is peak "Trump does it, therefore it's bad".

Trump's odd embrace of withdrawing troops and less intervention in foreign policy is one of the only good things about his platform.

If the Democrats aren't the party of anti-intervention/anti-war, then fuck em. That's a staple of liberalism in my book. Thankfully I'm sure there are many Democrats who agree with me, and this article is not the be-all end-all on this topic.
I think this is pretty close to what is going on, from my perspective.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,004
#48
Trump isn’t even an isolationist when it comes to the military - he just wants to use it in different places like Iran and the US border.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
#50
That's a lie. I want the receipts.
https://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm/book_number/1812/page_number/2/how-would-a-patriot-act

In his own words, re: Iraq.
Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.
He very much tries to pretend he didn't write this. Unfortunately you can buy the book on Amazon.