[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Trump’s Foreign Policy Reveals the Tribal Nature of Our Politics When President Trump decided to pull US troops out of Syria, anyone under the naïve impression that the famously peace-loving Democratic party of the past two decades would hail his bold end to American military adventurism in the Middle Eastern nation was surely disappointed. For these benighted few principled voters, the stark political realignment on this issue has offered a masterclass in tribal politics. Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton bellowed, This president is putting our national security at grave risk. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, called Trumps decision to exit Syria dangerous. Yet, politicians flip-flop all the time, so the about-face among the now suddenly war-hungry Democratic base was the real surprise. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll from early January, nearly 60 percent of Clinton voters oppose Trumps move to exit Syria, with just 26 percent in favor. Among 2018 midterm voters who supported Democrats, the numbers are similar: 54 percent disapprove of the presidents decision. Likewise, after President Trump decided on December 20 to pull half of our troops out of Afghanistan, the same poll showed Clinton 2016 voters opposed by a margin of 47 to 37 percent. To be sure, Trump was also heavily criticized by Republican insiders who are known for their reflexive war advocacy. Trumps friend, Senator Lindsey Graham, called the decision a huge, Obama-like mistake. To Senator Marco Rubio, it was a catastrophic mistake. But the surprise here is that these hawkish Republicans are suddenly out of touch: the GOP base, which has typically been eager for war, now favors their presidents withdrawal plans, as Glenn Greenwald recently detailed in The Intercept. What is going on? Why are Democrats, two-thirds of whom wanted a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan in 2011, now suddenly the party urging continued war? How is it that Democrats opposed President Trumps efforts to make peace with North Korea on the grounds that he was not strong enough? Whatever happened to the Democratic Party that agreed to the 1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea despite multi-decade criticism from Republicans? The fact is that political parties are not defined by principles but by posturing. Parties survive by maintaining the perception that they disagree with their opposition. After all, if they didnt distinguish themselves, why would anyone vote for them? So if Republicans flirt with foreign nonintervention, its almost inevitable that the Democrats wind up warmongering. This particular pattern of tribal politics usually begins with a political entrepreneur, like Trump, who adopts a policy that beats the opposing party at its own game. Former President Bill Clintons tough-on-crime and tough-on-immigration agenda in the 1990s was calculated to undermine the Republicans in just this way. President Trumps about-face on Syria and Afghanistan is even more clever in that it simultaneously snags the Democrats traditional nonaggressive image and reverses Obamas old policies. In contrast, Trump couldnt and wouldnt adopt the Democrats dovish Iran Deal precisely because it was Obamas policy. Even though the political entrepreneur flipped on political principle, his or her base was likely to continue their support because tribalism requires loyalty. Trump was correct when he once said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldnt lose any voters. And so it isnt surprising to find the Morning Consult-Politico poll revealing strong Republican support for Trumps dovish policies. Likewise, when Barack Obama reversed course on central campaign counterterrorism issues like closing Guantanamo Bay, his base still supported him. But what is tribalism without a rival tribe? The party opposing the political entrepreneur reverses course merely for the sake of opposition itself. What else could explain Republicans visceral resistance to President Obamas health care plan, which was in part a repackaging of Republican and conservative plans from the previous two decades? To be sure, this doesnt always happen, but its bound to happen more often in polarized climates. Hence, Democrats knee-jerk opposition to Trumps embrace of international retrenchment. None of is this to say that Trumps pullout is a good idea (it is), or that his ideas are fully-baked (theyre not), or that he is a military dove (far from it). Its just that when Trump says yes, Democrats are compelled to say no, because that is how tribes operate. In this way, both parties depend upon each other. As the Joker said to Batman in The Dark Knight, I dont want to kill you. What would I do without you? ... No, you complete me. When Republicans become doves and Democrats become hawksagainst voters expectationsthey fulfill their roles as opposition parties and survive another election cycle. And thus, they complete each other, principle be damned.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
When people talk about tribes they are automatically stupid.
Seriously? Whatever you say princess. Perhaps it's just that someone with your limited intellectual prowess can not see that politics is exactly that - tribalism. The fact is that political parties are not defined by principles but by posturing. Parties survive by maintaining the perception that they disagree with their opposition. After all, if they didnt distinguish themselves, why would anyone vote for them? So if Republicans flirt with foreign nonintervention, its almost inevitable that the Democrats wind up warmongering.
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
Oh it's tribalism. The saying of a diaper doper baby.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|