Democratic Imperialism
Today, the Washington establishment, including conservatives like Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz, gathered to mourn the loss of one of their leading lights, National Security Adviser John R. Bolton. More surprisingly, progressive Democrats like Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also condemned President Trump’s decision to fire Bolton. The support from liberal Democrats like Murphy is unsurprising, as Bolton’s reputation in certain circles is a “neoconservative”—a term that he rejects.
Understanding recent trends in American politics reveal the secret enemy within our nation, which continues to gamble with taxpayer money and the lives of both American soldiers and foreign civilians. To comprehend Bolton and his role in the Trump administration, we have to consider the origins of neoconservatism.
The neoconservatives began as left-wingers who were strongly opposed to communism and thus advocated military intervention abroad. They couched their rhetoric of liberal humanism in harsh military action abroad: the first success of the neoconservative movement came with the war in Kuwait over thirty years ago, an a supposedly necessary action. Yet American intervention lost its allure after the slow-motion train wreck of the Iraq War.
Historically, liberal progressives were strongly opposed to wars, advocating and marching for peace abroad. Over the past few years, the historic position of the Democratic Party has flipped entirely. While President Obama argued against the war in Iraq, he began to slowly embrace war, with frequent drone strikes and military intervention in the Middle East, most notably in Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton defended a form of interventionism as well, in a striking reversal of traditional Democratic policy. At the same time, conservatives and reactionaries like Tucker Carlson have begun to advocate against NATO-style interventions.
Why has this change occurred? Part of this is linked to President Trump’s opposition to foreign wars, which has provoked a rather stupid change of position between the two parties. Some Democrats, such as presidential candidate Tim Ryan, have attempted to argue that foreign military intervention is fundamentally consistent with democratic values: Ryan lampooned American anti-interventionists for being unwilling to spread democracy through force during the Democratic debates.
I understand these Democrats’ arguments, but they make a fundamental error: they confuse internationalism, the fraternal collaboration of all nations, with globalism and imperialism, the formation of a world order with the Global South revolving in the periphery of a Euro-American axis. A true internationalist would advocate for the rights of each nation, yet opposes unjust interventions for imperialist profit.
Unfortunately, Democrats have prostituted their own positions and values for political gain. The current Democratic strategy is simply to federate all the people in the country who might disagree with President Trump, from mainstream conservatives to socialists. But this opportunistic opposition is foolish. President Trump supports social security; should Democrats oppose it because President Trump favors it?
There is another reason, perhaps, for the sudden change of heart in the Democratic establishment: money. Many influential Republican donors have started to oppose President Trump because he has abandoned some key neoconservative positions, such as opposition to a large federal government or support for American interventionism. Democratic leaders want to capitalize on these former Republicans’ money and support. This strategy was tried by Hillary Clinton, who chose to abandon key Democratic voters, such as midwestern unionized workers, in favor of pleasing moderate Republicans. It spectacularly failed, something which the Democratic establishment has seemingly forgotten.
It’s particularly symbolic to address this issue close to 9/11, the fateful day which has led to so many more deaths than the thousands who died in those two towers. At the time, mainstream Democrats like Hillary Clinton rallied around foreign wars because it seemed politically profitable. Years later, they had to stand before soldiers who had lost their lives and account for what they did. I hope that those in the Democratic Party who realize the folly of foreign interventionism, like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders, prevail. If not, their party will complete a full transformation into the globalist, imperialist party of perpetual war for America.