How does Trump get a peace pass from the far left?
There is anger on the left — from would-be Bernie supporters to passionately anti-war Stein supporters — that is entirely understandable. Conflict wages around the world, as it has since the dawn of civilization. Often, the U.S. plays a role when it concerns our allies, or our enemies.
Many times throughout history we have been the aggressor: Bush’s fatuous foray into Iraq; Eisenhower’s Guatemalan coup; the Discovery doctrine invoked to justify our own occupation of American soil. Our military-industrial complex continues to provide arms for the conflicts of nations we have no quarrel with. It is deeply concerning, and worthy of pause and reflection. It warrants great caution in our consideration of actions around the globe, and their consequences.
But we have come a long way since our experiences installing a banana republic in 1954. We learned our actions have unintended effects, more often than not. Enough to merit an apology to the Guatemalan government by President Bill Clinton, our nation 45 years the wiser by then.
Foreign policy: It’s complicated.
But sometimes, one must stand up to the bullies of the world — because if comes a time when you are brought together at the edge of a precipice, they will not hesitate. Or flinch.
Shall we leave our allies alone in the dark night full of terrors, as Green Party candidate Jill Stein has proposed?
And if we do, how long before all the mad dictators and insurgents around the world rush in to the vacuum our absence leaves? If we pass the buck to Europe, is Europe prepared to face reconstituted Russian aggression alone? Does Peacing Out create the conditions for peace? Does isolationism decrease hostility? Does ignoring the unpleasantness in the world make it go away?
It’s the power, stupid.
Have we not learned by now that power is the greatest and most dangerous drug — a portentious pill every autocrat feverishly crushes up and injects. Tolerance develops swiftly, and no other plan exists save the search for ever-increasing dosage.
Are we taking no lessons from our own situation here at home?
“There’s no difference now between fame and infamy. Fame is insatiable. People demand fame forever, and they live like an open wound to stay famous. People now do bad things and they’re rewarded for it.” — Ricky Gervais
Do we really deep down believe that Hillary Clinton chose a life of public service and endured over 40 years of scathing attacks from vicious, sociopathic detractors for the sole purpose of one day seizing power and devastating the world — but that Donald Trump given the same powers would be Mostly Harmless?
How do we hold this strange paradox of decrying executive plenary power to command military forces in the name of our nation around the world, while maintaining belief that an utterly vengeful madman in that role would somehow be held in check? And by whom?