The Myth of the Right Wing Warmonger
There is a supersaturated meme which highlights that any right wing candidate is quite possibly a fascist, and that right wing presidents are literally Hitler bringing us closer to worldwide doom. The doomsday clock, that ancient relic drug out of mothballs, has been ticking ever closer to apocalypse. The doomsday clock is the most likely a predictor of American Hegemony, the last time it was so close to midnight (i.e. total world destruction) was when Reagan was president in 1984, virtually the apex of American power. Let’s look backward throughout the 20th century in how the dynamic of right wing bullying plays out.
World War I was important because after the Spanish American war the American appetite for Imperialism was lacking. Many factions were against American involvement in what was essentially a struggle between two European imperial powers (Germany and Britain). Southern Agrarians were mostly opposed, as were women and most church leaders (except for Episcopalians) The people in support of the war were mostly wealthy businessmen who wanted to trade with Britain and France. Wilson campaigned in 1916 on keeping America out of the war, and his Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, resigned rather than take up the fight. The catalyst to American entry into the War was the sinking of several trade ships, and Wilson’s effort to persuade Americans to join the war centered around a desire “to spread democracy around the world”.
Uh-oh. Does that sound familiar? This was the first time in American history the American public was sold on the idea of war independent of the interests of the American people. As the draft was mandatory, the interest of the people mattered little. Of course certain business interests profited, and it was good strategy to show up to a war late, with millions already dead on both sides, to strike the deciding blow for victory. It signaled the rise of American hegemony, or at least a seat at the European table. But one could hardly imaging the thin and frail-looking democrat Professor Wilson as a war monger, but he most certainly was. In the aftermath of WWI he strove to subsume American sovereignty under the League of Nations. History books may say the League of Nations was unpopular, (it was) but so was the Great War, and Republicans Harding and Coolidge won overwhelmingly on isolationist policy. The 20s gave way to roaring success as both radio communications and highway infrastructure exploded throughout the US. By the end of the 20s, 1 in 5 Americans had an automobile. This dwarfed the total number of consumer automobiles throughout the rest of the world combined.
This massive expansion of infrastructure and radio communication was real wealth developed by the US in peace, with low immigration rates. The automobile industry raised wages as well, causing a victorious circle of progress. Even after the Great Depression, Americans looked to government rather than industry, but they were still reticent to fight a war in Europe. Franklin Roosevelt, another democrat, promised , “not to send any American boys to any foreign wars”. Americans were not going on any nation building adventures , and it took Pearl Harbor to spur them to action.
WWII did cement America’s role as a national power, and the USSR-USA entente dominated world events for the rest of the century. But the dynamic I want to illustrate here is a corollary of Teddy Roosevelt’s “Speak softly and carry a big stick” approach to foreign policy. Republicans following WWII were no longer isolationists, but they “Spoke loudly, carried a big stick, and waved it around a lot, not hitting anybody (much).” I’ll give an example. Truman, another democrat (see the pattern) goes to war in Korea, and Eisenhower, campaigned for peace in Korea, and negotiated for armistice rather quickly. As commander of the armed forces in Europe, he did not have to prove his toughness. But he was a strident anti-communist and the airwaves were filled with patriotic propaganda. Eisenhower governed as a centrist and massively expanded the interstate system, producing infrastructure upgrades and generated real wealth for all Americans.
By comparison, Kennedy in the ’60s, after 7 years of relative peace, had been boxed in by perceived weakness on Cuba and Vietnam, and Vietnam’s disastrous escalation by Johnson (another democrat) was finally put to a halt by Nixon, a republican. Nixon also had the approach of tough on communism, and taking his ball and going home from war. Later, Reagan mightily increased military spending and talked tough, but didn’t get involved in a shooting war during his administration, while finally bringing down the Soviet Union and opening up the Iron Curtain after 70 years. Liberals were afraid of Ronnie, that he was going to push the button, and the result was absolute victory.
So, now we have four democrats that have gone to war, and no republicans, all the way up to the 1990s. And the GOP were supposed to be the John Waynes, the tough guys. It all has to do with perception and projecting an image.
Which brings us to the Bushes. Hindsight is 20/20 but it seems that if you were a war machine manufacturer, without a draft you have to change strategy from total war with heavy casualties, to asymmetric perpetual warfare. Now, war is like a low grade autoimmune disease for the US, as opposed to a life and death existential struggle. We have fallen back into the trap set originally by Wilson, to spread democracy around the world, just because we can, with no threat to Americans whatsoever. I remember as a kid hearing that Saddam Hussein was like Hitler, and we have to protect Saudia Arabia. I also heard that if the US doesn’t go into Kuwait, then Israel will, and that’s a whole other ball of wax. It’s been 25 years since the first Gulf War and 6 trillion dollars later, what do we have to show for it? Three thousand casualties in Manhattan? Unlike any of the previous wars, no real treaties have been signed or honored, the sovereignty of Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, and Syria laid to waste and militant jihadis taking over everywhere. George HW Bush was always thought of as a wimp, with his “kinder, gentler BS” talk, and Clinton acted as good cop to Bushes bad cop, all while maintaining a no-fly zone in Iraq and bombing stuff when he needed a distraction. George W Bush perfected the macho act and unlike his dad, never withdrew in his term from Iraq or Afghanistan. But he liked to be called a “compassionate conservative”. Obama, for all his talk of peace, may have actually caused MORE destruction by outsourcing to the Saudis (and others) to goof up the rest of the ME. Fam, I’m telling you when a politician says they want to spread democracy, or they are compassionate, believe the complete opposite. They are the worst killers. The belligerent, the jerk, the bully may be the most peaceful guy in the room, just look at Reagan, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and even Nixon.