The battle over Charlie Kirk’s legacy continues with conservatives’ changing views on Israel at the heart of it. The Israel lobby is shaken, and polls suggest a political “earthquake” may be taking place.
Using that example, is “the war happened because Bush was there.” Popular demand did not matter.
The question then is what happens when popular demand changes and voting habits change as a result? What happens if a fairly earnest anti-imperialist is elected? Trump ran on being against wars (twice, hilariously). He correctly called Hillary a warmonger; he just sort of left out the “and I will be too.” Without a political record to hold against him it was harder, before his first term, to say “he’s definitely lying!”
My point in bringing up Trump (or Sanders putting aside his actual policies and stances and focusing on his “imagined rhetoric” ie how people regard him which is anti-imperialist) is there is clearly a not always subtle, though rarely directly addressed, undercurrent of anti-war from the American populace. Whatever their reasoning people kind of tend to not like wars if they can’t see a justification for them (that’s kind of key though obviously).
The logical next step is if people are truly against unjustifiable (to them) wars, and they elect a real anti-imperialist, and let’s say the CIA doesn’t day one just sort of make their head do a weird thing. Then the US has an anti-imperialist president. Or majority in congress. That president/congress, being actually earnestly anti-war, actually abide by the will of the people to avoid conflicts.
One could argue that hypothetical person will never be elected or they’ll get CIA/FBI popped day one, etc. The fact is though… that could happen. That person could be elected. That’s what Israel and the military industrial complex and all those who suckle on its innumerable teats fear most. They don’t care about opinion right now. They’re gonna do what they want popular opinion be damned. They care about in 5, 10, 25, 50 years down the line. All it theoretically takes is one election to quite literally vaporize Israel.
Using that example, is “the war happened because Bush was there.” Popular demand did not matter.
The question then is what happens when popular demand changes and voting habits change as a result? What happens if a fairly earnest anti-imperialist is elected? Trump ran on being against wars (twice, hilariously). He correctly called Hillary a warmonger; he just sort of left out the “and I will be too.” Without a political record to hold against him it was harder, before his first term, to say “he’s definitely lying!”
My point in bringing up Trump (or Sanders putting aside his actual policies and stances and focusing on his “imagined rhetoric” ie how people regard him which is anti-imperialist) is there is clearly a not always subtle, though rarely directly addressed, undercurrent of anti-war from the American populace. Whatever their reasoning people kind of tend to not like wars if they can’t see a justification for them (that’s kind of key though obviously).
The logical next step is if people are truly against unjustifiable (to them) wars, and they elect a real anti-imperialist, and let’s say the CIA doesn’t day one just sort of make their head do a weird thing. Then the US has an anti-imperialist president. Or majority in congress. That president/congress, being actually earnestly anti-war, actually abide by the will of the people to avoid conflicts.
One could argue that hypothetical person will never be elected or they’ll get CIA/FBI popped day one, etc. The fact is though… that could happen. That person could be elected. That’s what Israel and the military industrial complex and all those who suckle on its innumerable teats fear most. They don’t care about opinion right now. They’re gonna do what they want popular opinion be damned. They care about in 5, 10, 25, 50 years down the line. All it theoretically takes is one election to quite literally vaporize Israel.