The Great Conservative Divide
We’ve all witnessed the complete 180 degree shift Trump has had on foreign policy in regard to Syria. Trump’s decision to bomb Syria has severed his supporters into two factions: those who blindly follow a President with an R next to their name and those who are anti-war.
Candidate Trump preached noninterventionism, America first, and letting Assad and Russia fight ISIS. President Trump gets questionable intelligence – that on the eve of peace talks to end the Syrian Civil War with Assad on top, Assad used chemical warfare against his own citizenry – and decides to bomb them.
Faction One: Blindly Follow their Party
This cult mindset surrounding politics is dangerous. The past eight years we saw the anti-war left disappear into blind allegiance of whatever war their party wanted to start. Either they blamed the problem on the previous administration or ignored it. Obama ended his presidency with a Nobel Peace Prize, the record for being at war every single day of his presidency, dropping over 100,000 bombs and drone strikes, and unanimous support from his party.
All this time, Republicans were criticizing Obama. But it turns out, they wanted more bombs dropped, more people displaced, more terrorism spread, all under the guise of strength. (Pro-tip: Strength doesn’t have something to prove.)
During the Presidential election, Republicans cheered Donald Trump’s America first idea. Hillary Clinton mentioned we needed to intervene more in Syria, while Trump was saying it was none of our business. He became “Putin’s Puppet”. The consequence of this false rhetoric could feasibly include bombing Syria. Was it worth it?
And now, half of the Republicans are cheering on the same idea they booed when it came from Hillary Clinton’s mouth. Or Barry Obama’s drone, instead of Trump’s Tomahawk missile. Politics, right?
But all hope isn’t lost! On aggregate, the Republicans aren’t as bad as the Democrats when it comes to blind allegiance to their party.
Faction Two: The Emergence of the Anti-War Right
Trump’s decision to bomb Syria has given rise to quite a peculiar moment in history.
The media created a new boogeyman during the election cycle, the alt-right. Their “Neo-Nazi” leader, Richard Spencer, was caught raising a glass and yelling “Hail Trump” in salute to Trump’s victory. Outraged followed.
Spencer was consequently called a white nationalist, and accused of wanting to use violence against people with different skin colors. Except, while the entirety of the mainstream media from CNN to Fox News, were pounding the war drums, and bringing Syrian children to elicit an emotional response to garner up support for more military action, Spencer led an anti-war protest.
Let that sink in: the “Neo-Nazi” Richard Spencer is one of the few individuals in Americans not eager for every possible new war. Libertarians share the same values. There is limited support from the left. Only one prominent figure: Tulsi Gabbard.
Other prominent Trump supporters who came out against Trump’s decision to bomb Syria include: Stefan Molyneaux, Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and many more of the paleoconservatives, alt-right, and libertarians.
If libertarians are to ally themselves with anybody, it should be with other anti-war groups. War is the greatest catastrophe of modern times. And it seems that conservatives are more trustworthy with being anti-war than the progressives are.
I applaud the conservatives who are now condemning Trump for his act of war on Syria. This is not America’s battle.
I’d advise the conservatives in support of Trump’s decision to reflect on it deeply, and the possible mayday that could break out as a result. They need to look in the mirror, Trump is morphing into Obama. He needs to be held accountable. Or else he’ll be as indistinguishable from Obama as Obama was to Bush. Sad!