“That’s why it’s hard to broadly paint this new generation of populist Republicans as isolationists. They are not isolationists in the slightest when it comes to Mexico, have mixed feelings when it comes to Taiwan, and are rapidly abandoning a democratic government in Ukraine to the belligerent actions of its authoritari…
“That’s why it’s hard to broadly paint this new generation of populist Republicans as isolationists. They are not isolationists in the slightest when it comes to Mexico, have mixed feelings when it comes to Taiwan, and are rapidly abandoning a democratic government in Ukraine to the belligerent actions of its authoritarian neighbor.
Of course, there is one unifying thread linking these otherwise contradictory positions. Whatever cause Democrats are for as a matter of principle, Republicans are against as a matter of politics”
This is the second time I’ve heard Bulwark people comment on the oddly inconsistent views of Republican foreign policy. And you seem to understand it the best while still expressing the issue in less than explicit terms. So let’s list out the different scenarios and see if we can figure out exactly what Republicans are probably thinking (though maybe not always consciously):
Foreign Policy Interventions As Processed by the MAGA mind:
1. US & Mexico --> closest neighbor & trading partner and no sign or threat of aggression--> skin color? Brown/ religion? Christian but like a weird Mexican Catholic type of Christian not like us--> Action? bomb targets, kill anyone crossing the border, install barbed wire and illegal rotating flotation saws to inflict damage to migrants.
2. China & Taiwan --> China clear aggressor, led by an authoritarian dictator who has made clear his intention of “reclaiming” the territory of liberal, freedom loving Taiwanese against their will --> skin color? Yellow? Religion? Atheist? Buddhist? I don’t know - def not Christian --> Action? confusing...aren’t they basically the same?
3. Russia and Ukraine --> Russia clear aggressor. Previously reclaimed Crimea illegally, close ties with Belarusian strongman, history of killing journalists and poisoning detractors, attacked the independent nation of Ukraine unprovoked. --> Skin color? White. Religion? I used to think they were similar and Russia was wrong but then Jordan Peterson said that Russia was the last bastion of Christian Nationalism (sorry, I meant Western Civilization). Where men are real men who don’t tolerate gays while Ukraine is led by a Jewish dude who doesn’t even dress up when he gives talks begging for money like some welfare queen! And they’re also crawling with Nazis. (That last point seems strange because of the Jewish leader thing but I try not to think about it that much). Tucker said Russia was good and Ukraine was bad --> Action? Stop giving free money and weapons to far away Jews - let Europe deal with it. We need to focus on killing the brown people near us who are bringing in the fentanyl and heroin that we keep demanding because the government made it impossible for people to get pain meds after the opioid epidemic.
According to Joe:
“That’s why it’s hard to broadly paint this new generation of populist Republicans as isolationists. They are not isolationists in the slightest when it comes to Mexico, have mixed feelings when it comes to Taiwan, and are rapidly abandoning a democratic government in Ukraine to the belligerent actions of its authoritarian neighbor.
Of course, there is one unifying thread linking these otherwise contradictory positions. Whatever cause Democrats are for as a matter of principle, Republicans are against as a matter of politics”
This is the second time I’ve heard Bulwark people comment on the oddly inconsistent views of Republican foreign policy. And you seem to understand it the best while still expressing the issue in less than explicit terms. So let’s list out the different scenarios and see if we can figure out exactly what Republicans are probably thinking (though maybe not always consciously):
Foreign Policy Interventions As Processed by the MAGA mind:
1. US & Mexico --> closest neighbor & trading partner and no sign or threat of aggression--> skin color? Brown/ religion? Christian but like a weird Mexican Catholic type of Christian not like us--> Action? bomb targets, kill anyone crossing the border, install barbed wire and illegal rotating flotation saws to inflict damage to migrants.
2. China & Taiwan --> China clear aggressor, led by an authoritarian dictator who has made clear his intention of “reclaiming” the territory of liberal, freedom loving Taiwanese against their will --> skin color? Yellow? Religion? Atheist? Buddhist? I don’t know - def not Christian --> Action? confusing...aren’t they basically the same?
3. Russia and Ukraine --> Russia clear aggressor. Previously reclaimed Crimea illegally, close ties with Belarusian strongman, history of killing journalists and poisoning detractors, attacked the independent nation of Ukraine unprovoked. --> Skin color? White. Religion? I used to think they were similar and Russia was wrong but then Jordan Peterson said that Russia was the last bastion of Christian Nationalism (sorry, I meant Western Civilization). Where men are real men who don’t tolerate gays while Ukraine is led by a Jewish dude who doesn’t even dress up when he gives talks begging for money like some welfare queen! And they’re also crawling with Nazis. (That last point seems strange because of the Jewish leader thing but I try not to think about it that much). Tucker said Russia was good and Ukraine was bad --> Action? Stop giving free money and weapons to far away Jews - let Europe deal with it. We need to focus on killing the brown people near us who are bringing in the fentanyl and heroin that we keep demanding because the government made it impossible for people to get pain meds after the opioid epidemic.