Who can play the role of "other" now, in place of the communists? The obvious answer is that communists could still play that role, starting with the heirs of Mao and Stalin, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The only reason that's not happening is because the GOP feels compelled to cover up for Trump's corrupt ties to those and other forei…
Who can play the role of "other" now, in place of the communists? The obvious answer is that communists could still play that role, starting with the heirs of Mao and Stalin, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The only reason that's not happening is because the GOP feels compelled to cover up for Trump's corrupt ties to those and other foreign dictators.
I think this is a prime exhibit for hypothesis 2 - it's all contingent. GOP foreign policy is being driven by Trump's personal corruption, not by any coherent, comprehensive political strategy, theory, or movement. If Trump had owed money to the Saudis rather than the Russians, his foreign policy might have looked more like that of the Bush-Cheney administration.
I half agree. On the one hand, we've seen that motivated reasoning can dominate groups. Even to the point of blatant 180s on subjects.
That said, my guess is that the current GOP flip-flop on Russia isn't simply about covering for Trump's corruption (entanglements in Russia). That could be a factor, but it's more likely emotionally driven by opposition. The Dems are very anti-Russia now, so, therefore, Tucker, et al, kinda like Russia. The entanglements serve to strengthen the knee-jerk opposition. This became obvious with the Mueller investigation. I doubt there's a conservative around that hasn't derisively spouted "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
Who can play the role of "other" now, in place of the communists? The obvious answer is that communists could still play that role, starting with the heirs of Mao and Stalin, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The only reason that's not happening is because the GOP feels compelled to cover up for Trump's corrupt ties to those and other foreign dictators.
I think this is a prime exhibit for hypothesis 2 - it's all contingent. GOP foreign policy is being driven by Trump's personal corruption, not by any coherent, comprehensive political strategy, theory, or movement. If Trump had owed money to the Saudis rather than the Russians, his foreign policy might have looked more like that of the Bush-Cheney administration.
I half agree. On the one hand, we've seen that motivated reasoning can dominate groups. Even to the point of blatant 180s on subjects.
That said, my guess is that the current GOP flip-flop on Russia isn't simply about covering for Trump's corruption (entanglements in Russia). That could be a factor, but it's more likely emotionally driven by opposition. The Dems are very anti-Russia now, so, therefore, Tucker, et al, kinda like Russia. The entanglements serve to strengthen the knee-jerk opposition. This became obvious with the Mueller investigation. I doubt there's a conservative around that hasn't derisively spouted "Russia! Russia! Russia!"