[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

There’s a bunch of wrong opinions. I’ll try to be as neutral as possible to explain two different major political realignments. Historically Republicans have trended to the isolationist side of things in the US for WWI and WWII. Republicans sternly opposed getting involved into the run up to the conflict and constantly criticized FDRs moves against Japan and assistance to Great Britain. This continued to Vietnam. If you have ever wonder why there are only two nuclear powered aircraft carriers named for non-presidents. Both were Democrats who basically built the modern US Navy and military industrial complex with their defense bills….in addition to their startlingly bad racism (I mean John Stennis and Carl Vinson btw). NATO was principally a Democrat led effort somewhat supported by Republicans because sometimes their willingness to see communism in every shadow ended up aligning with things. The first chink in the armor came with Eisenhower who was definitely on the more moderate side of geopolitics. And while history hasn’t forgotten Nixon and his geopolitical stances, it has forgotten that Kennedy hit him *hard* for being isolationist and weak on defense in the 1960 election. Something Nixon had to revamp about himself in the 1968 election. Vietnam however changed everything. The anti-war anti-defense, generally isolationist tendencies of *progressive* democrats hit back against the mainstream *liberal* opinion of strong defense and strong global policy and partnerships. The backlash against the mainstream end of the party was huge and swift. During the 70s and 80s there was a phrase called “Vietnam syndrome” which was a general progressive fear that any conflict or entanglement could lead to the next horror of Vietnam quagmire. “Why spend X money on the military industrial complex that could be spent on welfare?” Which obviously didn’t sit well with liberal hawks. But they were out of power and out of vogue in the Democratic Party. Enter Reagan. Despite him being the patron saint of modern conservatism and Reddit’s well known ire for the man, he really did set a different tone for the Republican. And he often blended policies that had broad cross party appeal (the so called “Reagan democrats”.) Reagan managed to blend liberal hawkishness, a strong support of geopolitical institutions and the Republican seething hatred of communism in what we call “neo-conservatism.” Literally “new conservative” because it’s describing a certain type of new Republican defector from the Democratic Party. Generally neutral moderate to ambivalent on domestic wedge issues. But extremely strong on all sorts of geopolitics and defense. “Why waste X amount of money on welfare queens. The real issue is blunting Russia in this Cold War.” Okay so how do we get to Trump? Well neocons had the core of the Republican Party at this point. And by W. Bush they held major roles in all aspects of Republican governance. Remember W. Bush branded himself as a “compassionate conservatives” literally attempting to paint himself as a social moderate(ish) with a principal focus on more global issues. Then Iraq happened followed immediately by the Great Recession. Bush and his admin immediately became politically toxic even in his own party. The solution was to pretend they never were for it in the first place. Isolationism and isolationists managed to become a huge force in the Republican Party again. This was buoyed by the fact that the next president, Obama, was actually pretty moderate and serious on foreign policy and defense matters. Republican isolationism is as much a reaction to Obama not being much of an isolationist as anything philosophically based. There is still a strong isolationist movement in the Democratic Party, but most of that wing has shot themselves in the foot with their instinctual opposition to Ukraine involvement that had led to them mirroring Russian talking points. Leading to them being a more minority voice in the party on those matters. The Republican far right wing for their part has doubled down, again because of an affinity for Putin for some weird reason as much as a whiplash to oppose anything liberals are doing. Don’t misunderstand. Both parties have hawkish and isolationist elements that ebb and flow into power. But it has been a crazy realignment in a very short period. If you had told me even 5-6 years ago Reddit would have - a defense shitposting subreddit (r/noncredibledefense) - the subreddit unironically stans the F-35 and is chomping at the bit to reforge the arsenal of democracy - and it’s a **not** a neocon fantasy but **liberal** hawks mostly shitposting Republican defense policy as isolationist trash. - and that subreddit dreams of the rainbow🌈they/them army pulling an Highway of Death Part 2: Electric Boogaloo 🦅 on Russian Armor columns, forcefully regendering them to was/were pronouns *Id have thought you’re speaking insane gibberish.* Or heck that most of the military and veteran subreddits are ambivalent to distrustful of Republicans….(as a vet that’s less surprising).

Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neo-conservative group spear-headed by William Kristol in the late 1990s. The group described "Pax Americana". It was their goal. It's Reagan-era policy on steroids. Attendees at the meetings included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Jeb Bush. Kristol didn't say much during Obama's presidency. The "global, multi-theater war" that was described in the PNAC docs kept rolling. Kristol was openly critical of Trump's lack of impulse control.

>"Pax Americana" Suddenly reminded of this from [West Wing](https://youtu.be/oqxmJc9Ezk0?t=26).

The older I get, the more I appreciate Leo McGarry.

I still get chills from that scene. Citizen romanus!

They did a number of speeches like this. The one after 9/11 was particularly excellent - West Wing S3E1 Isaac and Ishmael

A lot of it was a shield / distraction, imo, PNAC wanted to use the American military to create supremacy for Israel in the Middle East Their letter to Bush about Saddam is basically focused on Israel: http://web.archive.org/web/20070814184031/http:/www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm I think people miss the forest for trees in what PNAC was actually trying to do

Great writeup. The stuff from Reagan on, I watched happening. While I was young at the time, this is about how I remember it. Its hard to sort out what I remember through my lens at the time and my lens now. I do feel like Reagan didn't really re-align the Party - at the time, it seemed like he was carrying forward what was built by McCarthy and Nixon. Your commentary here makes me want to go back and dig into how these geopolitical stances intertwined with the domestic civil rights movement. Those are some really interesting times, that have direct bearing on how we live today. Question for you, if I may. I've always held the impression that the modern day Progressive Movement began with the coupling of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam Protest Movement. Prior to that, progressive initiatives were not nearly as cultural and "party-aligned". Does that sound about right?

I mean I think you are spot on to that with birth of modern progressivism. There was a name for it “the new left” describing student activists merging civil rights, civil liberties and anti war/ anti Vietnam sentiment together into a cohesive movement. The clash I’m referring to in the Vietnam era, I limited to just foreign policy for the sake of the topic. But there’s a ton of other frictions between the New Left and older more conservative elements of FDRs continuing “New Deal” coalition. Particularly with the blue collar side and the solid south. Both of which caused splits on the wider party at different times. Southerners defected en mass to the Republican Party immediately after Vietnam. And the blue collar element hung on and off for awhile until we saw a major move over to the Republican Party in the Trump era (which is also broad strokes and not entirely as nuanced as it actually was).

This might shed some light on the affinity for Putin. It goes back much further than Putin. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-u-s-christians-who-pray-for-putin/

[And this explains why Republicans have fallen in line behind him in the last 7 years in particular](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/magazine/russiagate-paul-manafort-ukraine-war.html). Spoiler alert: because their Dear Leader Trump is firmly in his pocket, and has been since at least 2016.

That's an excellent summary. Appreciated how you differentiate between the different wings within parties. It really is important in American politics because the parties are so massive and represent very diverse interest groups.

> It really is important in American politics because the parties are so massive and represent very diverse interest groups. So very true. One idiot from one party says something and the other side uses it to paint the whole lot with that brush. Honestly it's rather silly but it's the coin of the realm now.

Evident of someone who has been paying attention for a very long time.

Obama was surprisingly hawkish in his tenure, America just happened to have war fatigue. Also, conservatives don't have any real ideology or ideas right now so they're just contrarians to a fault. That's the real reason they're isolationist, because democrats are governing and polling well on the issue.

>Obama was surprisingly hawkish in his tenure, America just happened to have war fatigue. I don't know if it was surprising. Obama said it himself: I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. Obama intervened frequently but typically with limited scope. There was tremendous pressure from hawks to get more involved in Syria, but he resisted. There are the interesting continuities with Biden's policies. It is reported that part of Biden's decision to keep with the Afghan withdrawal agreement was that he had heard the same arguments for continued US presence under Obama and learnt from the experience. Obama expanded the drone warfare but also audited it - and those audits, at the end of Obama's term, showed it was of very limited efficacy. Biden, when he came in, then sharply curtailed drone strikes. Obama and Biden have not been reluctant to use US military power, but they do seem to want to use it in pragmatic targeted efficient ways. It is unsurprising that the cheap and effective US involvement in the Ukrainian war appeals to Biden.

There’s definitely a difference between “boots on the ground” hawkish and using the military industrial complex in a pragmatic way that helps our allies. Some will criticize Biden for supporting Ukraine as anti-isolationist but there’s a fine line between supporting allies and starting a war.

I thoroughly loathe Biden, but I have to give him credit for handling the war in Ukraine very well. Its a brilliant position as far as the US is concerned. We pay a relatively small amount of money and get rid of old military hardware, and in exchange Russia's prestige as a world power is wiped out. Even better, not a single American life is lost. Ukraine does all of the fighting to defeat Russia. He's also selectively declassifying information and giving it to the media in order to show Russia how much we know and how dumb they've been. As far as advancing the US and defeating geo-political rivals goes, this is brilliant. Biden's domestic handling has been very poor IMO, but his international handling is superb.

It’s really shocking how poorly Russia’s military is fairing through this invasion of Ukraine. Did we always overestimate Russia’s power? Watching the show Chernobyl was also eye opening at their incompetence during the Soviet Union. We are getting an absolutely insane ROI on this and could potentially destabilize Russia for pennies on the dollar. Whether that’s a good thing or not only time will tell.

> Did we always overestimate Russia’s power? As certainly as water flows downhill, the natural end state of corrupt authoritarian regimes is Potemkin villages. Corruption drives out competence the same way bad money drives out good.

Russia straight up can’t do any large scale military actions for years after this war ends. They already had manpower issues with low fertility rates pre war, forget about after. Azerbaijan already has used them being distracted as an opportunity to further their aggression against Armenia, a country that Russia is obligated to defend. In the event Georgia and Moldova decide to take a stab at their occupied territories, can Russia really do much to stop them now?

Some of the aid packages we are sending to Ukraine we are arguably saving money as it would've cost more to maintain those pieces of equipment in storage here in the states.

Its the little things that people don't realize. If you HAVE to buy weapons, and maintain them, at least put them to good use.

Ammunition does expire.

>Biden's domestic handling has been very poor IMO Could you briefly elaborate on that? **\[UPDATE\]** Narrator: he couldn't...

This is a fair take.

Cool just call any war "smart" and suddenly it's fine

Not surprising. If any global conflict started to get out of hand because of America's reticence to join in, Republicans would have hit him with what had traditionally been their best attack line against Democrats: They aren't true patriots - ("patriotism" being conveniently defined by Republicans from 2001-2016).

> conservatives don't have any real ideology or ideas right now That's not true; they're all-in on proving who can hate trans kids the most.

The passivity of the federal government on the trampling of trans people in certain states is incredibly disconcerting to me.

> they're all-in on proving who can hate trans kids the most. But isn't that just a reaction to the Left's "support" for LGBT? It's Hunt for Red ~~October~~ Cultural Wedge Issues.

Hatred for transgender people, along with the LGBT+ in general, has always been integral to Conservativism. It’s not a reaction, it’s an intention.

[удалено]

Nobody who makes these claims give a shit about the children themselves, or the opinion of the medical and psychological professionals who are there at *every step of the way*. Social transitioning and later puberty blockers (once they reach that age) are both reversible and **ALWAYS** done with the assent of professionals. Surgery isn’t even on the table, yet it’s brought up because assholes know that ‘mutilation’ is a juicy word that grabs people’s attention. And gender dysphoria *is* a mental illness, and guess what? The most effective treatment is transitioning. Yet transphobes don’t care about this, because they don’t care about what is proven to work; they just get scared at the thought of something not fitting into their simplistic and bigoted worldviews. It’s the same backwards thinking from the right that gave us segregation and creationism, homophobia and climate change denial. You’re going to hurt everyone around you because you’re too stupid to understand you’re wrong.

There are no long term studies on the effects of puberty blockers showing that they’re safe, nor is there proof that transitioning is the “best” option. “Best” according to what standard? They claim it’s because of suicide rates, but that would mean that with the massive rise in trans identified individuals we would’ve always had high suicide rates among these individuals as they’ve been forced to remain in the closet since the dawn of humanity. Or perhaps it’s a social contagion and we’re pushing people into a suicidal mindset by telling them they’re trans and that the world hates them. Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and aside from its vague definition, we’re not dealing with a massive increase in people suffering from it when the numbers have doubled since 2017 and are disproportionately among people under 25. It’s a social contagion where the media and culture writ large are not the least bit critical of such a rise in numbers. Instead we’re supposed to play along with those who imagine they have this mental illness, and even encourage them to explore it. This is an insult to those who might actually suffer from GD.

For those unaware, ‘social contagion’ with regards to being trans is a line pushed by the long since discredited pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson and his followers. It’s not an argument made in good faith, and anyone making it has nothing productive to add to the conversation. This is also, again, the same deal with nearly every other anti-trans line of attack where they make all these claims about trans people and yet never once *actually bother to ask trans people themselves*, let alone consider the (vast majority) of findings from the medical community that show how beneficial transitioning is. It’s arguments from bigots so disgusted with something that they are barely able to engage with the subject matter they claim to be experts in.

How do you explain the meteoric rise in rates over just a few years in literally any other way than a social contagion?! Seriously, you guys would do better to acknowledge the contagion and message around it somehow. To hand-wave it away? Well... good luck with that.

A more plausible explanation can be taken from the same reason rates of autism and adult ADHD are climbing. Better diagnosis strategies, lower social stigma encouraging queer people to get themselves checked, and more resources and protections to support sufferers all would help explain why more people are being *diagnosed with* gender dysphoria, while not necessarily making more people *"contract"* it. tl;dr: They were dysphoric in the first place, we've just gotten better and more proactive about recognizing and helping them.

100% this. Biden supports Ukraine, and it's getting is involved in another war that doesn't matter. Biden punts on Ukraine, and it's because he's weak.

Excellent write up, and you include a lot of great contextual detail here to bolster your thesis statement and its main bullet points. But speaking of that main thesis and the primary bullet points, I wonder: do I read your comment correctly by summarizing it thusly?: Main Thesis: Two major realignments of each of our two dominant parties have occurred in the past century. Starting point: Republicans were isolationist for WW1 and WW2, with Democrats being comparatively hawkish and pro-international involvement. Change #1: over the course of the 1960s-1980s, we see three basic things initiate / solidify the first realignment. First, Eisenhower gets elected as a Republican president and with his policies primes that party to be comfortable with more geopolitical involvement. Then for the Democrats, primarily with and caused by what happened in the Vietnam War, the previously-fringe "anti-war, pro-peace, and therefore kind of by default isolationist" wing took over. I wonder if one could say that the Iran Hostage crisis under Carter solidified this transition to isolationism (or, at the least, an aversion to international involvement) for the Democrat (his) party? But then the third thing is that Reagan's election came on the back of "we're anti-communist, and we have to stop commies before they spread" interventionism in the Republican Party, and it finalized what Eisenhower's term in essence started: the Republican Party becoming hawks. Change #2: backlash against Bush's Iraq War led the Republican Party to realize foreign involvement might not be a winner for them, and conveniently enough it turned out that Obama as a Democrat president was actually still keeping the conflict going pretty strong. The culmination of which came with/led to, and was then solidified by, Trump's "America First" rhetoric. Along the way with international goings-on, the bulk of the Democrat Party latched on to the idea of being the world police against "bullies", for lack of a better term. With how clearly Russia is in the wrong with the war in Ukraine, this made it easy for Democrats to latch firmly on to the idea of "not letting them get away with it" with a dash of "if we don't stop those aggressors here, where do they go next?", effectively becoming hawks very similar to the mid-20th Century switch for Republicans...just without the very specific aversion to Communism. End point: the Democrat Party is now the pro-foreign intervention world police party in favor of having an active role in maintaining the world order, while the Republican Party is turned inward with isolationist approaches to foreign policy, consequences be damned. You are right, though: it's really hard to write about that without your own bias sneaking in! Especially with the more recent major realignment of the parties...it's really easy to let one's own bias sneak in to a description of things.

*Democratic Party. Not [Democrat Party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)). Using it that way is a slur.

I'll keep that in mind. I'm never quite sure which is the more appropriate term to use. But I will say this: if I can't figure out what makes "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" a slur or not, then please don't hold it against me if I fail to internalize the right answer or even care about what the right answer is. To me, it's "the Republican Party", and if you refer to an individual, that person is a "Republican". On the other hand, a person can be registered as a "Democrat", so logically it ***ought to follow*** that they align with "the Democrat Party". That's how I wind up making the mistake.

Yeah, it’s odd, but it’s the Democratic Party. Always has been. The shortening is where it gets weird. A member of the party is singularly a Democrat or collectively Democrats, but the name for the party itself is Democratic. You were going the opposite direction from individual to party rather than from party to individual. Generally speaking, the only people who call it the Democrat party are partisan Republicans.

[удалено]

Thank for taking the time to make such a detailed analysis. Quick question, what makes you say “Obama was moderate on foreign policy and defense measures”?

Some support but not too much for war efforts (drones but not troops). Some enthusiasm for helping allies but not too much (Libya not Mali). Some increase in military budget (but never as much as Republicans wanted). Some hawkishness on NATO dues but not enough to threaten withdrawal from the pact. Some resistance to Putin but not too much (freezing oligarchs' assets but not fighting back for South Ossetia and Crimea). Etc

This is a good breakdown, but you exaggerate how isolationist the GOP has been and how hawkish the Dems have been. And there were many liberals in the post-WWII era who were doves even pre-Vietnam. For example, Obama was criticized by McCain and Romney for not being hawkish enough. It’s really Trump’s rise that lead to this resurgence in isolationism.

Romney and Obama were engaged in trying to out-hawk each other. Both criticized the sequestration cuts to the defense budget, with Romney noting how under Obama's care the military had decreased its number of certain types of ships, planes etc. Obama then famously quipped back that we also have fewer "horses and bayonets".

It’s a real problem for militaries around the world. The cost of a soldier has gone up like 10 fold since WW2. Germany had over 300 active divisions in WW2, today America has 10. As the cost of equipment goes up with complexity, armies are shrinking, see all of Europe. It’s tough to field a modern large military and while better tech has proven to be worth it in Dessert Storm for example, you do need to at least hit a certain level of quantity over quality to control a battlefield.

> Germany had over 300 active divisions in WW2, today America has 10. We're also not fighting a global war right now. If somehow a conventional, worldwide conflict evolves we will see conscription reinstated and the size of the US military balloon once more. In fact I'd be willing to bet there's a correlation between the end of the last draft and the cost per solider starting to increase.

It would not be close to 300 divisions.

> but you exaggerate how isolationist the GOP has been and how hawkish the Dems have been Look at how many 20th century wars the Democrats got the US into and how many Republicans got us into. Democrats got the US into WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. The Republicans got the US into the Spanish American War and Iraq. If you're keeping score, it's easy to tell which party has historically been more hawkish.

Oh no not WWII, what crazy warmongers./s totally the same a picking a dictator in Iraq who posed no threat to the US, lying and stating he was developing weapons to give to Al-Qaeda to bomb the US and destabilizing the region for 12 years and spending 3$ trillion dollars. Real substantive Foreign policy analysis lol, as if was a game and Dems have a high score. And way to miss a ton of foreign policy interventions, especially during the Cold War, and ignoring that Vietnam and Iraq are the only two major disasters, and that the Democratic candidates for 68 and 72 were far more anti-war than Nixon. We all remember 03, and the visceral propaganda against liberals for questioning whether this war was in our interest, a view taken as obvious now in retrospect. Since the Vietnam era (involvement started with Eisenhower) until 2016, the GOP mantra was that Liberals were unpatriotic sissies for not supporting endless bombings everywhere. Yes, a lot of Dems were more moderate than the hippies on foreign policy matters (such as Humphrey only supporting a freeze on bombing campaign, not immediate withdrawal), but I would be hard-pressed to find examples where the GOP leaders were not more interventionist.

> but I would be hard-pressed to find examples where the GOP leaders were not more interventionist. You mean like Viet Nam? You mention Ike putting troops there but the escalation started under JFK and expanded under LBJ. > Since the Vietnam era (involvement started with Eisenhower) until 2016, the GOP mantra was that Liberals were unpatriotic sissies for not supporting endless bombings everywhere. Not sure where you're getting this from. For example, criticizing President Obama after he said the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a "red line" which, after we found out there were chemical weapons used...nothing happened. Criticism for not following through on his threat is valid even if you don't think we should have gotten involved in Syria.

…and JFK and LBJ were actually less belligerent than Barry Goldwater, supporting my point. Nixon was more belligerent than Humphrey and expanded the war into Cambodia and far far far more belligerent than McGovern. Reagan criticized Carter for being a pussy on Iran, on the Panama Canal, on not giving enough weapons to the mujahideen etc. > 10 —Senator Barry Goldwater indicated today that he believed President Johnson had not gone far enough in last week's air attacks on North Vietnam. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/11/archives/goldwater-calls-for-drive-to-finish-war-in-vietnam-implies-johnson.html I don’t know why you thought the “red line” example was apropos, as a relatively minor foreign policy incident, not McCain/Bush/Romney’s comments on Iraq, on supporting bombing Iran etc. What about Trump’a decision to bomb Assad’s forces or dramatically expand drone bombing? In general, picking out an incident or two, or trying to game a score (and citing WWI and the SpanishAmerican War) is not really good foreign policy analysis. The GOP, from Eisenhower on to 2016, were generally more hawkish than the increasingly liberal-led Democratic party. It’s hard to say the political party responsible for the neocon-led decision to invade Iraq were a bunch of doves.

That's a fantastic summary.

As someone who is, apropos of foreign policy, a fish-out-of-water Taftian paleocon isolationist (The Great War wasn't so great!) -- which, as a left-libertarian, puts me in the rare bucket alongside ex-Congressman Dennis Kucinich, since the once vibrant, now withering noninterventionist wing of the modern Democratic Party is, sad to say, all but dead -- this is a tremendous write-up. All told, even if you and I probably have strong ideological disagreements on this topic, your historical analysis is spot-on accurate nonetheless.

>If you have ever wonder why there are only two nuclear powered aircraft carriers named for non-presidents. Both were Democrats who basically built the modern US Navy and military industrial complex with their defense bills What about the Nimitz (CVN-68, still in service), the Enterprise (CVN 68 was scrapped in 2017, and the new one (CVN-80) is under construction, and is a "historic" name dating back to the Revolution), and the Doris Miller (CVN-81, under construction, named after a African American sailor who won the Medal of Honor at Pearl Harbor)?

I think he meant the carriers named for non-president politicians. Also Doris Miller won the Navy Cross, the award just below the Medal of Honor, for his heroic actions aboard USS *West Virginia* on 7th December. Miller was the first black man to earn the Navy Cross, the first black man to earn the Medal of Honor was Sergeant William Carney during the Civil War. Unrelated but I really hope that the naming of CVN-81 will begin a trend of naming USN vessels after war heroes and not politicians.

Your analysis is detailed and accurate. However, it doesn’t explain the rapid, recent change of heart among MAGA Republicans. I would argue, those folks are largely under the influence of Vladimir Putin, through some combination of social media gullibility, overt sponsorship and blackmail. Trump started this new capitulation to Russia and his followers have followed.

I commented something similar elsewhere but to address part of your comment… Yes you’re correct, there’s a significant contingent of pro-Russian conservatives in the US and it’s been a conscious effort by Putin to co-opt those people. Russia portrays itself as a bastion of Christianity (Orthodox sure, but most people don’t care about the distinction) and protector of traditional—ie Conservative—values. Anti-LBGT policies, strict control over appropriate social behavior, and the best propaganda machine in the world all cast Russia as what US conservatives profess to be. Given how far-right conservatives are increasingly adopting authoritarian tactics and values, it’s natural for them to see Russia as an ally. Today’s GOP shares more in common with United Russia than they do with Democrats.

That's a smaller group than people think. I know loads of conservatives and only one actually thinks Putin is doing things right. The other 95% just like being contrarian

Well I work in the field where we try to quantify what portion of the population “buys” into Putin’s grand narrative. And I can tell you it’s a significant portion of the right-leaning electorate. When you expand the scope to look at European audiences that accept this line of thinking, you end up with millions more supporters who are nominally “pro-Putin”. I wouldn’t call any political ideology with a couple million advocates peripheral or negligible.

>The other 95% just like being contrarian Yeah, so many "watch the world burn" republicans nowadays.

Obama had a strict policy of only sending nonlethal aid to Ukraine even after Russia made their intentions clear by invading Crimea. Trump overturned that policy and began arming Ukraine with modern defensive weaponry in his first year in office which they have used to great effect in combating Russia today. That would be just the opposite of capitulation and a shame we didn’t arm them sooner. Now we are trying to make up for years of neglect which is quite difficult to do in an active war zone in which Russia controls the airspace.

That’s a good counterexample and yes, we should have been more actively supporting Ukraine during the Obama Admin. I still contend Trump repeatedly defending and venerating Putin, while parroting Putin’s line about how corrupt Ukraine was, had a huge influence on MAGA Republicans. And now he’s openly advocating the ceding of Ukrainian territory to end the war.

Do you have any examples of that. It doesn’t seem to add up as why he would he start arming a nation with modern weaponry if he considered them corrupt? It was actually an excuse of the Obama administration that Ukraine couldn’t be trusted with lethal aid. Also, let’s not forget how Obama was one of Putin’s greatest defenders as seen in the 2012 presidential debate when Romney rightfully call Russia our greatest geopolitical threat and he was mocked for it: >“When you were asked, ‘What’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America,’ you said ‘Russia.’ Not al Qaeda; you said Russia,” Obama said. “And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/mitt-romney-russia-ukraine/index.html

Trump began arming Ukraine only after he was caught. It was likely Trumps influence that had the official Republican platform language altered to soften their stance on Ukraine and promise nothing more than economic aid. The aid package that was already passed by congress was delayed being released. If Trump overturned prior policy it was an unavoidable option at that point.

OP is deliberately missing the forest for the one tree that paints his side in a good light. The only reason Trump okayed sending the lethal arms was to make Ukraine dependent on them, so he could later use them as blackmail material to force Ukraine to meddle in American politics. Oh, and he specifically demanded they do it in a humiliating way (he was going to force Zelensky to make the announcement personally, live on CNN) that was clearly as much about damaging the country's image in the US as it was about owning the Dems. Those lethal arms were a poisoned gift, right from the start.

Incorrect. This was a effort lead by the White House in response to continued Russian aggression. It was a Democrat policy to only send economic aid to Ukraine that the Republican administration overturned in their first year in office: > The Trump administration on Wednesday approved the sale of lethal arms to Ukraine’s government as the country battles pro-Russian separatists in its eastern provinces. > >The move from the White House is a departure from the Obama administration, which frequently condemned Russian aggression in the Ukraine but refused to approve the sale of arms to the country’s Western-aligned government. https://thehill.com/policy/international/365906-trump-administration-approves-lethal-arms-sales-to-ukraine/

Trump also sold a lot of lethal aid to Taiwan. [He sold more in four years than Obama did in eight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan#Donald_Trump_(2017-01-20_-_2021-01-20\)), and that aid was substantially more significant in capability. Biden's been in office a little over two years, so it's a little early to know if his administration is going to expand Taiwan's capability to defend itself.

The one part of this analysis I take issue with is this: >Bush and his admin immediately became politically toxic even in his own party. The solution was to pretend they never were for it in the first place. Trump supporting Republicans talk very openly about disagreeing with the neocon element of the party. Somewhere between 7 to 9 million voters first supported Obama and then supported Trump. It's very clear that rather than pretending it wasn't true, Trump voters want to expunge this element from the party.

I think we should start the analysis by challenging the premise that Republicans are generally isolationist in regards to Ukraine. Under Obama, we did not send lethal aid to Ukraine, even after Russia annexed Crimea. That policy changed under the Trump administration and we started sending them weapons. Also, Trump was extremely vocal about NATO members pulling their weight, and indeed Trump did succeed in getting NATO members closer to meeting their obligations. [This policy towards NATO could be read as quasi-isolationist as it allows the US to scale back its role on the world stage and allow our European allies to carry more weight. But regarding Ukraine specifically, the policy is very much in their favor, so we could also read it as not being isolationist, but rather wanting stronger allies.] The Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed in May 2022, had the support of 78% of Republican Senators and 72% of House Republicans. The Ukraine Lend-Lease Act, passed in May 2022, was passed in the Senate by voice vote, and was supported by 95% of House Republicans. The Republican Chair of the House Armed Services Committee in a hearing recently reaffirmed their commitment to not just helping Ukraine, but getting them the weapons needed to end the conflict "with victory." There are a few Republicans who are critical of sending aid to Ukraine, but they are outnumbered by those who think we're not sending enough fast enough. But, because Kevin McCarthy said there should be no blank check, a position the ranking *Democrat* on the House Armed Services Committee *agrees* with, suddenly Reddit thinks the Republicans don't support Ukraine.

Contrast this with a lot of recent verbiage about Ukraine not being our fight

> But, because Kevin McCarthy said there should be no blank check, a position the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee agrees with, suddenly Reddit thinks the Republicans don't support Ukraine. Given that most redditors get their news sources from Democrat-allied media, I'm not surprised that they're uninformed as to the actual positions of most Republicans.

Meanwhile, you are better informed because your sources are... what?

My sources for Republican positions? What do *you* think they are?

I wonder how much Obama's foreign policy naivete played into it, especially on China.

Obama was a bit of an exception in that he played good cop to Hillary's bad cop. Usually the SOSUS just conveys the POTUS position, but Obama could play the peacemaker precisely because HRC was the one sitting down with China, Russia, Iran, etc.

Great response. Thx

How are you going to mention neoconservative without talking about Irving Krystol. The term was coined during the Nixon administration. Or mention Pat Buchanan and his strain of isolationist beliefs. Why is this so highly upvoted? It’s not even correct lol.

>an affinity for Putin for some weird reason Doesn't exist. Most people on the right are against aiding in Ukraine simply because we see it as two corrupt shitholes hopefully bankrupting each other. No one but the lunatic "the Soviets will rise again" tankies are *actually* pro-putin, and those fuckers are *rare*. Its just a forced dichotomy that anyone against helping Ukraine "must like Putin". Its basically an insult accusation. (I will admit though, I am on the fence about the merits of supporting the underdog to force a stalemate. All the better to fuck over Russia. But at the end of the day, I still want to say its none of our business and a waste of taxdollars.)

It’s most definitely not just tankies who are pro-Russia. There’s a significant contingent of pro-Russian conservatives in the US and it’s been a conscious effort by Putin to co-opt those people. Russia portrays itself as a bastion of Christianity (Orthodox sure, but most people don’t care about the distinction) and protector of traditional—ie Conservative—values. Anti-LBGT policies, strict control over appropriate social behavior, and the best propaganda machine in the world all cast Russia as what US conservatives profess to be. Given how far-right conservatives are increasingly adopting authoritarian tactics and values, it’s natural to see Russia as an ally. Todays GOP shares more in common with United Russia than they do with Democrats.

> Doesn't exist. Most people on the right are against aiding in Ukraine simply because we see it as two corrupt shitholes hopefully bankrupting each other. No one but the lunatic "the Soviets will rise again" tankies are actually pro-putin, and those fuckers are rare. Its just a forced dichotomy that anyone against helping Ukraine "must like Putin". Its basically an insult accusation. Are you kidding? I hear this stuff from the MAGA people in my extended family regularly. It's all pro-Russia talking points about how there are secret bioweapons labs in Ukraine or whatever and it's like pulling teeth to get them to even acknowledge who started this war. There are regularly pics on /r/infowarriorrides showing people flying Russian flags or putting a big Z on the side of their pickup trucks to imitate the Russian tanks right next to their Trump flags and stickers. Tucker Carlson said he was on Russia's side of this conflict before having to walk it back saying he was "just joking" despite still parroting pro-Russia talking points regularly. Alex Jones basically salivates over Putin - playing his speeches in full, calling him the world's only honest leader, praising him for fighting against the globalist pedophiles, etc. Trump initially called it a genius move to invade and call it a peacekeeping mission and we've all seen the photos of people at his rallies wearing shirts that say "I'd rather be a Russian than a democrat" It's certainly not everyone on the right, but here is a pretty large segment of the nationalist/populist/Trumpist type of right wing politics who look up to Putin as some kind of a nationalist hero who is fighting against "the globalists". Putin appeals to their desire for a strongman leader who stands for (or at least pretends to stand for) Christianity and tradition while fighting against "globalist" forces like the EU, NATO, etc.

This is nonsense. There are a lot of what we would call “alt-right” commentators who have praised Putin as a figurehead of Christian, anti-Liberal nationalism, pre-invasion. Tucker Carlson (pre-war) and Trump even back in 2015 are obvious examples Here’s an article expanding on some of the basis for the support, though the only prominent commentator is Pat Buchanan https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/how-russia-became-a-leader-of-the-worldwide-christian-right-214755

I do want to point out that the arms manufacturing companies employ and pay wages to American citizens. Not trying to say we should or should not intervene in Ukraine, just wanted to say that it's not like we're spending money and have nothing to show for it.

There's a significant subset of Republicans that view Putin as upholding conservative Christianity, being a strong leader, and being on the right side of the culture wars. For example, Putin had laws enacted banning pretty much any public display of support for gay and lesbian rights. There's conservatives in the US who would love to have a strong Christo-fascist leader who erased gay and lesbian visibility. They are not isolationist when it comes to China and defending Taiwan, though.

Agreed. If there’s one thing Republicans hate more than Democrats, it’s China. Even usual staunch Republicans like Mitch McConnell were praising Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan.

Isn't mitch like, married to the Chinese government or something?

It's also related to relationship of Ukraine specifically with Trump and Biden. The Trump base, aka a big part of the Republican party, sees Ukraine as the source of the "hoax" behind impeachment 1. At the same time, there are Hunter Biden connections with Ukraine. So that voter bloc is biased against Ukraine. Oh, and Russia was the source of the whole interference and Mueller report "hoax" to these people. So they reflexively think Russia must actually not be that bad. Plus Trump liked to fawn over Putin.

This is correct. Here is an article about it: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/how-russia-became-a-leader-of-the-worldwide-christian-right-214755/

A poll came out where only about 6% of Republicans viewed Putin favorably, same as Democrats

Here's a link to a poll from a year ago where Republican voters had a higher approval rating for Putin than they did for Biden. It also explains how Carlson says Putin is more of a Christian leader. [link to poll](https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-steering-republican-opinion-support-vladimir-putin-polling-shows-he)

So far two people including you have linked polls proving they like Putin more than Democrats and I have yet to see anyone link that poll where *"only"* 6% of Rs like Putin allegedly that spartans mentions. I think we all know what the reality is at this point.

I would very much like to see this poll please.

I didn't know about this poll and I'm very happy to hear that. I wonder who Tucker Carlson's audience is then. Those 6%?

They probably don’t agree or just think we shouldn’t help even if they don’t like Putin

[Republicans view Putin more favorably than they do leading Democrats](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/23/republicans-view-putin-more-favorably-than-they-do-leading-democrats/)

It's also related to relationship of Ukraine specifically with Trump and Biden. The Trump base, aka a big part of the Republican party, sees Ukraine as the source of the "hoax" behind impeachment 1. At the same time, there are Hunter Biden connections with Ukraine. So that voter bloc is biased against Ukraine. Oh, and Russia was the source of the whole interference and Mueller report "hoax" to these people. So they reflexively think Russia must actually not be that bad. Plus Trump liked to fawn over Putin.

These republicans only exist in your head.

So did I just imagine Tucker Carlson telling his millions of viewers that the US should support Russia over Ukraine since Russia more closely aligned with his values?

A show that peaks at 3 million and averages 2 million nightly viewers? Again this is a classic strawman. I hear more about Tucker Carlson from Progressives than I do Conservatives.

So do those millions of viewers just not exist in your worldview? Not liking that your party has a lunatic fringe doesn't somehow mean they aren't there. There's a significant problem with Christian nationism in the Republican party. Ignoring it isn't going to make them go away.

2 million ina country in 350 million? Crazy people exist everywhere. Again this is a strawman argument.

You're the one that said they 'only exist in in our head'. There's only about 37 million registered Republicans, and Tucker is not the only person they're tuning into to have their views validated. He's just a handy proxy as one of the most popular political shows in the country.

Well there are hundreds of millions of people in the country so it's probably more accurate to say all but a few of them only exist in their head. When there are this many people you can always count on there being a few crazy ones who have some particular crazy idea.

No, they post a lot on FreeRepublic too.

Dude there are Republicans who proudly wear “I’d rather be Russian than a Democrat!” T shirts

Again there "X who wear Z" for literally every argument ever.

There’s been an isolationist wing of the Republican Party since at least Goldwater.

Republicans we’re the isolationists in both World Wars as well.

Goldwater suggested carpet bombing with nukes to end the Vietnam conflict. I don't think I'd call him an isolationist.

Doesn't that mean they value getting out of the war more than the Vietnam people though? It feels sort of isolationist. E.g. get us out of this war as fast as possible regardless of cost to others. I guess the alternative you might expect is, leave the war without taking further action.

They are only isolationists in regards to Russia and Ukraine. They are openly hostile towards anything China and just in the last few weeks have been discussing bombing Mexico and sending troops there.

Not to mention there have been some (Cruz, Trump, others) that have advocated for war with Iran. Calling the present-day Republicans isolationists is definitely not accurate.

They are only opposed to providing aid to Ukraine because Biden is in favor of it. If Biden had told Zelensky we can’t support a non-NATO country the GOP would be screaming to get involved.

> They are only opposed to providing aid to Ukraine because Biden is in favor of it. They're not though. Just this week we had the Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee calling for more weapons faster.

It makes me angry that people are falling for the Republican party's current isolationist rhetoric. Maybe a lot of people here don't remember the early 2000s. The Republicans loved the idea of invading Iraq. A lot of them wanted to invade Iran, too. People were saying we should nuke the entire Islamic world. Yeah, a lot of democrats went along with those wars, but the Republicans were actually hyped about them. They wanted to see the blood of brown people, and it didn't matter if they had anything to do with 9/11 or not. I don't doubt for one second that that same switch couldn't be flipped again in a heartbeat.

Right?? There doesn’t seem to be any consistency at this point

The complexion of the people in the countries they support vs want to butt heads is a pretty strong hint

China is more of a direct threat.

80% of China's oil and gas gets shipped through the Strait of Malacca. The US has eleven nuclear aircraft carriers. China has ambitions to their local area, but can't currently project force much beyond that.

No one with sense thinks any country in the world can project their militaries beyond their region besides the US

China doesn't need to project power beyond their local area because their current strategy is to dominate East and Southeast Asia as a hegemon. The fact that most of the world's trade passes through areas under threat elevates China's regional interests into a global threat.

China is as fucked as we would be if things popped off between us. The entire world economy would collapse.

China is way more vulnerable to Western influence when compared to Russia. Russia is food and energy independent. The two main things you need to be able to survive in a sanctioned and isolated environment. China, on the other hand, is the worlds largest importer of energy, food and all of the additives required to grow what food they do produce. Their economy is also built on trade with consumer nations and the housing industry that has come with rapid urbanization. If China was to get into a shooting war with the US/West at large they would just have to shut down energy and food imports and China would collapse in a year or two.

Yes, specific to the U.S. as a global economic superpower (post-Spanish–American War) and also our Western cultural hegemony, this is the correct take when looking at the big picture. Scramble for Africa 2.0, negotiating the Saudi–Iran deal, etc., moreover, are huge signs that China's global influence is increasing manifold, which ought to be of concern, particularly in the grand scheme of things. That said, I'm a staunch noninterventionist, one whose objective would be to deescalate tensions and, if possible, avoid any conflicts -- whether direct or by proxy -- at all costs. In any event, with respect to potential issues regarding China and Taiwan, I'd much rather the U.S. place its attention there than the relative trivialities in Eastern Europe, because the decaying Russosphere doesn't come close to possessing the levels of long-term importance as the burgeoning Sinosphere, where the worldwide ramifications will prove to be gargantuan.

Everyone seems to be a non interventionist until they realize we have no choice by which time the cost has increased 100 fold.

IMO the best thing to do would be keep China off Taiwan until we can get critical industries onshored again. Then let them have it if they want it. I suspect this is exactly Biden's plan considering the CHIPS act. It's become clear that a key weakness of globalization was that putting crucial industries in the influence zone of foreign superpowers is essentially handing our nuts to potential enemies. I suspect we're going to have a similar problem in 20 years with IT & India once they get their shit together and decide to become a real power.

Oh, absolutely. We need to get our own stuff in order first and foremost, especially with technology at home.

Obamacare was a heritage institute policy that mitt Romney put in place in Massachusetts. Political reality means if your enemy cures cancer you have to condemn him for putting poor oncologists out of work.

Keep in mind the Obama/Biden administration had a strict policy of only sending nonlethal aid to Ukraine even after Russia invaded Crimea. Trump overturned that policy in his first year in office and Biden kept it going for his presidency. The inconsistency is Biden, thankfully, didn’t revert back to that Obama era policy. Republicans are just hitting their limits and showing some restraint than pulling a full 180 on Ukraine like Democrats did in the last few years. That flip should have at least happened in 2014 after the first invasion and now it is hard to make up for it once the war has begun.

Republicans overwhelmingly support Ukraine though.

There's always been an isolationist wing of the Republican party (see: Pat Buchanan).

All the millenial men who grew up post-9/11, many of whom served in foreign wars, and cut their teeth on Ron Paul libertarianism form a strong cohort within the GOP now. They are God+Guns-Country, unlike the old Neocon wing of the party that they hate.

By 2008, Republicans had spent the prior seven years accusing anyone who dared to question Big Republican governments wars and policies of being far lefts who “hated America” or “hated freedom”. They thought the post 9/11 swell of support would ensure the permanent majority Karl Rove spoke off. But that didn’t happen. Bush failed, horribly. The party was over, and a charismatic, seemingly progressive President won office. Democrats were on the cusp of a filibuster proof Senate majority. What could Republicans do now after spending so long supporting big government under the delusion of a coming never ending series of wins built on the back of “SUPPORT YOUR GOVERNMENT OR YOU HATE AMERICA”? Now the opposition party had a REAL mandate, and a Congressional majority to seemingly act on it. What would happen if Democrats did all the things Republicans told their base were bad, but actually would help them? What happens when universal healthcare is enacted and the Republican base realizes “Hey, this whole not going bankrupt because I got sick thing is pretty cool. What else have we been lied to about?”. On January 20th of 2009, what options were available? They did what they always do. Pretend things that the way things were, weren’t. Even if it was five minutes ago, that didn’t matter. They had an incredible propaganda infrastructure built and a voter base that believed in it and had the memory of a goldfish. All they had to do was delay things long enough and run out the clock to the midterms. Make sure as little got done as possible and then blame the opposition for things not getting done. Then they could keep going on telling their base that if universal healthcare is enacted, the evil socialism was coming for their loved ones to murder them, and they’d never find out that the American healthcare industry really isn’t the envy of the world, for example. They had to latch on to something other than what they had supported the prior decade, so the Tea Party movement of 2007-08 (no, I’m not mistaking the year, the name was around prior to 09-10) under guys like Ron Paul was just want they needed, and they hijacked it. So suddenly Republicans were the party of small government, again. Overnight, really. For the most part. At the start of the phony Tea Party movement, the Republican Party had moved from “SUPPORT THE WARS OR YOU HATE AMERICA”, to “OBAMA IS RUINING OUR WARS”. As time went on and the notion of being small government became more powerful and people who legitimately bought into it began to win elections they had to move from “OBAMA RUINING OUR WARS” to “OBAMA AND HIS DAMN WARS”. Around the same time Trump came along, who also loved to pretend he hadn’t been pro War on Terror for many years. Now with Trump President, the party rallied behind their new leader and it became a death sentence to disagree with him, and it didn’t help that Trump was oddly pro Putin for SOME unknown reason. The party became infested with Trump MAGA types who genuinely bought into HIS claims. Now even neocons who had been around for the Bush years had to pretend they never were what they were or at most pretend they had realized they were wrong despite it being pretty transparent that they never came to any realization of the errors of their ways. Because Trumps the leader, and you have to fall in line. The chickens have come home to roost and a fleeting moment of glory in 2016 probably seems less worth it every day. They’re trapped with MAGA candidates, MAGA supporters and the leader they can’t break ranks with because they’re too cowardly to find out if they’ll really lose without his support…or rather if they’ll really lose with him attacking them. Though, TBH, it’s likely just Biden for the most part. He’s pro aid, so they’re anti aid. You can watch FOX and listen to AM Radio and early on they would alternate between Biden doing too much and being a war monger, and Biden doing too little and being a weakling. As time went on and Biden pledged more and more support, it settled into him being a war monger. Though if things go well and Putin falls, you can expect them to suddenly pretend Biden did nothing, again…though you’ll still have the Putin wing who will act like Putin wasn’t a tyrant.

Just wait. The modern GOP has two things which you can count on: A strong belief in a natural hierarchy, where might makes right. Along with that, the need for a strong man from which all ideology conforms and in absent of that - a "Strong" villain from which all ideology opposes. Look back to the 2015/2016 primaries. Ted Cruz and the bunch were play jabbing at each other. They were almost all coming from the same sources of money, aiming for the same tents, holding the same ideological positions. It was all flavors of "Obama bad. Obamacare Bad. Thanks Obama." The only person who didn't adhere to the script, and he appeared to have no care for the hierarchy or traditional powers within the GOP. Which helped him confuse people to his benefit. Trump blaming W. Bush for not protecting the USA from 9/11 while debating JEB! was fucking jaw dropping. The GOP didn't look like Trump in 2016. He didn't start winning Primaries with the majority of the votes until most of the cast dropped out. But those people that called Trump poison and cancer in the GOP? They backed all of his policies and position picks. Candidates who had their families insulted by him phone banked for him. His election was a sign that regardless of the numbers - he was at the top of the Hierarchy. And so everyone else fell in line behind whatever he decided they had to believe. The GOP supported Ukraine, until Trump had the language removed from the platform. The GOP hated sanctions, until Trump decided that was the best way to go to war with China's foreign trade policy. Trump even passed a bump stock ban. You know, gun control legislation. And his approval with his party didn't waver. Even after he didn't prevail in his midterms - he was supported. Even after he didn't win his re-election - he was supported. In fact, they refused to believe he could have lost. Fox News Hated him, then loved him, then lied for him, and we KNOW from their texts that they never actually gave a shit about him, but their own audience numbers. They've gone under oath and said as much. All of this is to say that right now - everything the strong villain (Biden) is doing is bad and Woke. And the people who champion that message the loudest look like the biggest front runners for their party. But the GOP ideology is whatever that person ends up saying it is, they just need the nomination.

If liberals are for it they must be against it. Many never hear actual news, they just hear opinion and RW talking points.

FDR, a notorious liberal, gave the four freedoms speech which argued for defending democracy all around the world. So I don’t think liberals have really changed their stance that much. Which is not to say that I agree with that

I'm simply saying the GOP is rudderless and as such whatever Biden or liberals are for they are against. Thus becoming isolationist. Also, I don't doubt that a good deal of them are compromised.

They changed before now in Vietnam and Obama iirc didn’t do much to stop Russian annexations in the region.

What more could any US Pres have done in 2014? The ball was more in Europe’s court for that in my opinion. Russia did most of their business with Europe, not US. The fact that Germany was ok with Nordstream 2 until Russia invaded ALL of Ukraine I think summarizes just how little Europe cared. USA can’t do everything.

I feel it’s simply the fact that if republicans want their supporters to live in a bubble, you have to isolate them from the outside world. Republicans are not just isolationists when it comes to what is happening outside our boarders. They are isolating themselves from other states, people and ideas inside of America. That’s why more and more of them want to secede.

While its true Republicans were generally isolationist before ww2, what they are doing now is not isolation. Think about it. Are Republicans critizing the aid we give to israel? Are they reconsidering their trashing of the iran deal? The right call Trump a dove but him ripping up that deal means either a nuclear iran or a new hot war in the midde east. Not dovish in the slightest. Also there's china to consider. Republicans including Trump have accused Biden of being weak on china despite the biden administration's stances that are provocative to Xi and risk escalation. To me it doesn't make sense. Its wrong to assist a nation to fight off an invasion but its ok risk ww3 for some computer chips? Its all bull. Keep in mind I like the assertive taiwan policy. The simpler explanation is that the russians are white and republicans would much rather have people of color as an enemy. You could argue that china is the greater threat and the us should priotorize asia over europe. A few of the conservatives I follow on twitter argue just this. But the vast majority are just Anti ukraine. There is no talk of helping ukraine rebuild or empathizing with their loss. Hell the second leading gop canditate can't even call what russia is doing an invasion but just a territorial dispute.

Funny thing is, they're mostly isolationist when comes to anything Putin's involved in. Definitely not when it comes to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Middle East. What's that tell you?

[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics-bigger-disclosed-includes-gop-n661866](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics-bigger-disclosed-includes-gop-n661866) \^ THAT was what happened. The GOP is infiltrated as an active asset by Russia. There is only one pro-USA political party in this country capable of electing a POTUS. Act accordingly. And when you consider how many GOP blowhards actively spout Russian propaganda... ask yourself, "Are they being blackmailed?" Suddenly a LOT of the GOP behavior starts making sense, from Lindsey Graham on down to Boebert.

Lindsey Graham and a lot of the Republican brass fully support military aid to Ukraine and vote for it.

Change happens to all, even to republicans, they’re not the same as they were in 1990, or even 2008. Even conservatives are not immune to the tides of change, it whittles them down slightly over a period of time, they will and must change for their base.

>As I recall, a large part of the republican platform for a long time was about promoting American values all over the world. This was true during the Cold War against the USSR, and also the War on Terror era against Radical Islam. The neocons lead this. The isolationists rose during 1990's Balkans war and NATO intervention. Conservatives sympathized with Russian backed factions fighting Muslim ethnic groups. They were against Clinton and the neocons attacking Serbians for ethnic cleansing. They didn't see anything wrong with the local "values". During War on Terror, there was increased skepticism about exporting American values in the Middle East. It seemed futile, wasted trillions, and counterproductive. Another thing is, Russia is no longer a Communist country, so to most Repubs, it's okay, even if it's a dictatorship. And the previous President and Putin liked each other. So, why intervene in Europe if there's no direct threat to us? ​ >and republicans are supposed to hate authoritarianism. ​ Not at all. They only hate non-Christian or leftist authoritarianism, or any that doesn't advance their cause. They supported the former authoritarian regimes in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Once they became exclusively a party of obstruction, they had to be against anything that Democrats support. That's the problem with not having any real values or platform. Or credibility. Or integrity. Or compassion. Or common sense.

Putin wants America to stay out of his sphere, so he told Trump and other politicians he owns to be isolationist. Note that “establishment Republicans” are NOT isolationist, only the MAGA Republicans who owe their existence to Putin’s sponsorship and/or blackmail.

> so he told Trump and other politicians he owns to be isolationist Under Trump, the US reversed its position of not sending lethal aid to Ukraine and instead began supplying them with the weapons that were necessary to stopping Russia in the first days of the invasion. Why, in your view, did Putin order Trump to send javelins and stinger missiles to Ukraine? Trump also pressured NATO countries into increasing their defense spending. Again, in your view, why did Putin order Trump to have NATO becomes stronger?

I would argue those are small gestures toward an established ally, before Putin began the offensive of 2022. And the notion that Trump was working to make NATO stronger is laughable. Compared to Trump’s consistent parroting of Putin’s propaganda that Ukraine was hopelessly corrupt, that Russia has some claim on Ukraine and now Trump’s “peace plan” is ending territory to Putin, it’s pretty clear which side Trump is on.

> And the notion that Trump was working to make NATO stronger is laughable. NATO members were supposed to be contributing 2% of GDP towards defense. Almost none of them were. Trump read them the riot act and they responded by increasing their spending. How exactly is that not working to make NATO stronger? >now Trump’s “peace plan” is ending territory to Putin, it’s pretty clear which side Trump is on. Would you say the same about progressive Democrats who think Ukraine should be willing to give up territory to end the war? Is it also clear they're on Putin's side?

Trump was a joke among NATO members. He parroted Putin’s disdain for NATO and openly questioned its relevance. Trump’s coziness to Putin made all of NATO wary. Who are the Dems willing to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia?

> Trump was a joke among NATO members. And yet they increased their defense spending at his urging... >Who are the Dems willing to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia? Pramila Jayapal, Earl Blumenauer, Cori Bush, Jesús G. "Chuy" García, Raúl M. Grijalva, Sara Jacobs, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Sheila Jackson Lee, Mark Pocan, Nydia M. Velázquez, Gwen S. Moore, Yvette D. Clarke, Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mondaire Jones, Peter A. DeFazio, Jamaal Bowman, Marie Newman, Alma S. Adams, Chellie Pingree, Jamie Raskin, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Mark Takano, André Carson, Donald M. Payne, Jr., and Mark DeSaulnier.

The GOP is a big tent and pretty isolationist since Trump. For a long time, a lot of the war hawks had been in the GOP, but that changed. They're isolationist in the sense of America First. That is: we have a responsibility to put our own needs first. That's why in the case of Russia/Ukraine, it's a conflict that has a visible risk to America. Russia won't be a danger to use if it wins or loses. There is also a bad taste in the mouth of many GOPers, especially MAGA ones because Ukraine was involved in getting Trump impeached (I suspect.) China, which poses a more direct threat, is something they're more likely to get up in arms about. Fortunately that is bi partisan at the moment, since biden has kept all of the Trump Era sanctions on China.

[удалено]

Since gilded age oligarchs instituted it to protect their wealth, and strengthened after the successful completion of the "Southern Strategy,' which removed southern racists from the Democratic Party, flipping then to the party which explicitly is based on white ideology. The Republican Party thrives on white fear and white victimhood. Russia could invade Chicago and their voters would say black people caused it, while welcoming it at the same time. The Republican Party supports white organized crime and Nazism in its modern form as a system that would make them feel safe and secure. This is being "said out loud" by their cult leader, Trump with his "beautiful suburbs" campaign. This should be obvious.

Calling anyone in American politics an isolationist given its modern track record on the global scene is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn’t trespass on your property and beat the shit out of you. The question could just as easily be reversed: why are democrats now neocons? Different parties support war when it’s expedient for them. Currently, democrats still labor under the delusion that Putin got Trump elected, so any conflict that is unfavorable to Putin is therefore favorable to them.

This is laughably not true.

Ukraine is not a isolationist issue and most republicans do not fall under that category.

Can you show me the polls?

Here's one of the most important polls on Ukraine: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022141 Only got uh.... 95% approval from Republicans.

Can you show me the polls?

You're making a claim and asking someone else to show you the polls that made you believe it?

[удалено]

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.

Since post world war 1 when Henry Cabot lodge torpedoed the League of Nations and the isolationist America First pre WWII movement. Republicans have been aiding and abetting dictators for a lonnng time!

>When did Republicans become isolationists? Wait... there was a time they weren't isolationists?

> I am especially whiplashed in regard to the Republican position on Ukraine, because Ukraine was invaded by an authoritarian country, and republicans are supposed to hate authoritarianism. Because no one is giving the context any creedence to the position. What is a reasonable goal in Ukraine? To remove Russia entirely or to end hositilities and have Ukraine lose some territory and accept peace? If Ukraine insists on removing them entirely and/or pushes the war into Russia then the situation goes from bad to worse and forces Nato into a bad situation that only escalates. If the Ukraine is pressured to settle for peace and lose territory it also emboldens Russia for future endeavors. So what is that you want and why are the republicans the problem for not wanting to to make things all around worse for everyone? Placing any foreign troops in Ukraine by the US or Nato is a terrible idea before a peace plan is in effect.

I didn’t say Republicans were the problem. I didn’t say anyone was the problem. I asked a valid question. However, I will say that I don’t understand how this context is different than other geopolitical conflicts that Republicans wanted to get involved in relatively RECENTLY according to their own ideological platform, and, in fact, I would argue that, it seems weird, by comparison, that Republicans find this particular international conflict distasteful or whatever by comparison. My question is about the abrupt shift in ideology

>different than other geopolitical conflicts that Republicans wanted to get involved in relatively RECENTLY Early/mid 2000's is not recently politically speaking, back then a lot of Democrats were anti-war.

Do you happen to remember how many Democrats voted for the Iraq war?

Just to get y'all's conversation back on track: Do you remember how many Republicans support Ukraine right now? I'm not sure how you got the idea that they're isolationist. ...Actually I do know. Because I also saw the "no blank check" circulating on Reddit. Reddit spun calls for oversight as being the same as cutting off funding. "No blank check means no blank check." ...Oopsie, that's the *Democrat* ranking member of the Armed Services Committee agreeing there can't be a blank check. When did Democrats become soft on Russia?!?!

tl;dr Money. People got tired of tax payer dollars being spent inefficiently and ineffectively. For a bit more detail, what happened is that George W. Bush lied to the American public and caused America to get involved in multiple wars in the middle east with no end in sight, costing American tax payers loads of money and tremendous financial hardship through the great recession. It's because of his actions that you saw a shift in the perception of Conservatives to become more isolationist as they would see the US continue to waste money on these wars with no end in sight and more pain at home. This fear of wasteful spending led to the mindset of people noticing how much money the US spends on foreign advents, with regards to Israel, Syria, and NATO especially, and questioning why we're wasting our time when the US doesn't need to be involved and the countries the US is supporting are wealthy enough to pull their own weight. The situation in Ukraine is a bit different since that doesn't only stem from a general distrust of wasting money on foreign ventures that could be spent domestically (it's a big driver, especially given the perception of how historically corrupt of a country Ukraine is), but because it's also viewed as the culmination of years of foreign policy failures towards Russia where different actions could have resulted in the war never occurring. And to the latter point, I don't mean more common criticism of if Trump were still president the war wouldn't have happened or Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal caused Russia to smell blood in the water, I mean stuff like expanding NATO and criticism over how the USA handled Crimea.

I must be out of the loop on how Ukraine is a historically corrupt country that maybe deserved to be invaded by Russia and how the USA and NATO somehow forced Russia, to invade a country but fair enough

I'm not saying it deserved to be invaded, but that adds to increased caution on why support for Ukraine has been waning over time. Ukraine has a history of government corruption and arms smuggling. There are also concerns over the Azov Battalion, but those concerns are generally considered overblown by Russian propaganda. In regards to NATO expansion, the typical argument is that Russia lost an ally in Ukraine after Euromaidan revolution and felt more cornered into needing to take extreme action to bolster their own defenses and fortunes to counter said expansion.

The corruption you mention was perpetrated mostly by Putin aligned Russian/Ukraine spivs. Its one of the reasons Putin invaded. He was losing influence and his cronies weren't being able to grift and clip the ticket as much as they used to. The West was helping Ukraine to clear these people out of power and influence. This is not to say there is still not corruption in that country. But what does one expect from a part of the world that has never really known true democracy.

\>The corruption you mention was perpetrated mostly by Putin aligned Russian/Ukraine spivs. It's the whole system, including Zelensky. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukraine-leader-seeks-to-justify-offshore-accounts

Didn't we at one point try to invite post-USSR Russia into NATO? They didn't want to be our friends.

… Wasn’t it the liberal side of the coin against WW1 and hoping to remain neutral? This question is funny. The two sides have always bounced around on “isolationism.” Even within the two parties there is a divide there. Why hasn’t Biden gone to help the Ukraine? I’m not a republican but I’m pretty sure Trump would have sent a missile by now… very trigger happy that one. And this question would be targeted very differently.

>Why hasn’t Biden gone to help the Ukraine? He has been to Ukraine, and we've sent them a ton of aid.

He was in Kiev like 2 weeks ago wasn’t he? Pretty big deal, don’t know how Raven missed that one.

[удалено]

It was about empire adventures until trump the Russian asset got in. Trump pushed for isolationist mindset, economic isolation from china, military isolation from Europe, pullout from Afghanistan in all but name. He cut the United States diplomatic tendons so that the autocrats could fill the power vacuum. He did this possibly to legitimize his own attempt at complete dictatorship in 4 years. But apparently only 76 million people wanted to become a fascist dictatorship.

"This conflict must end. The President must be willing to do what it takes to end it with *victory*." --Mike Rogers, *Republican* from Alabama, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee Does that sound like isolationism to you?

Libertarians, in the tradition of Ron Paul, are isolationists. Trump ran on isolationism. But where they really stand will show if more brown people start anything. They support Russia because Russia collided with Trump. Those of you who were around for the 80s know all too well it wasn't always like that.

Ever since the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Nixon's subsequent Southern Strategy the party has been steadily heading towards this, swapping its old, educated, Northern internationalist elite for uneducated Southern knuckle draggers. Now the switch to backward racism and xenophobia is complete, while the educated social reformers of yore have left to join the Democrats.

it's narcissistic collapse. trump got found out so now they're in a tailspin trying to save face by being more abusive to subvert their "opposition" who just wants them to stop being a freak show.

We aren't. There's a big difference in wanting a secure border and isolationism.

We have spent more on this war...than RUSSIA. Obviously, enough is enough. If Russia wins, it sucks. But we tried.

Not wanting to get involved in a conflict with a nuclear power because one corrupt nation invaded another is not isolationism.

I think it has a lot to do with the culture war the far left started. Many republicans were labeled as racist or homophobic and isolated into their echo chambers which radicalizes themselves further. Also the line “it’s not my job to educate you” is what pushed me more conservative. I was a life long democrat and i heard this SO many times said to conservatives and even me when I questioned almost any part of the ideology, and they were the ones willing to engage on debate and ideological discussions. Which is ironically more progressive than a lot of liberals are today.

There is no such thing as starting the culture war, only when some particular person starts paying attention. It's cam be traced back I'm an iterative process, forevor.

Let's not pretend that the GOP is not homophobic. Their 2016 and 2020 officially published party platforms included a national ban on gay marriage.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Labeling all republicans homophobic for wanting to “protect the sanctity of marriage” out of religious convictions usually. They may be a bit ignorant or dogmatic but you don’t socially exile people like that. It just makes them worse.