Tulsi Gabbard is What Donald Trump Could Have Been
Regardless of what one might think of Donald Trump or his most ardent supporters, many people voted for him in 2016 not just as a rejection of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton but as a protest against the entire political system. Prior to 2016, a Clinton or a Bush had been a major candidate in 8 of the last 9 presidential elections, and “no more Bushes, no more Clintons!” was an often-seen refrain. Voters from both parties were unsatisfied with the choices they faced.
Trump was the perfect candidate for the perfect time. If you’re looking for an outsider, you can’t get more outsider-y than someone who wasn’t even a politician. Trump had promised to be the voice for those who had been neglected, to get us out of interminable wars that the establishment from both parties had gotten us into (recall Maureen Dowd’s column “Donald the Dove, Clinton the Hawk”), to make America great again. He was rude and nasty and vulgar, but that was what Republican voters were looking for, someone who wasn’t PC who would fight! He was a crook who donated to Democrats, but that was just someone working a corrupt system. He was someone who might have assaulted women sexually, but those women were all lying anyway, and what about Bill Clinton? Many people didn’t buy it, but enough did, in the right states, and Trump was elected.
And yet, those who elected Trump hoping that he would change things have to be disappointed. We are still in Afghanistan. Mining and manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. The economy is chugging along but not exactly booming. The sophisticated corruption that the Clintons exemplified is gone, only to be replaced by petty corruption more fit for third-world banana republics.
And what has changed has been for the worse. For the most part, Trump has governed as a cartoon version of an evil Republican. His foreign policy seems to be to do the opposite of whatever Obama had been doing rather than based on anything coherent. Trump didn’t start this trend but the total war attitude against all enemies in politics is consuming both parties and he is the worst example. His election has emboldened the far right. The worst aspect of his administration are the people who work for him. His inability to take any criticism about anything considerably narrows the field of people who would work in his administration, to the point where it’s a relief when he appoints someone halfway competent to a position.
The Democratic primary is about who would be best to replace Trump. If you want to go back to the way things were in 2015, then by all means go with Joe Biden. But if you thought there was something deeply wrong with politics back then and want someone who would make the changes Trump promised but hadn’t, then I can’t think of anyone better than Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard served in the National Guard in Iraq from 2004-09 and is currently a member of the House representing Hawaii’s 2nd district. Her critics dismiss her as a Russian stooge and an apologist for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, but her record shows she has been a consistent critic of the projection of military force by the U.S. and the deployment of troops to foreign theaters, and a supporter of de-escalation of conflicts around the world. She opposed U.S. involvement in Syria but contrary to her critics she has criticized Assad as a “brutal dictator” and has said that there is “no disputing the fact that [Assad] has used chemical weapons and other weapons against his people.” She opposed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and U.S. support of the Saudi-led involvement in Yemen. She voted in favor of Obama’s deal with Iran and opposed Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal. Gabbard has said that she would withdraw from Afghanistan, and while other candidates have made the same promise, with Gabbard there is a record that backs up those words. Gabbard also has a record of supporting veterans and has pushed for and introduced legislation that improves their lives. With Gabbard as president we can expect a foreign policy based on principled skepticism of American military intervention and one that looks out for the interests of those who serve.
It is true that Russian media online has taken a liking to Gabbard, but there is no evidence that the feeling is mutual or that there has been any contact between Gabbard and Russia. It’s likely that Russia favors Gabbard because of her position on Syria. But just because Russia takes one side of issue doesn’t mean the U.S. should take the opposing side, and it is that didactic thinking that leads to unnecessary conflict.
Gabbard has proven she is willing to be unconventional and disagree with her party in areas other than foreign policy. Trump managed to turn his vulgarity from a liability to an asset, riding the wave of opposition to political correctness and identity politics. Of course, Trump has taken it entirely too far, and some of the opposition to identity politics was in fact merely identity politics for white people, with deadly results. Gabbard has a record of standing up to political correctness, without the extremes that Trump takes it to. Gabbard was the first Samoan American and Hindu to serve in Congress, but does not trumpet her identity. She has talked about identity politics as “being used to kind of tear people apart for political interests, rather than remembering and recognizing what unites us.” She criticized Obama for refusing to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism”. She is a supporter of free speech and has attacked tech companies for banning views they disagree with.
Trump was supposed to be an advocate for the working class but has done little for them. Here, again, Gabbard could deliver what Trump hadn’t. Gabbard is one of the few members of Congress who do not take donations from corporations. She supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. She has proposed making community college free for all Americans and four-year colleges free for those under a certain income threshold. She supports universal health care and has co-sponsored a bill that would create a government-run health care system.
And then there’s the debates, which showed she is not just a fringe candidate but deserves to continue to be on the stage with the other major players. She destroyed Kamala Harris when attacking her record as prosecutor. Arguably she has had the best and most consistent performance through the two debates. After both debates she was the most searched candidate on Google. While you can say this is partly because she’s mostly unknown, it is clear that when people see her speak they want to hear more. If given the platform that some other candidates have been given she could easily rise to the non-Biden top tier, because she presents a vision that is simply not shared by any of the other candidates.
Many candidates promise change, but Tulsi Gabbard would represent real change to our political landscape.
Tulsi Gabbard is the somewhat leftish answer for Sarah Palin. I don’t find her principled anti-interventionalism to be that principled since it more or less means allowing Russia and Iran to do what they want in Syria. Furthermore, she is much to the right of the Democratic Party on Domestic issues. She is a poser.Report
wait wait wait
so now Iran is a problematic influence in the Middle East and we should oppose them?
Russia does have global imperialist ambitions and we should deploy uniformed American regular military forces to directly combat Russian forces?
wasn’t that the kind of thing that Trump said and people immediately started screaming about how this was a prelude to the nuclear destruction of the human race?Report
I am just pointing out that her anti-interventionism is very selective and has a lot of blind spots.Report
So she’s arguing for military intervention all over the world, just Very Specifically Not Syria?
Like…where, exactly? Can you give some examples?Report
I could see her signing an agreement with Vietnam over limited US basing rights in Da Nang just because the surf there is awesome.Report
There is no reason to believe that Syria would be the same as Iraq or Egypt or Libya and anyone who expresses skepticism that we should go over there again and kill people again is morally unserious.Report
but something something transphobia that we’re DEFINITELY SURE EXISTSReport
Until she split with Obama’s Middle East policy, Tulsi was being hailed as the party’s up-and-coming JFK. She is what many on the left say they’re for, and what many Democrat politicians aren’t really for, even though they try to claim they are. Tulsi makes them sound like Republican hawks or defense lobbyists when it comes to Syria or Russia, yet she’s a steely eyed warrior instead of a pacifist hippy.
She strikes me as someone who would make a President that would, during a shooting, be criticized for trying to shield her Secret Service detail, exposing herself to drag the injured ones into her limo so she could start plugging chest wounds. I can’t say that about any other candidate.
Months ago I saw a small town-hall meeting with Giffords from some tiny little spot in New England. She was in a room with a bunch of older ladies, all apparently somewhat neurotic, who were talking about how they were being poisoned with chemicals in their water, their detergent (it turns out that there’s a lot of chemicals in household cleaning products), and whatnot.
My initial reaction was “Tulsi is in political Hell.” She was stuck listening to a handful of grey-haired crazy people while other candidates were staging big rallies and fund raisers. But I kept watching. Tulsi wasn’t just sitting there, she was listening with every fiber of her being. She engaged them at length, and in depth, and focused on what she could do to try to solve the problems they had brought up, like a medic scrambling to figure out how best to handle the shattered limb of a soldier hit with IED blast. I saw no concern for how she might look, or how she could parlay something into a campaign position, or what other people might think. She just focused on what the people felt, got immediately in sync, accepted that the “patient” was rattling off tons of useful information, and tried to incorporate what they knew with what she knew to try and do as much good as she could, along with laying out the most useful avenues of approach in Washington.
She’s not a politician at all. She’s a problem solver who’s realized that she’s going to have to lead if she’s going to solve problems, and in doing that she might take more fire than anyone.
I don’t agree with her foreign policy or her economic policy, and she may not lead where I want to go, but she certainly won’t lead people into a place they do not want to be unless there’s no other recourse.
I think the question is whether the powers that be in the Democrat party and the media manage to sink or sabotage her before the public comes to realize how good she is. I’m betting they do because she’s a big threat to their cozy little club.Report
I don’t think the headline is the winning statement you think it isReport
Tulsi was the first Democratic candidate I liked for fairly obvious reasons. I’m a non-interventionist with regards to foreign policy and can think of about 1,000 better things to do with all of that money. I also think, y’know, talking to world leaders (even the mean ones) is a smart foreign policy. Her and Williamson should be supporting each other on that front.Report
Well, on the flip side, I’ve pointed out that we don’t actually get to save all that money we list as going to foreign wars. It’s not like we don’t have to pay soldiers if they aren’t deployed abroad, and all those planes and ships cost just about as much to operate whether we’re dropping practice bombs in Arizona or real ones in Afghanistan. So some of the savings are completely illusory.
We also don’t want to fall prey to the “no-war” attitudes that beset the victorious allied powers after WW-I, when they became so insistent that war was to be avoided at all costs that their former German opponents concluded “They won’t fight. We can just walk in and take everything!”
In some ways, Trump is avoiding war because nobody wants to be the one example he’s going to use to illustrate American military prowess and total air dominance.
Victor Davis Hanson, in his book “The Second World Wars”, puts much of the blame for the war on the allies, including Stalin (who switched sides and betrayed everyone he allied with, repeatedly). Hitler and Hirohito didn’t want to start a global war because there was no way they could win it, but they didn’t think they were starting a global war because the allies gave them every indication that nobody big was really going to fight them, much less everybody that was really big.
So the Axis leaders thought they could just pick off a piece here, take a little territory there, and then push this or that country over, undeterred by the obvious numerical disparities they faced if the rest of the world jumped in with both feet, because obviously the rest of the world wasn’t going to jump in with both feet or the message wouldn’t be “peace peace non-intervention and more peace”.
However, Tulsi might be fully cognizant of that problem, and her message might be calibrated to fighting wars that in the larger picture are of limited and transient importance. Were she to go further in the primaries, she might shift or clarify her message, and were she to win the White House she might prove quite tough, wise, and pragmatic.
I do think part of her message about withdrawing from Afghanistan will have to change because Trump is already doing that, so by the time the general election rolls around it will probably be either a dead issue or an issue that he already wins.Report
“the Axis leaders thought they could just pick off a piece here, take a little territory there…”
yeah, uh, that’s not the kind of thinking that leads one to invade fucking RUSSIA
although you’re right that American leaders making strong unequivocal pledges of Noninterference did result in World War I and the Kuwait invasion.Report
Well, they didn’t start out with Russia. They started out with a lot of little border wars. Unification with Austria, rolling into the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and then into Poland, which led into the Phoney War. Elsewhere Finns were fighting the Russians. It was perceived at the time as a sequence of little European border wars, all lasting a few weeks or less.
Then the Germans rolled through Belgium and took most of France, and then into this country and that country, while the British and Germans and Italians rolled back and forth in Africa, to little effect.
The thought was that in the Great War France had fought tenaciously all the way through, but against the brilliant new German weapons and tactics they had been overrun in weeks. If they surrendered so easily this time, the Russians should prove even easier to beat because they surrendered en mass during the Great War, gave up, and overthrew their own government instead of fighting Germans.
So Hitler said “We just have to kick in the door and the whole place will collapse like a house of cards.” He was still thinking it would be a short, quick border war, just one that brought a whole lot more area under his control.
Nothing indicated to Germany or Japan that the US would do anything. Hitler was bombing America’s cousins in London and we didn’t even send fighter squadrons to help out, just some equipment and supplies that we were willing to loan them. The Russians were desperate for US aid and our initial response was “You were siding with Hitler and took half of Poland. Talk to the hand”. Roosevelt was insisting that he would keep the US out of the war. So knocking out the Pacific fleet and Pearl Harbor, sweeping across the Pacific, and then reaching a negotiated agreement with America seemed easily achievable.
It turns out, ironically, that Germany wasn’t prepared for WW-II, and they’re the ones that started it.
The point is that the Axis couldn’t possibly win the war against the Allies because they were just three not very large countries with limited manpower and resources. But our failure to warn them of how much hurt the allies would unleash let them start the war thinking they wouldn’t really have to fight some globe spanning war of existence.Report
Hilarious look at MSNBC interviewing TulsiReport
I don’t know if I would vote for Gabbard today, but I do like her and I think she is having the right conversation with regards to foreign policy. These supposed adults that insist you confront problematic world leaders when you meet with them have either never been in a leadership position themselves or simply believe that emotions are the most important factor in foreign policy. I’d love to see her as Secretary of State.Report