Re: [Marxism] Liberals (and leftists) Keep Calling Donald Trump a Dove

[mkaradjis . via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Yep, Amith is right: Trump's statements on Palestine are now way to
the right of Clinton's. Even to the right of Obama, who within a year
or so of becoming president, so completely betrayed his initial
pro-Palestine comments that he was labelled, not wrongly, the most
pro-Israeli president in US history (despite his personal tiff with
Bibi), and has signed onto the biggest US "aid" package to Israel, or
to any country ever, in history.

Wow, what a relief that Charles Davis has finally put together this
excellent article. I have no brief for Clinton, of course, or of
calling her a "hawk," but I was having trouble with the question of
"hawk compared to who," since the only relevant comparisons were with
either Obama or with Trump. She may be no dove compared to either, but
she is also no hawk compared to either. Not at all. Not on Palestine,
nor Syria, nor Iraq, nor the drone wars. Even if Trump now says his
2003 support for the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, how does that
differ from Clinton who now says her 2003 support for the invasion of
Iraq was a mistake.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:39 AM, A.R. G via Marxism
 wrote:
>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> Should add he also went 180 on Palestine and backs full-scale Israeli
> confiscation of the West Bank.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Amith
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/mkaradjis%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Liberals (and leftists) Keep Calling Donald Trump a Dove

[A.R. G via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Should add he also went 180 on Palestine and backs full-scale Israeli
confiscation of the West Bank.
>
>



-- 
- Amith
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Liberals (and leftists) Keep Calling Donald Trump a Dove

[Tristan Sloughter via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-calling-donald-trump-dove

Why Do Liberals Keep Calling Donald Trump a Dove?
Only in America could proposals to bomb at least three nations and
indefinitely occupy another be labeled “isolationism.”
By Charles Davis
August 3, 2016

While the Democrat made the case for liberal militarism, the Republican
attacked the interventionist status quo. “Yeah, I’m not so sure the role
of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way
it’s gotta be,’” he said, as if he’d read his Chomsky. “I don’t think
our troops ought to be used for what’s called ‘nation-building,’” he
continued, lashing out at occupations that had killed U.S. troops and
civilians alike. “I think what we need to do is convince the people who
live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing
something here.”

That was in 2000 and that Republican, George W. Bush, put America’s
perceived interests first after winning the race for the White House—by
ignoring effete international prohibitions against aggressive war,
bypassing the United Nations, and unilaterally invading Iraq. Now, 13
years later, there is another Republican, Donald Trump, railing against
the “arrogance” of U.S foreign policy in a race against a Democrat whose
record is marked by support for war, including the one launched by the
last conservative critic of liberals with bombs.

Bush’s change of heart should give the opinionated class some pause:
running against the foreign policy of those in power is what those
seeking it for themselves do. And past critiques of another person’s
wars are often forgotten once a critic becomes president and starts
looking forward to starting wars of their own. But making the same
mistakes over and over again is the definition of punditry and, in this
the second decade of Bush’s wars, a bloated demagogue’s version of
Bush’s 2000-era rhetoric has led some commentators to ask: Is Donald
Trump woke?

“Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk,” a column by The New York Times’
Maureen Dowd, was what seems to have kickstarted a rash of takes in the
mainstream media depicting Trump as something of a belligerent peacenik.
“The prime example of commander-in-chief judgment Trump offers is the
fact that, like Obama, he thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid
idea,” Dowd wrote. (Trump actually supported the war back in 2003, but
has called it a mistake in 2016, when it would be a mistake not to.) He
wants to “end nation-building,” she wrote, positioning him to “the left”
of Hillary Clinton.

Others have suggested that the Republican candidate wouldn’t stop at
ending America’s nation-building occupations.

Is Donald Trump woke?

“At least President Trump would ground the drones,” declared The
Guardian’s Simon Jenkins, attempting to view a poisoned chalice of white
nationalism as half-full. “Trump’s foreign policy line has been clearer
than his domestic one,” Jenkins argued, describing the former as “a
revival of Republican isolationism.”

The Intercept likewise described Trump’s foreign policy as “know-nothing
isolationism.” While noting that the billionaire is “hardly the
candidate of peace,” Rania Khalek argued that, traditionally,
“Republicans have represented the more militaristic extreme.” Today,
with Trump attacking Hillary over U.S. policy in places such as Iraq and
Libya, “it’s not so clear.”

The Nation has more than just hinted that Trump might be the lesser
evil, in terms of dead foreigners. “Donald Trump Could Be the
Military-Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare,” reads the headline of a
story by national affairs correspondent William Greider, which argues
that Trump, “usually bellicose in style and substance, is singing, ‘Give
peace a chance.’” Indeed, the Republican nominee is proposing “a radical
standard for testing U.S. policy abroad, both in war and peace: Is it
actually in America’s interest?”

One popular online activist has even suggested it’s the
anti-imperialist’s duty to back Trump because, proto-fascism aside, at
least he won’t start another war. American “privilege,” Cassandra
Fairbanks wrote, is what “allows you to vote for a woman who has
destroyed countless lives in Honduras, Libya, Iraq, and on.” Left-wing
filmmaker John Pilger has called Trump a “maverick,” suggesting he’s the
lesser evil in a race against Clinton because “he doesn’t want to go to
war with Russia or China” (the U.S.’s bombing partner in Syria and the
manufacturer of all its goods, respectively). The less vulgar version of
the sentiment is expressed in a popular meme among cynical realists:
that the 2016 election pits a guy who will get people killed at home
versus