A Hunch about the Democrats' Foreign Policy

I suspect Obama's Iran deal and Hillary's support for Russian weapons development are parts of a strategy to limit the power of the United States and force US politics to focus on domestic issues, where Democrats believe they are strong and Republicans are weak.

Generally, Republicans are more focused on foreign involvement, and Democrats on domestic involvement. If the Democrats can make foreign involvement much less meaningful, then they force US politics to focus on the Democrats' strengths.

By helping Iran and Russia become militarily powerful nations, they make the stakes for US military involvement overseas much, much higher. In addition, weakening relations with our traditional military allies also limits us. Doing these things will almost certainly lead to a much lower probability of US military action in those regions. This can be used to claim we don't need as much military power and then to reduce our forces, which will further limit our options. (As a bonus, the military is a hotbed of Republican support, so reducing it is always good for Democrats.)

Given our own weakness in the face of powerful foreign forces, they can then, quite reasonably, claim that since we can't do much about what foreign nations do, we should focus on social justice here. Voila! The entire national debate shifts dramatically.

It's just a hunch, though.


Tom said...

As a side note, the emphasis on gun control feeds off the same motivation as limiting the military because it is a majority Republican institution: Republicans commonly see proficiency with firearms as part of their identity. So, the more we can limit the use of firearms, the more we disrupt their identity and force them to focus on areas where they are uncomfortable. (Of course, Democrats who see proficiency with firearms as part of their identity are just collateral damage here.)

They don't care if gun owners disobey new gun laws and become criminals because that, too, weakens their sense of identity and their ability to organize for action.

I can't remember who said it, but one of the strategies of totalitarian states is always to keep people from knowing how many other people are unhappy with the government. It doesn't matter if 90% are unhappy and want change. If every individual thinks they are part of just a small minority that wants change, they will never act.

Grim said...

Sometimes states go too far with that strategy, and get moonshiners or the Mob. Americans, at least, are happy to form new identities as Outlaws when the government goes too far. That's true on the left as well as the right.

In terms of foreign policy, though, I don't know that I believe in the unity of motive between Obama and Clinton. Clinton responds to bribes. She supports Russia here because Russia has paid her off (and, increasingly, because they have her number: the Russians can prove her felonies).

Obama, though, really does seem to want to set up alternative hegemonies in the rest of the world. He wants a big strong EU to restrict America's power over Europe, a strong Russia with control over the northern Middle East in partnership with a strong Iran, and a strong China to which he's really willing to cede the South China Seas.

Tom said...

Well, Clinton worked for Obama when she did this. It looks like a mutually beneficial arrangement to me.

Again, I don't think the Progressive leadership cares about making outlaws. They've been happy with both drug users and the war on drugs: The conflict gives them power. They can support policies that seem sympathetic to drug users, and then use the prevalence of drug use to expand state power in the war on drugs. And which party gets most of the convicted felon vote? Which party's convention votes were rigged? The EJUSA report you linked explicitly said they didn't see irregularities with the Republican vote. I just don't think the Democratic leadership worries about making outlaws.

Tom said...

One more note on my theory of identity disruption: This is also one reason it was essential to allow homosexuals to serve in the military, and women in ground combat units, and for the willingness to fund sex-change operations for military members. For the Democratic leadership, it is important to disrupt the culture of the military.

Grim said...

Disrupting or destroying the cultures of their enemies -- always within the United States, as you point out -- always does seem to be an important part of the purpose. We are told it's about fairness or equality, but somehow the truly disruptive aspects of these laws fall on people like middle class Christian bakers and not favored minority groups with similar objections.

Tom said...

Yeah, it does.

Also, I want to be careful here not to paint all Democrats or all Democratic leaders with this brush. I'm not talking about a massive conspiracy. But all this takes is the core leadership at the top: The president, the secretary of state, the Joint Chiefs, a group of advisors ...

It doesn't have to be all that coordinated, either. For example, as you point out, Hillary and Obama have different motivations, and maybe Obama didn't know everything Hillary was doing. However, Hillary knew what Obama wanted, and as long as his agenda was moved forward, she felt safe doing what she wanted.

It's like the IRS targeting the Tea Party groups. I don't think Obama ordered that, but I think they knew it would help him and, maybe due to the command climate he had created, that he would have their back. So, they felt safe.

Ymar Sakar said...

and Democrats on domestic involvement.

Until there is a foreign war that they can use to gin up political power, then they start foreign wars for America and blame it on others. But later people then say the Democrats focus on domestic involvement, just as FDR promised not to get into wars on the European continent... FDR was lying when he said that, however, but that's not what people remember.

Ymar Sakar said...

So, they felt safe.

Did they become unsafe then?

part of the purpose

It is important to see it as a purpose. Until you do, anyone can justify the Left's actions as a mistake, as misguided, or merely due to incompetence. But only until you accept that it is a purpose, that it is done with intent, can you see the hidden secrets.

Ymar Sakar said...

always within the United States, as you point out

Untrue, as the Left also destroyed US allies in Vietnam, Cuba, and Libya.

Again, the illusion that the Democrats focus on domestic affairs, is the propaganda lie people fall for, and by doing so, they overlook certain details.