The American Left’s Abandonment Of Diplomacy

in Philosophy/Politics by
   

In history, there has been both diplomacy and war. At times, diplomacy saves the world and other times it provides false hope we’ve averted chaos. War can be successful in defeating an enemy, in other times it can be a demoralizing failure. The various events in history teach us there is a time and place for fighting and the same for talking.

In modern politics, the same can be said. In recent years, war has escalated. In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attack of September 11th, the United States has become a global leader in a war against terrorism. While presented as a noble quest against evil, it is actually a complicated web of global politics.

Liberals opposed war under former President George W. Bush. While many Democratic politicians initially bought the anti-Iraqi propaganda and supported the invasion, many grassroots liberals were skeptical from the beginning. Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant, but was he worth going to war for. Furthermore, would destabilization of the region be worth the cost?

More importantly, in addition to opposing war, Democrats stood up for diplomacy. Under the administration of Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, Democrats again sought to avoid war with a popular Republican target. Iran’s nuclear program was a cause for concern for many, but the Obama Administration felt diplomacy and an open channel of communication was the better option.

Historically, diplomacy has saved us. Back during the Cuban Missile Crisis, former President John F. Kennedy may have saved the world from nuclear war through calm diplomacy and refusing to turn to aggression.

The importance of open communication seems to have lost. With the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the American left signaled their principled endorsement of diplomacy was dead. Even if there was common ground with the new Republican President, it would not be utilized. Even if there was a moment to communicate, they would not talk.

Starting with the inauguration, riots broke out across Washington D.C. Violence broke out against political opponents and area businesses. In the time since President Trump’s controversial immigration executive order, angry mobs have flooded airports and reacted with hostility towards Uber for serving customers who didn’t have a role in the President’s executive order.

Why did the American Left abandon diplomacy? Perhaps a more important question should be raised regarding whether they ever actually believed in it.

Senator Bernie Sanders has signaled there is common ground with President Donald Trump on trade, but often resorts to heated rhetoric that only worsens tensions. There is common ground with liberals on opposition to war, but instead, the partisan war is worsened. The Uber CEO was intimidated by angry liberal activists for merely agreeing to be a part of a council of prominent business leaders, even though this council could be a positive forum for communicating policy concerns.

Is diplomacy dead? Is aggression the future for liberals? The trend signals dark days ahead and the potential for chaos is particularly disturbing. For all the talk of President Trump being dangerous, progressive extremists are showing themselves to be more of a threat to American stability.

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.