I hate to say it, but he’s right. And I know I’ll get a lot of backlash in the comment section for saying so. It’s considered blasphemous to point out the plethora of policy similarities between the two major parties. At least between the establishments of both major parties.
It’s the establishments of both major parties that leads to the “one-party system” talk you hear from people. Grassroots conservative Republicans like Senators Cruz, Paul and others are not part of the establishment. They are actually the few that stand on principle and are the most consistent with the party platform and the Constitution. The rest are just spineless politicians with delusions of grandeur, regardless of what letter follows their name.
We’ve had nothing but establishment presidents over the past several decades, and there are so few policy differences from one party to the next, that we might as well have “one party” running things.
When Republicans go to war, we’re supposed to be supportive. We’re supposed to think of all the justifications. Like, “We have to fight the terrorists over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here” or “We were attacked on 9/11, so we have to go after the people that were behind it, like Iraq and Afghanistan.” Never mind the fact that 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from our ally Saudi Arabia, the same country that is actively arming Al-Qaeda terrorists to wreak havoc on Syrian villages.
When Democrats go to war, we’re supposed to be opposed. All of a sudden we bring up the Constitutionally limited executive war powers and how the power to declare war is vested only in Congress. And even if some third-world dictator is gassing his own people, it doesn’t mean that we get to involve ourselves in their business. Dictators all around the world commit horrible atrocities, and we don’t intervene. Why should Syria be any different?
True, but the conservative might still feel obligated to defend the Bush wars. We might say, “What’s really bad about Obama’s Syrian escapade is that he’s aligned himself with Al-Qaeda and similar organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.” Yeah, well the whole “supporting Al-Qaeda” thing is absolutely nothing new. Our government has been doing that for decades. It’s just that during the Bush years, we were in “justification” mode, and now that Obama is president, we’re in “Constitutional principles” mode.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad that conservatives are arguing the case for defensive-only wars. We’re saying no to aggressive, “pre-emptive” strikes on countries that have never done anything to us and moreover lack the ability to launch a successful attack on our soil. And we’re going to pay for our foreign interventions with what money?
In a recent interview with CBS, Assad said that he had high hopes for Obama, but he’s turned out to be the same as Bush. No change whatsoever:
“I would then tell the President when he have the option ’cause we were disappointed by their behavior recently because we expected this administration [to be] different from Bush’s administration. They are operating [under] the same doctrine with different accessories. That’s it.”
Things don’t change all that much on foreign policy from administration to administration. It’s easy to get caught up in the minutiae to try to convince ourselves that things really are different. But in reality, the policy itself remains the same. You find out rather quickly that just about every establishment politician is pro-war. Democrats aren’t opposed to wars in principle; they just think they should be the ones managing them. Unfortunately, (establishment) Republicans are the same.