Swanson -- Is the Iran War on the Ballot in South Carolina?
Is the Iran War on the Ballot in South Carolina?
According to an email on Tuesday from The Hill newspaper, “The Iran war is on the ballot in South Carolina, where GOP primary voters will determine the political fate of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a steadfast ally of President Trump and one of the Senate’s most hawkish members. Graham is heavily favored to eventually secure the Republican nomination, but polls show he may need to win a runoff first, in what would be a first for the four-term senator.”
Everyone’s first thought upon reading this is, no doubt: “Hope he loses! Good riddance!”
My second thought is: “Really, you’re kidding? Republicans against wars? Against Emperor Trump’s wars? And actually acting on that choice? Really?”
But keep reading:
“The most serious challenger Graham faces is attacking him from the right, hoping to tap into the growing anti-Iran war sentiment in the MAGA base and the frustration from the economic fallout from the war.”
Wait, what? Peace is the “right” now? And mass-murder is what, the “left”? This could get confusing. If I can’t be left, and I certainly don’t want to be right, is there some other direction I can be from?
It gets stranger:
“Mark Lynch, an appliance repair executive, accuses Graham of being insufficiently ‘America First’ by supporting ‘foreign aid packages, interventionist policies, and visa programs that prioritize global interests over American workers and taxpayers,’ in his campaign platform.”
I think this becomes a little clearer if we bear in mind a particular pretense in U.S. culture. You know the pretense that wars are favors to the nations being bombed, that ridiculous pretense advanced by now-abandoned propaganda about wars spreading democracy or human rights, that obscene pretense advanced every time we demand that they “bring our war dollars home” or object to “helping” Europe or Israel with war preparations, or mindlessly repeat phrases like “aid to Ukraine” when we mean to say “weapons to continue the war in Ukraine”? This pretense seems to have taken such firm hold, that corporate newspapers can now lump together as insufficiently cruel to the non-U.S. world:
- Giving foreign nations aid
- Giving foreign people visas
- Mass-murdering foreign people in foreign nations
This may make you want to vomit, but I think there is an upside. If being on the “right” now means opposing wars because they are too nice to people, then being on the “left” could still mean opposing wars because they kill, injure, and traumatize people. That way, we could all oppose wars together for our own “reasons.”
South Carolinians could therefore vote against the warmonger but for the guy who wants more xenophobia, and worry about how xenophobia fuels war at some future date.
Alternatively, opposing war “from the right” could mean opposing admitting the world exists and having anything to do with it whether cruel or kind. Then being on the “right” could mean opposing wars because they happen far away, and being on the “left” could mean opposing wars because they kill, injure, and traumatize people. That way, we could all still oppose wars together for our own “reasons.”
South Carolinians could therefore vote against the warmonger but for the guy who silently supports the incredible military budget (the one that Trump recently remarked would make no sense if he weren’t going to wage some wars), and the vicious trade policies, and the frantic destruction of global ecosystems — and who explicitly supports the militarization of borders, and worry about how all of those things fuel wars later.
https://davidswanson.org/is-the-iran-war-on-the-ballot-in-south-carolina/
Comments
Post a Comment