It may be an old playbook, but as every good football coach knows, as long as the play is working, you keep using it. In this case, the “playbook” of what some call the War Party is to dismiss anyone who dares to question America’s intervention in the Russia-Ukraine War as “siding with Putin.” This was well illustrated in the Republican presidential debate last week, and in the days since, as candidate Vivek Ramaswamy was accused of siding with Putin.
Of course, Ramaswamy did not “side with Putin,” but simply questioned the wisdom of the United States involving itself in a foreign war, as has been done for the past several months. The belief that the United States should have a non-interventionist foreign policy was hardly questioned until 1898 and the Spanish-American War. It was a belief held by the first three presidents of the United States — George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.
Yet, holding to the same policy position as those three men gets you branded as incorrect at best, and somewhat disloyal to America at worst.
Ramaswamy did not defend Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — all he did was oppose any more financial aid to Ukraine. But former Vice President Mike Pence condemned Ramaswamy’s opposition to giving billions of dollars to Ukraine (and thus risking war with a nuclear-armed Russia). Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley was particularly harsh in her criticism of Ramaswamy’s non-interventionist position, arguing that Ramaswamy was siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and “choosing a murderer.”
Ramaswamy elaborated on his views on the war between Russian and Ukraine on Friday, arguing, “I personally think that actually is the best [allowing Russia to keep the territory they took by force], reasonable outcome for Ukraine. At least it comes out with its sovereignty intact — and saving a lot of Ukrainian lives in the process. That’s the best case, realistic scenario for Ukraine.”
In an Associated Press article about the controversy, only critics of Ramaswamy’s view were quoted, including elected officials and Republican activists. Former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad said he liked Ramaswamy’s “commitment to traditional values,” but called Ramaswamy’s non-interventionist foreign policy views “a real problem.” Branstad praised Haley for taking him “to task on that.” A Republican activist in Iowa said Ramaswamy’s views on the war are “a little bit scary.”
This is how the War Party frames the issue — trying to keep America out of a war in eastern Europe is “a little bit scary.” One would think that possibly getting into a confrontation with a country that has nuclear missiles would be “a little bit scary.”
The War Party is composed of both Republicans and Democrats. This bipartisan group is quick to question the patriotism of anyone who does not advocate a belligerent foreign policy. While the Republican Party was the more non-interventionist political party at one time — Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio in the 1950s, and vice-presidential candidate Robert Dole of Kansas condemning “Democrat wars,” in 1976 come to mind — it seems that even Republicans who are not too bad on other issues are just itching to flex our military muscle.
Unfortunately, the Democrats might be counted on to oppose foreign adventures if a Republican is in the White House. But since the Democrats have been using Vladimir Putin as a boogey-man since 2016 and spreading lies about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump being in league with Putin, that political party likewise supports America becoming the “policeman of the world.”
In 1898, it was said that the Spanish were mistreating Cubans, and we just had to intervene. In the First World War, Americans were fed a steady diet of propaganda, such as the lie that Germans were roasting Belgium babies on their ramrods. If anyone dared question America’s drift toward direct involvement in the European war, then well, that person was smeared as “pro-German” or “pro-Kaiser.” Leading up to American involvement in the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to smear one of America’s greatest heroes — the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh — as “pro-Hitler.” Of course, Charles Lindbergh was not a Nazi, he just did not want Americans to get involved in the war in Europe.
Ramaswamy has questionable views on other issues, and this article is not intended as an endorsement of him as a presidential candidate. But it does seem that someone should be able to support the non-interventionist American foreign policy of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, without being libeled as “pro-Putin.”
And so it goes. Hillary Clinton even attacked fellow Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as a “Russian asset” in 2019, adding, “She’s the favorite of the Russians.”
One would have hoped that a string of wars that did not end well for the United States would cause more politicians to oppose these interventions. Apparently, the War Party is going to keep using this playbook until the American people say enough is enough.
