Biden does the right thing in Afghanistan
Plus, why do Americans hate Democrat politicians?
There was a 5.9 magnitude earthquake near Khōst, Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border on the evening of June 21. Given the lack of proper infrastructure in the area, it was devastating, with at least 1,000 dead, according to press reports. President Biden expressed condolences for the Afghans and ordered USAID to assess options to help.
It would have been easy for Biden to say and do nothing. Our long commitment to help Afghanistan become a more modern (read: western) country, free of the Taliban’s boot, flushed itself down the toilet about a year ago due to Biden’s intransigence and failure to listen to his own generals.
Now the country is crumbling, and the earthquakes that pepper the region a few times every decade (due to the friction between the India and Eurasia tectonic plates, which produced the Himalayas, Karakoram, Pamir, and Hindu Kish mountain ranges—the tallest in the world), remain major killers.
I am glad that somewhere deep under the decades of political vampirism that animates Biden’s elderly frame, there exists a spark of real humanity. Helping Afghanistan is not necessarily a popular action. I honestly don’t know if anyone’s done a poll or focus group on it, but I viscerally feel the tug of “it’s their problem” in my own heart. Upon reflection, helping our enemies when they are suffering through no fault of anyone is just the right—the human, the Christian—thing to do.
And if I find out later that some staffer told Biden that this would be a politically good move and he did it for cynical reasons, or because it was on the script he was instructed to read, I’m still glad he did it, as long as we follow through and give the aid.
That leads me to another thought that I won’t dwell too long on, and it’s really an ink-blot question to many. Why do so many Americans hate Democrat politicians? I remember my sister was the biggest Obama fan when he ran in 2008, and she was over the moon when he won. By 2016, she was rather Trumpy, and extremely unhappy about her former hero.
I think this—and so many other reactions I’ve seen and others like Salena Zito have well documented and categorized—is largely because of one fault Democrats have. Progressives who hold to the ideal that power dynamics and persecution are to be praised and idolized find themselves on a merry-go-round of denouncement. One day, it’s woman power, and the next, TERFs are evil succubi. One day, Jews are expected to vote Democrat, and the next, Jews and Israel are the entire problem with the world.
One day, it’s overpopulation, and the next, it’s that there are too many young people refusing to have children, leaving the elderly with nobody to care for them. One day, we need to convert to green power, but nuclear power—the greenest, safest technology we possess—is taboo. One day, demographics is destiny, and the next, latinos who refuse to be known as “latinx” are xenophobic Trumpers.
Democrats can’t find a message they won’t themselves turn on and denounce. Voters catch on, and get tired of riding the merry-go-round. As bad as Republicans are (and they are VERY bad lately), they do not harbor a centuries-long ideal of eating their own and rewriting history to clean up the messes. Voters would rather look to one set of hypocrites and crooks than to deal with an incestuous bunch of fickle busybodies.
If you haven’t subscribed to the Racket yet, click the button below.
You can also find us on Twitter and Facebook. Join the discussion online with our Racketeers Facebook group.
The Racketeers are Jay, Steve, and David. Click each name to contact us on Twitter! We are adding writers and contributors. If you’re interested, contact us.
As always, we appreciate shares. If you see something here that you like, please send it to your friends and tell them that all the cool kids read the Racket!
"I think this—and so many other reactions I’ve seen and others like Salena Zito have well documented and categorized—is largely because of one fault Democrats have. Progressives who hold to the ideal that power dynamics and persecution are to be praised and idolized find themselves on a merry-go-round of denouncement. One day, it’s woman power, and the next, TERFs are evil succubi. One day, Jews are expected to vote Democrat, and the next, Jews and Israel are the entire problem with the world."
Meanwhile we have a Missouri Senate candidate advocating for hunting members of his own party[1]. Now, to be fair to Greitens (which is more than that creep deserves), I do think that the video is in jest, but Republicans seem to be as eager and adept at shooting in a circle as Democrats, as well as rewriting their history as well. I submit that the hatred you think voters have for busybody Democrats is probably spread a bit more evenly between both parties than this being a Democratic-specific phenomenon.
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/6/21/23177718/eric-greitens-missouri-senate-campaign-ad-rinos
Related to Steve's point on the Left's Villains of the Week, Politico has an interesting article[1] about the conflict not being a Leftists vs. Centrists, but Lumpers (folks pushing for comprehensive change) vs. Splitters (folks who believe that progress can happen on separate independent tracks):
"The fight is becoming bitter. On one side are people who believe in what can be thought of as a unified field theory of political and social change. Diverse issues, from climate change to abortion rights to racial equity, are seen as intimately interwoven, and progress on one priority will only be achieved with simultaneous progress on other fronts. On the other side are people who don’t much buy this theory — and roll their eyes impatiently at theoretical arguments of any sort if they stand in the way of practical results on the specific issues they care most urgently about."
"One way to think of the contest roiling the progressive movement is between 'lumpers' and 'splitters.' The lumpers see American society in need of a sustained and comprehensive overhaul, and are wary of people, even potential allies, who don’t share this synoptic worldview. A core assumption is a commitment to 'intersectionality' — the concept that contemporary power arrangements reflect historic and overlapping patterns of discrimination on grounds of race, class and gender and that progress on specific issues must include challenging the underlying power structure."
"The splitters prefer to take one issue at a time, and are happy to accept an ally on, say, climate change or gun control, even if that person doesn’t share their views on abortion rights or how to remedy systemic police violence against Black people. In their view the choice isn’t sweeping progress versus incremental gains. It is incremental gains versus no progress at all."
There seems to be a similar thing happening within the GOP where you could plausibly substitute "#MAGA" for "intersectionality" and see the same kinds of conflicts playing out in the Republican party.
(And I'm done threadjacking for the day. Thanks for your patience with me!)
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/23/the-new-battles-roiling-the-left-00041627