Cato Institute’s Chris Preble tells readers that Obama has a full week to change minds and twist arms, that Weekly Standard editor William Kristol has declared that a vote against Obama would be effectively a vote for Assad, that many Democrats can be expected to side with the president, and that a number of Republicans still prefer the interventionists’ talking points, even if they know they are unpopular back home. I would point out that Mr. Kristol is cheerleader #1 on the neocon bandwagon. I also would point out, perhaps unpleasantly, that none of the neocon adventures from Korea to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has been a winner. Each has been a catastrophic loser loaded with unintended consequences and dead Americans. The Syrian civil war doesn’t offer a more promising outcome for America.
By my quick calculation, 81 percent (9 of 11) of the morning show panelists or hosts clearly favored military action, while only 2 of 11 were clearly opposed. Washington’s pro-intervention bias is even more apparent when one counts those participants who appeared to lean yes (9); while only one leaned no (1). Few came out and said, “I support,” or “I don’t support,” so I’ve tried to infer from what they did say. And 6 of the 27 people appearing on the shows didn’t hint sufficiently one way or the other. I did not consider what these individuals might have said or written elsewhere. I’m going solely on the basis of what they said on yesterday’s programs. One can check my admittedly subjective coding below.* If you disagree, send me an email.
Newt Gingrich, one of the new hosts of CNN’s relaunched “Crossfire,” made the best succinct case in opposition to strikes from the perspective of the American people: “A) I don’t understand why it’s our problem, B) I doubt very much that we can fix it, and C) the guys who are against Assad strike me as about as sick as Assad is.”
The case for intervention boiled down to chemical weapons are bad, and, in the words of Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, “We are not the world’s policeman,” but “now we have to act as a fireman because the world is on fire.”
I expect better from the Obama administration officials who will try to convince the American people–or, failing that, members of Congress–to go along. The White House’s full-court press started yesterday, and will build to a crescendo this week, highlighted perhaps by the president’s prime-time speech tomorrow evening. (I’ll be live blogging, check back here). In the meantime, various lobbies are pushing for intervention, but a few, includingFreedomWorks and Heritage Action on the right, are lobbying against. FreedomWorks’ foray into foreign policy is particularly noteworthy, because the organization has typically avoided such fights. FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe explained that the organization had been “overwhelmed” with requests for help in rallying opposition to strikes. Linking this position to the group’s traditional focus on fiscal matters, Kibbe said that even limited military action could have serious consequences for the U.S. economy.
This is one of the most contentious fights that I’ve seen in recent years, and it is all the more interesting because it does not break down neatly along partisan lines. Among the 18 morning show advocates for intervention (yes or lean yes), nearly half (8) traditionally support Republican candidates and causes.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Americans Want the Security of Jobs and Peace - January 20, 2017
- Can Republicans Actually Cure America’s Health Care Crisis? - January 19, 2017
- You Need to Know About the Monumental New Debt Obama Created - January 19, 2017