It blows my mind, too:
But what’s astonishing this time is how the Democrats and much of the liberal Establishment now supports an unending occupation of yet another Middle Eastern country.
Something is very wrong with people if they call themselves liberal (progressive, leftist, whatever, God, I’m tired of these vapid disclaimers) and don’t see the news of US withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan as a wonderful Christmas present.
The Syrian occupation is not a minor thing. The Washington Post reported a week ago, long before Trump’s tweet, that “US troops will now stay in Syria indefinitely, controlling a third of the country, and facing peril on many fronts.” A third of an entire country! How many Americans knew or know this? Very, very few.
And I can absolutely guarantee that the number of Americans who’d love this idea if they knew about it is minuscule. The idiotic establishment that is opposing the withdrawal is not even remotely in touch with what people want.
We should not be asking why Trump has decided to nip this in the bud, following his clear and popular mandate to get us out of the region. We should be asking how on earth did the Establishment find a way to occupy yet another Middle Eastern country.
Exactly! Why on Earth would Trump do it? Hmm, what a mystery. It’s not like this might be popular with voters or anything.
2 days ago @Amy_Siskind posted that she won’t vote for white or male candidates in 2020. I pointed out this is racist and sexist. Yesterday she blocked me on Twitter. Today she called Boston College demanding they not have me back as adjunct faculty.
— David Pakman (@dpakman) December 20, 2018
Only the very daft think this has anything whatsoever to do with anything except job wars.
I’m seeing the most bizarre explanations for Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria. But one very obvious explanation doesn’t occur to anybody. Nobody seems capable of figuring out that this is simply what voters want. Voters massively and overwhelmingly don’t want American soldiers to die and American resources to be spent in Syria and Afghanistan. That a politician should do something that will be extremely popular with voters as he faces an election season shouldn’t be that shocking.
It’s the same with the wall. There is wildest speculation as to why Trump is pushing for the wall. I’ve read the craziest things online about it. There is an explanation that is based on his Twitter follows, even. But the most obvious explanation that this was his number one campaign promise and 70% of people in the country either want or don’t mind the wall somehow doesn’t occur.
This is precisely what Wendy Brown talks about in her book about democracy. The fluid elites are simply incapable of imagining that the not-so-fluid majority might want anything at all. The elites feel completely stunned that the dumb proles actually express wishes, as if anybody cared about them.
The New Yorker has gone completely to the dogs. Now Boko Haram is good because it means CHOICES! There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that The New Yorker can’t or won’t translate into neoliberal jargon.