The wars in Iraq and Iran as cultural and domestic issues
Chris Mathews said something interesting about the potential Republican and Democratic candidates for President.
The question arose whether the wars were issues separable from cultural issues.
Would the Republican base of religious people accept a candidate who was with them on cultural issues like abortion and gay rights, but went against them on the wars.
My thought is that the wars are very much cultural and domestic issues for them.
That is, in accordance with my theory that the President is cleaning house for their visitor, the war is a cultural issue like abortion and the gay agenda. They will not accept any candidate who tries to split.
I wonder whether polls tell us what the Christian Zionists and other religious right groups say about their support for the war. Apparently, the rest of the electorate is changing their mind and becoming more anti-war.
I suspect the President pushes the war because he, like the religious groups who have supported him, wants to clean house in prep for an important visitor.
How important are these people to the present success, or failures, of this administration? They may not be so important as to have given the Republicans a win during any election. This would seem to imply that they could not demand the President attack Iraq or Iran.
My thought is that the President does not just court the support of these people. He is as he says he is, one of them.
One of the theories out there is that the Democratic candidates as well as the Republicans support the war because they support the idea that Iraq as well as Iran are threats to the safety of Israel.
The Democrats don't support the Christian Zionist agenda, I would suppose. I take it, from stories about the recent AIPAC convention, that their support is related to support from backers of Israel.
Would the Democrats try a Johnson? Would they pursue endless war in the Middle East by promising to support a liberal domestic agenda? An effort to reduce climate change. An investment in domestic jobs and more for education?
In all cases we get wars in order to get an acceptable domestic agenda?
Does this mean that you think Democrats are better than republicans?
I continue to disagree with your assessment of Bush as being a Christian 'extremist', first and foremost, and a greedy SOB, on the side. His allegiance to money and power far exceeds any attachment he has to religion.
About my post, I wanted to say that the Republicans will have a difficult time separating their Party's support for the warmongering from their positions on various right wing, christian domestic issues.
I say this because I think the reason Bush invades, and the reason the Christian Zionists support him is because they see this policy being connected to their understanding it brings back Jesus. I think they would not make this a low priority issue.
The Democrats, on the other hand, might be able to get away with being warmongers if they promise to throw social programs at their "liberal" base of supporters.
I take it this was President Johnson's strategy with Viet Nam.
I am not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying that the liberals won't care what happens to Iranians, as they haven't cared what happens to Iraqis.
However, we could argue that they should care. We should argue that the Democrats have to oppose invasions and militarism because the war issue is important to their base.