The Resistance?
The “resistance,” a movement ignited by the election of Trump, is for the most part Democratic, although it attracts varying degrees of Republican solidarity on certain issues. Although one might expect such a movement to resist Trump from the left, far too often it appears that the “resistance” is content to either assist in the implementation of Trump’s right-wing policies or to push Trump to the right. The significant bipartisan support for the expansion of the federal government’s spying powers and for the rollback of Wall Street regulations in recent votes provide cases in point. Yet of all policy areas, the one where the “resistance” has proven most shameful is foreign policy. The issue of Russia immediately comes to mind.[su_pullquote align=”right”]Yet of all policy areas, the one where the “resistance” has proven most shameful is foreign policy.[/su_pullquote]
When it comes to Russia, the “resistance” has eagerly taken up a Cold War, McCarthy-esque mindset, resisting Trump not from his left, where the vast majority of “resistance” members ostensibly lie on the political spectrum, but from his right. An article in Time from before the July Trump-Putin summit ended, “If it were not for the specifics surrounding Trump, a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia would actually make plenty of geopolitical sense… But unfortunately—and despite his best intentions—Trump may be the least likely President to be able to deliver one.” The takeaway? Today, detente is dead, and the Democrats killed it. The uniformly hysterical response that then followed the Helsinki summit between Trump and Putin has only made that even more the case.[su_pullquote align=”left”]Today, detente is dead, and the Democrats killed it.[/su_pullquote]
The fear of Russia that has engulfed many Democrats is the result of alleged election interference by Russia during the 2016 presidential race. However, little evidence has been shown to prove that interference actually occurred. The well-respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who exposed the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib prison, compared “Russiagate” in a recent interview to the lies perpetrated before the invasion of Iraq, pointing out that the language of “high confidence” was used then just as it is being used now by the U.S. intelligence community. Appearing to divulge findings from his ongoing, but as of now unpublished, investigative reporting on the matter, Hersh continued, “I will assure you that there’s no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC, Podesta emails. That did not happen.” The fact that even Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian intelligence agents includes nothing more than a description of what those agents are supposed to have done—leaving missing any evidence that those agents actually did what they are accused of doing—suggests that Hersh may in fact be right.
Nevertheless, on such a shaky basis, the Democrats have decided that they must resist from the right and force Trump to perpetually heighten tensions with Russia, something which would be wrong to do, even if claims of Russian interference were proven beyond a doubt. Maybe the worst offender in this process has been Rachel Maddow, who is the top representative of the “resistance” on cable television and who, from February 20th to March 31st last year, covered Russia more than every other issue combined. Before Trump’s inauguration, Maddow argued that if Trump were to withdraw NATO troops from the border of Russia it would be proof that the Russians are blackmailing him. More recently, Maddow impressively found a way to resist Trump from the right on the issues of Russia and North Korea at the same time. In fully conspiratorial fashion, Maddow suggested that perhaps the reason Trump is making efforts towards peace on the Korean peninsula is because that peace would be in Russia’s interest.
The fact that the “resistance” has staked out its position to the right of Trump has limited Trump’s options to somewhere between mildly and extremely hawkish. Trump, supposedly Putin’s puppet, has placed new sanctions on Russia, expelled 60 Russian diplomats, and closed a Russian consulate. He has increased the U.S. military presence by Russia’s border, armed the Ukrainian military, and bombed Syria multiple times. Most incredibly, the Trump administration’s 2018 National Defense Strategy placed “great power competition”—meaning struggle against Russia and China—ahead of terrorism as the top foreign policy priority.
Another main foreign policy focus during Trump’s tenure in office has been North Korea. Here, again, the “resistance” has run to the right of Trump. Rather than encouraging peace talks with North Korea, “resistance” members have watched cautiously and critically from the sidelines. Rachel Maddow, for instance, harshly reprimanded Trump for canceling joint military exercises with South Korea. Fareed Zakaria did the same on his show and added a point of agreement with Trump’s National Defense Strategy. In his view, the U.S.’s top priority now really must be maintaining global dominance in the face of a rising China. Peace and demilitarization on the Korean peninsula is a side issue, and apparently an unworthy cause in any case.
Meanwhile, seven Democratic senators published a letter laying out demands for a North Korean peace deal. Two of their five requirements for a deal are particularly absurd. One is that the deal must guarantee the elimination of “all of North Korea’s ballistic missiles and programs,” and the other is that the deal must be permanent. These exact same demands were made by Republicans of the Iran nuclear deal in order to undermine and destroy that deal. One of the signatories to the letter was Chuck Schumer, who himself originally opposed the Iran nuclear deal.
Schumer is also a main player when it comes to a third issue in which the “resistance” turns out to be anything but. That issue is Israel, where lack of resistance from U.S. politicians of both parties to brutality and oppression is all too familiar. From the start, Schumer was one of the strongest proponents of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The fact that the embassy move not only legitimizes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land but also leaves little hope for a Palestinian state does not worry Schumer, one of the most powerful members of the “resistance.” On the same day as the embassy opening in Jerusalem, largely peaceful protests by Palestinians in Gaza elicited a violent response from IDF soldiers. At the end of the day, the Gaza Health Ministry reported 60 Palestinians killed and 2,771 wounded. Yet the “resistance” was practically silent. As a Daily Beast article noted three days after the mass slaughter, “[O]f the leading Democrats who are expected to run for president in 2020, only one spoke out forcefully: Sen. Bernie Sanders.”
The same scenario has repeated on the issue of Syria. After striking Syria last year, Trump again bombed Syria in April of this year. According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, of the editorial boards of the top 100 U.S. newspapers, “Twenty supported the [April 2018] strikes, while six were ambiguous as to whether or not the bombing was advisable. The remaining 74 issued no opinion about Trump’s latest escalation of the Syrian war.” Shortly after the attack, MSNBC—the cable media home of the “resistance”— brought on their analyst Malcolm Nance, who complained to an agreeable Joy Ann Reid that no one was killed and called for tougher measures against Syria.
A similar pattern emerged among Democratic lawmakers. As an In These Times article pointed out three days after the attack, “Just four out of 49 Democratic and Independent senators have expressed principled opposition to Trump’s bombing campaign: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).” Ironically, one of the few places where dissent was aired was Fox News. There, Tucker Carlson, with the help of his interviewee Glenn Greenwald, demonstrated how actually to resist Trump’s dangerous policies.
What is most disappointing about all of these examples of absent or misguided resistance is that there has been so much opportunity to drive Trump to the left on policy, which does not always mean opposing his impulses. On Russia, he has repeatedly talked of easing tensions and working towards detente. Rather than ratcheting up tensions and ensuring an enemy and a militarized planet, perhaps the U.S. could have a demilitarized friend. In any case, scapegoating Russia will only make the authoritarian right there stronger.
On North Korea, after edging dangerously close to war, Trump is making commendable progress towards peace. Everything is still fragile and limited, making it only more important to support Trump’s diplomacy.
On Israel, Trump talked of being a neutral arbiter during his campaign. According to a piece in The New Yorker, “Trump was convinced, he told friends, that he was uniquely suited to brokering the ‘ultimate deal.’ In private conversations, he expressed general support for a two-state solution.” Given that information and Trump’s lack of knowledge and susceptibility to persuasion, pulling Trump to the left on Israel should certainly be within reach.
Finally, on the issue of Syria, shortly before his recent bombing spree, Trump said in a speech in Ohio, “Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon, very soon, we’re coming out… We’re going to get back to our country, where we belong.” These words echoed his more general non-interventionist rhetoric from the campaign trail, such as his repeated criticism of the invasion of Iraq.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]A resistance movement in this form does not represent a real resistance, at least not one worth having around.[/su_pullquote]All of these quotes and positions point to the possibility of Trump as a non-interventionist. The “resistance” could have become a resistance worth its name—one that resisted from the left—by pulling Trump in that non-interventionist direction. Yet instead of pulling Trump to the left, the American “resistance” has pushed Trump to increase his hawkishness. That is both a shame and an embarrassment. A resistance movement in this form does not represent a real resistance, at least not one worth having around.
Conor Smyth ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at c.smyth@wustl.edu.