The Democratic Party’s Hawkish Turn Toward Violence

By Tom Gilson Published on December 26, 2016

America is rising toward war — internal, civil war. Violence is far from inevitable, but the signs are ominous. With a new president elected by a fully constitutional processes, many among us are rebelling against both the process and its outcome. Protests have involved threats of violence: death threats against members of the Electoral College, for example. Violence has already appeared at least once, in the post-election riot in Portland. Influential people are calling for “disruptive” protests at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Given the country’s fractious mood there is little guarantee that these protests will be carried out peacefully.

Am I overstating the danger? I don’t know, nor does anyone else. Threats and risk are like that; and diplomacy is for times of risk, when potentialities are unknown: while sabers are still rattling and not yet slashing. (Death threats are undeniably saber-rattling.) It’s not too early for every statesman among us to bring forth full diplomatic efforts to calm the anger and quiet the threats.

International Doves, Domestic Hawks

Which leads to a sadly ironic observation. There was a time when the question, “Which is the party of diplomacy in America?” would always have been answered, “The Democrats.” Rightly or wrongly, Republicans have long been regarded more as the defense-spending, saber-rattling hawks; Democrats have had the reputation of being the more diplomatic doves.

Here at home, in a potentially violent situation where diplomacy is urgently needed, Obama is doing nothing.

President Obama has sought to stand in that tradition. Other than a war (and its descendant conflicts) that was initiated under his Republican predecessor, his foreign policy has predominantly been one of friendly engagement, even with countries whose citizens and sympathizers are carrying out the most destructive attacks on the rest of the world.

Here at home, though, in a potentially violent situation where diplomacy is urgently needed, he is doing nothing.

There is no doubt that a diplomatic approach toward the present internal conflict would reduce the risk of violence. The president is hardly a man without influence among the protesters. Why then isn’t he exercising his influence like a diplomat?

The Absent Statesman

But of course presidents are not diplomats; presidents appoint diplomats. Heads of state have a higher calling, and Obama has aspired above all to reach that higher calling: to be known as a statesman. A statesman’s interests reach beyond those of his own country. Clearly Obama has sought to employ his unique position as leader of the world’s most powerful nation to advance peace for all nations. He wants to be known as a man of peace for all. (He’s got a Nobel Peace Prize, you know.) We need not ask how effective he has been; the point is, this has been his stated intent throughout his presidency.

If he were truly a statesman, though, he would be paving a way for peace between Democrats and Republicans for the good of his own nation. We need not agree on whether he is a statesman overseas to recognize that he is certainly no such thing here at home.

But he could at least play the role of a diplomat. He certainly has the skills for it, so it seems odd for him not to be exercising those skills at a time like this. Or maybe he is.

Democrats’ Apparent Angry Goals

A diplomat represents his country’s interests and goals in the world. I can’t help wondering whether Obama is in fact doing that; whether he might indeed be representing his own group’s goals as effectively as he knows how. Is he doing nothing to quell the country’s anger?

He isn’t commanding troops into battle; he’s tacitly encouraging volunteers to fight —perhaps indeed literally to fight — for his interests instead.

Maybe he thinks anger is rightly justified. Maybe he thinks we ought to be angry. Maybe he’s angry himself. Maybe he has no presidential-looking way to express his anger, so he’s letting others express it for him. He isn’t commanding troops into battle; he’s tacitly encouraging volunteers to fight —perhaps indeed literally to fight — for his interests instead.

That would be a mean and cowardly route for a leader to take, but it’s hard to imagine what other “diplomatic goal” Obama might be pursuing by doing so little in such a divisive time as this.

It takes no imagination at all to discern Hillary Clinton’s goals. Her campaign was directly involved in instigating at least one protest that turned violent before the election and (arguably) other protests after the election.

Potential Violence Requires Leadership Intervention

The country is squaring off for real battle, continuing a contest that could have and should have been settled the right way, on November 9. One side stands on the side of the ballot box. The other side is arming itself with warnings that they “refuse to accept a Fascist America” under Trump. What does that mean in action? Is there a peace-loving way to accomplish that? “Dump Trump” signs show up at every protest. Doubtless some people would no add, “whatever it takes” — and mean it.

You may ask how much risk of real violence there is in this, but does that question even matter? If Obama were a man of peace he would be calling for peace. If the Democratic Party were a party of peace its leaders would be calling for peace. I’m not hearing those voices. Are you?

Leaders who have the power to calm threats of violence through diplomacy but fail to do so may fairly be considered hawkish. The same goes in spades for leaders who actually promote protests.

Hawkishness at Home is Wrong

Obama and other Democratic leaders have adopted the most pro-violence stance any politician could possibly manage and still get away with it.

So it seems that it’s a fair description for Democratic leaders who are doing all they can do, short of political suicide, to egg on the anger against Trump and his conservative supporters. They may not be calling publicly for the protests to continue and escalate, but they’re glancing as close to it as they possibly can without crossing a political career-ending line.

No president, governor or member of Congress could come right out and call for violent rebellion against the Constitution. That would be political death. Apparently, though, they think they can get away with background support and/or silence toward their party’s supporters’ actions.

That point bears repeating, lest you miss it: Obama and other Democratic leaders have adopted the most pro-violence stance any politician could possibly manage and still get away with it. And they seem content to stay there.

Hawkishness of any sort may be debatable in foreign policy; in domestic situations it is never (repeat: Never!) the right answer. It’s time therefore for the president and all other Democratic leaders to reassess their identities as statesmen and the goals they seek to promote, for the good of a nation under real threat of internal violence. It’s time for them to reverse this dangerous slide of theirs toward domestic hawkishness.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
The Scarcity Mindset
Robert Morris
More from The Stream
Connect with Us