I have no idea why Glenn Greenwald chose to die on a hill that has nothing to do with the fight that interests him. Why does he erroneously argue that “The establishment leadership of the two parties collaborate on far more than they fight”? The answer is obviously because the only thing Greenwald cares about is “war on terror” policy. He ought to be pleased that the Amash amendment got more support than most people expected it would, but he uses the vote to make a long-winded and totally boring argument about how conservative Republicans support and enable intrusive surveillance. Was anyone unaware of this? Did anyone ever argue any differently?
In fact, those same conservative Republicans’ willingness to politicize national security issues (remember Benghazi) is one of the main reasons that a Democratic administration feels compelled to inoculate themselves from charges of being soft. This has been going on in this country, mostly to our detriment, since the GOP started purging the State Department over the communist revolution in China. The Democrats’ fear of being labeled soft helps explain why we have Korean and Vietnam War veterans. And it helps explain why U.S. weapons shipments will shortly begin arriving in Syria. It explains why the end of the war in Iraq had to be accompanied by an escalation in Afghanistan.
It takes two to tango, but let’s be clear about the source of our warmongering. Only one party stands ready to capitalize on any foreign policy setback by calling for a more belligerent posture. Only one party actively hopes for a terror attack so they can paint the other party as weak and feckless.
Conservative Republicans are the devil on America’s shoulder, whispering constantly about the danger from people who don’t look like they look and don’t believe what they believe. And, yes, they consistently succeed in getting Democrats to do dumb, violent things that they otherwise would not do.
This has been the case my entire life, and for most of my parents’ lives, too. If you interpret this history to mean that there isn’t a difference between the two parties, you’re missing the entire dynamic at play in the formation of U.S. foreign policy.
All one has to do is imagine the last five years under a McCain/Palin administration, and the idea that there is a bipartisan Establishment that determines outcomes will evaporate in your face.