Political polarization is worse than ever; never in modern politics have the left and right been further apart. Seemingly, every topic is a political battleground; topics that previously enjoyed a mundane consensus – like whether we should have police departments or how many genders there are – are now fervent rallying points. The most obvious, practical result of our polarized society is a gridlocked Congress. Elected officials, representative of constituents drifting further and further from the center, can’t seem to agree on much of anything. The result is an impotent Congress, incapable of legislating. FiveThirtyEight predicts that a “more divided government is probably imminent” as “part of our long era of “partisan stalemate.”
And yet, despite the historic gulf separating America’s two political parties, one issue draws the poles together, making for an unlikely partnership between progressives and populists on a searingly crucial issue: war.
In America, the political-center – or, The Establishment – is zealously attracted to foreign intervention. The right and left, however, would prefer the US intervened less frequently. The US military’s foreign intervention statistics are staggering; no country on Earth comes close to matching the frequency with which America deploys its troops.
Let’s look at the numbers:
“If we look at the distribution of the 392 U.S. military interventions since 1800 reported by the Congressional Research Service in October 2017 by fifty-year increments, the data show a dramatic increase: from 1800-1849 there were thirty-nine interventions; forty-seven from 1850-1899; sixty-nine from 1900-1949; 111 from 1950-1999; and 126 from 2000-2017 – a period of only seventeen years as compared to fifty years in the other periods,” explained Monica Duffy Toft, a professor at Tufts University, wrote.
Political support – or perhaps political apathy – has fueled America’s accelerating rate of intervention; politicians would not commit US troops, and resources so readily were there political consequences for doing so. Mostly, there are no political consequences. The center-right still reveres President Bush 43, despite his misguided interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The center-left still reveres President Obama, despite his unprecedented use of drone warfare. President Biden has thus far failed to close Guantanamo Bay, and it’s just not a pressing political issue right now. Yet, on the political poles – on the right and left – a more restrained foreign policy agenda is gaining traction. Curiously, two citizen groupings – who disagree viscously on everything from economics, abortion, crime, and immigration – are finding themselves in harmony concerning lessening US military intervention.
At first glance, the progressive-populist union on foreign policy appears quite odd – kombucha-drinking-Prius-driving-San Franciscans aligned with Bud-drinking-monster-truck-driving-Floridians – but on closer inspection, the union seems more logical.
For starters, even though the progressives and populists agree that the US should be intervening less frequently – the two groups typically employ different rationales for employing a more restrained foreign policy. On the left, restraint-based groups typically employ a “world peace” rationale. Take CODEPINK as an example. “CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life affirming programs,” the company website states. Win Without War offers another prime left-wing example: “we believe that by democratizing U.S. foreign policy and providing progressive alternatives, we can achieve more peaceful, just, and common sense policies that ensure that all people – regardless of race, nationality, gener, religion, or economic status – can find and take advantage of opportunity equally and feel secure.”
On the right, restraint-based groups typically employ a “strategic interests” rationale. Take Defense Priorities as an example. “Our Mission: To inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military – used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests – and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security,” the Defense Priorities website states.
Where both the progressives and populists rationalize similarly, is concerning the allocation of resources. Both factions believe that the US spends too liberally on foreign intervention. The two groups may disagree on how precisely that money would be better spent – but they agree that it should be spent domestically on US citizens. Hopefully, the emerging union between progressives and populists on foreign policy opens the door for collaboration on other issues, allowing for our “partisan stalemate” to ease and a functioning government to return.
Harrison Kass is the Senior Defense Editor at 19FortyFive. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass.
