Posted on 02/19/2016 4:50:16 AM PST by VitacoreVision
Since Donald Trump condemned George W. Bush for the Iraq war in a South Carolina debate, the conventional wisdom has been that Trump hurt himself badly in a state that tends to heavily favor military intervention in general, and George W. Bush specifically.
Indeed, George W. Bush and the Iraq war remain popular in South Carolina. George W. Bush has an 84 percent approval rating there, and been campaigning there for his brother, Jeb.
Trump claims to have opposed the Iraq war all along. Whether or not he actually opposed the war in 2003 remains unclear, although it is clear that he was not a cheerleader for the war. Nor has his criticism of the war been mild in recent days, calling the Iraq war "one of the worst decisions in the history of the country." It would be a mistake to label Trump as an "anti-war" candidate, but for a voter who's gung ho on military action, Trump leaves much to be desired.
If his remarks on the Iraq War have hurt Trump, the damage appears to be too mild to have shown up much in the polls. According to numerous polls, Trump remains the clear frontrunner for Saturday's primary in South Carolina. Nor have his comments stopped Iraq War veterans from endorsing Trump.
If Trump does manage to win in South Carolina, running on an anti-Iraq War, anti-Bush platform, it will be very remarkable. After all, it's hard to blame establishment commentators for assuming that Trump would be crushed by more militarist candidates in a state that tends to be relentlessly in favor of military intervention. South Carolina nearly always favors the most enthusiastically pro-war candidate.
Moreover, the whole region has tended to favor military spending and military action, so while both Rubio and Cruz are running on platforms designed to outdo each other in terms of enthusiasm for more foreign wars, and more military spending, it will noteworthy indeed if Trump does well in the region.
For decades, the south has been an easy base for support for candidates supporting military intervention, and it was the one region of the country where the America First campaign never gained any traction.
This has been especially reinforced since World War II as military spending has become the foundation of many local economies throughout the region.
When we look at military spending compared to a state's overall GDP, we find that Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky are all in the top ten. No other region of the country has local economies so dependent on military spending.
Moreover, countless analyses by political scientists and economists in recent decades have observed the well established connection between military spending in a region, and a proportional support for military action in terms of public policy. In recent contribution on this front was The American Warfare State by Rebecca U. Thorpe. Thorpe's book deserves a review all of its own, but in essence, her finding are this: states where military spending play a more prominent role in the local economy tend to have voters who support more military spending and military action in general.
This is different from saying that "more military spending" leads to more pro-military voting. After all, the total amount of military spending that takes place in California, for example, is immense. The distinction is that California's overall economy is huge and doesn't rely on military spending at all for its local tax revenues or economic core. That's not the story in, say, Mississippi or South Carolina, where military spending is a significant part of the state's overall economy. The initial spending by the federal government supports whole service economies in and around military bases, and also leads to local tax revenues and much more.
It's easy to see how people in these places will inevitably conclude that "what's good for the military is what's good for me." After all, as James Bovard recently explained, governments are adept at buying voter support with taxpayer dollars.
On the other hand, being pro-war isn't necessarily the same thing as being pro-military, although we're often told by interventionists and media pundits that they are inseparable. Trump has perhaps found a way to break through on this issue and win the favor of pro-military voters while simultaneously calling the Republican Party's central project of the last 20 years one of "the worst decisions" ever made.
I agree. He went full Code Pink. And he is trying to have it both ways, like his pal Hillary. It’s really disgusting. And it wasn’t a necessary fight or argument to have. But he wanted it. He doubled down on it. And now that there is proof that he favored the war, his own words, he says it doesn’t matter because he wasn’t a politician then. Well, that’s still not the point. If you say you never favored something, then an accurate recording is produced that says you did, the best you can say is you didn’t remember it that way. But he’d rather undermine the former Republican president and use Code Pink/Michael Moore propaganda. Why? Because at heart he knows the left wing talking points. But he hasn’t taken the time to know the truth.
Please get me the link to Trump saying he was for the second Iraq war.
No I don’t support lying which is why I ask for the link. Lying is wrong regardless of who does it and a partial truth such as representing a 17 year old fact as being current if it is not is still a lie. Way too much “almost true” have been posted. It hurts the one posting it as well as those who read it as true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the#.jm4RrX1zQO
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/donald-trump-confronted-with-past-support-for-iraq-war
In a word
Oui
January 28, 2003 he did say on Cavuto that perhaps he (Bush) shouldn't be doing it that our economy was a bigger problem. That was the only anti war pre war comment publicly available that I have found.
I was against the Iraq war and only my family and friends can verify every time I said it. I supported Desert Storm and Afghanistan again only family and friends know what I said. I am a private citizen as was he then.
It would appear that Trump is going to win SC and it will be yuge. :-)
Yes, you and I are private citizens, and we’re not prominent citizens, like Trump. Here is the thing. I’m less troubled that he appears to have supported than that he’s using the war to cudgel George W. Bush for no apparent reason. Moreover, he says Bush knew there were no WMD present. How did Bush know that when his own CIA director assured him they were? I know first hand that the US Army believed the chemical weapons were there, and I know that we did find over 200 chemical weapons. The topic need not be one for Trump to bring up, to bring up with venom and malice, and to smear another man. So I don’t give Trump a pass. He’s mean-spirited and obnoxious.
And you frequently voice that opinion and until the libs kill the 1st Amendment you are free to do so. I have the same freedom.
I wish all the negativity would end but then only Bernie is promising us unicorns and perfect happiness. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.