Since the end of the Rand Paul’s presidential campaign in 2016, I haven’t had an antiwar candidate to push for the next election cycle. I’ve been watching a lot of Jimmy Dore lately, and he’s been ripping apart the establishment left-wing media’s attempt to smear Tulsi Gabbard, who’s running for president in 2020.
I started thinking, I listen to Scott Horton interview left-wing progressive journalists all day, all who are the best of the best on covering US foreign wars. The same journalists are terrible on economics and individual rights, evident by their support for Bernie Sanders in 2016. A lot of them supported Dennis Kuncinich in the past, someone I respect for his fight for peace.
Going into 2020, many of these journalists are supporting Tulsi Gabbard. She’s a Iraq War vet, she was stationed in the Sunni Triangle, she joined the National Guard after 9/11, and she speaks the truth on nation building in the Middle East. They love her. She shares their views on economics and government as a vehicle for good.
Many extreme antiwar activists did away with a need for the government or voting long ago. They only come out of the woodwork for a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich. They register to vote, do Moneybombs, join parties to primary and do anything possible to try to stop the war machine. Now, I’m not saying that Tulsi Gabbard is as “pure” as the two men from 2007. Is she enough to get a (small) movement going of principled antiwar activists voting for her in the Democratic primary?
In the video below I wrestle with the pros and cons of Gabbard’s platform and the results of her winning the horse race. The overall idea is to push the presidential debate from who can bomb more countries to who can end leave them the quickest.