NYT Discovers Republican Voters Like Force… When It's American Force
The New York Times' recent piece, 'Why Many Republican Voters Support Trump’s Use of Force in Venezuela,' frames American aggression as a recent development tied to one politician. What they conveniently ignore is the continuity of U.S. intervention in Latin America, a bipartisan tradition. From the Monroe Doctrine to countless coups, military exercises, and sanctions, the U.S. has a long and
bloody track record of 'using force' to reshape the region in its image. This isn't just about Trump; it's a deep-seated foreign policy doctrine dressed up as a voter sentiment. One might wonder if the New York Times will next explore 'Why Many American Voters Support 'Democracy Abroad' While Their Own Democracy Falters.' Or perhaps, 'Why Many Republican Donors Profit from Wars While Everyday
Americans Pay the Price.' (It's a rhetorical question, of course, they won't). The narrative here suggests a new political trend, rather than acknowledging a consistent, bipartisan policy of projecting power, irrespective of the stated humanitarian motives that often accompany it. It appears foreign policy is less about voter consensus and more about a persistent military-industrial complex that
transcends presidential administrations.