The Complexity of American Politics: “Peace Sells… but Who’s Buying”

Somehow, a woman with a three-part name wants a “national divorce” from the very country that also has a three-part name. Even worse, a woman who represented the Carolinas, of all places, who now happens to seek the presidency, has also endorsed a parallel idea in the past. Whether Fort Sumter will come to a neighborhood near you, is up in the air. Some Americans still have a cruel itch for that very thing. Then, of course, the same sect will argue to you that Hillary Clinton rightfully lost the 2016 election because she was a woman. Forget being a Democrat, just be a woman. If that train of thought doesn’t make sense, you’re best off asking the people who came up with it in the first place.

Bill Maher argued in last week’s New Rule that fighting within the American government itself is inevitable due to behavioral backsliding. He logically pointed out that Joe Wilson’s “you lie,” towards Obama’s State of the Union gave way to House Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s back-to-back SOTU antics under President Biden. For someone like Greene, we don’t even need three times to determine a pattern. She’s already done too many abstract things to come under the radar. We’ve also already seen a Republican, just last semester, pay for his Democratic opponents to be shot—a story that doesn’t get nearly as much attention as it deserves. This was partly because it was at the state level of politics in a state that’s hardly ever mentioned in general, New Mexico. The worst part, arguably, is that the man made it happen in the weeks after the election because he lost, while his Democratic opponent had a clear three-fold victory.

However, something that is getting the further scrutiny it deserves is the developments in the Fox-Dominion dilemma, as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity all firmly believed that the 2020 election was not stolen, but, being the faces of Fox News, had to give in to an audience that they all knew would be concerned. Fox’s identity was at stake, particularly when it came to the decision on Arizona. There’s something quite odd about Fox leadership giving in to temptation, but it also appeared to be the norm for the “outrage culture” that functions on half the network.

Outrage culture seemed to have reached its peak on Jan. 6, 2021, with Fox News being closer to the goal line than any other major news network. Even worse, there is a genuine prospect that there will be a new peak. A recent article in the Guardian said that Putin is seeking to divide the American public with Russia’s withdrawal from nuclear treaties after consultation with policy experts. In 1991, Axl Rose famously asked in a double album for the ages, right before the demise of the Soviet Union, “What’s so civil about war anyway?” Unfortunately, if things go

nuclear, there wouldn’t be time for civility. CNN notes that Putin’s logic stems from the depth of NATO assistance and that it wouldn’t make sense for NATO to continue to be let into Russian nuclear facilities. If we think with reason, he actually has fair standing.

At this point in the year, both Biden and Putin have now had their annual national addresses, and, rightfully so, are both keen on winning the war. Democrats continue to be willing to support Ukraine as domestic politics spice up with the 2024 race underway and other seats to fight for. Republicans such as Mike Turner and Mike McCaul firmly support the continuation of aid to Ukraine, but then of course comes the other wing of the party that is itching to stop it. Speaker McCarthy has yet to impress us with anything. American fiscal responsibility has been up in the air since the Eisenhower era when it came to foreign intervention. The hard truth is that we’re too invested spiritually in foreign relations to suddenly disappear from it. The toughest part resides in knowing that Ukraine would only be worth the cost if Ukraine succeeds, and what that actually means elicits different responses from policy experts. However, it all brings up one serious question, would the United States need to fight itself in order to continue engagement with Ukraine? It’s already been doing so politically, but now comes the issue of how new developments on Russia’s side will permeate into the American public.

We’ve already seen what Russia can do to secure hearts and minds in past election cycles and there’s also a firm portion of Americans that savor Russia over Ukraine on any given Sunday. The reason why outrage culture functions so well with the war in Ukraine is because the war had instant ramifications that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could only dream of having, including Vietnam. Each war does hold its own for various reasons, and have more nuances that can be listed here, but to mention two things, a cornerstone of human food was not a stake in wheat and neither was a nuclear power directly being fought.

Some generals now argue that something with China will kick up in 2025 and all the gamers out there will know that means Battlefield 4 might just be real life in the very setting the game took place in. Yet with all the illustrious foreign risk, there’s still one hell of a chance for the United States to point at itself if we don’t get our act together. The ultimate Sino-Soviet fever dream is for the United States to collapse because we stop agreeing on things. Just like Mustaine says, peace sells… but who’s buying? Hopefully Americans.