By Dr. Patrick Slattery — When Donald Trump rode down the escalator with Melania at Trump Tower in June 2015 and announced his long-shot bid in a crowded field for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, no one in the media expected him to go far. They were proven wrong, in no small part due to the enthusiastic support Trump got from the “far right” (i.e. the Alt-right, paleocons, white nationalists, even peaceniks from a bygone era) and their arsenal of memes and podcasts. They were attracted by Trump’s signature issue of clamping down on immigration, both illegal and legal, as well as other positions he took on ending overseas military interventions and improving relations with Russia.
These people now feel betrayed as none of these policies has come into fruition. Immigration has reached record levels under Donald Trump. Moreover, the most vocal supporters of his 2016 election have become the victims of deplatforming, harassment lawsuits, and worse over their wrongthink, while Trump has failed to lift a finger in their defense.
So it should come as no surprise that these neglected Trump supporters should look elsewhere, and many have come to see Tulsi Gabbard as an intriguing alternative.
Tusli has already faced hostile questioning from the media over support she has received from the likes of David Duke and Andrew Anglin. It is an awkward position for her to be put in, because there is little to be gained from appearing to defend the most vilified people in the country. So let me give a straightforward answer to why the “far right” is taking a look at Tulsi.
Her signature issue is stopping what she calls “regime change wars” and ending the “New Cold War” with Russia. It just so happens that practically the only people for whom ending the wars is a political priority are the “far right.” The far left, as represented by Antifa and their cohorts, violently attacked an anti-war rally organized by Richard Spencer in front of the White House after Trump bombed Syria in 2017. And no one on the left, whether far left or mainstream, is holding their own anti-war rallies or engaging in any meaningful anti-war activities.
Once upon a time, the left, and especially leftist radicals, could be counted on to oppose American involvement in overseas wars. Now nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than collaborate with someone who advocates on behalf of white people, the left would rather act as the shock troops for the military industrial complex. By contrast, when the communist-led ANSWER Coalition organized anti-Iraq war rallies of 15 years ago, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and other anti-war rightists didn’t attack the rallies, they joined them. One has to ask in retrospect whether the mainstream Democrats who also participated in the rallies weren’t simply anti-Bush rather than anti-war, because they are now the main voting block in favor of war.
Tulsi Gabbard is far more vocal than Trump ever was in her opposition to war. Trump was more focused on immigration, and its fair to say that it was the immigration issue that got him elected. But for the far right, his anti-war stance, as inarticulate as it was, was also an important factor. Of course, nobody expects Tusli to “build a wall and deport them all.” Her views on immigration may be the same as any other Democrat, for all we know.
But the reality is that under President Trump immigration, both legal and illegal, are at record levels, so what do we have to lose? At least Tulsi has taken a strong stance for free speech and against tech industry censorship, so we may at least be able to make our arguments against open borders without the current level of censorship and harassment.
So the short answer to why the “far right” is taking a look at Tulsi is that, unlike the vast majority of Democrats and the mainstream media, deplorable despicable white “supremists” actually oppose the slaughter of men, women, and children in foreign lands carried out in the name of the American people, and we are willing to work with anyone, even a progressive Democrat, who is willing to do what it takes to end it.