There are Trump voters who wanted him to be an isolationist.
There are Trump voters who wanted him to be an interventionist.
Are there any statistics available on how big each group is percentage-wise?
Thus far I haven’t been able to turn up anything online.
Depends on what you mean by isolationist. Economically isolationist, most definitely a high percentage. Military-wise, I don’t know the percentage but I don’t think it matters. Presidents say one thing on the campaign and then do another military-wise all the time and their followers don’t change the strength of support based on it with the exception of the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I’m referring to military isolationism/interventionism.
Doesn’t make a lot of difference to me.
By voting for the America-hating fuckstick, they signaled that their wants and desires could be disregarded and considered irrelevant to how the United States should manage its foreign policy. And its domestic policies.
I must say that President elected in 2006 never once changed his stance.
Apparently Trump did take some flak from elements of his base on account of his recent bombing of Syria. Gotta admit I was surprised by that - if I’d even considered the possibility, I’d have figured that bombing towelheads would count for more with them than the isolationist sentiments in the whole “America First” bit.
The terms isolationist and interventionist indicate coherent political philosophies which is beyond Donald Trumps ability to comprehend, much less the average Trump voter. So they may hold some isolationist views and some interventionist views even if the two directly contradict each other.
In general it is going to depend on how much they perceive an international threat as danger to themselves personally. So rescuing a bunch of Syrians or Ukrainians, or preventing a genocide in Myanmar won’t be supported, but nuking North Korea before they nuke us, probably will be supported regardless of the collateral damage that might be suffered by South Korea or Japan.
I heard some pundit say Trump is trying to be an isolationist hawk, which isn’t easy.
I think that really is what Trump supporters want. They want the US to be powerful and have influence across the world. But they don’t want us to be influenced by the rest of the world, and they don’t want to spend money on foreign aid or nation-building. They basically want a military strong enough to intimidate the rest of the world into submission without having to fight any actual battles.
It seems to me that a layman’s understanding could support intervention in the service of isolation (“Bomb them over there, so they don’t come over here.”) So, the two are not equal on the decision tree.
Yeah. Trying to find consistency of purpose in Trump’s thoughts, words or actions is actually kind of funny. Sad funny, not “ha-ah funny”.
Trump’s appeal is largely emotional. More in the fight or flight realm than anything else.
If Trump supporters wanted more blood thirsty policy, we would have voted for Hillary. In 2016, Obama dropped 26171 bombs on Syria and Iraq as well as on Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. But to liberals it was acceptable since Obama is Black just like Black on Black crime is nothing worthy of attention either.
Trump supporters are generally upset with his decision to bomb Syria because we learned our lesson in Iraq that the noble goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East was futile and unappreciated and that we should protect our own borders from invading hordes.
Blah blah blah Hillary blah blah blah Obama blah blah blah liberals…
Wasn’t this a thread about Trump?
(looks up) Yep.
Or to guarantee that if there are any battles to fight they will be clear US victories. It’s the “I don’t want to hear from you… don’t make me go over there and kick your ass” school of world leadership.
His voters simply do not care about his positions. If he does something, it is right by definition. If he does a 180, so will they and they will deny that they ever thought differently. Donald is infallible and trivialities like policies and facts are completely irrelevant.
I think that some do care, given the average 15% swing in special elections since 2016. However, I do not think that supporting someone even if he does a 180 from what he said before is evidence of a near-fanatical devotion.
It can simply be that they don’t care enough about that particular issue that they will change their support. Just like foreign policy has always (not) influenced political support for as long as I can remember, no matter who is the President and no matter what they claimed they would do or not do.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Orwell was right; he was just 35 years off.