“Bad On Foreign Policy But Good On Domestic Policy” Is Just American Supremacist Psychopathy

Another annoying thing about US presidential elections is how all the liberals start babbling in unison about “foreign policy” and “domestic policy” like they’re two equal things which should be compartmentalized and separately considered.

“Okay sure, Kamala is bad on foreign policy with her support for what’s happening in Gaza and all, but she’s a lot better than Trump on domestic policy,” you’ll hear them say with increasing frequency and urgency.

Leaving aside the arguments one can make that Kamala Harris is actually quite bad on domestic policy, this separation of “foreign policy” and “domestic policy” is a dishonest talking point which only resonates with sloppy thinkers, and arises from a rather ugly underlying worldview.

Splitting up “foreign policy” and “domestic policy” on questions of right and wrong only makes sense if you believe harming foreigners is more morally acceptable than harming Americans. “Kamala is bad on foreign policy but good on domestic policy” just means “American lives are innately superior.” It can only feel true from the inside of an American supremacist worldview.

Murder and abuse is wrong regardless of where in the world it happens to occur. The fact that it isn’t happening to you or anyone you know personally doesn’t make it more ethical, it just makes it more tolerable for you if you’re the sort of person who only cares about yourself and your loved ones. The fact that both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris support committing genocide in Gaza shouldn’t feel any more acceptable to you than if they supported committing genocide in Detroit. Morally speaking, there is no difference.

Talking about the US empire’s abusiveness in terms of “domestic policy” versus “foreign policy” also pollutes the discourse by creating the wildly false impression that these matters carry equal weight and are equally worthy of consideration. The overwhelming majority of the US government’s murderousness and tyranny are inflicted not within its own official borders but in foreign countries in the form of wars, economic sanctions, blockades, proxy conflicts, coups, bombing campaigns, and drone warfare. If you are an American and you care about other people, then “foreign policy” should carry the lion’s share of the moral weight for you, because that’s where the US government actions of most consequence for human beings will take place.

Saying a US politician is “bad on foreign policy but good on domestic policy” is like saying “Sure my husband spends his weekends murdering hitchhikers, but he’s a good provider and he knows how to fix a flat tire.” You’re talking about genocide, nuclear brinkmanship, mass military slaughter and deliberate mass starvation, and you’re placing these things on the same moral level as a candidate’s position on student loan debt.

The only reason this kind of chowderheaded reasoning works on anyone at all is because the American propaganda services known as the mainstream media put a lot of energy into keeping Americans from thinking too hard about what their government is up to overseas. The US empire’s nonstop abuses are just a dull humming in the background which gets the occasional news story, while the vast majority of attention goes toward Trump’s latest scandal or the current hot-button culture war issue. In a presidential debate lasting two hours, you might get six minutes on foreign policy while the rest goes into talking about what happens inside the nation’s borders, whereas, in a debate which placed emphasis on the matters of most significance, the exact opposite would be the case.

And let me preempt any objections that the two major presidential candidates are always murderous warmongers by saying, I know. Believe me, I know. You can use that fact to argue that because they’re both corrupt genocide monsters you may as well support the genocide monster who might make things a tiny bit less hard for some people in one small part of the world, or you can actually look at what I’m pointing at here and really ingest the horror of the situation the powerful have created for you and your compatriots. The fact that you’re only allowed to vote for corrupt genocide monsters should shake you to your core, and that’s what should be the main focus of everyone’s political attention. It’s only because Americans are the most propagandized people on earth that this isn’t happening.

Don’t tell me “Kamala is bad on foreign policy but at least she’s better on domestic policy” if you want me to listen to you. If you want to argue that you’re supporting one genocide monster over another because your preferred genocide monster might be a bit less abusive to trans people in one country in the world, that’s fine, but don’t be dishonest and try to dress that up as some kind of “domestic policy” vs “foreign policy” dichotomy with two equal sides worthy of equal consideration. Be honest and admit you’re supporting a genocidal freak because you think she might wind up making the world suck a teeny, tiny bit less than the other guy. Because that’s the only argument that you can truthfully make.

I’m not telling anyone how to vote or not vote. I could not care less. Your votes make no difference as far as I’m concerned. Vote or don’t vote in whatever way seems best to you, and then turn your attention to the real problem that’s staring you in the face right now: the fact that you live under a tyrannical empire which is fueled by human blood, and which is completely unaccountable to the will of the public.

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/bad-on-foreign-policy-but-good-on