right. but, when the democrats were doing similar things in response to iraq was it not clear it was a ploy? the tea party doesn't like war because it interprets it as a waste of tax money. it doesn't like foreign aid, either, for the same reason. or the united nations. or...

that's not peace, or at least it isn't in a co-operative sense. it's just a type of self-interest. this doesn't offer an actual movement to rally around, it just leaves the landscape littered with the bodies of submerged ostriches. if there's a task for progressives, there, it is to try and pull all of those heads out of their own rears....

(special care should be taken to avoid accidental impregnation, as that may lead to an unnecessary debate. my point is transparent.)

nor is this as new as the article points out, so much as it's a return to historical norms. the architects of america's war have generally been democrats; republicans have generally opposed that worldly vision in favour of a more insular one. the term isolationism may bring to mind ron paul, but the idea is as old as the country. i suppose it's greatest victory was rendering the league of nations useless. and it's a very republican idea. barry goldwater isn't as much fun to rally around as ron paul, though.

....even though they're equally racist. again, that's a debate. should avoid that.

i wouldn't expect this little tea party uprising to be any more formative on the next republican administration than cindy sheehan has been on the existing one.

mr. cameron, likewise, has his own racist reactionaries to pander to, lest the fucking ukip work their way into coalition. they don't like war, either. sooooo many debates...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/09/peace-is-no-longer-a-partisan-issue/