One of the most-used libelous labels of establishment Democrats is “Russian asset”, a term used to disparage those on the right and on the left opposed to continuing U.S. support for the war in Ukraine. Like many liberal conspiracy theories, such as the now-debunked Russiagate theory, which posited that Russia successfully interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to help Donald Trump win, the “Russian asset” trope was, unsurprisingly, the brainchild of one Hillary Clinton. First used to attack Jill Stein following her 2016 campaign for President on the Green Party ticket, Clinton reused the same tired diatribe to attack Tulsi Gabbard, who sought the Democratic nomination for President 2020. Now, after Donald Trump’s announcement that he has selected Gabbard to serve as his Director of National Intelligence, this same attack has captured the headlines of corporate media once again.
Fundamentally, liberals have failed in their attempt to disparage Tulsi Gabbard. Instead of banishing Tulsi Gabbard from the national stage through their fallacious attacks, Clinton and her ilk have crowned Tulsi Gabbard as a fighter against an elite political class whom most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, despise. It seems that, even after losing the 2024 election, Democrats have not learned that parading around Liz Cheney instead of reaching out to working class Americans is a recipe for failure. To be criticized by unpopular members of the “swamp” like Hillary Clinton and Neoconservatives like John Bolton is seen as a populist rite-of-passage. Liberals have failed to make any of their criticisms of Tulsi Gabbard stick because they simply cannot understand that their criticisms are amplifying the most popular political opinions of an otherwise unpopular politician.
Democrats have for years adopted a strategy of “running to the right” when it comes to electoral politics in the hope that they can reach the elusive “center” of American politics. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have sacrificed pursuing popular policies in favor of attempting to appeal to the “large, unspoken center” which, frankly, does not exist. This strategy is what ultimately led to Donald Trump “winning” in the eyes of the American people on the issue of foreign policy. In a poll conducted in September of 2024 by the Cato Institute, it became clear that most Americans in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin believe that the United States is “too involved” in the affairs of other countries and is rapidly approaching World War Three. Similarly, Gabbard stated that one of the reasons why she left the Democratic Party was because she believed that the Democrats were leading America towards nuclear annihilation. When Gabbard announced that she was joining the Republican Party at a Trump rally in October, she stated that she was “joining the party of the people… led by a president, who has the courage and strength to fight for peace”.
The Democrats failed to turn the American people away from Tulsi Gabbard because they have positioned themselves as the party of war. While Bill Clinton was lecturing Muslims in Michigan and imploring them to “vote blue no matter who”, Donald Trump was making the case for why he would be more likely to end the war in Gaza. If Democrats truly want to make the case for why the American people should reject Tulsi Gabbard, they must first become the party of peace. This is because Tulsi Gabbard is not truly anti-war or “America First”. While Tulsi Gabbard has led a crusade against continuing the war in Ukraine, she has remained loyal to the state of Israel even if she occasionally expresses minor disagreements with Netanyahu’s extremist government. Gabbard has even criticized Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for not being pro-Israel enough and has opposed a ceasefire.
The best argument against Tulsi Gabbard is that she is incapable of applying her “America First” critique of U.S. support for Ukraine to Israel. Gabbard is nearly identical to her new Neoconservative colleagues, who she supposedly despises, such as “little” Marco Rubio, Elise Stefanik and Pete Hegseth. Nevertheless, Democrats have conceded this argument through their embrace of deeply unpopular RINOs who endorsed Harris by the hundreds and their snubbing of the antiwar progressive movement. In truth, Democrats have aligned themselves with the Bush-Cheney faction of the Republican Party in order to stop Donald Trump, who they lampoon as a “fascist”. However, it was not Donald Trump who spied on American people via the Patriot Act or led the nation into a war in the Middle East under false pretenses; that was Bush. Democratic hypocrisy when it comes to embracing the war hawk leftovers of previous Republican presidential campaigns and administrations has created the perfect political conditions for a Democratic defector like Tulsi Gabbard to gain prominence.
If Democrats truly want to throw Tulsi Gabbard onto the garbage heap of history, the party must evolve quickly. If people like Hillary Clinton are allowed to dictate the direction of the party, it will be the Democratic Party itself thrown onto the garbage heap of history. To all liberals: if you want Tulsi Gabbard to be elected President in 2028, keep doing what you are doing. But if you want to lead America forward, start by listening to its people. The choice is yours, and the clock is ticking.