Special to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

With the wave of insanity that continues to engulf the Democratic Party, it is very difficult, if not impossible to show sympathy for anyone running for office under that very party. Though, there have been a few exceptions here and there. One of them is John Hickenlooper, who was one of the few presidential candidates at California’s Democratic Convention who actually had the guts to admit that socialism doesn’t work. As one can imagine, it didn’t go over well with the crowd who booed and jeered Hickenlooper for daring to acknowledge certain economic realities that actually conflict with the leftist worldview. Then there is Tulsi Gabbard the presidential candidate from Hawaii, one of the few Democrats, aside from Dennis Kucinich that has held a consistent noninterventionist view on foreign policy.

Now I don’t want anyone to think that I have gone soft on the Democrats. I find just about every other stance that Gabbard has on every other issue to be downright abhorrent. That being said I can’t help but feel sympathetic to this woman in the same way that I sympathized with Ron Paul. Like Paul, Gabbard seems to find herself heavily marginalized by her own party. I especially felt bad for the way she was treated when she appeared on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. I can honestly say that I have never thought that much of Colbert, even as a comedian. I found him mildly amusing when he had his first show on Comedy Central where he was parodying a conservative commentator and that was mainly because I found it funny that people on the left actually believe that’s what conservative commentators sound like. His current show on the other hand represents everything that is wrong with late-night talk shows. This particular episode was no exception, especially when Colbert attacked Gabbard for her noninterventionist stance. He said that if the US didn’t take it upon themselves to insert themselves into the world’s affairs, both China and Russia would be there to fill the vacuum. I think Tom Woods said it best “that Colbert’s lecture sounded like it could have come from Dick Cheney or John McCain.” You have to wonder if Colbert is aware that he actually sounds just like the Neocons that he bashed years ago for the war in Iraq. Of course, Iraq probably wasn’t his kind of war. So, what was the right war for Stephen Colbert? How about Libya where Obama destabilized an entire region when he helped oust the nation’s leader? What about our involvement in the Egyptian civil war where Obama decided to cozy up to the Muslim Brotherhood? How did that work out? How about the wonders that his administration has done for Syria? I bet Colbert was mad as hell when Trump decided to pull us out of that volatile hell hole. Hell, I bet he is disappointed that Trump is doing everything in his ability to avoid war with Iran.

This not only reinforces Jay Leno’s observation about how late-night talk shows are becoming far too political and less funny, but it also shows the utter hypocrisy of the left when it comes to war and foreign policy. They act like peace loving hippies when we have a Republican beating the war drum because according to the left, they are doing it to empower the corporations. Yet, when you have a Democrat leading the charge, it’s justified because they are doing it to bring peace to the region. That is why the hippies waving peace signs and screaming anti-war slogans seem to vanish off the face of the earth when a Democrat is elected. I will say that despite the disagreements that I have with Tulsi Gabbard, which are numerous, it is refreshing to see somebody in the Democratic Party who is consistent about her anti-war stance. The only other person who has showed this kind of consistency was Dennis Kucinich, who wanted to impeach Obama for choosing to attack Libya without Congressional approval. Unfortunately, most Democrats will never show opposition to a war if it is being waged by someone in their own party.

This point was proven once again when Gabbard appeared on an episode of the View. Both Meghan McCain and Joy Behar had previously referred to Gabbard as a “Useful Idiot” and a “Russian Asset” for her noninterventionist stance on foreign policy. As soon as the congresswoman made her appearance, she came out swinging. Gabbard said that she was a loyal American that wanted to keep America safe and was not at all happy with the labels that McCain and Behar had given her. McCain would backtrack on what she had said about Gabbard, but Behar would stand firm by bringing up her appearance on Tucker Carlson and that she had been endorsed by Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer, as if she has any control over who endorses her candidacy. The congresswoman then fired back, by telling Behar that she is trying to reach all Americans, not just the ones who agree with her. Behar is probably too dense to realize this, but Gabbard actually made her look like an elitist snob for the way she turned her nose up at Fox News viewers. I would come to expect Meghan McCain to turn her nose up at Gabbard’s noninterventionist beliefs, considering who her father was and how she always makes it seem as if the apple hasn’t fallen far from the Neoconservative tree. How many want to bet that Behar acted like a peace-loving hippie during the Bush administration?

As much disagreement as I have with the congresswoman’s views, I do admire the way she took down both Behar and McCain without a hint of hesitation. I also admire her for the way she is willing to stand by her principles even if it does make her look like the black sheep of her party. The one conclusion that I can definitely gain from what Gabbard experienced on both The Late Show and The View, is that they reinforce my belief that both Democrats and Neoconservatives are cut from the same cloth.