Do Kamala Harris’s Neocon Supporters Just Hate Trump, or Is There Something More to Her Appeal?

The Iraq war — sold on lies and bungled in its prosecution — has become the embodiment of American hubris in the 21st century. Hundreds of thousands died, allies were alienated, and the U.S. became mired in a decadeslong boondoggle that is still unfolding. By 2007, a few years after the war was launched, all but its most diehard proponents had come to see it as the mistake it was.

Today, those same diehard war hawks — the very people who planned and carried out the Iraq invasion — are proudly throwing their full support behind Vice President Kamala Harris in the November presidential election.

Chief among them is former Vice President Dick Cheney. Not far behind are a clutch of other Bush-era figures aligned with the neoconservative movement, like Bill Kristol; former officials like former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and staffers for the late former Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Harris is, in turn, embracing her new right-wing fan club, touting endorsements from more than 200 Republican staffers who worked for George W. Bush, McCain, and another former Republican presidential nominee, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.

Harris is embracing her new right-wing fan club.

“Of course, we have plenty of honest, ideological disagreements with Vice President Harris,” the GOP staffers wrote in a letter. “That’s to be expected. The alternative, however, is simply untenable.”

These hawks say they’re endorsing Harris largely to stop Donald Trump — citing his conduct and “chaotic leadership” — but these prominent conservatives are backing the Democratic nominee because their visions for U.S. foreign policy increasingly appear to be aligned. The Democratic and Republican parties are more unified than ever in their commitment to preserving American hegemony and preventing the multipolar world from emerging.

As vice president, Cheney was one of the principal architects not only of the Iraq War, which left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, but also the U.S.’s worldwide torture regime. The aftershocks of America’s eight-year occupation are still being felt in the region and in our domestic politics to this day. Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wy., who inherited her father’s hawkish views, has also pledged to do whatever she can to elect Harris, including launching a PAC that has raised millions of dollars to boost the Democrat’s campaign.

This marks a departure from the past 20 years of Democratic presidential campaigns, which were built on a repudiation of the Bush administration and its disastrous war in Iraq.

Just 18 months after American troops went into Baghdad, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, said that the invasion created “a crisis of historic proportions.” He charged Bush with “stubborn incompetence” over his handling of the war. In 2008, Barack Obama’s opposition to the unpopular war was a major source of his success at the ballot box.

Even in 2016, the repercussions of the Iraq War were a major issue in the Democratic primary. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made his opposition to the war a cornerstone of his platform and repeatedly referenced Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of it. “I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq,” Sanders said of Clinton.

Now, however, an endorsement from one of the biggest war criminals in recent history is seen as an asset, not a liability.

Harris for Hawks

The Harris campaign isn’t just courting moderates and conservatives as part of a short-term strategy to win the election. Rather, Democrats are actively supporting and spouting neoconservative ideas.

During her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, Harris vowed: “As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” — as her party blocked any Palestinian Americans from appearing on the convention stage to speak about Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

The party’s 2024 platform also reflects this rightward shift. A section from the 2020 platform on ending forever wars and opposing regime change was completely removed in 2024. The Democratic Party went from calling for an end to U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen to championing the Biden administration’s plan for a normalization deal between Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchy — a plan that could also put American lives on the line to protect the Saudi dictatorship for decades to come.

Some of the most glaring neocon-coded changes in the platform have to do with Iran policy. This year’s platform attempted to portray Trump as being too soft on Iran, while including no mention of the Trump administration’s assassination of a top Iranian military commander. Though Harris’s national security adviser, Phil Gordon, helped negotiate the 2015 Iran deal, others in her circle have predicted that a Harris administration would not seek to return to the Iran nuclear deal.

It’s not like Trump offers a viable alternative. As recently as the debate this week, Harris and Trump tried to outflank each other on issues like China, immigration, and crime. Trump called Biden a “very bad Palestinian” who doesn’t want to help Israel “finish the job” in Gaza. Both parties are guilty of China-bashing and casting China as an existential threat to the U.S. As president, Trump declared economic war on China, which was then escalated by Biden.

The American people don’t support any of these bloodthirsty policies, but it appears that circles of power in the U.S. are increasingly disconnected from the will of the people. The vast majority of Americans who want the U.S. to pull back and focus on domestic issues are going to be left without any serious option in November. The country, and the world, will pay the price.

The post Do Kamala Harris’s Neocon Supporters Just Hate Trump, or Is There Something More to Her Appeal? appeared first on The Intercept.