- How is this any diffent than when Democrats put finding into liberal NGOs and charities?
- For one thing, as an administration insider says, it’s a twist on previous efforts that funded “specific causes”.
For another, most foreign funding was usually bipartisan otherwise it would have been killed by subsequent presidents from the opposite party.
For another, I’ve not heard of other such funding that was “causing consternation among allies”.
For another, “ Another senior Reform figure said they had been told that Rogers “had a state department slush fund to get Maga-style things going in various places”, adding that she was keen to “fund European organisations to undermine government policies””……undermining government policies of allies was likely never done on this broad scale (even if the US may have intervened on specific policies).
Why don’t you provide some examples of “Democrats funding into liberal NGOs and charities” that cause so much consternation among allies?
- Who are you responding to?
- They are responding to the comment above that asks why this funding is different than previous administrations. Generally, it breaks with many long held (post ww2) diplomatic approaches to american soft power. Instead of engendering good will with our allies (as opposed to the world as a whole mind you) it seeks to insert the thin edge of the wedge.
6 points by exceptione 11 hours ago | 5 comments