Tulsi Gabbard: A New Democratic Party Star?

Tulsi Gabbard speaking at the 2015 conference of Christians United for Israel

Tulsi Gabbard speaking at the 2015 conference of Christians United for Israel

The latest rising star on the liberals’ horizon is Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic Congresswoman from Hawaii. A military vet and a prominent participant in the Bernie Sanders campaign, she has all the right credentials. But is she really our hope? Who, in fact, is she?

Liberal but…
She is one of the few members of congress who has spoken out in favor of the Water Protectors at Standing Rock. Her voting record on environmental issues and other liberal touchstones is good. Among other things, she supports the right to same sex marriage. But it’s exactly here that a different Gabbard appears. In 2004, Gabbard argued against a Hawaii state bill in favor of civil unions, which she denounced as being the product of  “a small number of homosexual extremists.” This is similar to the switch that Hillary Clinton pulled on this issue. And while she now poses as a champion of homeless veterans, when she was a Honolulu city council member, she introduced a bill which would have had the effect of confiscating the personal possessions of the homeless.

Her main issue, over which she’s been getting a lot of attention lately, is a bill she’s sponsoring (HR6504) that would supposedly mandate that the US stop funding Islamic terrorist groups or individuals. This is music to the ears of those on the left who support Assad and Putin in Syria. They see the matter as being purely a war against these terrorist groups, with the US allegedly backing those groups. But what, in fact, does the bill say and who else is behind it?

A tip off is that one of the co-sponsors of the bill is US Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R, CA). Rohrabacher is on the far right of the Republican party, an outspoken Islamophobe and anti-immigrant bigot.

HR6504 reads, “no funds made available to any Federal department or agency may be used to provide covered assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and ISIL, and any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups.”

We are not lawyers, but this is a very broad prohibition that would apply not only to “Defense” and similar agencies, but as it says “any Federal department or agency”.  Combine that with what it says – any group or individual that is even “associated with” such groups. In other words, this could mean any Muslim in the US who goes to a mosque or participates in some sort of Muslim social group where there are people who have some sort of relationship with some group or individual who is involved – either knowingly or not – with one of the named groups. Such people could, for example, be barred from getting federal housing assistance, etc.

Given that Gabbard and the other sponsors provide not a shred of evidence that the US government actually is funding the Islamic State or similar groups, this bill should be seen in the context of the anti-Muslim propaganda that is so prevalent today. As well, it is a nod towards the far right wing Vladimir Putin.

Gabbard with Narendra Modi

Gabbard with Narendra Modi

Hindu Nationalism
HR 6504 should also be seen in the context of Gabbard’s own history. A Hindu, Gabbard is a supporter of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).  This party, and Modi himself, were complicit in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Modi’s home state of Gujarat, riots that killed close to 800 Muslims. (The Wall St. Journal has supported Modi because of his promise to push through neoliberal economics measures as prime minister.)

In 2014, BJP supporters in the US convened a meeting in Atlanta. According to a report, “Gabbard attended the meeting, posing with a sash adorned with the BJP’s party logo…. Federal election commission documents show Gabbard received over $6,000 from BJP supporters in the Atlanta area that day alone…. her backers are all ideological backers of the BJP, which represents the right-wing, Hindu nationalist wing of Indian politics.

Gabbard with BJP supporter Vijay Jolly at their Atlanta conference

Gabbard with BJP supporter Vijay Jolly at their Atlanta conference

The following year (2015), Gabbard visited India, where the Indian newspaper “The Telegraph” called her “the Sangh’s mascot.” This refers to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a far, far right Hindu sectarian and nationalist group that supported the

The RSS thugs. During WW II they supported Hitler.

The RSS thugs.
During WW II they supported Hitler.

Nazis during WW II. Among other things, during that visit, Gabbard attended a conference hosted by the Sangh. While in India, she also made comments on Hinduism that are no different from comments a Christian fundamentalist would make about the Bible and Christianity.

Her anti-Muslim politics coincides with her support for Israel. As does Modi, Gabbard strongly supports that state, and she is close to one of Israel’s strongest supporters in the US, the right wing Sheldon Adelson. In July of 2015, Gabbard was a featured speaker at the conference of “Christians United for Israel” (see picture), where she campaigned against the US treaty with Iran.

Gabbard was a featured speaker at the conference of Christians United for Israel. She spoke along with such right wingers as Ted Cruz and Nick Santorum. The reactionary bigot Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu also spoke.

Gabbard was a featured speaker at the conference of Christians United for Israel. She spoke along with such right wing religious fanatics as Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. The reactionary bigot Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu also spoke.

Trump and Conservative Establishment
Gabbard has studiously avoided openly criticizing Trump, and shortly after he was elected

Gabbard happily posing with the wife of far right winger, Sheldon Adelson.

Gabbard happily posing with the wife of far right winger, Sheldon Adelson.

president she had a private audience with him, where she reportedly discussed the war in Syria. On this issue, she apparently has a lot in common with Trump in that both support Assad and, apparently, Putin’s role also.

Gabbard is also close to the conservative establishment, most particularly the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). “I like her thinking a lot,” says  Arthur Brooks, president of the AEI. As the conservative National Review reports, “Since taking office in January 2013, Gabbard has cultivated relationships with conservative national-security and defense experts, particularly those from AEI, an institution known for churning out research advocating a muscular foreign policy. She was one of just three Democrats to land an invitation to AEI’s exclusive annual retreat in Sea Island, Ga., earlier this month… and she’s befriended and impressed AEI’s foreign-policy wonks.”

It says a lot that Bernie Sanders made Tulsi Gabbard a central figure in his presidential campaign. On several foreign policy issues, such as drone warfare and support for Israel, the two are on the same page.

For US politics, most of the 20th century was dominated by the “Cold War”, the rivalry between US capitalism and the Soviet Union. During that era, there arose a liberal establishment in the US that totally pushed US capitalist domination overseas (such as the Vietnam War) while supporting some liberal reforms at home. First and foremost among these was Hubert Humphry, former US senator and vice president under Lyndon Johnson. These were known as the Cold War liberals. Sanders and Gabbard are the 21st century equivalent of these politicians. In a world where events around the world increasingly affect events at home, these 21st century Cold War liberals offer no way forward.

Update: Since this article was written, Tulsi Gabbard made a trip to Syria as a guest of the fascist Syrian Social Nationalist Party. There, she and another liberal icon – Dennis Kucinich – met with Assad. Click here for this story.

7 replies »

    • you are taking this in the wrong way. I merely mean that she’s “attractive” in bourgeois politics because of her status – war veteran, etc. There’s plenty of male politicians who are referred to in the same way.

  1. Whoa! The ‘attractive appearance’ line at the beginning is absurdly sexist, will turn progressives off, and needs to go! I chose to simply not read the article because of that line. Edit please..

    • Please document the claim that the US is supporting Islamic guerrillas to overthrow Assad.
      Normally the conspiracy-theorist Assadist comments are no more allowed on this blog than would be the flat earthers, but this commentator has one chance.

    • It would be interesting to know who wrote this account in Wikipedia. The NY Times gives a different account, and their account is in keeping with what is known and what makes sense. Hundreds, probably thousands of freedom fighters joined Islamist groups not because they, themselves, were Islamic fundamentalists but because these were the best armed groups, and they wanted to get arms with which to fight the fascistic Assad.

      As for the Obama administration, their policy was confused to say the least. On the one hand, they saw Assad as an obstacle to stability and also they wanted to curry favor with some of the rebels, thinking that they could win. On the other hand, they saw the threat of Islamic terrorists and saw Assad as the main barrier to that threat. It is very telling that what determined the outcome of the war was on one side the air power of Assad and Putin and, on the other, the complete lack of anti-aircraft weapons on the part of the rebels. That is decisive: Had Obama & Co, and even more so Trump, been committed to overthrowing Assad, they would have provided the rebels with anti-aircraft weapons.

      Finally, in reply, I notice that “John Z” has nothing to say about the other points made in this article about Tulsi Gabbard. His comments on those points would be welcome, although I will not be shocked if we don’t get them.

      • More from Michael Karadjis, who is probably one of the most knowledgeable people around on this issue. He recommends this article of his:


        It doesn’t refer to ‘Timber Sycamore’ by name I don’t think, but it refers to “the CIA program” as opposed to the Pentagon program. My basic thesis is that the CIA program was so small in effect, compared to need, and compared to what the regime had, that its aims were more for mere survival in weakened form of the FSA, rather than seriously pressuring Assad to negotiate as is commonly assumed (the suggestions on wikipedia that ti aimed to “overthrow Assad” would not be shared by any serious scholar or anyone remotely knowledgeable about certain basics); and even more importantly, that its ultimate aim was the same as that of the Pentagon program (ie, get the rebels to drop the fight against Assad and direct all their fore at ISIS or Nusra), but the CIA was doing it in a longer-term, and more effective way (the reason the Pentagon eventually could settle only with the YPG was that iits *up-front* demand that anyone they support drop the fight against Assad was never going to get any rebel group except a few tiny irrelevancies anyway, whereas the more “transitional” approach of the CIA program trapped real anti-Assad fighting forces and later moved to bend them.

Leave a Reply