Since the Zion War began (you can "world" and "Roman numeral" or "Asian proxy battlefield" things if you like, but you'd be incorrect, and a thousand years later this entire age will be synonymous with the Zion War), Republicans and Democrats in America were switched around to complement the domestic agendas necessary to keep the wars going. Immediately after the escapees to the New World threatened to become a non-royal global power, and develop an independent currency, the party of infotainment futures--the Democrats--were assigned to stoke racial tensions without consistently separating competing groups, and the party of infotainment retro--the Republicans--were assigned to push competing groups into various small boxes so they'd fight each other as a distraction. Accordingly, the Democrats were responsible for starting larger or more formal wars, and the Republicans for starting smaller or more informal ones. After Truman, growing media, the extolling of reduced familial and communal responsibility for child-rearing, permitted a more independent set of children to know how to want to rebel against both parts of the system: endless war and group-boxing. If "the boomers" had demanded both of these things, they could have theoretically split the party system, ergo all the puppets shifted chairs: Democrats became responsible for pushing competing groups into various small boxes so they'd fight each other, while Republicans became responsible for starting larger and more formal wars.
The ends of policy never changed. The goal is, less dramatically put, to keep people wasting their resources fighting each other. Ergo both on large and small scales, different groups need to be forced to fight one another. Groups that have formed successful societies need to be brought into contact with other such groups, either through the false ethics of uplifting colonialism ("we'll save you from yourselves") or the better-known Maine, e.g., "he punched me first." American Republicans and Democrats made the process more stable by changing their roles, so that later generations would find their behavior mysterious, rather than predictable, ergo be able to claim that politics is weird and unpredictable, and depends upon the beliefs of the voters/figureheads, rather than something else more consistent. Republicans more forcibly associated themselves with formal macrowar, while Democrats more forcibly associated themselves with formal microwar. Ergo missiles and cop killers: Reagan speaks enviously of formal macrowar, while condemning formal microwar, meaning he threatens U.S. v. U.S.S.R. while lamenting domestic Africans v. domestic Europeans. When he survives the assassination attempt, the Bank learns that a lifetime of Hollywood ambrosia is insufficient guarantee for an outsider's loyalty, tells Reagan stories about South America, and distracts him while Jenomic plutocrats take over the Soviet Union and turn it into a bastion of crony capitalism. They resolve that the next actor-outsider will be more thoroughly vetted and guaranteed from within. When Reagan's finally not president anymore, Bush formally invades Iraq. When Bush is gone, Clinton is able to talk about gays and blowjobs for 8 years while returning Iraq to endless competing-groups-in-small-box, and when he's gone, Dubya invades Iraq formally again, yawn, and when he's gone, Obama wreaks way more death and destruction worldwide, but without declaring anything. In microwar, Obama supports blacks killing random whites, making it plausible for whites to support another banker who wants to start land wars in Asia.
Presuming the pattern continues, we should see Trump's war cause the antiwar left--so easily distracted by sex during the Democratic administration--suddenly return. Far more importantly, we should see the antiwar left correlate the absence of macrowar with the presence of microwar. What this means is that the antiwar left should associate resistance to population replacement with war, or, more traditionally put, anti-immigration legislation with war.
The antiwar left, like the nationalist right, has some genuinely sound, good moral perspectives. Or at least one such perspective, namely, "Sending a large group of hostile people from one country into another country to take their stuff and try to remake that country into the first country's version of how it should be is wrong." That's a good perspective--and it's one that, during Dubya, and Reagan, and the nominal administration of any given conservative war-starter since the Zion Wars began, the antiwar left was able to retain.
The nationalist right, like the antiwar left, has some genuinely sound, good moral perspectives. Or at least one such perspective, namely, "Sending a large group of hostile people from one country into another country to take their stuff and try to remake that country into the first country's version of how it should be is wrong." That's a good perspective--and it's one that, during Obama, and Clinton, and the nominal administration of any given liberal immigration-proponent since the Zion Wars began, the nationalist right was able to retain.
Opponents of macrowar have enjoyed pointing out the blatant stupidity of macrowar's proponents, as have the opponents of microwar for its proponents. Differently-sized population groups, from prison gangs in one another's cells to Muslims in Sweden, from French in Algeria to Algerians in France, have made each side look abundantly stupid, and that stupidity has led to what we might refer to here as unspeakable evils. Trump's unswerving loyalty to his true supporters--also known as his "betrayal of voters"--is a cunning move. The antiwar left now has a figurehead behind which it can unite, ergo it can return to ensure that microwar continues (Trump would, of course, ensure that it does, but like Obama spending 8 years droning people, it'll let Trump claim he would've stopped immivasion if only those darned liberal judges...). If Pollyanna Trump had existed (we never knew such a figure, but pretend he existed and made it past the television and the voting machine et cetera), he might have ordered the deportation of the Ninth Circuit and missile strikes against the nation that is giving shelter to convicted terrorist Pollard, but he would not have attacked Syria.
The two party system has worked out very well: by advocating for the rights of Aztecs and Africans to rob, rape, and/or kill Europeans, Obama got the nationalist right to accept a macrowar proponent. Trump may bless his successor with a similar gift, namely, getting the macrowar opponents to forget their principles and accept a microwar proponent to save them from macrowar.
On the plus side, if this one lingers, at least all of the passive-aggressive queers will start saying sensible-sounding things again. It has been interesting, it is always interesting, to get censored by different sets of people than before. When there's a Republican president in America, I get banned for pointing out he's a lying warmonger who isn't really accomplishing anything he said he would, and people scream at me about pragmatism and chess. Democratic president in America is the same, where I get banned for pointing out he's a lying warmonger who isn't really accomplishing anything he said he would, and people scream at me about pragmatism and shut me out. Since the Democrat at least tries to downplay his missiling, and empathizes with the struggles of the other half of the group being jammed into a small box to fight it out, the "small box pitfight" concept is okay, and resisting it means you're pro-war. "Liberals," as they call themselves now, have been trained to believe that large-scale war can only be avoided by fostering small-scale war between domestic groups. They see themselves as humanitarians for wanting to force two drugged starving pitbulls into a ring to be friends, while "conservatives" think that the best pitbull will finally get some order around here.