Comes in many forms. All should be contested. Some will say what it constitutes is debatable but as a certain SCOTUS justice once said when trying to define obscenity: I know it when I see it.
The left-wing and Islamic forms are well known and have gotten the most attention. The far right forms are less familiar though and until recently much more fringe and inconsequential. Let's make some attempt to review them.
Neo-Nazis -
People who equate American policy with Jewish policy and thus end up siding with hostile foreign actors like Iran, Russia, and even al Qaeda in the most virulent strains.
Russophiles -
Putin lovers who blame the US for various things. Syria, the refugee crisis, NATO moving east, Ukraine, etc.
Secessionists -
Little need be said here. Wanting to break up the US is about as anti-American as it gets short of blowing the place up.
Rabid neo-con bashers -
These are the types that tend to see any foreign intervention as a neo-con operation. If they don't side with foreign powers outright they certainly attempt to hamstring necessary applications of American power much in the way leftists will try to hamstring the police domestically.
Much of the above stems from foreign policy ignorance - which is common among the general public. But this is weaponized ignorance.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 12224934? 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
The NATO/EU push to the east up to Russia's border is actually a factual observation, and a huge part for the tense relations to Moscow. Moscow isn't without blame either (such as in the Ukraine annexion), but two are playing this game.
I am more concerned with those who view Putin as some sort of saviour of Occidental culture against Islam and leftism, and RT as his selfless contribution to enlighten those outside of his protective mantle. - Putin is not a good guy to wish for as a ruler, and every word RT sends out is carefully crafted to manipulate its readers and viewers into actions and opinions favourable for Russia's plans. At best, he happens to share some enemies with some of the Western right-wing some of the time.
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago (edited ago)
NATO moving east is indeed a fact. Russophiles both see it as necessarily bad and usually include the dubious contention that the US promised Russia it wouldn't move east.
One could argue NATO moving east was bad policy. It arguably is not in America's national interests to defend Estonia. But Russophiles view it as an inherently hostile act toward Russia - as if these states in the east have no legitimate concern to fear Russia. They also typically ignore the role of these states wanting NATO membership and just blame the US.
I agree with your view of the savior complex though.
Among both neo-Nazi and Russophile types there is also a strong tendency to scapegoat the US. It's almost as if they think European immigration policy is made in Washington for example. This extends to things like the US troop presence in Europe and somewhat more substantial complaints like American cultural influence in the realm of things like hip hop. I'm unsure if this stuff is more common among the European far right or American. I've observed it on both sides of the Atlantic.
[–] 12225328? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I have said it before, but I think it would have been smarter to leave the corridor of countries bordering Russia from Finland to Ukraine as mutually assured neutral buffers. That would have left Russia less encroached, and still give a solid, justifiable reason to slap Russia's hand if it overextends.