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 →
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Anti-Americanism is dangerous. So it's more than just an epithet even if it can be hard to pin down what it is. I opposed going into Iraq. That could be done reasonably though without rooting for the resistance or cheering the deaths of American servicemen. Politics ends at the water's edge and all that.