Democrats and Liberals Trust the CIA More Than Republicans

One of the many negative consequences of the Russiagate craze was the rehabilitation of U.S. intelligence agencies in the eyes of Liberals and Democrats. A new poll from Fox News shows that they are the group that trusts the CIA and FBI the most, compared to Republicans and Independents.

According to the poll 73 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Hillary Clinton voters and 74 percent of liberals have confidence in the CIA. When it comes to the FBI, the agency of their patron saint Robert Mueller, its 77 percent across the board.

NBC News did a poll in December 2016 that showed Democrats favored the CIA more than Republicans since they started asking that question in 2002. That was around the time the CIA decided the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election.

During the George W. Bush presidency, the CIA came under scrutiny from Democrats for their black sites and torture programs. Under Obama, the CIA’s extrajudicial drone assassinations and covert operations in Syria and Libya were largely ignored by the same people. After the shocking loss of Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, the Democrats quickly accepted these intelligence agencies as their ally in the fight against the orange man.

The newest hero for the Democrats to put their hopes in is the CIA "whistleblower" that came out about Trump’s Ukraine phone call. Another intelligence hero for the "resistance" to glom onto while a real whistleblower like Chelsea Manning sits in jail for exposing some of the worst war crimes the US government has committed.

Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at and a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave.

22 thoughts on “Democrats and Liberals Trust the CIA More Than Republicans”

    1. Why do you want non violent people to stay in prison ?? Do you really want to bring back slavery or what ??

      1. If I wanted slavery, I’d have criminals released. I want them to remain in prison.

        For a law-abiding society that rejects “might makes right,” criminals must be in prison. Otherwise, they’ll continue to break the law.

        I assume you want white-collar criminals who’ve only stolen from senile retirees to be free? Nonviolent crimes are often very serious. Just because some New Yorker seems superior to you doesn’t mean he is. Criminals belong in prison.

        This belief that New Yorkers are superior to everyone else, that Virginian mansions have some special right to be built from the corruption of DC, is behind much that’s wrong in the US.

        The wealth gap continues to expand, because of all of this corruption. Keep them in prison; and treat them like everyone else.

        And those who sell drugs are mass murderers.

        Whatever special crime you think isn’t a crime, it is. And there are victims, including deaths. If a New Yorker steals someone’s money, the victim might die as a result, will certainly suffer. If a Virginia mansion is built due to some war or healthcare scam, there are victims. Such people belong in prison.

        The opposite of slavery, the real opposite, is the upholding of law and order and a decentralisation of wealth and power such that there is no powerless underclass.

        1. “I assume you want white-collar criminals who’ve only stolen from senile retirees to be free? Nonviolent crimes are often very serious. Just because some New Yorker seems superior to you doesn’t mean he is. Criminals belong in prison.”

          Sure — if you’d rather spend money caging them than put them to work paying back those senile retirees.

          “And those who sell drugs are mass murderers.”

          Thanks for getting your “dumbest thing Tom Knapp read this week” entry in just before the deadline.

          1. Well, selling crack, heroin, and opioids to a child who then becomes addicted is murder. And adults are often little more than strong children, albeit ones who are less susceptible to addiction.

            A failing of your ideas is this belief that the weakest should be free to be exploited. Instead, they should be protected. That includes protection from thing like the poor tax, aka the lottery.

          2. Your last sentence summarizes your error nicely. “Protection services” from the state are no different than “protection services” from the mafia. The only things they really “protect” are the wealth and power of those supposedly doing the “protecting.”

            120 years ago it was entirely legal for any 6-year-old to walk into a drug store and buy all the opium she wanted. But that probably didn’t happen much if for no other reason than that mom or dad might come in to give the store owner a piece of his or her mind about it.

            It was driving drugs into the black market that made children targets of the drug trade (more as workers than as users, although making them the latter makes keeping them the former easier). If you’re already risking a long prison term for selling things to consenting adults, you have an incentive to shift some of the work load to people who don’t go to jail — and to sell the stuff to them, too. Minors still manage to get booze, but you don’t see liquor store owners trying to get them hooked on it.

          3. Site issue: I think y’all should retweet Trump’s “The Endless Wars Must End!” tweet. He should be encouraged. If I still had a twitter account, I would. No one whose account I regularly check seems to have retweeted it. It’s in a sense a test of how popular ending the wars is.

          4. That same 6-yr-old could, today, buy opium online, were it legal – assuming the 6-yr-old could enter the right info. 6 might be too young.

            Regardless, while certain drugs are illegal, releasing criminals who sell or transport those drugs is very bad. Some black Americans seem sympathetic to these criminals, but were these same drugs legal, it would be businesses selling them.

            Banning alcohol has worked in some limited cases. And I don’t like, for example, a person being readily able to buy drugs that can be used to harm or rape someone. Fentanyl is clearly very dangerous, the contemporary most-mentioned drug.

            I realize it’s easy to do all manner of harmful things with fertilizer and other common items. I also realize there are limits to what a particular society can do. But you have your impossible stateless ideal, and I have my “none should profit from vice” ideal, with vice defined there more as exploiting others. So, I mean to especially include usury, selling drugs, and other exploitation of the weak.

            In the US, Epstein couldn’t even be tried. And US foreign policy not only serves al Qaeda at times but is generally dishonest. So, I don’t pretend the US is able to do a great deal. But it is not good for “bad people” to dominate in a society, to become its rich and powerful. Elites drive the world; so, to the extent possible, it’s best to empower the good, people who in this instance work for a living in a job that doesn’t involve exploiting others.

  1. Well, if Watergate happened today the Republicans would not give a damn, they’d simply call it fake news.

    1. Believing in one cult or another shouldnt be a source of pride. We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

      1. Nixon knew; he just didn’t have the Internet. Pat Buchanan’s book on Nixon is, I suspect, enlightening on the subject. I haven’t had time to read it though. Pat’s still loyal to Nixon.

      2. It’s not fake news, it was just not taken all the way.
        Just like Obama allowed Bush to get away with his crimes of illegal wiretapping, torture and there was no international hunt after Bush for the illegal Iraq war.

  2. “A new poll from Fox News”

    That right there could be a CIA headline. They would not abandon divide and conquer. The last thing they want is unity in the US….

    It’s pretty obvious we’ve been under the influence of a covert agency coup for decades now and it’s finally coming to a conclusion.

    If they succeed in booting Trump out of office it means the covert agencies can cancel any and all who disagree with their insane world view and barbaric tactics.

    Welcome to the world of not knowing who your leaders are from day to day and not being able to criticize the ruling class even to your buddies at work or your neighbor…..

    My bet is the drone attacks on US citizens on US soil will begin very soon.

    After all, we’re all just one accusation away from being terrorists.

  3. So now progressives trust the CIA and they approve of wars under the banner of humanitarian interventionism. I thought it used to be the opposite .

        1. Do the names Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Lyndon Baines Johnson ring any bells? All their interventions were advertised as “humanitarian” too.

Comments are closed.