quote:How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.
This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."
posted
The Democratic Party got to that point once Americans began to realize that the world had changed, and that our own policies and our own attitudes from the 1940s would themselves become a threat to freedom if not revised to adapt to the new world.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senator Lieberman has a very selective view of American history. And seems to be confusing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Again.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a Republican, but I don't think I could support any party that holds that people should give a blank check of support to the president no matter how poorly he performs, which seems to me to be what Sen Liberman is saying the Democrats should do.
As it is, I think they can be rightfully criticized for going too far in that direction already. They have not done their duty in standing up to the President and have, through their lack of opposition, allowed him to damage American interests, standing, and safety by pursuing poorly conceived actions that were implemented with a shocking lack of competence.
I'd counter this with a speech Al Gore gave in 2002 talking about
quote:I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.
That the actions of the Bush administration were poorly thought out, dishonest, and carried out in many cases by people unqualified to do so and/or unwilling to even consider that they might be wrong or that the situation was more complex than their simplistic view of it is pretty near unforgivable. What, to me, makes it much worse is that what they've done have actually harmed all the things that they and their supporters said they were aimed at and that, if people hadn't yielded to the pressure presented by these forces and instead strongly challenged these actions and policies and demanded some sort of accountability, we would be better off and safer as a nation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He probably is highly biased toward seeing them both as people who encourage and reward the families Palestinian suicide bombers. It's rather troubling. "Here, I'll encourage your son to blow himself up, and you get $50,000.00. But really, he goes to heaven. It's such a great idea, but of course I'm not doing it myself, because I have to keep going encouraging other people to do it."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do people really have such a big deal with a Presidential candidate being willing to considering talking to leaders of other nations that really don't like us? There seems to be this idea that just being willing to talk to them implies that you are going to concede to things they ask for.
I can see the second thing being considered very bad, but I fail to see what significant harm is posed merely by being willing to talk to people. As far as I can tell, this is something that high ranking people on both sides of the aisle, even inside the Bush White House, favor.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose because historically, meeting to talk constitutes a level of recognition- and by this, I don't mean the recognition of the reality of an entity, but recognition of their validity.
So during the reign of the Taliban, for instance, it would not have been proper for our president (in my view) to meet with the Taliban leadership since the denial of humanity to women was integral to their administration.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Diplomatic relations are considered a carrot (rightly so, as access is one of the most valuable currencies of politics and gov't). It is appropriate to use their severance as a stick in foreign policy approaches.
Some hostile regimes it would be better to talk to, though, at least sometimes.
Actually, I don't see much point in talking to Cuba, though I'm not strongly against it. I'm very much for removing our restrictions that do little but harm the populace, but I don't think there's much to be gained by talking to the gov't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should also consider that when Lieberman mentions "demoralizing our friends" he doesn't mean England or Turkey, he probably means Israel.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not talking means leaves hostile nations with no way of becoming unhostile nations. They have no avenue of solving legitimate grievances (and some grievances are legitimate) and no way of saving face.
For example, one of the most important steps toward peace in N. Ireland was getting past the refusal to talk. The U.S. recognition of Republican political entities was key to that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Democratic Party got to that point once Americans began to realize that the world had changed, and that our own policies and our own attitudes from the 1940s would themselves become a threat to freedom if not revised to adapt to the new world.
quote:Diplomatic relations are considered a carrot (rightly so, as access is one of the most valuable currencies of politics and gov't). It is appropriate to use their severance as a stick in foreign policy approaches.
I think this is generally true, but relatively, not absolutely. (Which is to say that I agree with you, fugu.)
In the cases we're talking about here, I don't see how being open to talk (not normalizing diplomatic relations, mind you, just being willing to to have a single exchange) harms America's interests.
Also, people opposing it generally seem to frame it as something akin to appeasement or that you will be agreeing to do what these people ask, which seems unreasonable to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somewhere around the 1980s, most Democrats saw what rhetoric about "supporting freedom fighters" resulted in in South America, and realized that it was often a reason to be deeply ashamed.
Apparently Lieberman never did, and thinks he should be patted on the back for it.
When bin Laden was fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, he was a "freedom fighter", too.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kennedy/Johnson's war turned patriotism into a dirty word back in the 60s. But even that might not have done it if they hadn't been drafting young men into service. Enslaving young men to go fight a war we weren't actually trying to win. Giving them a gun and throwing them into the jungle to die while diplomats made their forced sacrifice pointless.
I reckon a healthy percentage of the hatred for America and the military we see coming from the left springs from that atrocity.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?
Is he saying preemptive war is a core identity of security principles and policies of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: He probably is highly biased toward seeing them both as people who encourage and reward the families Palestinian suicide bombers. It's rather troubling. "Here, I'll encourage your son to blow himself up, and you get $50,000.00. But really, he goes to heaven. It's such a great idea, but of course I'm not doing it myself, because I have to keep going encouraging other people to do it."
Keeping straight the differences between people who encourage wrong acts on other countries and those who plan and execute attacks on US soil seems to me to be a key element of good foreign policy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lieberman is taking a very simplistic view of history for in a variety of ways.
I won't get into the Republican/Democratic swappitydoo thing, that's been going on since the Republican party was founded in the 1850's. Republicans were anti-slavery, and a hundred years later were the party protecting the poll tax and fighting against civil rights, and vice versa for Democrats. Things change.
But in this case, I think he's wrong about the change. Democrats were okay with invading Afghanistan, in the same way that France was okay with it, and to this day still provides a big chunk of support for the international effort, but they balked at Iraq, as did the Democrats. His argument that Democrats are weak on terrorism and defense because they don't support Iraq only works if you can make the case that Iraq was vital in this effort, which I don't think he even takes a stab at, he takes it for granted, and it's not.
Furthermore Lieberman ignores the results of 50 years of American foreign policy in a lot of places. From supporting dictators to supporting rebels that ended up hating us later on. It seems most of the time in the last 50 years when we've stuck our nose into a mess, we've gotten burned for it. That isn't to say that I don't think we should get involved, it means we should be thinking about it a LOT more before we jump in, and Iraq is only the latest greatest example of this.
As for meeting with leaders...I think full on diplomatic relations can be a carrot depending on the situation, but having no contact whatsoever often serves no purpose. It certainly hasn't served a function in Cuba. Castro stayed in power until he decided to step down. Would engagement have accomplished anything? Maybe. We'll never know. I support taking down a lot of the trade and travel restrictions there that do nothing but harm the general public without producing any meaningful results that we'd like to see.
But what is there to be gained in NOT meeting with Ahmadinajad or Meshal, or even Nasrallah? Meeting with them might produce no results, but there's no harm in trying. Nasrallah pretty much has control of Lebanon, Meshal is considered to be in charge of Hamas, which is the elected government of Palestine, and Ahmadinajad runs Iran. These are all people we HAVE to deal with, and we don't deal with them at our own peril. These things don't start at the upper echelons, that start at the lower ones, where minor officials meet discretely to exchange information. If that works, then it moves up the ladder. It's not like on day one Obama is hopping a plane to Tehran.
Chuck Hagel recently criticized McCain for his attacks on Obama. I don't think this is a partisan issue, I think it's about McCain wanting to win, and using this as a wedge against what might be considered his better judgement on the subject.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among many others (the Iraq Study Group, for example), considers that the Bush administration's refusal to talk to Iran's government (and, you know, labelling as part of an non-existent axis of evil) in the years before 2005 (where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over from more moderate Mohammad Khatami) may have been serious missed opportunity.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
German Americans had it a lot better than Japanese Americans, but from what I've read, it wasn't a walk in the park for all of them.
Besides, Red Scare in America was a huge problem. Black lists and Joe McCarthy and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and such. I'll take flag pin arguments over that any day.
I think that helps rather than hinders your argument though. We can look at the mistakes we made in the past and fix them if we recognize them beforehand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lieberman is taking a very simplistic view of history for in a variety of ways.
I won't get into the Republican/Democratic swappitydoo thing, that's been going on since the Republican party was founded in the 1850's. Republicans were anti-slavery, and a hundred years later were the party protecting the poll tax and fighting against civil rights, and vice versa for Democrats. Things change.
Not sure where you're getting your data.. Off hand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pops into my mind. Percentage-wise, more Republicans supported it than democrats.
quote:Keeping straight the differences between people who encourage wrong acts on other countries and those who plan and execute attacks on US soil seems to me to be a key element of good foreign policy.
Depends, since the motive for the attacks on US soil was because of our support of the "other countries." I really don't know what the answer is, by the way. It's a big oily mess.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
