Why are modern day Democrats generally peaceniks?

[DevotedDemocrat]

Same question as title.
Also, why are modern day Democrats so squeamish about the US aiding foreign dictators, if the relationship with said dictator is preferable to our interest than a relationship with a less dictatorial leader would be?

I ask because for example the Cold War era Presidents are crucified today for being hawkish on foreign policy and for supporting dictators, even though supporting such dictators was in our national interest.

When did Democrats go soft? Traditionally, Democrats were the tough ones on foreign policy, for example Wilson, FDR, JFK, Johnson, and even Carter to some extent (reigniting the Cold War). I just don't understand why modern far left Democrats are so touchy feely. I'm an Old Line Democrat, and I've never understood the post Humphrey Democrats (of the McGovern breed) are so socially liberal, so soft on defense and so supportive of the post 1960s culture.

[Donerail]

Because we've had to deal with the consequences of supporting foreign dictators during the Cold War era and found that they're generally negative. All The Shah's Men is a good read on the subject.

(Edit: Fixed formatting of link - TF)

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Because they are wimps.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Because they are wimps.

Look at Wilson, FDR, JFK, Johnson. These were men. They didn't back down from a fight, and didn't believe in appeasement. They were hard liners whose foreign policies would be totally alien to the Nancy Pelosi led DNC of today.

[courts]

[Deus Naturae]

not sure if trolling...

Edit: The guy above me already said it

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

"Soft on defense?"  What is this, 2004?

First of all, I think you're greatly exaggerating how non-interventionist most modern Democrats are.  Secondly, the dove-wing of the Democratic Party doesn't oppose intervention because they are "wimps" or want to "back down from a fight," but they question the practical implications of war if they don't see it as absolutely necessary and, as Sjoyce pointed out, have seen the consequences of supporting foreign dictators during the Cold War.

Anyway, if this was a concern troll post - 7/10.  Made me reply.

[TDAS04]

I don't see anything wrong with questioning support for horrific tyrants, even if such served short-term American interests.  Some of the support provided to those dictators eventually backfired for the US.

[IceSpear]

I'm confused. Opposing perpetual war or "pre-emptive war" does not make one a peacenik. Although there is an element in the Democratic Party that would oppose war even if we were getting bombed daily, they're hardly significant.

[Oak Hills]

Same question as title.
Also, why are modern day Democrats so squeamish about the US aiding foreign dictators, if the relationship with said dictator is preferable to our interest than a relationship with a less dictatorial leader would be?

Because that's never the case. I believe the foremost interest of the United States is promoting democracy around the world, but not in such a way as to be intrusive. Supporting dictators over democratically-elected leaders is revolting and makes me want to throw up.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why is LBJrevivalist still using this sock account? Did he get banned?

[Zioneer]

If supporting dictators was in our "national interest" then we had a terrible national interest.

[Franzl]

I ask because for example the Cold War era Presidents are crucified today for being hawkish on foreign policy and for supporting dictators, even though supporting such dictators was in our national interest.

Yeah nothing immoral about that. American "national interest", after all, is the only thing that matters.

[Goldwater]

If your definition of "peacenik" can include me, you have one epic fail of a definition.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Exact, up-to-date numbers are hard to come by, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been more drone strikes under Obama than under GWB.

[TNF]

Same question as title.
Also, why are modern day Democrats so squeamish about the US aiding foreign dictators, if the relationship with said dictator is preferable to our interest than a relationship with a less dictatorial leader would be?

I ask because for example the Cold War era Presidents are crucified today for being hawkish on foreign policy and for supporting dictators, even though supporting such dictators was in our national interest.

When did Democrats go soft? Traditionally, Democrats were the tough ones on foreign policy, for example Wilson, FDR, JFK, Johnson, and even Carter to some extent (reigniting the Cold War). I just don't understand why modern far left Democrats are so touchy feely. I'm an Old Line Democrat, and I've never understood the post Humphrey Democrats (of the McGovern breed) are so socially liberal, so soft on defense and so supportive of the post 1960s culture.

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.

1. The Democratic Party is in no way "squeamish" about aiding foreign autocracies. President Clinton gave China normal trade relations in 1999, significantly helping out the economy managed and directed by the Chinese Communist Party. "Free trade" pacts have been negotiated by and enacted by Democratic presidents with nations whom have abysmal human rights records (Colombia, for example), offering significant aid and legitimacy to those nations in the process. The Obama administration has repeatedly used American prestige abroad to announce the administration's support for foreign autocracies in Burma, Vietnam, a whole host of despotisms in the Middle East (let us never forget our "greatest ally," the autocratic Israeli state), and is currently negotiating a secret trade pact with the absolutist and Islamist state of Brunei and a country in which chewing gum gets you beat with a cane in the public square.

2. There is no "national interest." There never has been and never will be. What is talked about incessantly in the media and by promoters of an interventionist foreign policy is in the interest of someone, alright, and that someone is international finance capital. Why was there a Cold War? The United States and Soviet Union were on fairly good terms throughout President Roosevelt's tenure. But then things suddenly change in 1945. Suddenly the Soviet Union is our enemy and we must spend billions (if not trillions) to contain the growth of communism and defeat indigenous people trying to implement even mild social reformism at home. Was it really in the "national interest" of an auto mechanic in 1950 to die storming the beaches of Inchon, so that the United States could continue to prop up Syngman Rhee's authoritarian dictatorship? Was it in the "national interest" of a milk truck driver to get his arms or legs blown off fighting the Viet Cong? The Cold War was the direct result of international finance capital being scared sh*tless over the growth of communism, and thus, a loss of markets and/or governments that were willing to cater to their needs. As such, international finance capital, working through the governments that it had influence and/or control over, decided that the best policy was to make the world safe for capitalism. An arms race that drained vital human resources, millions dead, and the development of weapons that may yet wipe out mankind was the result. Boy, I'm glad Truman, Eisenhower, etc. taught those commies a lesson.

3. The Democrats never "went soft." If you think the current leadership of the Democratic Party are the descendants of protestors outside the Chicago Convention, you should really ask the people of the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and everywhere drone strikes kill without warrant or without proof if the Democrats are the "antiwar party." The Democratic Party has always been the party of "progressive murder," i.e. inventing more plausible justification than do the Republicans (whom no one trusts on going into a war at this point) to go into another country and murder its leaders, force open its markets, and establish governments friendly to the United States.

4. The modern Democratic Party is not a McGovernik party. How could it be? The McGoverniks managed to take control of the Democratic Party only briefly, in 1972. The minute after McGovern's defeat at the hands of Nixonian ratf**king, poor campaigning on his part, and his inability to seal the deal with large portions of his own base, the "Old Line Democrats" took back control of the party apparatus. That's why the Democratic Party has superdelegates and the Republican Party does not. The Democrats have actively sought to prevent the antiwar left from taking control in the party and have largely succeeded in this effort. The modern Democratic Party has enacted military budget after military budget larger than those proposed by President Bush, has intervened in various nations around the globe since Obama took office, and is continuing the Bush policy of encircling Russia (although doing so under a "progressive veneer"). Likewise, the idea that the Democratic Party "supports the 1960s culture" is ludicrous once one remembers that you have literally no national Democrats coming out in favor of Colorado or Washington legalizing pot, that literally no one in Congress has the guts to introduce a federal bill legalizing same-sex marriage or lifting the ban on taxpayer-funded abortions (and didn't when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority), have increased the power of the state to surveil it's opponents and used force to dislodge peaceful protestors, and proudly guts the programs of the Great Society and New Deal.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No they are not.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If they're such peaceniks, why did Hillary Clinton support the failed Iraq War?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nothing says 'peacenik' like drone strikes!

[Zioneer]

Basically, TNF is completely right, though I think that the Colorado Congresspeople are secretly in favor of marijuana legalization, except for Jared Polis, who is openly in favor of legalizing marijuana. Otherwise, completely accurate.

[Deus Naturae]

Basically, TNF is completely right, though I think that the Colorado Congresspeople are secretly in favor of marijuana legalization, except for Jared Polis, who is openly in favor of legalizing marijuana. Otherwise, completely accurate.

On what do you base that theory?

[Mordecai]

When did Democrats go soft? Traditionally, Democrats were the tough ones on foreign policy, for example Wilson, FDR, JFK, Johnson, and even Carter to some extent (reigniting the Cold War). I just don't understand why modern far left Democrats are so touchy feely. I'm an Old Line Democrat, and I've never understood the post Humphrey Democrats (of the McGovern breed) are so socially liberal, so soft on defense and so supportive of the post 1960s culture.

The answer is that they never did because there have always been interventionist, hawkish, nationalistic Democrats and there always will be. Let's not forget that in 2000, Gore was considered a hawk compared to Bush. It's all just a matter of perception. Neither do Clinton, Kerry and Obama fit into that touchy feely peacenik mold you just described.

[Zioneer]

Basically, TNF is completely right, though I think that the Colorado Congresspeople are secretly in favor of marijuana legalization, except for Jared Polis, who is openly in favor of legalizing marijuana. Otherwise, completely accurate.

On what do you base that theory?

Well, none of them have spoken out against marijuana (if I recall correctly), and none have sponsored legislation to stop Colorado's legalization of marijuana. At worst, they figure that their constituents like it, so they should be quiet about it, and at best they approve, but can't say so in case they want a leadership position in Congress (except for Polis, who clearly doesn't see it as a hindrance).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

hard to be aggressive when you're potted up on the marijuana cigarettes all the time, right fellas?