When did the GOP become the pro-war Party?

[Scam of God]

Though the knowledge may distress some of our resident fascists, conservatism has historically been a movement opposed to internationalism in all of its guises: the same political impulse that led the great Senator Robert Taft (R-OH) to oppose entry into the United Nations caused him also to despise the internationalist faction led by Rockefeller and Eisenhower that called for an expansion of the Cold War into armed proxy conflicts.

And even then, Eisenhower was far more cautious in his attitude towards militarism than are our modern gung-ho chickenhawks: I doubt very seriously any Republican President from Reagan on could have delivered Ike's farewell address with regards to the 'military-industrial complex' without alienating a large segment of his voting block.

I understand that the Republican Party was borne of militarist nationalism, but it seemed like this mistake had been corrected in the period between the second and sixth decade of the last century. Why has it regressed? Is it because war is expensive and gives jobs to the Republican Party's corporate friends?

[k-onmmunist]

During the 1950s, really, when the Cold War turned hot. That said, both parties are pro-war, so I don't think calling the GOP 'the' pro-war party is fair.

[Scam of God]

During the 1950s, really, when the Cold War turned hot. That said, both parties are pro-war, so I don't think calling the GOP 'the' pro-war party is fair.

It's certainly more pro-war than the Democratic Party at this point - see CJK's post further down the line. And really, I'm just asking his question in reverse: when did the conservatives become convinced of the veracity of the interventionist, internationalist, liberal line?

[k-onmmunist]

During the 1950s, really, when the Cold War turned hot. That said, both parties are pro-war, so I don't think calling the GOP 'the' pro-war party is fair.

It's certainly more pro-war than the Democratic Party at this point - see CJK's post further down the line. And really, I'm just asking his question in reverse: when did the conservatives become convinced of the veracity of the interventionist, internationalist, liberal line?

Yes that is true, and the Democrats are anything BUT pacifists. That said, the whole neoconservative line involves internationalism bizarrely. I suppose that originated in the Democrats with Wilson and simply got transmitted to the GOP after WWII. Even then, it only really made it's appearance with the Bush dynasty.

[paul718]

I've always assumed it was during Vietnam, when the GOP went after Johnson for failing to prosecute the war as vigorously as possible.  I'm sure the '60s counter-culture drove the GOP further toward being the pro-war party.  Kind of the anti-anti-war party.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Basically what Paul said. Reagan/Bush didn't help.

[Brandon H]

Here is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservativism#History_and_origins

The super short version is LBJ's Great Society and the nomination of George McGovern caused many neocons to jump from Democratic Party to the Republican Party and eventually they took over the party.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Around about 1854 I'd reckon. Though the first war was probably a necessary one (YES Statesrights if you are still here, you did read that correctly).

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The super short version is LBJ's Great Society and the nomination of George McGovern caused many neocons to jump from Democratic Party to the Republican Party and eventually they took over the party.

Sadly, they eventually abandoned the liberal economic stances espoused by such neocon godfathers as Scoop Jackson, and became what they are today.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's always been the pro-war party, except for a brief blip in between the two world wars.

[Хahar 🤔]

The super short version is LBJ's Great Society and the nomination of George McGovern caused many neocons to jump from Democratic Party to the Republican Party and eventually they took over the party.

Sadly, they eventually abandoned the liberal economic stances espoused by such neocon godfathers as Scoop Jackson, and became what they are today.

They're generally quite liberal economically.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

They're generally quite liberal economically.

Not nearly liberal enough.  Compare John McCain with Scoop Jackson, for example.

[Хahar 🤔]

McCain is more liberal economically than Jackson was, yes.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

McCain is more liberal economically than Jackson was, yes.

How so?

[Citizen James]

In times that the Democratic party opposes wars

(end glibness).

I see two main shifts - one in the '50's one in the 90's.  In the '50's it was pretty much a pissing match as to who was 'tougher' on communism (Or at least who had the more paranoid rhetoric and was more willing to sacrifice freedoms for scapegoating ala McCarthy).

In the 90's, there was a drastic shift away from the pragmatic policies of Reagan and Bush Sr. (Who Clinton emulated well, and Obama seems to be working on emulating).  It is from that era that we get the Powell doctrine.   The unholy alliance between the neocons (and their hangers on - the jingoists, who care less about creating stable democracies than about kicking butt), the authoritarian/religious right (which wanted to turn or burn the heathens, or at least figured that militancy was divinely sanctioned), as well as various kleptocrats who reached new highs in war profiteering.

[Free Palestine]

When the neoconservatives and far-right loons took over in the 1990s, and swept real conservatives under the bus.

[Alexander Hamilton]

When the neoconservatives and far-right loons took over in the 1990s, and swept real conservatives under the bus.

Real conservatives died in 1953

[Bono]

It's always been the pro-war party, except for a brief blip in between the two world wars.

This. LOL at everyone saying it was with Nixon. Even discounting Lincoln, McKinley lead the US into one of the most, if not the most unjustified war in its existence.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Einzige, a question for you only because you target the GOP here, please.  You rail against the GOP for almost everything, against hawkish stances, and against government control of literally anything, yet you wear the avatar of a party who loves government control of nearly everything?

So what's up with that?

[Mint]

From the looks of it, because of the fundies.

[CJK]

The Republican party's position hasn't changed much since World War II.  The real question is: when did the Democrat's become the anti-war party? That would be with Nixon. That was the first time since the Civil War that any political party decided to put it's own political ambitions ahead of success on the battle field.

That great neocon JFK once said that we would pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to fight Communism. Now liberals and the Oliver Stones of the world think that Kennedy's most impressive trait was his reluctance to fight Communism in Vietnam and Cuba.

How far we've come.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The Republican party's position hasn't changed much since World War II.  The real question is: when did the Democrat's become the anti-war party? That would be with Nixon. That was the first time since the Civil War that any political party decided to put it's own political ambitions ahead of success on the battle field.

That great neocon JFK once said that we would pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to fight Communism. Now liberals and the Oliver Stones of the world think that Kennedy's most impressive trait was his reluctance to fight Communism in Vietnam and Cuba.

How far we've come.

The Democrats have never been the "anti-war party" either. People like McGovern and McCarthy never had Democratic backing any more than Ron Paul has backing from the GOP.

[paul718]

Einzige, a question for you only because you target the GOP here, please.  You rail against the GOP for almost everything, against hawkish stances, and against government control of literally anything, yet you wear the avatar of a party who loves government control of nearly everything?

So what's up with that?

Einzige and I have done this dance on more than one occasion.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Einzige, a question for you only because you target the GOP here, please.  You rail against the GOP for almost everything, against hawkish stances, and against government control of literally anything, yet you wear the avatar of a party who loves government control of nearly everything?

So what's up with that?

Einzige and I have done this dance on more than one occasion.

So you mean he won't answer the question?  LOL

[Brandon H]

The Republican party's position hasn't changed much since World War II.  The real question is: when did the Democrat's become the anti-war party? That would be with Nixon. That was the first time since the Civil War that any political party decided to put it's own political ambitions ahead of success on the battle field.

The Democrats became the anti-war party when a Republican President started an unpopular war and it became politically convenient. Now that there is a Democratic President, they are no longer the anti-war party.