Is the Democratic Party becoming increasingly hawkish?

[Kamala]

Once our boys are sent on a government-sponsored vacation to North Korea, the Dems will swing back to the dovish position.

[darklordoftech]

One thing that has never changed is that Republicans are nationalists and Democrats are internationalists. I can't think of a single instance of Obama using nationalist rhetoric. Nationalists include hawkish neocons and dovish isolationists. Internationalists include hawkish humanitarian interventionists and dovish anti-war protesters.

[Beet]

The Democrats have always been fairly hawkish.

indeed....who else are doves going to vote for?  the Greens?  When most Americans have been sold into the "lesser of two evils" stupidity?

So a party who nominates someone who dines with and openly supports that great man of peace: Vladimir Putin? And which thinks wi-fi causes brain damage and panders to vaccine scaremongerers and 9/11 "truthers"? That's a serious party that people should flock to?

To be fair my dad thinks wi-fi causes brain damage, he is always saying, "Beet, put your wi-fi in the corner of the room / don't sit near it." He is not dumb or very right-wing either. There is a lot of corporate money tied up in denying any connection, and there are a lot of medical experts who are willing to be paid by such corporations. And my dad is not all that far out there. This is not like the vaccine-Downs' syndrome study which was discredited. One problem I've noticed with elitist liberals, is that sometimes they hear something that sounds strange or outside their cultural purview, and start sneering at it without really investigating or taking seriously the argument that's being made. I think this sort of attitude comes off very bad to the average person.

[President Johnson]

No, I don't think so. The Democratic Party was more hawkish under Dubya when most of them voted for going inti Iraq, which was a big mistake and catastrophic consequences on the long run.

[RINO Tom]

They've always been pretty hawkish unless it was during a midterm where a Republican President had overseen an unpopular war.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, but the Democrats were never really "not hawkish".

This. They were heading towards being more dove-ish during the Dubya years, but now it's gung-ho back towards being hawk-ish. It makes me sad.

The party that controls the White House is always more statist and hawkish and the party that doesn't control the White House is always more libertarian and dovish. In 2000, Dubya attacked Clinton and Gore for being too hawkish. In 2004-2008, the Democrats attacked Dubya for being too hawkish. In 2016, Trump attacked Hillary for being too hawkish.

2012 says hi.

[darklordoftech]

One thing that has never changed is that Republicans are nationalists and Democrats are internationalists. I can't think of a single instance of Obama using nationalist rhetoric. Nationalists include hawkish neocons and dovish isolationists. Internationalists include hawkish humanitarian interventionists and dovish anti-war protesters.

So how would you classify an internationalist hawk? (Which some Dems of the realist school of IR, actually are, although most Dems are institutionalists).

Humanitarian interventionist

[mgop]

clinton wars - somalia, haiti, bosnia, kosovo
bush wars - afghanistan, iraq
obama wars - afghanistan, libya, syria, ukraine

so no matter how many times liberal media said republicans are hawkish party, facts show that democrats are far more hawkish. and if dems calling their wars "humanitarian interventions", that don't means they don't kill innocent people after all.

[publicunofficial]

The last 40-50 years have drilled the idea that "anti-intervention = communist pussy" into the left's head and they've developed a complex about it. Even though in that time frame the US military has been involved in numerous horrible ideas.

Hot Take: I think someone could take Jeremy Corbyn's foreign policy, alter it a bit for an American audience, and explode in popularity. I think at least a plurality of people are tired of America being the world police.

[darklordoftech]

The last 40-50 years have drilled the idea that "anti-intervention = communist pussy" into the left's head and they've developed a complex about it. Even though in that time frame the US military has been involved in numerous horrible ideas.

Yet America is way more hawkish today than during the Cold War. Reagan, the darling of all hawks, said that military action should only be used as a last resort.

[Blue3]

How is standing up to Russia meddling in our election, supporting sanctions, "hawkish"?

Hawkish is Trump saying he's going to try and find a way to say Iran is violating their deal so we can go to war with them.

[Coraxion]

clinton wars - somalia, haiti, bosnia, kosovo
bush wars - afghanistan, iraq
obama wars - afghanistan, libya, syria, ukraine

so no matter how many times liberal media said republicans are hawkish party, facts show that democrats are far more hawkish. and if dems calling their wars "humanitarian interventions", that don't means they don't kill innocent people after all.

Total lie.

[RogueBeaver]

Obviously not. The Democrats are less hawkish than they have been in decades right now, though of course some of those who want the Democrats to be more dovish will believe that things were better in the past.

[krazen1211]

Of course not!

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”


They are sulking because they lost the election so badly and that is driving temporary attitudes.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Some are hawkish, and you saw this after the Syrian missile attack earlier this year.

The divisions are the:

Interventionist Wing: Led by the Obama-Kerry faction  Favors further intervention in the Syrian Civil War.  Praised the Syrian missile attack.

Non-Interventionist Wing: Led by Bernie Sanders.  Opposes unnecessary intervention in the Mideast.  Opposed the Syrian missile attack.

Both wings are opposed to Russia and North Korea but want to give Iran a chance to follow through with the Iran Deal.  Opposed the Syrian missile attack.

(Somewhat) Isolationist Wing: Led by Tulsi Gabbard.  Favors staying out of most worldwide conflicts.  A little warmer to Bashar al-Assad and wants no intervention in the Syrian Civil War or any sort of regime changes.  Opposed the Syrian missile attack.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I disagree with the contention that Obama is a part of the Interventionist wing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Obama Doctrine, The Atlantic

If anything, Obama skews closer to a libertarian-ish foreign policy, where he believes strongly in the ability of free trade to forge global relations. Hence the well publicized Asia pivot, the Iran deal, the Cuba opening. Obama seems to genuinely believe that the best way to create global stability and peace is to engage diplomatically, culturally and with economic power. And, honestly, reading in between the lines in that same article, Biden is on board in the same way.

Hillary is certainly in the more traditional interventionalist strain of the party, along with Kerry.