The Democrats don't become the Party of Peace

What could have prevented the Democratic Party from being the less hawkish of the two major parties? Vietnam happens under a Republican? Scoop Jackson gets the nomination in 1972? What would be the effects of the Democrats being just as hawkish as the GOP? Would it help them against Reagan?
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
The New Left taking it over in the 70s from the liberals was what did that.

To reverse that, you'd need the New Left to fail or form its own party. Or the Republicans could cool it on the anti-Communism and become more libertarianish.

I don't really think you can call either party a party of war or peace. The Democrats may have been against the Iraq War, but the Republicans shot down the concept of a Syrian War three years back, and in both cases, there were exceptions.The GOP largely was opposed to intervention in the Balkans. Both parties supported the war in Afghanistan to the hilt, as well as Gulf War I. Neither party was in favor of direct intervention in the Israeli-Hezbollah war, but both parties were largely fine with aiding Israel.

So this is kind of an odd question to start with.
 
One option is to keep Republican isolationism as a going concern. Having Eisenhower choose to run as a Democrat in 1952 manages this (of course it also means the Republicans spend more than three decades being frozen out of the White House).

Another option is to stop Vietnam altogether. This short-circuits the more Dovish wing of the Democratic Party.

Avoiding Watergate might conceivably work, since it keeps the Nixonian wing of the Republicans in the ascendancy, so you avoid both Carter (peacenik) and Reagan (bellicose). Recall that you had Bob Dole in 1976 talking about "Democratic Wars".
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
One option is to keep Republican isolationism as a going concern. Having Eisenhower choose to run as a Democrat in 1952 manages this (of course it also means the Republicans spend more than three decades being frozen out of the White House).

Another option is to stop Vietnam altogether. This short-circuits the more Dovish wing of the Democratic Party.

Avoiding Watergate might conceivably work, since it keeps the Nixonian wing of the Republicans in the ascendancy, so you avoid both Carter (peacenik) and Reagan (bellicose). Recall that you had Bob Dole in 1976 talking about "Democratic Wars".
I thought the Democratic Wars comment was more of a deflection of criticism than anything. And it was an ineffective one at that which came across as kind of strange and cold.

The GOP in 1976 favored Nixonian detente still, but they were a shell of an organization in need of revitalization and were constantly on the defensive. That revitalization came in the form of Reagan's anti-Communist defiance rather than a turn towards old liberalism. The trauma of Watergate is what allowed the Conservative movement to take over. Without that, you get a more moderate GOP but you also get a Democrat party not as far in the other direction. This might be the turning point to satisfy this criteria.
 
What could have prevented the Democratic Party from being the less hawkish of the two major parties? Vietnam happens under a Republican? Scoop Jackson gets the nomination in 1972? What would be the effects of the Democrats being just as hawkish as the GOP? Would it help them against Reagan?

It is very odd to describe the democratic party as the party of peace. I know my objection may be puzzling.

But just don't take speeches and claims at face value. Rather consider facts.

For the last 100 years, under which presidents did the US go to WW1, WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Serbia-Kosovo war ?
And just consider the 2 Obama terms with Clinton as Secretary of State.
 
It is very odd to describe the democratic party as the party of peace.

......

For the last 100 years, under which presidents did the US go to WW1, WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Serbia-Kosovo war ?
And just consider the 2 Obama terms with Clinton as Secretary of State.

My first thought exactly. The Democratic party as the peace party does not match my memory of the the past fifty years.
 
"Democratic Party= Party of Peace"

_____

Clinton:

>Two wars in former Yugoslavia, one of which is waged in complete disregard of War Powers Act (1973).

>Clinton bombs Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, possibly in order to distract public from impeachment proceedings/Lewinsky scandal.

>Unilaterally bombs Iraq in 1996.

______

Obama:

>War in Libya in violation of War Powers Act, thus an illegal war

>Steps up bombing campaigns in other Muslim countries.

> Almost bombs Syria. Is only stopped by GOP Congress.

>Proceeds to botch the final stages of the Iraq War. Causes us to return to another open ended conflict in Mid-East needlessly.
 
The New Left taking it over in the 70s from the liberals was what did that.

To reverse that, you'd need the New Left to fail or form its own party. Or the Republicans could cool it on the anti-Communism and become more libertarianish.
This is what I was getting at. What could have caused the New Left to fail?
 
For the last 100 years, under which presidents did the US go to WW1, WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Serbia-Kosovo war ?

The Democratic Party pre-1972 is not the same as the Democratic Party afterwards. And the Serbian intervention was certainly justified to stop genocide.

To stop the Democratic Party from being the dovish party, I think you need to stop the hawkish tendencies of Goldwater from consuming the GOP. The easiest way is to keep Taft from dying in 1953. Then maybe he can keep the New Right from rising, thus keeping the Democrats hawkish.

This is what I was getting at. What could have caused the New Left to fail?

Avoiding Vietnam, perhaps, which is easy enough (kill LBJ in early 1965).
 
"Democratic Party= Party of Peace"

_____

Clinton:

>Two wars in former Yugoslavia, one of which is waged in complete disregard of War Powers Act (1973).

>Clinton bombs Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, possibly in order to distract public from impeachment proceedings/Lewinsky scandal.

>Unilaterally bombs Iraq in 1996.

______

Obama:

>War in Libya in violation of War Powers Act, thus an illegal war

>Steps up bombing campaigns in other Muslim countries.

> Almost bombs Syria. Is only stopped by GOP Congress.

>Proceeds to botch the final stages of the Iraq War. Causes us to return to another open ended conflict in Mid-East needlessly.

So, alternatively, the GOP (which brought America into two wars) is the party of peace?
 
"Democratic Party= Party of Peace"

_____

Clinton:

>Two wars in former Yugoslavia, one of which is waged in complete disregard of War Powers Act (1973).

>Clinton bombs Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, possibly in order to distract public from impeachment proceedings/Lewinsky scandal.

>Unilaterally bombs Iraq in 1996.

______

Obama:

>War in Libya in violation of War Powers Act, thus an illegal war

>Steps up bombing campaigns in other Muslim countries.

> Almost bombs Syria. Is only stopped by GOP Congress.

>Proceeds to botch the final stages of the Iraq War. Causes us to return to another open ended conflict in Mid-East needlessly.

>Not using green
>pleb
 
"Democratic Party= Party of Peace"

_____

Clinton:

>Two wars in former Yugoslavia, one of which is waged in complete disregard of War Powers Act (1973).

>Clinton bombs Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, possibly in order to distract public from impeachment proceedings/Lewinsky scandal.

>Unilaterally bombs Iraq in 1996.

______

Obama:

>War in Libya in violation of War Powers Act, thus an illegal war

>Steps up bombing campaigns in other Muslim countries.

> Almost bombs Syria. Is only stopped by GOP Congress.

>Proceeds to botch the final stages of the Iraq War. Causes us to return to another open ended conflict in Mid-East needlessly.

Indeed, but relative to the GOP, the Democrats are more dovish than the party who's current candidate advocates killing families of ISIS members.
 
"Democratic Party= Party of Peace"

_____

Clinton:

>Two wars in former Yugoslavia, one of which is waged in complete disregard of War Powers Act (1973).

>Clinton bombs Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, possibly in order to distract public from impeachment proceedings/Lewinsky scandal.

>Unilaterally bombs Iraq in 1996.

______

Obama:

>War in Libya in violation of War Powers Act, thus an illegal war

>Steps up bombing campaigns in other Muslim countries.

> Almost bombs Syria. Is only stopped by GOP Congress.

>Proceeds to botch the final stages of the Iraq War. Causes us to return to another open ended conflict in Mid-East needlessly.

THANK YOU!
 
So, alternatively, the GOP (which brought America into two wars) is the party of peace?

I never said that. I was merely critiqing the hypocrisy of the left. It's only warmongering when Republicans start wars (as a Republican I concede that Iraq was criminal and immoral). However, when ever Democrats wage war, even if they are waged in complete violation of the nations laws, it is heralded as "smart power."

Two: When REpublicans wage wars (i.e. both Iraq Wars), they at least respect the War Powers Act and ask permission from Congress before launching prolonged wars.

>Not using green
>pleb

>Not using black.
>I'll Have you know that I enjoy a middle class existence. I'm not some ignorant serf XD
 
There are very few Democrats that see Vietnam or Korea as moral.

I was referring to the present (i.e. post Vietnam.) In particular I was referencing Libya and the US intervention there. It was a clear cut violation of the War Powers Act and has resulted in the establishment of an anarchic state that provides safe haven to Islamist militants. Hardly the "smart power" that American liberal intellectuals profess to support/possess.
 
Yes it was, and many Democrats agree that what Nixon and Ford did was right.

Also, most casualties of the Vietnam War happened under Nixon.

I'm sorry, are you being sarcastic (I'm not angry, just need some clarification)
 
I'm sorry, are you being sarcastic (I'm not angry, just need some clarification)

No, I'm not.

The big thing to note is that the Democrats changed tremendously during the sixties. That's what I'm trying to point out. Both Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern wanted to end Vietnam. Nixon, on the other hand, only really did it after it was politically prudent to do so.
 
Top