What happen to the Democrats?

While listening to the Jay Weber show, Jay was talking about how the Democrats have changed after the Vietnam War.  When I would hear my dad talk to and about my Grandpa and how he was a Democrat until after the Vietnam War, I never really understood it.  The Democrats, lead by the Liberals, went on a campaign to hate the military, our military, and work to dismantle it.
 
It is not the Democrats, but the Liberals that are the problem.  The far left people are the ones that give Democrats a bad name.  You can be a Democrat and be a Liberal or you can be a Democrat and not be a Liberal.  They are not the same!
 
Here is a letter from Democrat Joseph Lieberman about his party.
 
The far left has taken over the Democrats and has earned the title “Liberals - The Loony Left”.
 
The Greatest American President in my lifetime so far was once a Democrat, until he felt the Democrats were moving to far off course and switched to become a Fiscally Social Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan was that man.
 
I have used many of President Ronald Reagan’s quotes and have had some Liberals and Democrats quote their Presidents, but it is the old Democrats that were not far to the left’s quotes.
 
Please give the letter a read even if you are a Democrat or Liberal since they are both from your party.  Give each one the proper thought.

Democrats and Our Enemies

 

By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

May 21, 2008; Page A19
 
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."
 
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam.  In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party.  Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.
 
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest.  Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved.  In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.
 
Of course, that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged.  Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide.  But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.
 
Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world.  Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected.  In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.
 
This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power.  He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense.
 
By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.
 
Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions.  The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001.  The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on.  He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life.  If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
 
Instead, a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush.  I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own.  But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made.  When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.  By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
 
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them.  That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
 
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
 
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.
 
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments.  Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
 
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK.  But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini.  And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez?  I certainly cannot.
 
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
 
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned, "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”  This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
 
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.  This article is adapted from a speech he gave May 18 at a dinner hosted by Commentary magazine.

 

Comments

[gregor]

"The Greatest American President in my lifetime so far was once a Democrat, until he felt the Democrats were moving to far off course and switched to become a Fiscally Social Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan was that man."

Even considering the fact that you live in Cudahy, that is one of the worst sentences/paragraphs I had ever read. Spend a little less time listening to Jay Weber's conservative talking points and a little more time proofreading your little rants before hiting the post button.

[Randy Hollenbeck]

Gregor, thank you for pointing out “that is one of the worst sentences/paragraphs” you have ever read. If that is all you have to say, okay. While I could have broken it down into simple sentences, I decided not to. I am glad to be among the worst. I was hoping for the worst, but I will have to live with one of the worst.

Now that I know you need simple sentences, I shall write them from now on, just for you.

See Gregor. Okay Gregor?

It is also nice that you look down on people living in Cudahy. Nice touch!

Did you have anything of substance to add about the topic?

I also saw that you are one of my fans on my blog at CudahyNow and linked over to the RVW. Thank you for coming to the Right View Wisconsin blog and please read some more. It is nice to have fans JMK.

I look forward to seeing what comments you have in the future!

[Lloyd]

"after Vietnam the Democrats changed" is I think too unclear. It was the change in the Democrats that came first.

It was after Watergate that the Democrats won a huge majority in the House, nearly all of it from new members as far to the Left as they could get. In 1974 voters were so upset with Republicans for being of the same Party as Nixon that nearly every Democrat running had a chance to win. There was little to no consideration by voters for how far Left they were, so long as they weren't GOP. Very similar to 2006 and what some still expect this year.

It was these leftist Democrats who betrayed South Vietnam by cutting off funding. That's what ended the war, and with a Communist victory. It fully coincided with the agenda of men like Ron Dellums and David Obey and others of that group.

Also in that time were many Democrats like 'win the war Zablocki' who turned on the war, the military and even their country as their Party turned hard Left. I remember dozens of Democrats of those days who made the same speech Clem Zablocki made-- "voting for the war in Vietnam was the worst mistake of my life; please re-elect me so I can correct it."

Far too many voters fall for lines-- and betrayals of principle-- like that.

[Steve T.]

Gregor, we expect no less from the left than to look for spelling and grammar errors when they cannot argue the merits of the topic. I am glad you didn’t disappoint and you help foster the notion that when backed into a corner on the issues the left attacks at the personal level.

Gregor try, please try to elevate yourself to a level that can talk on the issues like Lloyd is doing. It makes you look like a sad person crying for attention and we don’t offer babysitting services here!

[John Foust]

What's next, Steve? Droppin' Gs and "you betcha" added to the end of every sentence?

[Steve T.]

I didn’t write this piece, but John, Mickey Mouse was signed up for the Dem’s with ACORN so the "you betcha" tag line is yours. In fact in the blogosphere, I do see Zach use it often!

[Zach W.]

Steve, in over 400 posts on my own blog and countless other posts throughout the blogosphere, I don't recall ever writing the phrase, "you betcha."

I'd love to see the empirical data you have to back up your assertion I use it often.

[Steve T.]

Zach in comments. I will have to look for them.