“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.

Democrats and Our Enemies by Senator Joe Lieberman is a must read. With each passing day, I find myself wondering where the party of my grandfather has gone. It appears that I am not alone:

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.

dunce.jpg

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.

kerry-lying-to-congress.jpg

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.

kos.jpg

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.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis



The Yankee Sailor linked with Bin Laden Message A Surrender In Iraq?
eyeon linked with eyeon
Right Voices linked with Biden: It’s George Bush’s Fault That Democrats Are Failures
The World According To Carl linked with The World According To Carl
Good News! The Mystery Of 9/11 Has Been Solved! linked with Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!
Shadowscope linked with Texas had no right to take polygamists' children
Wolf Pangloss linked with The Farm of the Future runs on Mule Power Open Trackbacks
The Pink Flamingo linked with I've Been Waiting For This For Some Time Now
The World According To Carl linked with The World According To Carl
The Virtuous Republic linked with

<strong>OUTRAGE! With Oil at $135 a Barrel, Senate Blocks Oil Shale</
Right Truth linked with PATIENT EVIL - An R.J. Godlewski / Right Truth Blog Exclusive - Chapter Seven
A NEWT ONE linked with Is The IAEA Fear Mongering?
Obama’s Barack and Roll crowd in Portland « Wolf Pangloss linked with Obama’s Barack and Roll crowd in Portland « Wolf Pangloss
Cao's Blog linked with The jihadists admit defeat in Iraq
Cao's Blog linked with Flight 93 Blogburst: Mancow: “I’m gonna take a sledge-hammer to it” “You’ll go to jail for it?” “Absolutely”
Woman Honor Thyself linked with SlanG huh
The Pink Flamingo linked with The Pink Flamingo’s 72ed Edition Thursday Thirteen
Insolvency? « nuke gingrich linked with Insolvency? « nuke gingrich
Barack Obama linked with “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.




31 Responses to ““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.”

TrackBack URL

  1. 1

    […] Subtle as a Sledgehammer wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Democrats and Our Enemies by Senator Joe Lieberman is a must read. With each passing day, I find myself wondering where the party of my grandfather has gone. It appears that I am not alone: 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 […]

  2. BonBon Says:
    2

    Wonderful commentary by Joe. I like him. Always have even though I haven’t always agreed with him. He is right on the money with this however and I would urge all liberals to understand the history of what he’s talking about.

    SFL?

  3. Pam Says:
    3

    Sadly Bon Bon, from Robert’s post on Hillary’s win, the attitude of the liberal left is:

    You just don’t get it, do you? Senator Obama is the only candidate that offers change, real change, change we can believe in! All of the smears, the personal attacks, the crap your side has come up are exactly what Obama is talking about when he discusses the need for change! Stop the politics of the past! Stop all this crap about his background and history! None of it matters! It doesn’t matter what church he goes to, or if he goes to church at all. Nobody cares! It is not relevant what elected positions he held in Chicago or who he counted among his many supporters. He states very clearly what his positions are, which is what he should be doing, and the fact that you cannot understand this makes you a neocon dinosaur.
    Yes Hillary was our standard bearer but that was before Baraq came along with his wonderful message of hope, peace, and change. So now he is our candidate.
    Change we can believe in! What about that can’t you understand?

    That statement makes me cringe when I see people like David come here and make clear points on position and policy.

  4. BonBon Says:
    4

    Yeah, me too Pam. I think alot of the problem lies in the schools, the fact that over the last several decades we have been prosperous and therefore spoiled.

    As I tell my in laws, no one likes war but our Republic is free only because we are aggressive in defending it and like minded countries.

    I hope and pray that cooler heads prevail in November and the candidate with the strongest stand on national defense wins. While I don’t fully support McCain I am of the opinion that that is the single most important issue of our time. Obama completely fails on that.

  5. 5

    […] Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven […]

  6. 6

    The Pink Flamingo’s 72ed Edition Thursday Thirteen

    THURSDAY THIRTEENYou Know Who I Want to See!I’m back after a week off – I was doing the doctor thing with the parents all day.  Talk about exhausting!  Please pardon my shallow Thursday Thirteen today.  1.  The first time I saw …

  7. 7

    SlanG huh

    Let’s start with:
    “Undocumented Workers”. Uh huh. Whoever came up with that beaut!

  8. 8

    Flight 93 Blogburst: Mancow: “I’m gonna take a sledge-hammer to it” “You’ll go to jail for it?” “Absolutely”

    Mancow: “I’m gonna take a sledge-hammer to it” “You’ll go to jail for it?” “Absolutely”

  9. 9

    The jihadists admit defeat in Iraq

    According to its own numbers, Al-Qaeda has experienced a 94 percent decline in operational ability over the last 12 months when only a year and half ago Al-Qaeda accounted for 60 percent of all jihadist activity.

  10. 10

    […] county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven […]

  11. 11

    Is The IAEA Fear Mongering?

    As most with at least a reasonable facsimile of a rational mind know that the Leftinistra have a kindred spirit with the elements which comprise the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Association, and have repeatedly doled out accolades upon the g…

  12. 12

    PATIENT EVIL - An R.J. Godlewski / Right Truth Blog Exclusive - Chapter Seven

    An R.J. Godlewski and Right Truth Blog Exclusive
    eBook

  13. 13

    <strong>OUTRAGE! With Oil at $135 a Barrel, Senate Blocks Oil Shale</strong>

    Oil just passed $135 a barrel today.

    Oil prices rose above $135 a barrel for the first time Thursday, with supply worries, global demand and an ever weakening U.S dollar driving crude futures up.
    The world’s top energy watchdog is preparing a sh…

  14. 14

    […] Right Truth, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor. Also thanks to Linkfest Haven […]

  15. 15

    I’ve Been Waiting For This For Some Time Now

    THE DEATH OF THE MINUTEMAN MOVEMENT?I will not mourn their passing.  Evidently, as all the little nasties start circling the wagon and finances just don’t add up like they should, all is not sweetness and light in Minuteman land. According to Ji…

  16. San Francisco Liberal Says:
    16

    “SFL?”

    —————

    I am again reminded of the words of Sir Winston Churchill:

    “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”

    In addition to that, the idea that diplomacy is the same as appeasement is flat out retarded.

  17. 17

    The Farm of the Future runs on Mule Power Open Trackbacks

    Open Trackbacks. Down in Tennessee, they are leaving the tractor in the barn and hitching up the tractor rake to a couple of mules to bring in the hay.

  18. 18

    Texas had no right to take polygamists’ children

    Image via WikipediaI sort of figured it would start to pan out this way. Earlier today a three judge court of appeals ruled that the State of Texas had no right to remove children from the Yearning for Zion ranch…

  19. Pam Says:
    19

    Are you sure you want to use those words?

    Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.

    NUMBER: 1914
    AUTHOR: Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874–1965)
    QUOTATION: To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.
    ATTRIBUTION: WINSTON CHURCHILL, remarks at a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954. His exact words are not known, because the meetings and the luncheon that day were closed to reporters, but above is the commonly cited version.

    His words are quoted as “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war,’” in the sub-heading on p. 1 of The New York Times, June 27, 1954, and as “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war” on p. 3.

    The Washington Post in its June 27 issue, p. 1, has “better to talk jaw to jaw than have war,” and The Star, Washington, D.C., p. 1, a slight variation, “It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war.”

  20. 20

    […] According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Sphere: Related Content If you liked […]

  21. San Francisco Liberal Says:
    21

    “Are you sure you want to use those words?”

    ————

    Yup.

  22. Pam Says:
    22

    I guess I should have figured that considering there is no real source for the quote as no reporter was present to hear the words spoken…I think that’s what they call embellishment….

  23. David Says:
    23

    I’m somewhat new to blogging functionality. How do a lot of these cross-posts come in here?
    They seem to be off topic.
    David

  24. Pam Says:
    24

    David, They are links to a blogfest…They aren’t in every thread, only those that I do blogfest with..sorry for them!

  25. 25

    […] Thyself, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor. And thanks to Linkfest Haven […]

  26. San Francisco Liberal Says:
    26

    “there is no real source for the quote as no reporter was present to hear the words spoken…I think that’s what they call embellishment…”

    —————-

    From the link:

    “The 2,100 entries in this eminently researched collection form the constellation of collected wisdom in American political debate. In fulfilling decades of requests from Members of Congress for citation of quotations, the Library of Congress compiled the most frequently asked questions of the legislature for the edification of every citizen.”

    Sooo…

    I think the quote is probably good, and it’s been attributed to Sir Churchill for over 50 years.

    You just don’t like hearing one of your ideological heros actually come out and say that diplomacy is better than war.

    http://www.bartleby.com/73/

  27. Pam Says:
    27

    Yes SFL, it was so good, that neither newspaper that ran with it could write it the exact same way, in the same newspaper, on the exact same day..

  28. 28

    Biden: It’s George Bush’s Fault That Democrats Are Failures

    Just 2 days ago, I posted Democrats and Our Enemies by Senator Joe Lieberman, now read Republicans and Our Enemies by Senator Joe Biden. Given that Biden has a history of plagiarism, it didn’t shock me to see the title. What did shock me is…

  29. Robert Says:
    29

    Good old “Four Score and Seven Years Ago” Biden? IMO Biden is another POS.

  30. eyeon Says:
    30

    […] It appears that I am not alone: How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Frahttp://rightvoices.com/2008/05/21/no-people-in-history-have-ever-survived-who-thought-they-could-pro…Assassin??s Creed: Eyeon Interviews Ubisoft Lead CompositorInterview with Lead Compositor Charles […]

  31. 31

    Bin Laden Message A Surrender In Iraq?

    The latest series of Bin Laden messages look more like a surrender in Iraq than a sign of strength.

Comments for this post will be closed on 5 August 2008.

Related Posts on this blog:
» Biden: It’s George Bush’s Fault That Democrats Are Failures
» “To The Future”
» McGovern Wins Connecticut Senate Primary
» “So Out Of Vogue”
» The Warped Mind of the Hardcore Leftist
» Noonan’s Quiet Voice of Reason
» GW’s Message
» Comments on President Bush’s Speech
» Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion
» Is Our Country Ready To Expand Beyond The 2 Party System?


<< Take Me Back Home!