Did the Cold War favor the GOP?

[Person Man]

Probably after LBJ at least. Kennedy proved himself to be tough on Communism and LBJ followed the containment policy through Vietnam. Although the one Democratic president we had in the final decades of the Cold War (Carter) was voted out of office because he was was not seen as tough enough on the Iranian Shah, who would probably be considered closer to a Fascist than a Communist.

or too soft on the Islamists that replaced him? Wasn't it Eisenhower that had spies overthrow the popular left-wing government there in favor of the Shah over fear that Iran wanted to join the USSR or at least the Warsaw Pact? Though, most likely, Iran was probably going a very similar route as India and would probably by non-aligned, being opposed to both Russian and Western influence (Iran was occupied by both the UK and Russia after WWI).

The point I am trying to make is that every president was about as aggressive against Communism (save for maybe Nixon, Ford and Carter but that was probably because of the problem with Vietnam and the resulting demoralization of our relations with Communist countries) the difference was their strategy. Reagan probably had the best strategy of letting them come into our back yard but then outspending them so that we had both the economic and geographical advantage. However, as you way know, his tactics in fighting those proxy wars were unethical though they couldn't be proven to be illegal.

[Person Man]

This is actually kind of an interesting theory. Maybe the party most aligned with the views of our main enemy governments will always do worse because some people very vaguely associate the two.

In the 30s and 40s we were at odds with fascism in Germany which is a far right government. Maybe the increasing social liberalism of the Democrats starting with FDR and the party's success during that era has something to do with it.

From the 60s to the 80s we were in the Cold War, consumed in an ideological battle with a far left government. I suspect that the Republican's focus on capitalism, liberty and free enterprise created a nice contrast for American voters that the Democrats couldn't recreate.

Since the 90s we have been fighting against far right, militant Islamic groups. Not to say the GOP in any way resembles Al Qaeda but many have drawn comparison between the two groups' devotion to fundamentalist religious beliefs. I think the fact that Democrats stress equality and separation of church and state might help them in this regard.

(anybody remember that episode of the Newsroom when Jeff Daniels calls the Tea Party "The American Taliban?")

It cannot be this simple but no one quite has debunked it beyond not being entirely accurate. It probably explains something no matter what.

Probably after LBJ at least. Kennedy proved himself to be tough on Communism and LBJ followed the containment policy through Vietnam. Although the one Democratic president we had in the final decades of the Cold War (Carter) was voted out of office because he was was not seen as tough enough on the Iranian Shah, who would probably be considered closer to a Fascist than a Communist.

or too soft on the Islamists that replaced him? Wasn't it Eisenhower that had spies overthrow the popular left-wing government there in favor of the Shah over fear that Iran wanted to join the USSR or at least the Warsaw Pact? Though, most likely, Iran was probably going a very similar route as India and would probably by non-aligned, being opposed to both Russian and Western influence (Iran was occupied by both the UK and Russia after WWI).

The point I am trying to make is that every president was about as aggressive against Communism (save for maybe Nixon, Ford and Carter but that was probably because of the problem with Vietnam and the resulting demoralization of our relations with Communist countries) the difference was their strategy. Reagan probably had the best strategy of letting them come into our back yard but then outspending them so that we had both the economic and geographical advantage. However, as you way know, his tactics in fighting those proxy wars were unethical though they couldn't be proven to be illegal.

No one ever said foreign policy wasn't often ugly and underhanded. But the reality is that the alternative to us meddling in the affairs of other countries is to have other countries meddling in the affairs of other countries - and that affects us in ways that we cannot easily control or have leverage over.

Oh. We have to do that. I was making a reference to Iran-Contra.