Is the Democratic Party becoming increasingly hawkish?

[Deblano]

In light of the Democratic Party and GOP teaming together to pass sanctions on Russia, IRAN and NORTH KOREA, are the Democrats in general trending towards a more hawkish and interventionist foreign policy?

[darklordoftech]

The Democrats were way more hawkish during the Clinton and early Dubya years than they are now.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I wouldn't be surprise if the Russuan scandel gets really bad to see the dems take up the hawkish mantle

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sadly, yes. They were already not really worth voting for, and they decided to suck even harder.

[Tintrlvr]

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.

[MT Treasurer]

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

[Technocracy Timmy]

Yes but I would not call them becoming more hawkish necessarily. I'll explain. Clinton definitely ran to Trump's right on foreign policy. Their debates on Syria were night and day. Clinton was arguing for a much more interventionist approach and Trump with his isolationist tendencies basically said "Let Putin deal with it."

Obama was by no means a peacenik and utilized a lot of soft power and special ops/drones in his foreign policy arsenal. I'd say Obama's foreign policy is probably gonna be the norm moving forward for the Democrats. Ultimately to what extent the Democrats take that depends on to what extent the GOP decides to not engage in foreign disputes. The Trump administration has already decided to withdraw from the Paris Accord and clearly didn't care enough to issue a strong message of support to our NATO allies and complained about how certain countries weren't meeting their 2% GDP requirements instead.

So I'd say the Democrats are becoming the more interventionist and internationalist Party as the GOP becomes the Party of Trump but that might not necessarily mean that they'll become more hawkish than President Obama was.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

I believe we are especially when taking action on Russia but there will still be a lot of anti war people in the party like Bernie Sanders, in the same way the GOP is a hawkish party there are still a lot of isolationists in the Libertarian wing like Rand Paul.

[Deblano]

Yes but I would not call them becoming more hawkish necessarily. I'll explain. Clinton definitely ran to Trump's right on foreign policy. Their debates on Syria were night and day. Clinton was arguing for a much more interventionist approach and Trump with his isolationist tendencies basically said "Let Putin deal with it."

Obama was by no means a peacenik and utilized a lot of soft power and special ops/drones in his foreign policy arsenal. I'd say Obama's foreign policy is probably gonna be the norm moving forward for the Democrats. Ultimately to what extent the Democrats take that depends on to what extent the GOP decides to not engage in foreign disputes. The Trump administration has already decided to withdraw from the Paris Accord and clearly didn't care enough to issue a strong message of support to our NATO allies and complained about how certain countries weren't meeting their 2% GDP requirements instead.

So I'd say the Democrats are becoming the more interventionist and internationalist Party as the GOP becomes the Party of Trump but that might not necessarily mean that they'll become more hawkish than President Obama was.

The GOP seems to be trending towards what I'd like to refer to as "hawkish isolationism". That is, they are not afraid to intervene or flaunt military options in foreign affairs, but they are also more than willing to do so unilaterally without reaching anything above a minimal consensus among close allies.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The GOP seems to be trending towards what I'd like to refer to as "hawkish isolationism". That is, they are not afraid to intervene or flaunt military options in foreign affairs, but they are also more than willing to do so unilaterally without reaching anything above a minimal consensus among close allies.

This is pretty much where the GOP is at right now. Their neoconservative wing was damaged beyond repair as a result of the Iraq war fallout. Even a lot of the Party's base is skeptical of starting new wars (I'll find the poll for this. EDIT: Here's one of the base regretting the Afghanistan war) but they also simultaneously have this gut instinct which is a carryover from the nationalism of Reagan-Bush to defeat anybody who tries to mess with the United States. It's not gonna end well for them either way if they continue to alienate our allies in their endeavors.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The Obama administration levelled sanctions on Russia several times.
The Obama administration levelled sanctions on North Korea several times.
The Obama administration allowed sanctions on Iran to be extended.

So no.

[Yank2133]

The Democrats have always been fairly hawkish.

[Kingpoleon]

I wish they were becoming realists rather than neoconservatives or non-interventionists.

[Crumpets]

I think that's the wrong metric to use to describe their changing views on foreign policy. At the end of the Bush years, the Democrats were much more accepting of a sort of isolationist-lite foreign policy - one of "bring our troops home and work on our own problems." Trump running on his "America first" platform is really a corrupted version of the same playbook Democrats ran on in 2008, and they have, as a result, had to come up with their own opposing message accordingly. With the Arab Spring and the rise of refugees, the Democrats have shifted their focus more towards "use the strength and influence of the US to help the suffering and ease the burden of countries around the world." Personally, I think this is an improvement, and a generally necessary shift when your country recovers from a recession while others have seen their luck go in the opposite direction.

[darklordoftech]

The GOP seems to be trending towards what I'd like to refer to as "hawkish isolationism". That is, they are not afraid to intervene or flaunt military options in foreign affairs, but they are also more than willing to do so unilaterally without reaching anything above a minimal consensus among close allies.

Didn't we see this with Iraq? Remember what happened with France?

[Mr. Reactionary]

They only framed themselves as anti war during Ws 2nd term to draw contrast.

[Coraxion]

Sadly, yes. They were already not really worth voting for, and they decided to suck even harder.

Why are you much softer when you criticize the GOP? Maybe you should make your avatar blue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sadly, yes. They were already not really worth voting for, and they decided to suck even harder.

Why are you much softer when you criticize the GOP? Maybe you should make your avatar blue.

The Republicans don't pretend to be a left of center party and then stab you in the back.

[dead0man]

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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[dead0man]

If it had regular people supporting the party in great numbers for years, perhaps it wouldn't be full of loons now.  But no, if you're pro peace you have no choice on who to vote for, just one option (that as has been noted in this thread, isn't all that peaceful).  Just like if you're a minority or are afraid of guns (and they suck on those two issues too....odd ain't it?).  This is because we all believe in "lesser of two evils".  The other side has the same problem, just with different issues.

[Coraxion]

Sadly, yes. They were already not really worth voting for, and they decided to suck even harder.

Why are you much softer when you criticize the GOP? Maybe you should make your avatar blue.

The Republicans don't pretend to be a left of center party and then stab you in the back.

Ugh. You're impossible. Ignored.

[TheSaint250]

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.

[Koharu]

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.

[darklordoftech]

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.