Where I think the Democratic Party went wrong?

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

[??????????]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

You hit the nail on the head with that post.

[Lunar]

The Vietnam war shifted a reasonable number of Americans over to a pacifist ideology, and the Democrats moved in to take over this part of the market.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Where they went wrong was not picking someone like Carter as their candidate in 1984.
Result? Massive decline in voting amoung poor whites.

[??????????]

The Vietnam war shifted a reasonable number of Americans over to a pacifist ideology, and the Democrats moved in to take over this part of the market.

Thats their greatest failure. They should have never embraced the hippies, aka John kerry.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

You hit the nail on the head with that post.

While I'd certainly be a die-hard Democrat, I dare say that between McGovern and Nixon - don't be so surprised - I'd have voted for Nixon. Watergate-aside I think there was a lot of good in that man.

I wouldn't vote for Bush because I'm far from impressed with his domestic record and the Republican Party platform - I'm too progressive for that!

However, while I'm a hawk on areas of foreign policy, it is domestic issues, which primarily determine how I would vote.

As a loyal Labour Party member I will criticise it (as I would do the Democratic Party) when the need arises.

Dave

[??????????]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

You hit the nail on the head with that post.

While I'd certainly be a die-hard Democrat, I dare say that between McGovern and Nixon - don't be so surprised - I'd have voted for Nixon. Watergate-aside I think there was a lot of good in that man.

I wouldn't vote for Bush because I'm far from impressed with his domestic record and the Republican Party platform - I'm too progressive for that!

However, while I'm a hawk on areas of foreign policy, it is domestic issues, which primarily determine how I would vote.

As a loyal Labour Party member I will criticise it (as I would do the Democratic Party) when the need arises.

Dave

You said the Democratic party has Americans in our interest. Maybe some Americans but I do not feel socialism is in my interest.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

You hit the nail on the head with that post.

While I'd certainly be a die-hard Democrat, I dare say that between McGovern and Nixon - don't be so surprised - I'd have voted for Nixon. Watergate-aside I think there was a lot of good in that man.

I wouldn't vote for Bush because I'm far from impressed with his domestic record and the Republican Party platform - I'm too progressive for that!

However, while I'm a hawk on areas of foreign policy, it is domestic issues, which primarily determine how I would vote.

As a loyal Labour Party member I will criticise it (as I would do the Democratic Party) when the need arises.

Dave

You said the Democratic party has Americans in our interest. Maybe some Americans but I do not feel socialism is in my interest.

I'm not a socialist, I'm a socio-capitalist. I think the excesses of laissez-fare or neo-liberal economics need to be regulated, to some extent, to protect those most vulnerable from its excesses. I'd hardly call the Democratic Party socialist, it's not even social democratic. Faced with the choice of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, I just know which I would support.

Economically, I'm new liberal; fiscally, I'm conservative and socially, I'm moderate.

Dave

[??????????]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

You hit the nail on the head with that post.

While I'd certainly be a die-hard Democrat, I dare say that between McGovern and Nixon - don't be so surprised - I'd have voted for Nixon. Watergate-aside I think there was a lot of good in that man.

I wouldn't vote for Bush because I'm far from impressed with his domestic record and the Republican Party platform - I'm too progressive for that!

However, while I'm a hawk on areas of foreign policy, it is domestic issues, which primarily determine how I would vote.

As a loyal Labour Party member I will criticise it (as I would do the Democratic Party) when the need arises.

Dave

You said the Democratic party has Americans in our interest. Maybe some Americans but I do not feel socialism is in my interest.

I'm not a socialist, I'm a socio-capitalist. I think the excesses of laissez-fare or neo-liberal economics need to be regulated, to some extent, to protect those most vulnerable from its excesses. I'd hardly call the Democratic Party socialist, it's not even social democratic. Faced with the choice of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, I just know which I would support.

Economically, I'm new liberal; fiscally, I'm conservative and socially, I'm moderate.

Dave

They may not be socialist now but they are headed that way. National Healthcare is a step towards it.

[David S]

The Vietnam war shifted a reasonable number of Americans over to a pacifist ideology, and the Democrats moved in to take over this part of the market.

How are the Democrats pacifists? They got us into Korea and Vietnam. My thought is that the Democrats have become the modern day socialist party of America. The Republicans are, at least in theory, the capitalists.

Also the anti-gun laws passed during the Clinton administration had a lot to do with the Republicans gaining control of the congress.

[??????????]

The Vietnam war shifted a reasonable number of Americans over to a pacifist ideology, and the Democrats moved in to take over this part of the market.

How are the Democrats pacifists? They got us into Korea and Vietnam. My thought is that the Democrats have become the modern day socialist party of America. The Republicans are, at least in theory, the capitalists.

Also the anti-gun laws passed during the Clinton administration had a lot to do with the Republicans gaining control of the congress.

They have become pacifists since Vietnam.

[cwelsch]

Half the people voting for John Kerry think the war was a good idea and that we need to keep the troops there.  The other half of his voters don't and don't.  Too bad for him, the anti-war half has a disproportionate effect because they are the backbone of the activists and membership of the party, the partisan left, so the anti-warriors on the partisan left decide who the pro-war center-left votes for.  That's why you have this odd mix of Kerry being pro-war, anti-war, anti-this war, anti-Bush.

The result is he cannot come up with a Truman or Reagan type plan because his voters wouldn't stand for it.  He might actually see them stay home.  The only thing the Democratic Coalition (it's not a Party like they say, least not right now, it's a Coalition) stands for is anti-Bushism.  The center, center-left and left all agree on anti-Bushism, they dislike Bush and want to get him out.  All Kerry can safely do is bash Bush.  His voters don't agree on free trade, the war, not even abortion (because Kerry wants the union vote, they trend pro-life) as much as they all hate Bush.

They cannot provide a positive ideology a la Truman or even a positive foreign policy vision.  All they can do is hammer Bush and talk vaguely about foreign alliances.

Of course, Kerry is mocking our allies by calling it a phony coalition.  The allies have modest armed forces, sending a thousand troops from Poland or the Netherlands is a big deal to them - especially since almost all those countries still have troops in Afghanistan as well.

He's also an idiot, because if the UN replaces the US, where are they going to find an extra hundred thousand troops in the world?  What, China?  Russia?  Yeah, I don't see France and Germany taking up the slack.  He should either favor pulling out or staying in, but the UN cannot take the slack on this one.

Anyway, I agree.  Kerry has a very poor, forced ideology but he's not capable of changing it or doing much else without flipping the bird at half his base.

[Defarge]

You're absolutely right.  The Party has also moved far too much to the left for its own good.

[David S]

He's also an idiot, because if the UN replaces the US, where are they going to find an extra hundred thousand troops in the world?  What, China?  Russia?  Yeah, I don't see France and Germany taking up the slack.  He should either favor pulling out or staying in, but the UN cannot take the slack on this one.

My guess would be American soldiers wearing U.N. helmets.

[12th Doctor]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

I think you are 85% correct.  There are other issues where the Dems have gone wrong in the eyes of a lot of Americans, but abandoning the Truman/Kennedy foriegn policy platform the biggest one for most people.

[David S]

Bill Clinton probably did more for the Republican party than Ronald Reagan. When he took office the Democrats controlled the House the Senate and the Presidency. Now they control none.

[A18]

I disagree that he did more than Reagan, but I for one am very happy Clinton got elected.

[dazzleman]

Actually, I think Clinton did a lot to make the Democratic Party socially acceptable again in certain circles.

Democrats made huge gains in wealthy, older suburban areas during the Clinton years, areas that were solidly Republican as recently as 1988.  This is what has moved the northeastern states, California, Washington and Illinois from the swing/state or Republican category to the solidly Democratic category.

On the other hand, the Democrats have continued to lose ground in most of the south.

I think the Democratic Party went wrong went it stopped representing working and law-abiding Americans, and became a party primarily for those with a claim to victim status.  They became advocates for social programs for those who would not work, leniency toward criminals, softness on defense, and concern mainly with the interests of feminist women and minorities.  Along the way, they forgot the working people who (mostly) abide by the laws and pay the taxes.  Working class whites suffered grievously under Democratic urban, tax and social policies.

Clinton partially reversed at least some of this, and that resulted in his two victories for the presidency.  But the changes he made were only temporary, and the tendencies that the Democrats have shown since the 1960s have again reared their ugly head.

[Shira]

I think the single biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was when it 'abandoned' a Trumanite foreign policy.

While the collapse of the 'Evil Empire' was very much realised by Reagan and accomplished under Bush (41), didn't it represent the ultimate triumph of the Truman Doctrine?

It would seem that the US electorate in the main have favoured a 'hawkish' foreign policy, which partially explains a preference for a Republican President.

Dave

The current serious (and unrecoverable?) situation was caused by the Dem primary voters.
I strongly believe that L.Clark, for example, would have done much better.
His message on Iraq is clear and explicit.

[zachman]

I think the Democratic Party went wrong by being wussies in 1968 and not coming out against the Vietnam War. That's when the Truman doctrine was really abandoned in Democratic politics.

I think Clinton did a lot of harm to the Democratic Party as he would take a moderate stance on most issues. This made the Democrats lack a keynote issue (the Republicans have had taxes for quite some time). Kerry's flaw is he can't narrow it down to a single issue to fight on.

[Dr. Cynic]

If I had my way, the party would take the Humphreyesque stance on millitary, by increasing the budget, and A more moderate style stance on guns.

[DA]

Bill Clinton probably did more for the Republican party than Ronald Reagan. When he took office the Democrats controlled the House the Senate and the Presidency. Now they control none.

I don't really know what the parties were like before this, I was- lets see- just turning 10 after the Clinton election. I didn't even follow politics until about '98. I do remember liking that Perot was getting so much attention, but mostly because he was another option, not because I knew what any of the canidates stood for. (jeeze.. that was fourth grade... That puts things in more perspective for me than the arbitrary "10th year" of my life)

[Democratic Hawk]

If I had my way, the party would take the Humphreyesque stance on millitary, by increasing the budget, and A more moderate style stance on guns.

I'd most certainly subscribe to that.

Dave