Are Democrats soft on National Security

Great Debates
1

The caption probably says all that needs to be said. In the on-going thread on the future of the Democratic Party (MEMO TO DEMOCRATS) it has been suggested that a fundamental impediment to election success of the Democratic Party is that it is perceived as being an unreliable guardian of the national security. This, it seems to me is balderdash rooted to no small degree in an unfortunate film of a Democratic candidate for President driving a tank and looking more like Snoopy chasing the Red Baron than the resolute armored warrior. What Democrats are soft on is unilateral imperialist adventures–of the sort apparently contemplated by President Bush until persuaded that it might be better to have the backing of the UN and some of the other countries in the area. I say soft of defense is the Big Lie, much like claims of soft on crime and soft on religion and soft on morality.

Those of you who want to fight about this, here is the place.

2

This is really funny. I can remember when Democrats were called war-mongers. This was based on Wilson and WWII, Roosevelt and WWII, Truman and Korea, and Kennedy, Johnson and Vietnam.

If you just can stick around long enough you get to see all of the various partisan cycles come and go.

3

War Torn
Why Democrats Can’t Think Straight About National Security

By Heather Hurlburt, Washington Monthly. The article just about says it all. It is fortuitous that I found this thread shortly after reading the article. I barely have the energy to respond to threads lately, much less start them…

4

Of course it is a lie. The Democrats have traditionally been quite the war mongers. Witness the wanton destruction of human life that Clinton perpetrated during his term. This is just the same old trick of trying to frame the debate in a way that is favorable to your point of view. As long as you keep the debate around who is the bigger war monger, actual questioning of policy will never be broached.

As for the opposition to U.S. imperial adventures, surely you are joking? The Democrats can’t line up fast enough behind Bush on foreign policy. Did you listen to Hillary’s speech in congress when she voiced her support for the updated Tonkin Gulf Resolution for Iraq? Or have you listened to Gephardt, Daschle, Kerry, Boxer, etc., all supporting giving Bush unlimited powers to wage war?

5

The Dems aren’t soft on national security, the GOP are simply more successful at demagoguery on the issue.

6

RTFirefly provided a link to the Washington Monthly piece in the Memo to Democrats thread. It’s an excellent article, which explains why Democrats have often given defense policy a low priority and what a Democratic policy would look like if articulated properly. It does not, however, claim that Democrats are weak on national security; it merely points out tha we’ve typically had higher priorities.

7

And with good reason, I should add. The Reagan-era buildup was massively wasteful in many ways, and the death of the Soviet Union meant that our largest military threat was over. The military now needs to be tailored to the threats we face in the 21st century, not 20 years ago.

8

For those of you who, like me, couldn’t remember who this was and had to turn around and ask someone ("…yeah, it was Dukakis [snort]…")…

Picture.
http://home.millsaps.edu/~mcelvrs/Dukakis_tank.jpg

He does look like Snoopy. Cute lil helmet.

9

Chumpski, you are going to have to expand on this line—what wanton waste of human life during the Clinton administration?

10

Chumpski, if memory serves, has a warm spot in his heart for the Serbs.

11

Not to mention the eight Iraqi civilians killed by a random missile blast in response to an alleged attempt on Bush Sr.'s life by Hussein. If I recall correctly (and I may not be), Clinton justified the attack by saying that all Iraqis were responsible for their government’s actions.

And then there was the matter of a certain Sudanese factory.

Daniel

12

The Democrats were war-mongers? Yeah, back before about 1972. That’s 30 years ago. In 1972 George McGovern ran for President on a peace platform, and he transformed the Democratic party into one that is actually soft on defense.

The polarization of the Reagan era made it worse. Democrats who wanted to oppose Reagan found themselves on the opposite side of many defense issues. As a result, the Democrats wound up opposing many of the weapons systems that make up the U.S. arsenal today - the cruise missile, for example, was bitterly opposed by the left. It enjoyed some support among Democrats, but almost all opposition to the development of the cruise missile came from Democrats. Likewise, Democrats opposed the B-2 bomber, and constantly fought to lower the budget of the military.

SDI funding has also been under continual attack from Democrats. I know the Democrats here will say, “for good reason”, but that doesn’t change the fact that people who don’t agree with you see that as another sign that Democrats are fundamentally soft on defense.

And anyway, Democrats are wrong to oppose SDI. Programs like Israel’s Arrow missile system are direct outgrowths of SDI research, and they may in fact stop Saddam’s scuds from spreading chemical and biological destruction on the population.

Then there’s the outright hostility to the military expressed by many liberals inside and outside the Democratic party - as long as Democrats continue to be associated with clowns like Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal, they’ll be smeared by their assinine pacifist viewpoints.

And of course, the nation’s campuses are strongly associated with the Democratic party, and are very liberal. And they are insanely hostile to the military. Many will not allow ROTC or recruiting on campus, and people who seek military careers are met with scorn by professors and other students.

Then there’s the culture. It’s no surprise that the percentage of Republicans in the military is far greater than in the population as a whole. Republicans are just more likely to have the values that cause people to seek military service in the first place.

There have been some hawks in the Democratic party. Lieberman today, Sam Nunn, many others. But the Democratic party is also full of doves who are hostile to the military. They hurt the Democrats’ credibility when it comes to defense issues.

Like it or not, the Democrats will continue to be seen as soft on defense as long as they have clowns like Bonior and McDermott running to Iraq to denounce their own country.

13

Ah, I was just waiting for a right-winger to show up and complain that Democrats are “soft on defense” because they opposed weapons systems X, Y, and Z. The disconnect between the premise and the offered support ought to be self-evident. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to dissect the multiple fallacies in Sam’s post right now. I’ll try to respond in detail later.

14

Hey, we can reasonably disagree over any particular weapons system without either person beng ‘soft on defense’.

But when you look at the overall pattern of support for various military systems, you find that the Democrats are the ones who are generally opposed to military spending, and the Republicans are generally the ones for it.

If you look at liberals in the popular culture, you find outright disdain for the military. Take the constant pacifist caricatures on MAS*H. Regular army officers were all buffoons. Bomber pilots were hauled into the OR to show them how evil their bombs were. Now, MASH is not the Democratic party, but it is part of the face of liberalism that is associated with Democrats. Unfortunately, you’re going to get smeared by that, just as the Republicans get smeared when some ostensible conservative utters racist or intolerant drivel.

But let’s look at some facts: I went to the “Peace Action” web site. Peace Action is a pacifist group that rates members of Congress on how they vote on military bills.

Eight members of Congress achieved perfect 100% scores from Peace Action, by showing consistent opposition to the military. ALL of them were Democrats.

Of the top 10 recipients of PAC money from defense interests, 9 were Republican, and only one was Democrat.

Now let’s look at some key Senate votes in 2000:

  1. Star Wars Testing. Republicans voting FOR/AGAINST: 52-3. Democrats voting FOR/AGAINST: 0-45

  2. A bill to require a presidential review before reducing nuclear weapons: Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 50-3. Democrats FOR/AGAINST: 1-44

  3. Trident D-5 submarine missile program. Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 53-2. Democrats FOR/AGAINST: 28-16

  4. Military Base Closures. Amendment to authorize two more rounds of base closures. Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 13-40. Democrats FOR/AGAINST: 22-23

  5. Bill allowing Secretary of Army and Navy to lease corporate jets: Republican FOR/AGAINST: 54-0. Democrats FOR/AGAINST: 29-15

  6. Military aid to Columbia: Republican FOR/AGAINST: 53-2. Democrat FOR/AGAINST: 36-9

HOUSE

  1. Democrat bill to cancel Trident D-5 missile program: Republican FOR/AGAINST: 16-199. Democrat FOR/AGAINST: 95-113

  2. Owens (D-NY) Substitute military budget: Offer of new military budget that offers steeper cuts in military budget in exchange for greater domestic social spending. Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 0-212. Democrat FOR/AGAINST: 69/135

  3. DeFazio military budget supplemnt: Another Democratic proposal to put serious cuts in the military budget in exchange for more domestic social spending. Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 0-211. Democrat FOR/AGAINST: 60/139.

  4. Frank Amendment. Another Democratic proposal, this time to cut the military budget by 1% across the board. Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 14-201. Democrats FOR/AGAINST: 73-129

  5. Intelligence appropriations disclosure. A bill requiring the intelligence agencies to make their spending public. Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 17-187. Democrats FOR/AGAINST: 156-38

  6. Army School of the Americas. Bill to force closure of the Army’s School of the Americas, which is used to train Latin American soldiers. Republicans FOR/AGAINST: 48/167. Democrats FOR/AGAINST: 154/47

And the list goes on.

A very interesting table in the PDF file cited is the ‘Peace Action’ scores for opposition to military programs among members of the defense subcommittees.

The Republicans overall scored an average of 1.2%, meaning that overall they voted in favor of the military by a huge margin. The Democrats, on the other hand, scored an average of 59.1%, meaning that on average they were opposed to military spending.

Cite: http://www.peace-action.org/pub/votes/2000VR.pdf

You will find similar numbers in EVERY year. The pattern is clear - Democrats never support military bills to the extent that Republicans do. Even when there is overall Democratic support, the number of dissenters in the Democratic party is ALWAYS higher than Republicans.

I don’t know how anyone who can read could possibly spin this into anything remotely resembling equal support for the military between Democrats and Republicans. The facts speak for themselves.

15

Actually, Democrats are soft on defense because they opposed weapons systems A-W as well.

They are also soft on defense because so many of them cut their teeth on Viet Nam protests. They are still fighting the last war with a vengeance.

Actually, that was three or four wars ago, I suppose.

Regards,
Shodan

16

Sam, that list is just plain stupid. Democrats are “soft on defense” because they opposed letting the the Sec’s of Army and Navy lease corporate jets? Give me a fucking break.

17

To be trite, cite? Or, better yet, point? Surely there’s no reason to claim that wanting an appropriately sized military, designed to face the real requirements of the present and the future instead of “fighting the last war” is somehow “soft on defense.” Exactly the opposite, friend.

A large fraction of the current Democratic leadership was there. Almost all of the current Republican leadership was, for various reasons that rarely withstand scrutiny, not. Who do you think deserves more credibility, friend? The chickenhawks, you say?

Would those be, as Bob Dole (the GOP nominee all of 8 years ago) said, “Democrat wars”?

Sam, how’s that letter-writing campaign to your own government urging them to take more defense responsibility themselves coming? Your “let the Americans do everything for us, and whine if they don’t” act has worn quite thin here, as you may or may not suspect.

“Do not let facts get in the way of Truth!” - Don Quixote

18

Actually. The Dem’s are soft on Offense. They are fine on defense.

Sam, If you have any evidence that the Dems opposed a purely defensive weapon system, please present it. (Note, the weapon would has to work, otherwise opposing is just opposing waste, fraud and abuse. I.E. missile boondoggle doesn’t count.

19

Wow. You guys are really stretching.

Minty said:

Oh, come on. You picked one item out of that list, even after I said that any one item was not indicative of overall support, and ignored all the other votes that WERE important, and which Democrats also opposed. That’s why I posted MANY votes - almost all of them from 2000. NOT ONE of them shows more Democratic support than Republican. NOT ONE. You can go through any year you like, and you’ll see the same pattern. Go ahead, refute it. Show me where the Democrats championed the military.

You also ignored the fact that the Democrats on the defense subcommittee were given a high rating by a pacifist organization, while Republicans scored essentially zero.

Pretty shoddy debating tactics, Minty. I guess that means your back is against the wall on this one.
Tejota Says:

Ah. So we’re not allowed to count offensive systems, OR defensive systems that Democrats happen to disagree with. So if I can find a purely defensive system that Democrats happened to support, THAT proves that they are not ‘soft on defense’??? Sorry, but you’re making the case for the opposition.

And just what do you consider a ‘defense only’ weapons system? You’ve already excluded ballistic missile defense. Do theater defenses in Europe count? How about Aegis cruisers? The Wallop Amendment to the 1995 military budget would have earmarked extra funds for sea-based defenses. It was voted for by 86% of Republicans, and by 0% of Democrats.

Tell you what, how about you name the kind of defensive weapons program you would support, and I’ll go off and find the voting records in Congress for it.

I’ve gotta tell you, you Democrats are not making the case for your incredible support of the military. So far, the one commitment we have, from Tejota, is that he heartily supports the military, as long as it is ‘defense only’, and as long as it doesn’t waste money. Oh, and ‘boondoggles’ don’t count.

Way to be supportive, guys.

20

Wow. You guys are really stretching.

Minty said:

Oh, come on. You picked one item out of that list, even after I said that any one item was not indicative of overall support, and ignored all the other votes that WERE important, and which Democrats also opposed. That’s why I posted MANY votes - almost all of them from 2000. NOT ONE of them shows more Democratic support than Republican. NOT ONE. You can go through any year you like, and you’ll see the same pattern. Go ahead, refute it. Show me where the Democrats championed the military.

You also ignored the fact that the Democrats on the defense subcommittee were given a high rating by a pacifist organization, while Republicans scored essentially zero.

Pretty shoddy debating tactics, Minty. I guess that means your back is against the wall on this one.
Tejota Says:

Ah. So we’re not allowed to count offensive systems, OR defensive systems that Democrats happen to disagree with. So if I can find a purely defensive system that Democrats happened to support, THAT proves that they are not ‘soft on defense’??? Sorry, but you’re making the case for the opposition.

And just what do you consider a ‘defense only’ weapons system? You’ve already excluded ballistic missile defense. Do theater defenses in Europe count? How about Aegis cruisers? The Wallop Amendment to the 1995 military budget would have earmarked extra funds for sea-based defenses. It was voted for by 86% of Republicans, and by 0% of Democrats.

Tell you what, how about you name the kind of defensive weapons program you would support, and I’ll go off and find the voting records in Congress for it.

I’ve gotta tell you, you Democrats are not making the case for your incredible support of the military. So far, the one commitment we have, from Tejota, is that he heartily supports the military, as long as it is ‘defense only’, and as long as it doesn’t waste money. Oh, and ‘boondoggles’ don’t count.

Way to be supportive, guys.