My father’s favorite pro-Republican talking point is that the Republican party “protects” the country better than Democrats. I’m interested in some different perspectives on this pretty vague assertion. I have a few ideas on the subject…
pro-Democrat: In modern times, our nation’s most dire periods when we most needed protection (WW1, WW2) occurred with Democrats as president (Wilson, FDR, Truman). These wars are generally viewed as great successes for the U.S.
pro-Republican: Republican presidents instill more fear in the rest of the world by being quick to engage and less willing to negotiate. (This might keep certain countries in line, yet risks over-extending resources and planting seeds of resentment.)
I suppose a whole book could be written about this complex question. Does anyone have an opinion?
In my view, maintaing our relationships with all countries, not just those that follow us around like puppies, is the best way to protect our safety.
For example, finding ways to help Mexico improve its citizens’ standard of living will reduce illegal immigration much better that building walls - if we can be patient.
Firing off ultimatums and unilaterally charging off into battle may seem a good way to protect the country, but it’s often short-sighted and costs us more in the long run.
Neither party is great at this, but I feel the Democrats tend to operate this way more than the Republicans.
As a liberal, I tend to go with the Democrat side. I think the big divide comes from the willingness of Dems to change course on a plan if its not working. This seems like a retreat or capitulation to the stereotypical macho American attitude, and its part of what contributes to the mindset. It seems that no matter what happens, Republicans always choose a plan for its apparent toughness rather than effectiveness. When such a plan works, the stereotype is reinforced. When it doesnt, the blame usually goes to the Dems
There are two (or more) ways of protecting the country. By not getting into battles or by winning them. While it is true that the Dems were governing during both world wars, they had nothing to do with starting them. The Reps might have kept out, though. Would that have been better? Would we have better security had Hitler ruled Europe?
Bush (who may not be representative of the Reps) hardly advanced security by his actions. Look at it. He destroyed Iran’s worst enemy and left Iran with extraordinary influence on Iraq. In what way did that advance our security. He also goaded Iran into developing its own nuclear weapons. Had Bush been a paid agent of Iran, he could hardly have done more to advance their interests. By ignoring agreements that Clinton had negotiated with North Korea, he also encouraged their nuclear weapons research. But the worst thing he did may have been to seriously deplete the US military as a fighting force. Instead of (possibly) winning one war, he has effectively lost two.
The Reps always spend more–much more–on the military than the Dems. But what they have to show for is an obscenely expensive military that is not actually of any use in fighting the wars that we have fought since 1945. Some were useful as deterrents. But the main use may have been to destroy the Soviet Union that tried to keep up. But its main purpose seems to have been to keep the military-industrial welfare complex healthy. Nothing like cost-plus contracts!
The worst thing may have been that by essentially abrogating the non-proliferation treaties, the US gave carte-blanche to others to develop their own nuclear weapons. How that could possibly enhance our security beats me.
What about earlier Republican administrations? Well, Eisenhower did an excellent job. Kennedy might not have won the election had he not gone on about the missile gap, which didn’t exist. Kennedy didn’t do the country any favor by Viet-Nam, but then neither did LBJ or Tricky Dick. And Reagan did a yeoman job protecting us from mighty Grenada and Panama.
I don’t think it is misleading to say that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. And I am unconvinced that anything he has done since would make another such attack less likely. He was Al Qaeda’s top recruiter. And he did his best to insure the US has no allies anywhere in the world since Tony Blair quit.
I don’t agree that the Democrats of WWII vintage are the same party today. Zell Miller’s comment at the 2004 GOP convention rings true. He said he hadn’t abandoned his party; his party abandoned him.
That doesn’t keep other countries in line; it just means that they prepare to fight us because they KNOW we will attack regardless of what they do. And it creates justifications and motivations for people to attack us in return.
As far as “fear” goes, our enemies will typically fear Democrats more, because Democrats are more likely to go after actual enemies who have actually threatened or attacked us; while Republicans attack the weak. A Democrat in office at 9-11 would have gone after Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda; a Republican saw it as an excuse to attack Iraq and largely ignore Al Qaeda.
Terrorism: First tell me how if we are trying to fight it, prevent it, or just not be a target. Each one of those has a different debate (not an answer).
If I take my lifetime and ONLY look at who is President (which I normally oppose in these threads I admit):
Nixon: Reduced the threat of China. Kept us in Vietnam, regardless of his Secret Plan.
Ford: We left Vietnam.
Carter: Our embassy employees were not safe. Gave up the Canal, which COULD be argued was a security issue.
Reagan: Hostages released. Ramped up military and deserves SOME credit for the end of the Cold War. Beirut Debacle and the targeting of Americans by Middle Eastern terrorists, though that existed already thanks to our support of Israel.
Bush Sr.: First Gulf War. Somalia invasion. Did either of those makes us safer?
Clinton: Somalia’s Black Hawk Down incident, and our withdrawel. It has been argued that this emboldened some of the Middle Easter terrorist groups (slap America and she goes home). Minimal responses to USS Cole and Embassy bombings. Huge effort in Europe with Yugoslavia.
Bush Jr: Strong response in Afghanistan. Jacked up operations in Iraq. Took down the Taliban, but stretched our military too thin. Showed that we are willing to invade, but also showed that we are not able to create something new.
As an American - what am I at risk of from outside of my borders?
Drug wars from below the border? Drug gangs are an issue, and this “safety” issue surrounds border security and the War on Some Drugs.
Terrorist attack? Could happen again, but we will not know about specifics when stopped.
Invasion? Not a chance.
Missile Launches? Doubtful, even with Mad Vlad in Russia.
First, if the Democrats had claimed that the Pearl Harbor attack was proof that they were better for national security than the Republicans, they’d be hypocrits, too, just like the Republicans are for claiming that 9-11 is proof that they’re better for security than Dems. Second, the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn’t nearly as bad as the September 11 attacks, since it was both restricted to a military target and caused less loss of life. Third, the Democrats after 1941 did, in fact, manage to apprehend, defeat, and bring to justice those behind the Pearl Harbor attack, and within four years, while the Republicans, over seven years after the September 11 attacks, still haven’t managed to catch those responsible.
The OP was asking for a factual question, not asking who is a hypocrite. If you want to blame Bush for the WTC attack, then can we blame FDR for Pearl Harbor? Does Clinton take the blame for the Cole and the embassies?
Should we blame the Democrats for starting Vietnam, and the Republicans for ending it?
Not that reason and logic enters these kinds of discussions, but you should ask your father for some specific examples that support his claim.
I suppose you could argue that Repubs have traditionally been more supportive of increased military spending, but that’s a tenuous connection to “safety” especially safety from terrorism.
Clinton also CAUGHT the people behind the WTC bombing during his Administration, and tried to warn Bush about Osama Bin Laden. Bush ignored those warnings, and one of his early acts was to order the hunt for Osama called off. At best he didn’t care; I think it more likely that Bush and his neocon friends were hoping for a terrorist attack, the bigger the better. And Bush’s response in Afghanistan wasn’t “strong”; it was the minimum he could get away with in order to get it out of the way so he could attack Iraq.
I don’t see a significant difference in the Repulicrats. They talk difference, but it really isn’t there, by the time the voting is done … unless they are pumping smoke and using the polished mirrors.