Why I think the nomination of any prowar Democrat is unwise

[Ken Burch]

1)I believe the tide has now turned irrevocably against the war, and that any Democrat nominated as a supporter of the war will by definition fail to inspire his or her party to campaign hard for victory. The Humphrey campaign of '68 is the unavoidable model here.

2)I believe that, even in the unlikely event that a prowar Democrat were to defy the odds and be elected, that Democrat would be doomed to a failed presidency. History shows us that, on domestic issues, Democrats abandon most if all progressive policies once the war is underway. This is tolerable in the situation of a war of national survival(World War II and World War II only). The conservatism of a prowar Democratic administration(Carter after he turned into a Scoop Jackson militarist in 1979, LBJ after 1966, Truman once he'd gone into Korea, Woodrow Wilson, who was never that progressive to start with)inevitably leads to a Republican resurgence and a long period of reactionary politics.

The War on Terror needs to be fought, but mainly as an intelligence-gathering and suspect apprehension effort. It cannot be won on the battlefield as we know it.

[az chela]

1. Illegal War

This war is not a real war.We have wars to defend people when their country is invaded by another country.Iraq never attacked us,never did anything to us.Why are we fighting and dying there ???How can anyone support this war for oil???
100's of thousands have died or been wounded and no end in sight.This has to be stopped.
No more War ,save our country ,Impeach bush.Bring our troops home now!!!!

[babylonsister]

2. Remind me who the pro-war Dems were/are? nt

[applegrove]

7. Me too? Are they Kennedy, Wilson, FDR? Or do you just mean the ones

for an aggressive attack on Saddam - who include just about nobody?

Do you mean Dems who do not want to see Iraq & the middle east turn into Iranian pumpkin pie? Cause the Israelis pretty much cannot invade anywhere. And the Iranians can pretty much invade whereever they want (southern Iraq). Iranians answer to nobody.

I agree the war was horrid. And aggressive. And not implemented in a way that would wrap thing up. I agree neocons are loonies.

But does a Dem have to be for a pull out today? Or could they be for redeployment? I don't think anyone in the Dems except for Lieberman would have been for the invasion if the facts had not been mythed to make us all scared of WMD.

Would we have to get rid of half the Dems? That would be good. Seeing as though we are close to taking back the house or senate and getting some investigative power.

[Ken Burch]

8. In this case, I mean those who ended up as president

making militarism the centerpiece of their presidencies.
I also mean those, in the current situation, who are still not explicitly for a clear break with the Bush position.

(And, for the record, Murtha's position is a reasonable alternative which avoids both keeping our troops in a senselessly endangered position and also avoids being labeled as "cut and run".)

JFK would have fallen into the first category irrevocably had he been reelected. I think he would probably have escalated in Vietnam rather than withdrawn.

[applegrove]

9. Well I am against perpetual war. I think most Dems are too. And I read

Kerry's plan for leaving Iraq. It looked good.

Would you consider him - how?

[Ken Burch]

10. I could live with Kerry.

What I'd like to see from him, though, was a return to the courage and clarity he showed in '71. That moment when the pundit showed the old clip of him testifying to Congress on the war and then Kerry sort of chuckled and repudiated the clip was embarassing. Kerry supporters need to send their candidate the message that he was RIGHT to have been antiwar and that he was a stronger, more appealing person when he spoke forthrightly.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. Great Post!

I agree with your analysis.

I will, however, go one step further and be real cynical here.

Just think: If the Democrats successfully stop the Republican party from winning until they're completely gone, who will take their place?

Hypothetically, liberals (who are now already fed-up with the Democratic Party's much more conservative leanings) will naturally gravitate towards an even more progressive party, and this can (not necessarily, but can) force the Democratic Party into the position the Republican Party now holds as being the most conservative in government.

Speculating wildly here, but for conversation's sake, do the Democrats really want, or need this, and would it be in the party's best interest?

[cmkramer]

4. Okay

Tell me all the Democrats who believe that war is always the only answer.

I'll think you'll find there are no pro-war Democrats and probably ver very few pro-war Republicans.

[catmother]

5. agreed. especially the last paragraph. nt

[firefox]

6. To Empire or not to Empire? That is the question. It is also a litmus test

Just like you said.

[spaniard]

11. defy the odds???

First, you make a huge assumption: any Democrat nominated as a supporter of the war will by definition fail to inspire his or her party to campaign hard for victory.

Then, you use that assumption, void of any statistical fact, to arrive at the conclusion that it will defy the odds if a Democrat who "supported" the war gets elected.

The missing link in your equation is evidence that the odds are against a pro-war Democrat winning the election.

We must be careful not to confuse the base/rank and file Democrats with the "netroots."

I contend that the Iraq war will not be the make or break issue in '08 and that ANY Democrat will stand a good chance of winning after 8 years of Bush. But a Democrat who is more moderate and appeals the the masses in the center (including Independents who are leaning Democrat now) will have the best chance regardless of the his or her position on the war.

But that is just my opinion.

[wyldwolf]

12. yes. And I want to dissect it further

History shows us that, on domestic issues, Democrats abandon most if all progressive policies once the war is underway.

How does history show us this? While there are examples of this (FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans), there are also cases that defy the contention such as the civil rights legislation and "Great Society" economic legislation by LBJ during the Viet Nam war. I'd welcome other examples to prove the point of the OP.

The conservatism of a prowar Democratic administration(Carter after he turned into a Scoop Jackson militarist in 1979, LBJ after 1966, Truman once he'd gone into Korea, Woodrow Wilson, who was never that progressive to start with)inevitably leads to a Republican resurgence and a long period of reactionary politics.

Here's something that baffles me: What is "conservatism" as it applies to the afore mentioned Democratic presidents? Who makes that distinction? Why wasn't Wison "that progressive?"

[Ken Burch]

13. Why wasn't Wilson "that progressive"?

Uh, well, for starters, the fact that he screened "Birth of a Nation" the D.W. Griffith cinematic tribute to the Ku Klux Klan, at the White House, and was, in all other respects, a total defender of Jim Crow.

The "Red Raids" that his Attorney General was allowed to stage to terrorize innocent Americans whose only crime was supporting radical politics.

The brutal treatment of opponents of World War I, a war Wilson had promised not to get us into(and a war, let us remember, that had no positive consequences whatsoever.)

[wyldwolf]

14. you're using today's standards

Standards I could just as easily - and more effectively - apply to FDR and really make him look bad.

Wilson was quite progressive.

His "New Freedom" platform called for tariff reductions, reform of the banking and monetary system, and new laws to weaken abusive corporations and restore economic competition. He also passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created the system that still provides the framework for regulating the nation's banks and credit.

He also enacted the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) that made unions legal along with strikes, boycotts, picketing and the collection of strike benefit funds.

You would think that some here might read a little about the history of the party instead of assuming.

[Ken Burch]

15. There was never a time when loving the Klan was consistent

with being "progressive".

Also, everything even remotely progressive about Wilson stopped after he involved us in the
imperial conflict in Europe. World War I was staged largely to keep the workers of Europe from
joining forces with each other overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Nothing at all progressive came of it.

[wyldwolf]

16. well, there was never a time when inprisoning thousands of...

Japanese-Americans in internment camps was consistent with being "progressive."

Trying to stack the Supreme Court - lame and unprogressive.

Appointing two well known Republicans to high level positions - whooo boy!

Gutting your own social programs for the war effort. Don't get the progressives started!

And "loving the clan" is quite a misleading statement.

You say Wilson supported Jim Crow laws?

FDR's tenure was nothing but a continuation of the "gentleman's agreement" within the Democratic party that Northern Democrats would not interfere in race issues on the behalf of black Americans. To make sure the New Deal passed, Roosevelt chose not to offend Southern Democrats by challenging the white supremacist system of Jim Crow. Roosevelt did not publicly support civil rights for blacks until his wife took up the mantle.

Yes, Wilson screened the movie "Bith of a Nation" before it attained national noteriety, but did Wilson REALLY approve of the movie? Might be urban legend. Here is historian and Wilson biographer Arthur S. Link, described Wilson's involvement in the controversial showing:

Dixon conceived a bold scheme -- to arrange a private showing of the film at the White House and thereby to obtain the President's implied endorsement. <41>

Wilson fell into Dixon's trap, as indeed, did also members of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress. Then, when the N.A.A.C.P. sought to prevent the showing of "The Birth of a Nation" in New York, Boston, and other cities, Dixon’s lawyers countered successfully by declaring that Chief Justice had seen the movie and liked it immensely. <42>

The Chief Justice, a Confederate veteran from Louisiana, put an end to the use of his name by threatening to denounce "The Birth of a Nation" publicly if Dixon did not stop saying that he had endorsed it. <43> Perceiving the political dangers in the situation, Tumulty suggested that Wilson write "some sort of a letter showing that he did not approve of the 'Birth of a Nation.'" <44> "I would like to do this," the President replied, "if there were some way in which I could do it without seeming to be trying to meet the agitation . . . stirred up by that unspeakable fellow Tucker ." <45> He did, however, let Tumulty say that he had at no time approved the film; and three years later, when the nation was at war, he strongly disapproved the showing of this “unfortunate production." <46>

<41> Dixon tells the story in "Southern Horizons: An Autobiography," unpublished MS. in the possession of Mrs. Thomas Dixon, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 423-424.
<42> For accounts of the hearings in New York and Boston, see Mrs. Walter Damrosch to J.P. Tumulty, March 27, 1915, Wilson Papers; Mrs. Harriet Beale to J.P. Tumulty, March 29, 1915, ibid.; Representative Thomas C. Thacher of Massachusetts to J.P. Tumulty, April 17, 1915, ibid. enclosing letters and documents relating to the hearing in Boston; and Thomas Dixon, "Southern Horizons," pp. 425-441.
<43> E.D. White to J.P. Tumulty, April 5, 1915, Wilson Papers.
<44> J.P. Tumulty to W.W., April 24, 1915, ibid.
<45> W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 25, 1915, ibid.
<46> J.P. Tumulty to T.C. Thacher, April 28, 1915, ibid.; W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 22, 1918, ibid.

In addition, the "well known" quote from Wilson was also a fabrication. "Wilson is widely alleged to have praised the notoriously racist movie Birth of a Nation (based on a book by his former classmate Thomas Dixon), saying: 'It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so true. The quote has not been definitively traced to Wilson, who screened the movie at the White House but never commented publicly on it". - wikipedia.

Of course, I don't make the mistake of judging people who lived 100 years and 60 years ago by today's standards. And it's nice to have more than a surface knowledge of history.