Author Topic: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party  (Read 885 times)

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/09/the_democratic_party_has_replaced_the_republican_party_as_the_dominant_voice_on_foreign_policy_and_national_security_.single.html

A Changing of the Guard
The Democratic Party is now the dominant foreign-policy party.

By Fred Kaplan|Posted Friday, Sept. 7, 2012, at 1:27 AM ET
 
Vice-president Biden is introduced at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Richard Kalvar/Magnum Photos for Slate.
Read the rest of Slate’s coverage of the Democratic National Convention.
The conventions these past two weeks—and particularly the final speeches Thursday night—have cemented the fact that the Democratic party is now the party of national-security policy; not just a wise or thoughtful foreign and military policy, but any kind of thinking whatsoever about matters beyond the water’s edge.
For anyone who’s followed American politics the past 40 years, since the election between George McGovern and Richard Nixon, this is a staggering shift.
It was the Democrats who talked Thursday night of their president’s “backbone” and “courage,” of the clear message he sent—as Vice President Joe Biden put it when talking about the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound—that “if you attack innocent Americans, we will follow you to the ends of the world.” By contrast, Biden recalled, Republican challenger Mitt Romney once said that it wasn’t worth “moving heaven and earth, and spending billions of dollars, just to catch one person.”
More extraordinary still, it was the Democrats who saluted, mourned, and celebrated the “fallen angels” and “wounded warriors” of the U.S. military. Romney observed no such ritual, leaving Sen. John Kerry to note, in his speech Thursday night, never before had a wartime nominee for president, of either party, “failed to pay tribute to our troops overseas in his acceptance speech.”
Not even the Republican convention’s foreign-policy surrogate, Condoleezza Rice, said much about the veterans—or anything at all about the Iraq or Afghanistan war, even though she had been George W. Bush’s most trusted foreign policy adviser for all eight years of his presidency and had thus played a big role in starting those wars.
The clearest sign of the change in party dynamics was this: The Democrats feel so assured in their new role as guardians of national defense that they also talked openly about seeking peace, negotiating arms-reduction treaties with the Russians (which Romney opposes on the flimsiest of grounds), withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and shifting money that was once spent on fighting wars to revitalizing our own cities—as Obama put it, “to do some nation-building right here at home.”
Contrast this with the 2004 Democratic Convention, where Sen. Kerry, as the nominee, felt so desperate to prove his bona fides as a tough warrior—despite his very real record as a decorated Swift Boat officer in the Vietnam War—that he did not even mention (he felt it would be imprudent) his outspoken protest of the war as leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War when he returned from fighting.
Romney has done so little to shore up his lack of experience in foreign policy that Kerry, Biden, and Obama—the Democrats’ main speakers Thursday night—felt no qualms about simply dismissing him as an unserious man, even making fun of him.
Kerry noted that Romney has taken “every position” on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Libyan intervention: opposing withdrawal, then supporting it; criticizing Obama for moving too slowly, then too strongly. “Talk about being ‘for it before you were against it,’ ” Kerry quipped, borrowing the phrase that he once disastrously uttered about a budget measure, thus prompting Republicans in 2004 to ridicule him as a “flip-flopper.”
President Obama was even more casual in what can fairly be called, at least on these issues, his contempt for the Republican nominee. Romney’s depiction of Russia as America’s “number-one geostrategic foe” reveals that he’s “still stuck in a Cold War mind-warp,” Obama said—adding, in a reference to Romney’s disastrous trip to England this summer, “You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.”
Romney and Ryan “are new to foreign policy,” Obama said, barely containing a smirk. Yes, Obama was once new to it as well, though not as new—he’d at least served actively on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he picked a running mate, Joe Biden, who was seasoned. The more pertinent point the Democrats were making at their convention, though, is that Obama is not remotely new now.
On one point, the Democrats exaggerated their president’s accomplishment. The troop-withdrawal from Iraq was negotiated on Bush’s watch. It was part of the Status of Forces Agreement, signed by U.S. and Iraqi officials on Nov. 17, 2008. The Obama administration later negotiated the points of transition toward complete withdrawal, no small thing; but the end of the war was set under Bush.
Then again, this accord was completed after Obama’s victory in the 2008 election. If Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, had won, it’s an open question whether Bush would have gone ahead with the deal. McCain opposed the pullout at the time and still thinks it was a big mistake. What does Romney think? What would he have done? That’s still less clear.
Murkiest of all is the question of what happened to the Republican Party as a player—as the presumptive leader—in foreign affairs. It’s not healthy, either for this election or for the state of American democracy, to have just one of the two major parties take so much as a serious interest in the subject, even if—by evidence of the past few years—it’s the better of those parties.

syntaxmachine

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2687
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2012, 12:18:14 PM »
The Republican Party won't have any credentials in the domain of foreign policy until it cleanses its system of the neoconservative virus. It hasn't happened this election cycle but I'm hoping it will be accomplished by 2016; that way, we can have two parties that are free from this disastrous theory.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2012, 12:36:40 PM »
The Republican Party won't have any credentials in the domain of foreign policy until it cleanses its system of the neoconservative virus. It hasn't happened this election cycle but I'm hoping it will be accomplished by 2016; that way, we can have two parties that are free from this disastrous theory.
and what exactly is the neocon theory?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2012, 12:37:43 PM »
and what exactly is the neocon theory?

have you read the PNAC document from 2000?  Written by 1/2 of the bush foreign policy team.

mostly, about the need to expand US invovlement in mid east countries, and doing so thru pre-emptive attacks.

It's a theory that cost us a lot of money/debt, but did give us valuable footholds in iraq/afghanistan that obama sure isn't changing.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2012, 12:42:21 PM »
have you read the PNAC document from 2000?  Written by 1/2 of the bush foreign policy team.

mostly, about the need to expand US invovlement in mid east countries, and doing so thru pre-emptive attacks.

It's a theory that cost us a lot of money/debt, but did give us valuable footholds in iraq/afghanistan that obama sure isn't changing.
IC so obama subscribes to this theory as well then, yes?

syntaxmachine

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2687
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2012, 01:14:21 PM »
and what exactly is the neocon theory?

Technically there isn't any one theory, just as there isn't any one Christianity. There are a bunch of variants, all of which share a cluster of common ideas:

i. that the U.S.'s unique position gives it a moral responsibility to "rid the world of evil" (Bush at the National Cathedral, 14 September 2001) and that it is perfectly acceptable to utilize military intervention to achieve this,

ii. that extensive nation-building is a viable strategy for building democratic societies around the world and thus for advancing the mission of freedom and ridding the world of evil,

iii. that it is just to use preventive (not preemptive) war to eliminate even potential threats to American dominance; and,

iv. that it is perfectly acceptable to take these actions as if the international community does not exist (accept help from whoever agrees and ignore everyone else).

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2012, 01:22:58 PM »
IC so obama subscribes to this theory as well then, yes?
necons have for the most part gotten what they wanted with Obama.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2012, 02:51:17 PM »
IC so obama subscribes to this theory as well then, yes?

Obama has continued a lot of the neocon policies.  That's why it's difficult for Romney (his foreign policy team being made up of half bush neocons) to realize criticize obama on foreign policy.

Romney can say "Obama didn't HANDLE this right" but the overall bigger picture things are the same.

Now, has obama STARTED any massive war efforts?  No.   CLinton started no major wars.  bush started two.  Obama 'intervened' in Libya but we lost no lives and spent WAY less than we did in other wars.

So I think Obama followed the neocon-lite version - he didn't end anything they did, but at the same time he didn't invade Iran.  Would McCain have invaded Iran?  I think he sang us a song which answers that lol...

bighead

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Getbig!
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2012, 04:01:54 PM »
Technically there isn't any one theory, just as there isn't any one Christianity. There are a bunch of variants, all of which share a cluster of common ideas:

i. that the U.S.'s unique position gives it a moral responsibility to "rid the world of evil" (Bush at the National Cathedral, 14 September 2001) and that it is perfectly acceptable to utilize military intervention to achieve this,

ii. that extensive nation-building is a viable strategy for building democratic societies around the world and thus for advancing the mission of freedom and ridding the world of evil,

iii. that it is just to use preventive (not preemptive) war to eliminate even potential threats to American dominance; and, iv. that it is perfectly acceptable to take these actions as if the international community does not exist (accept help from whoever agrees and ignore everyone else).
 How do you propose Iran is dealt with then?

syntaxmachine

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2687
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2012, 07:47:57 PM »
 How do you propose Iran is dealt with then?

I don't think Iran is a threat to American security interests. They aren't going to suddenly begin launching wars or giving bombs to terrorists once they have breakout capacity (the ability to build nuclear bombs), because they know their country would become a nuclear wasteland if they did (i.e., we'd annihilate them).

The only other thing they can do is close the Strait of Hormuz, but again they would have to be suicidal to do so -- and the Iranians have never acted foolishly or against their own interests. Finally, Israel isn't the 51st state of the U.S. and can handle its own security just fine. If anything, once both countries have nukes they will be extremely unlikely to be overly aggressive against one another, just like the U.S. vs. the U.S.S.R. or India vs. Pakistan.

Finally, our current policy sucks b/c it is extremely expensive to maintain a military presence in the Persian Gulf ($50-60 billion). We can assume a variety of probabilities for Iran's closing the Strait and it is still cheaper in each case not to have our military there. Let me give a quick example:

-U.S. GDP = $15.09 trillion
-Every 10% increase in oil prices slows the U.S. growth rate 0.25-0.5% (0.375% on average)
-If the Strait closes, oil prices may well double (increase 100%)
-Current U.S. growth rate is 1.7%

This means that if there is a 10% probability the Strait will close within the next year, the cost to the U.S. is $32.6 billion (growth reduction will equal -3.75 -- 0.375 x 10 -- and thus will go from +1.7 to -2.05, -2.05 from 15.09 trillion is $325.95 billion, times our 10% probability -- 0.1 -- is $32.595 billion). And yet it is costing us $50-60 billion to be there. There would have to be an almost 20% chance the Strait will close just for us to break even, but this is absurd because again, a closure is an extremely small probability event that is tantamount to Iranian suicide.

I'll PM you where I get the numbers for the initial assumptions if you want.

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Democratic Party is now the dominant National Secuirty/Foreign-policy party
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2012, 01:45:33 AM »
The Republican Party won't have any credentials in the domain of foreign policy until it cleanses its system of the neoconservative virus. It hasn't happened this election cycle but I'm hoping it will be accomplished by 2016; that way, we can have two parties that are free from this disastrous theory.

+1