The 1960 Democratic Party Platform -- National Defense

[dolstein]

This is what the Democratic Party used to stand for -- a strong national defense. Here is the national defense plank of the 1960 Democratic Party platform:


National Defense

The new Democratic Administration will recast our military capacity in order to provide forces and weapons of a diversity, balance, and mobility sufficient in quantity and quality to deter both limited and general aggressions.

When the Democratic Administration left office in 1953, the United States was the pre-eminent power in the world. Most free nations had confidence in our will and our ability to carry out our commitments to the common defense.

Even those who wished us ill respected our power and influence.

The Republican Administration has lost that position of pre-eminence. Over the past 7 1/2 years, our military power has steadily declined relative to that of the Russians and the Chinese and their satellites.

This is not a partisan election-year charge. It has been persistently made by high officials of the Republican Administration itself. Before Congressional committees they have testified that the Communists will have a dangerous lead in intercontinental missiles through 1963—and that the Republican Administration has no plans to catch up.

They have admitted that the Soviet Union leads in the space race—and that they have no plans to catch up.

They have also admitted that our conventional military forces, on which we depend for defense in any non-nuclear war, have been dangerously slashed for reasons of "economy"—and that they have no plans to reverse this trend.

As a result, our military position today is measured in terms of gaps—missile gap, space gap, limited-war gap.

To recover from the errors of the past 7 1/2 years will not be easy.

This is the strength that must be erected:

1. Deterrent military power such that the Soviet and Chinese leaders will have no doubt that an attack on the United States would surely be followed by their own destruction.

2. Balanced conventional military forces which will permit a response graded to the intensity of any threats of aggressive force.

3. Continuous modernization of these forces through intensified research and development, including essential programs now slowed down, terminated, suspended, or neglected for lack of budgetary support.

A first order of business of a Democratic Administration will be a complete re-examination of the organization of our armed forces.

A military organization structure, conceived before the revolution in weapons technology, cannot be suitable for the strategic deterrent, continental defense, limited war, and military alliance requirements of the 1960s.

We believe that our armed forces should be organized more nearly on the basis of function, not only to produce greater military strength, but also to eliminate duplication and save substantial sums.

We pledge our will, energies, and resources to oppose Communist aggression.

Since World War II, it has been clear that our own security must be pursued in concert with that of many other nations.

The Democratic Administrations which, in World War II, led in forging a mighty and victorious alliance, took the initiative after the war in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the greatest peacetime alliance in history.

This alliance has made it possible to keep Western Europe and the Atlantic Community secure against Communist pressures.

Our present system of alliances was begun in a time of an earlier weapons technology when our ability to retaliate against Communist attack required bases all around the periphery of the Soviet Union. Today, because of our continuing weakness in mobile weapons systems and intercontinental missiles, our defenses still depend in part on bases beyond our borders for planes and shorter-range missiles.

If an alliance is to be maintained in vigor, its unity must be reflected in shared purposes. Some of our allies have contributed neither devotion to the cause of freedom nor any real military strength.

The new Democratic Administration will review our system of pacts and alliances. We shall continue to adhere to our treaty obligations, including the commitment of the UN Charter to resist aggression. But we shall also seek to shift the emphasis of our cooperation from military aid to economic development, wherever this is possible.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1960

[NWHarkness]

1. OK, but, uh, some of it is bullshit

There was no "missile gap", that was a completely bogus claim.

[ulysses]

2. aaaaand now it's 45 years later.

Point?

[lancdem]

3. We didn't always have the reputation

of being weak on national security, like we have now.

[ulysses]

4. we shouldn't have it now.

The idea that Dems are weak on national security is a GOP talking point, pure and simple. It's one we've come to believe ourselves.

[dolstein]

6. Sorry, but you can' t pin this one on the GOP

The GOP merely exploited an opening the Democratic Party itself created. The Democratic Party took a clear stance in favor of reducing the size of the military and scaling back our overseas commitments -- and got crushed. This was 1972. Twelve years later, the Democratic Party did the same thing -- and got crushed again. Memories linger, and the Democratic Party has never fully recovered from the 1972 election and the 1984 election, or from Jimmy Carter's dismal handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. Sure, the GOP has pounded away at this issue nonstop for 30 years to the point where it's been engrained in the national consciousness. But can you blame them? After all, the Dems hammered away at Herbert Hoover for a good 40 years.

[ulysses]

7. sorry. none of these things

means that the party is, or was, soft on defense.

[dolstein]

8. They took a weaker stand than the GOP

You may think this was justified, but the electorate didn't think so, and the charge has stuck.

The fact is that, at least since 1972, the Republican Party has consistently took a more aggressive stance on national security issues than the Democratic Party has. The Republican Party has advocated more spending, and has been more supportive of committing U.S. troops than the Democratic Party has.

Bill Clinton and Kosovo was a big exception, and perhaps if randy Bill had managed to keep his fly zipped, the Democrats might have been able to change public opinion about the Democrats and national security. Sadly that didn't happen. And then we had to go and nominate one of the leaders of the anti-war movement as our presidential candidate. Sheesh. And to think we could have nominated a four star general instead.

[G_j]

13. I hate to say it but

you sound like you prefer the Republican version of national defense.

[wyldwolf]

15. I think he prefers the pre-McGovern Democratic version of national defense

I often hear the lefties wail about "taking the party back."

Well, that was the Democrat's national defense policy back in the day.

[IndianaGreen]

17. George McGovern was a highly decorated war hero

He knew the folly of militarism, and he understood better than his chicken hawk critics, the horrors of war.

McGovern was more of a man than all of his draft avoiding detractors!

[dolstein]

26. And yet 60%+ of American voters preferred Nixon

You've had over 30 years to third about it, and yet you seem to have learned nothing. You can keep telling yourself that the silent majority is just a bunch of ignorant bigoted warmongers. But they vote. And that matters in a democracy. Perhaps in another thirty years, you've have figured this one out.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I have explained again and again

(as someone who was 22 years old at the time, as opposed to maybe not even born), that it wasn't lack of militarism that did McGovern in. It was the media-created perception that he was the "hippie candidate."

The rejection of McGovern was a cultural reaction to future shock over the youth movements of the 1960s, which happened with amazing rapidity and caused huge friction within families.

McGovern was always portrayed as being surrounded by long-haired youth. Nixon preached "law and order" and talked about "the forgotten Middle American" (people who were upset because their child had become a hippie or who thought African-Americans were getting uppity). The "Southern strategy" of covert appeals to racists was in full force.

Aside from the Vietnam War, which was increasingly unpopular, military matters were not a huge part of the campaign. Even Nixon had to claim that he "had a plan" for ending the war.

Whatever was in the party platforms (which most people don't read anyway), Nixon cast himself as the hero of everyone who was reeling from the cultural changes of the 1960s.

[dolstein]

40. So it's all the media's fault . . .

You guys are SOOOOOO predictable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Partly, but Nixon was also better at taking advantage of

the prevailing anti-hippy, anti-black mood in a large portion of the electorate.

The Nixon voters that I knew were far more afraid that the country was being taken over by drug and sex-crazed hippies and gun-wielding Black Panthers, silly as it sounds, than they were about the Soviets, who were actually rather quiet in those years.

[knight_of_the_star]

55. That's your ONLY response

That's weak. You talk about Dems being weak on national defense, yet in his platform Kerry proposed adding something like 50k additional troops to the armed forces. The reason dems are seen as "weak on defense" is because the GOP did a VERY good job using vietnam as a club to beat the snot out of us with, NOT because our platform genuinely undermines the armed forces.

[Orlandodem]

57. I voted for Kerry, but anyone who doesn't see that

he sounded unsure of himself on Iraq and other military matters is fooling themselves.

[IndianaGreen]

43. And Nixon was indeed a crook, and was forced to resign

That's some choice you are giving the American people, dolstein. Criminals like Nixon and Bush over someone that can bring some good to this country.

A political party should lead towards the promised land, not feed the fears and bigotry of the nation.

[dolstein]

23. Thank you

Most DU'ers are under the mistaken impression that Democratic Party of 1972 was the "Old Democratic Party", and that the DLC represents the "New Democratic Party." Part of that may be due to the DLC labelling themselves "New Democrats." But in truth, they were the "Old Democrats", and it was the McGovern forces who were the "New Democrats", rejecting many long-standing traditions of the Democratic Party, most notably in the area of foreign policy but also in their embrace of new cultural values.

[wyldwolf]

27. like the Rightwing, they re-write history to match their agenda

...or else they're just seriously naive.

[manic expression]

37. You really want Old Skool?

Let's go back to reconstruction! That's when Democrats were real Democrats! :sarcasm:

Look, a Democratic President perpetuated Vietnam. Do you want to go back to that policy? I really hope you don't.

I don't care what's "old" or "new", just give me what's right.

[dolstein]

39. The same Democratic President who "perpetuated Vietnam"

also rammed the following measures through Congress:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Fair Housing Act of 1968
Medicare
Head Start
Legislation establishing the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

The fact of the matter is that if the Democratic Party of 1960 and 1964 were viewed as weak on defense, we probably would never have racked up the kind of majorities in Congress needed to pass all of the progressive legislation listed above.

The anti-war movement had only two significant accomplishments (unless you consider prolonging the war in Vietnam an accomplishment) -- ending the draft and driving the single most progressive president this nation has ever seen from public office. That may give you some sense of pride, but personally it makes me sick.

[manic expression]

41. Yeah, real great stuff

when how many Vietnamese were unnecessarily killed? 2 million? 5 million? We didn't need to do any of that, and those pieces of legislation still could've gone through.

If you call the slaughter of innocents "progress", that IS sick (that's an understatement, by the way).

[dolstein]

42. "All those piece of legislation still could've gone through"

Wishful thinking. The Democratic Party's embrace of the anti-war movement brought an end to the era of liberal government.

[knight_of_the_star]

56. "Embrace of the anti-war movement"

Bullshit.

Show me, IN WRITING, where in past Democratic Party platforms that the Party "embraced" the anti-war movement. in 1968, BOTH parties were talking about how they would do a better job dealing with the war, Humphrey was saying we had to stick it out, Nixon was talking about "peace with honour" which turned out to be another 4 years stuck in Southeast Asia.

[Orlandodem]

58. The Democratic Platform of 1968 is not the

anti-war movement that is being talked about here. The anti-war movement was the riots of the Chicago Democratic National Convention. It was San Francisco.

I'm not a supporter of Iraq. Never have been and I spoke out against Dems who boxed themselves in when they voted to "give the president the power to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But I admit that the Dems have looked weak on defense since 1972.

If we could have a Dem nominee who was strong on defense but supported affirmative action, Roe, Kyoto Treaty, universal health, a living wage, and workers' rights we could control the federal government for decades.

[IndianaGreen]

45. We rejected the criminal war in Vietnam

as we do the Iraq War today. Apparently some of those "Old Democrats" you gushed so much about had no problem slaughtering non-whites and non-Christian people, pretty much as the Republicans of today are on Iraq.

[dolstein]

48. The Viet Cong and Pol Pot had no problem slaughtering non-whites

and non-Christian people. Yet that never seems to have bothered the anti-war left.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Pol Pot was supported by the US

Incredible, but true! When Vietnam went into Cambodia to topple the evil Pol Pot, which in turn exposed the extend of the bloodbath, the US kept insisting that the Khmer Rouge were the legitimate government of Cambodia rather than the new government of Prime Minister Hun Sen.

You can thank Nixon and Kissinger for the bloody mess in Cambodia.

As to Vietnam, the Vietnamese are better off today than they ever were. No more American bombs are landing on their villages. No more American death squads to worry about. No more war!

A mass murderer under US protection

If the Khmer Rouge did not disintegrate completely after this debacle, it was largely because it had the support of powerful backers. China launched a military assault on Vietnam in retaliation for its invasion of Cambodia, with the tacit backing of the Carter administration in the United States.

Deng Xiaoping visited Washington in January 1979, in the midst of the Vietnamese offensive in Cambodia, which both China and the US condemned. Less than two months later, nearly a million Chinese troops carried out attacks along Vietnam's northern border, where they suffered a bloody repulse.

The most critical role was played by the United States government, which saw Pol Pot as a useful Cold War ally, since he was at war with Vietnam, which was allied to the Soviet Union. With US backing, China supplied the Khmer Rouge with military equipment and the right-wing military regime in Thailand, a US client state, allowed free flow of supplies to Pol Pot's guerrillas in their base camps along the Thai-Cambodian border.

As Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security adviser, later admitted, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could."

Equally important was the diplomatic support from the United States and other imperialist powers, which recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia and backed the seating of Pol Pot's representative as the Cambodian delegate to the United Nations for more than a decade. Throughout the 1980s the Reagan administration blocked international efforts to characterize the events of 1975-78 in Cambodia as genocide or to hold the Khmer Rouge leadership responsible for mass murder, since it would undercut the American alliance with Pol Pot.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/apr1998/plpt-a18.shtml

[bluestateguy]

14. Well what would you have the Democrats do?

Support the Iraq War? Support a wasteful missile defense program? Why should any voter support a Democrat who favors doing those things when the Republican president is already doing those things in office?

[Toots]

18. So you are saying Republicans are more War Profiteers than Democrats?

I agree. Republicans have been war Profiteering for a long long rime. Are Republicans better at securing our Nation? Not even close. attacking other countries and stealing their resources does not make us safer nor does the Republicans individual military service indicate they have any true desire to protect America. They own the Media and are better at getting their lies into the public domain.

[DrGonzoLives]

19. "Weaker stand"

Keep buying into those GOP spinning points, pal.

Why is it "weak" on national defense to say we need to change our military is structured instead of just buying more shit to kill people with?

More spending does not equal better defense. If that's the case, then why doesn't more education spending equal smarter students, according to the standard Republican propaganda?

[knight_of_the_star]

54. Dismal handling?

Are you saying that Carter somehow was at fault for the helicopters carrying the commandoes that crashed in the desert? He didn't have ANY control over that, unless you are a Republican anyway. And as far as scaling back the military: GUESS WHAT, that's what Bush I and Cheney DID after Gulf War I. So your whole thing about Dems being weak on defense is bullshit.

[democratic veteran]

5. No Missile Gap

Yep, and there is definitely no terrorist gap, got plenty of those all over; Thanks to the Republican policies initiated since 2000.

More Gaps:

Recruiting Gap: Iraqi Army, Air Force, Navy Marines
United States Army
Coalition of the Willing Gap

Integrity
At least there is no Rove Gap; He's all W's.

[IndianaGreen]

9. That platform is what got us knee deep into Vietnam

Remember also that JFK almost got this planet destroyed in a nuclear holocaust on account of a few missiles in Cuba. The Soviets never threatened to destroy the planet when the US put its missiles in Turkey. Besides, the only reason Cuba requested Soviet missiles was to deter US aggression, an aggression that persists to this very day.

[kenny blankenship]

31. True enough but

Besides, the only reason Cuba requested Soviet missiles was to deter US aggression,

True, but... Had it been anyone besides Kennedy in the White House at that point, we probably wouldn't be alive today. Everybody in uniform--all of the JCS--were pressuring JFK to invade Cuba. What they didn't understand then was that there were already some tactical nuclear missiles there in the hands of Soviet field commanders and ready to go. There were also 40,000 Soviet troops there. Washington had thought there were nuclear missiles and warheads on ships en route to Cuba--there were, but some had already unloaded, a fact that didn't come out until after the end of the Cold War. And the estimate of the Soviet military presence in Cuba was too low by an order of magnitude. So an invasion of the island and bombing of the large Soviet garrison would have begun WWIII with a certainty factor approaching 100%. Kennedy didn't know about the strength and nukes in Cuba either, but at least he had a healthy respect for the possibilities that the senior men in uniform couldn't be bothered to fit under the weight of their gold covered hats. Both Kennedy and Krushchev appreciated that Cuba wasn't "worth it" when nuclear war was the probable outcome of further escalation.

We should all be thankful JFK was a "pussy" in October 1962. A real hawk--you know someone whose primary concern was being credible about defense as the rightwing defined it--would have gotten us all killed.

[Capn Sunshine]

10. None of that is relevant in a post 911 world

That's what many pundits say, including many moderate Dem pundits.

beyond that, what's your point? We need to kill off more of our kids in Iraq? Or we "look" weak?

We have to "get them over there" before they "get us over here"?
Tell that to London.

Sorry, not buying what you're selling Dolstein.
For starters, lets try getting our first responders some more support if you want to be "strong" on defense.

And maybe support the Intel community in their work, instead of making them yes men to a neocon war plan.

[Jacobin]

11. Did you notice the use of the word 'deterent' and 'deterence' a lot?

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the DLC's decision to become PNACing warmongering, world dominionists.

See what I mean?

[bluestateguy]

12. Problems are not solved by throwing money at them

The Pentagon has all the money it needs, just as it did during the Clinton Administration, when US military spending was higher than the next highest spending 10 nations combined.

John Kerry proposed no cuts to the defense budget in 2004.

[Orlandodem]

16. Until we are credible on national defense again we will

lose at the Congressional and presidencial level. Period.

There are a ton of other issues that are relevant...voting machines, environment, healthcare for all, a living wage. But we must have a president who is comfortable with the military.

We have never fully come to grips with Vietnam as a party. The general public sees us as weak on defense because of the late 60s and early 70s turmoil.

I would call on Dems to advocate an international alliance designed to fight terror. A 21st century NATO of sorts - muscular multilateralism. I would call on Dems to explain how they'll use the military to protect our borders.

[dolstein]

24. "Muscular Mulilateralism" -- I like it

Unfortunately, most people around here are opposed to nearly all uses of military force. And American memories of WWII and the early cold war are fading. Back in the 1960s, when the Democrats spoke of strong military alliances, people understood what that meant. Nowadays, the Democrat's emphasis on multilateralism sounds like an excuse for avoiding military action at all costs.

[Orlandodem]

35. We're the party of NATO, the UN, and victory in WWII.

And JFK looked comfortable sitting on an aircraft carrier in a flight jacket with a cigar.

Muscular Multilateralism is in our party's blood. It is a phrase that every Dem ought to be using. Not because it sounds good. But because it is true. We must speak with conviction about protecting America.

We don't need to be a warmonger party but we need to be credible on military issues, national defense, and foreign policy.

[kenny blankenship]

28. You're SO right. We must triple--no--QUADRUPLE spending

on the military so we can be credible guardians against the USSR and international communism.

Then we can go and WIN THE BIG ONE in Vietnam.

Thank you for spreading your mature TIMELESS wisdom!

[Orlandodem]

34. Can you tell me where I even began imply that?

The fact is, to borrow an overused political slogan, "it's national defense, stupid."

If we're credible on foreign policy, we win the WH and Congress for decades to come. It's really not complicated.

[DrGonzoLives]

20. Say it with me...

"That was the Cold War."

That was a time when we were convinced we had to be ready to meet the Red Army in WWIII, racing across the plains of central Europe following the initial nuclear strike. This is not the case anymore.

We do not fight armies anymore, we fight individuals. Big weapons that make large, pretty explosions on CNN don't do any good in this kind of war.

[MikeyCNY]

21. National Defense is a non-partisan issue

Since when does a political party NOT claim to be strong on national defense? When it comes to defense spending, you have your choice between: a) extravagant spending (DEMS) or b) MORE extravagant spending (GOP).

This is a no-brainer.

[MikeyCNY]

22. National Defense is a non-partisan issue

Since when does a political party NOT claim to be strong on national defense? When it comes to defense spending, you have your choice between: a) extravagant spending (DEMS) or b) MORE extravagant spending (GOP).

This is a no-brainer.

[dolstein]

and Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are real

and the moon is made of green cheese.

[dolstein]

29. Dupe

NT

[dolstein]

30. Dupe

NT

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Thanks, MikeyCNY

and welcome to DU!

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Sounds like the DLC wrote that

Does anyone remember which party won that election?

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Several posts in this vein lately, dolstein

Is this your new backdoor gambit for supporting this disastrous, ill-conceived, and unnecessary war? Is this just your way of saying that those who oppose the war are somehow weak on "national defense," and therefore contrary to the traditions of the Democratic Party (as you would purify it)?

Would one, in your eyes, be able to assent to all the propositions listed in the platform, and still voice strident dissent to the unspeakably stupid Iraq War? Is that possible? Let's get to brass tacks and start being honest here, dolstein. Rather than come up with these bizarre sideways approaches, just go ahead and say what you think.

Would that the DLC would write this:

Collective Bargaining

The right to a job requires the restoration of full support for collective bargaining and the repeal of the anti-labor excesses which have been written into our labor laws.

Under Democratic leadership a sound national policy was developed, expressed particularly by the Wagner National Labor Relations Act, which guaranteed the rights of workers to organize and to bargain collectively. But the Republican Administration has replaced this sound policy with a national anti-labor policy.

The Republican Taft-Hartley Act seriously weakened unions in their efforts to bring economic justice to the millions of American workers who remain unorganized.

By administrative action, anti-labor personnel appointed by the Republicans to the National Labor Relations Board have made the Taft-Hartley Act even more restrictive in its application than in its language.

Thus the traditional goal of the Democratic Party—to give all workers the right to organize and bargain collectively—has still not been achieved.

We pledge the enactment of an affirmative labor policy which will encourage free collective bargaining through the growth and development of free and responsible unions.

Millions of workers just now seeking to organize are blocked by Federally authorized "right-to-work" laws, unreasonable limitations on the right to picket, and other hampering legislative and administrative provisions.

Again, in the new Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, the Republican Administration perverted the constructive effort of the Democratic Congress to deal with improper activities of a few in labor and management by turning that Act into a means of restricting the legitimate rights of the vast majority of working men and women in honest labor unions. This law likewise strikes hardest at the weak or poorly organized, and it fails to deal with abuses of management as vigorously as with those of labor.

We will repeal the authorization for "right-to-work" laws, limitations on the rights to strike, to picket peacefully and to tell the public the facts of a labor dispute, and other anti-labor features of the Taft-Hartley Act and the 1959 Act. This unequivocal pledge for the repeal of the anti-labor and restrictive provisions of those laws will encourage collective bargaining and strengthen and support the free and honest labor movement.

The Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act are in need of improvement. We strongly oppose Republican attempts to weaken the Railway Labor Act.

We shall strengthen and modernize the Walsh-Healey and Davis-Bacon Acts, which protect the wage standards of workers employed by Government contractors.

Basic to the achievement of stable labor-management relations is leadership from the White House. The Republican Administration has failed to provide such leadership.

It failed to foresee the deterioration of labor-management relations in the steel industry last year. When a national emergency was obviously developing, it failed to forestall it. When the emergency came, the Administration's only solution was government-by-injunction.

A Democratic President, through his leadership and concern, will produce a better climate for continuing constructive relationships between labor and management. He will have periodic White House conferences between labor and management to consider their mutual problems before they reach the critical stage.

A Democratic President will use the vast fact-finding facilities that are available to inform himself, and the public, in exercising his leadership in labor disputes for the benefit of the nation as a whole.

If he needs more such facilities, or authority, we will provide them.

We further pledge that in the administration of all labor legislation we will restore the level of integrity, competence and sympathetic understanding required to carry out the intent of such legislation.

[dolstein]

33. Has it never occurred to you . . .

that the co-opting of the Democratic Party by left-wing pacifists has harmed the labor movement? Think about it -- a sizable percentage of union workers voted for Nixon and Ronald Reagan because the "new" Democratic Party stance on military issues and social issues was unacceptable. These pacifists handed the Republican Party the wedge issues it needed to divide the labor movement. The disastrous defeats in the 1972 and 1984 presidential elections severely and (it seems) permanently weakened the Democratic Party. And now the Democratic Party doesn't have the political strength to protect the interests of the working class.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. No, nothing occurs to anyone

until you enlighten them with your wisdom.

I've never been quite sure of where all these "left-wing" pacifists" ply their evil trade, but I'm sure you'll provide a hany list of all the "left-wing pacifists" in the - ahem - State Department (not to mention the Army). Now that we're "permanently" weakened, in any case, you can cease the jeremiad, it being quite pointless given your conclusion. We may never again win an election in this "permanently" weakened state (according to you), but on the bright side your conclusion makes further arrogant hectoring unnecessary, so at least we won't have to listen to such rants either! Every silver lining has a, um, touch of gray (as the far left peace wing might say).

With respect to the collapse of labor, there's little doubt that the right wing ideologues were able to co-opt labor for a wide variety of reasons, one of which may have been the supposed split in "values" between a hyper-masculinist and mostly white labor movement constituted in the 1940's and 50's and the various liberation movements which used the Democratic Party values as their wedge for economic and social equality (or at least alleviation of an outrageous system implicitly supported by big labor). Indeed, such cultural concerns are completely conflated with economic concerns now. I suppose these are the stances on "social issues" to which you refer, but I wouldn't back away from them, since they made our country better. Full stop. But the notion that it was a pack of "left-wing pacifists" who took over the party and alienated hard-hats (who were busy beating them up with baseball bats in the streets of our cities for the better part of the late-1960's) is laughably overdetermined. You have a beef with the peaceniks. That's fair. To single that factor out, though, is obsessive and a bit childish. It appears all the more childish when it's obvious that you cannot answer for your Iraq stance, which seems to be the silent motivator behind your whole recent tirade anyway.

[paulk]

44. laughably overdetermined

you know, I worked for over 20 years in a union job with those "alienated hard-hats", over a four state area, (where I was the left wing pacifist, at least by their lights) and I wouldn't reject what Dolstien says out of hand.

Most of my co-workers, the great majority of whom had served in the armed forces, voted Republican - and more often than not for the reasons Dolstien states. Democrats had and still have serious credibilty problems with this group when it comes to their perceptions of us on national defence. This is a group that should, for economic reasons, be voting Democratic. They're not and we need to figure out why.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Okay, but then the Dems need to emphasize

1) Taking better care of veterans instead of cutting the VA budget (the Dems need to shout this from the rooftops)

2) Not putting soldiers into stupid, pointless wars but equipping them properly for wars that you do send them to

3) Not providing corporate welfare in the form of contracts to build weapons against enemies who don't exist while ignoring the dangers that do exist that are better met by less high tech means

Even if Star Wars had been up and running, it would not have prevented the WTC attacks or terrorists smuggling weapons into this country, the real threats that we face today.

You seem dead set on defending the Iraq War, dolstein, on the assumption that the Dems will lose unless the public sees the candidates pounding their chests and giving off Tarzan yells. You're defending it on a tactical basis, because you want to "win."

Is that what you're saying, dolstein, that the only way for the Dems to win is to advocate attacking Iran or some other country that hasn't attacked us? (Oh, yes, and putting warning labels on video games...)

Great, just great. Convince the Middle Easterners who aren't already convinced of it that America hates Islam, invade a country that could actually mount a credible defense and deprive even more American families of their children, give the Iranian government a reason to label all the pro-liberalization forces as traitors, become even more unpopular around the world...

Any more bright ideas?

How about enlisting if you think that war is such a great idea? The age limit is now 42, you know.

[paulk]

60. I think you replied to the wrong post

;-)

[alcibiades_mystery]

59. let me restate

"to single that factor out..."

I have no doubt that part of the Republican stratgy since their own disastrous performance in the mid-1960's has been to portray Democrats as soft on defense, and I have no doubt that this factor succeeded in peeling off some traditional labor constituencies. But to single that factor out is to pretend that it wasn't happening within a broad sweep of cultural and economic change. If the alienated hard-hats were also against women moving into the workplace in large numbers (they were) and were also against the improved status of gays in American society, then the story gets more complicated, and we also have a mechanism for articulating the three belief systems of siege mentality - "defence" - hyper-masculinity - Republicanism. We'd also have to seriously question the notion that A) what masquerades as "strong defence" within this rhetorical constellation actually serves to increase defence, peace, and stability (a dubious proposition at best, as the numerous blowbacks from the "strong defence" policies of the 1980's smash against our very shores), and B) that the Democratic Party itself has ever really followed a policy set by the so-called "far left peaceniks."

A) is important because, if the policy of, as someone upthread so eloquently dubbed it, "muscular multilateralism," - gone cruise missile first - is wrong, and even counterproductive (and it very well may be), then even intensifying such policies for the purpose of political perceptioneering is backward, and self-destructive to society, whatever its efects on the "Party." Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. B) is important because it assumes that one should buy into the false perception as a basis for planning, which seems a strange response when others lie about you.

As it stands, I am far from rejecting what dolstein argues out of hand. Far from it. We should, indeed, study it with care, turn it over with interest, examine it with gusto, debate it with the best qualities of our reason. And I expect that if we do so, we'll see it is quite right, as a small part of a larger constellation. Whereas I'm trying to look at, say, the Big Dipper, dolstein repeatedly shouts out that star! do you see that star! look at that star! - merely one star in the constellation, then conjures out of that star all the meaning in the universe: this is the very definition of overdetermination. And it is laughable. And it seems to be what dolstein practices, not least to flee from the embarrassing effects of our latest "strong defence" boondoggle and catastrophe, which it is right and fitting to oppose with all our strength and voice, regardless of what your hard hat friends think about it. Because it is plain wrong. And nobody needs a demographic map to determine the plain wrong. Nor should one refer to a demographic map before one speaks out against the plain wrong.

[Q]

46. If you study the DLC literature on their website...

...there are many negative references to 'pacifists' ...which only seem to exist on the left and are decidedly 'anti-American' according to Will Marshall.

Marshall also talks about the new VALUE of 'progressive patriotism'. That's where Democrats are encouraged to support any and all wars because...well...it looks good for the party and pollticians who support any and all wars.

You won't hear a defense of the DLC's position on the Iraq slaughter from Dolstein or anyone else associated with that faction of the party. Why? Like Bush they depend on nationalism and smearing the left to save the day. That is...instead of defending the Bush Doctrine of 'preemptive' or preventative war...they simply attack those who dissent and accuse them of not being a good Democrat/American. It worked for the RWing and the DLC expects it to work for them. Let's hope that it doesn't.

Instead of even trying to defend a war based on lies and deceptions that was/is supported by a gaggle of Dems who now seem incapable of saying the words mistake or war crimes...the DLC joins with the RWingers to reach back into history to find a common enemy: pacifists!

The DLC and their lineup of presidential candidates backed themselves in a corner with their hasty vote in support of the Bush Doctine. They had hoped to come out of this looking PRESIDENTIAL...but instead look like suckers without a clue.

But reality, honesty and integrity insist that those who still support the Iraq 'war' with full knowledge of the lies are complicit in the gambit to circumvent the Constitution and the People in order to wage elective wars.

Now that the 'grassroots' has awakened to the danger of both the Bushies AND their enablers...it just might mean the end of the DLC kicking the left in the teeth and then expecting their votes and cash.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Shall we remind our fellow DUers that Marshall is PNAC

In addition to his duties as the president of the PPI, Marshall kept himself busy in the last few years. Among other things, he served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization co-chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain whose aim was to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq.

Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the conservative Social Democrats/USA group on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SD/USA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."

One of just a handful of Marshall's co-signatories on that letter was Bruce Jackson, who also happens to be the head of the PNAC (whose letter Marshall also signed) and the founder of the aforementioned Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Jackson is not only a neo-con of high rank and one of the chief pom-pom wavers for the war effort. He was also a vice president in the weapons division of Lockheed-Martin between 1993 and 2002—meaning that he was one of the implied targets of Bowling for Columbine, which came out in Jackson's last year with the company.

Clearly, Marshall was thinking about the good of the Democratic Party, and not the integrity of his grimy little network of missile-humping cronies, when he and Al From made the curious—and curiously conspicuous—decision to denounce Moore, Hollywood and France at the DLC meeting in early November.

http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

[Orlandodem]

53. Is it possible to be against the war in Iraq and still

admit that the Dems are perceived as being weak on national defense? I think so because that's where I'm at. I think the Bush Doctrine is a sham. I think that the Bush Doctrine of preventative did itself in. I doubt we'll be invading anywhere else anytime soon. Unless we take our troops out of Iraq to invade Iran.

At the same time, we must nominate someone who is comfortable talking about the military. We must nominate someone who the American people believe will defend the nation.

If I could have a president who was a true Green on the environment, believed in universal health, supported a living wage and workers' rights, but was strong on defense (not a hawk, just someone who doesn't look like an idiot riding around a tank, ala Dukakis)then I'd be perfectly happy. If we could find that person, the Left would control the government for decades.