PDA

View Full Version : When did the Democratic Party go soft?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-18-2009, 08:56 PM
I'm a Democrat, but one of the things that infuriates me most about my party is their timidness when it comes to foreign policy and domestic safety. You have Obama not being able to give a general an answer for 8 months now, wanting to try a terrorist in court wanting to give illegals amnesty; the Democratic leadership thoroughly indulging in political correctness and even encouraging it. Not only that, but even culturally--The Democratic Party was always a religious party (with FDR leading the nation in prayer on D-Day, LBJ referencing God in his speeches, etc)

When did it come to this? Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman did whatever they had to do, no matter how morally questionable, to secure our nation's safety--From the internment of the Japanese, to the firebombings of Germany and Japan, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Truman creating loyalty oaths to guard against communists in the postwar period. I mean FDR was a Democrat and here he wanted to put into effect the Morganthau Plan--which was perhaps one of the most unmerciful post war strategies ever conceived by a victorious party in a war.

I mean, I don't think FDR or Truman would've tried the Japanese soldiers in a civil court in Pearl Harbor; I don't think FDR, Truman or even LBJ would've associated with or even befriended domestic terrorists. I mean FDR even implied that he felt anti-war people were traitors who hurt the military's cause.

So when did this big change happen and why?

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 08:59 PM
Kennedy was the last Democratic president with even a hint of testicles!

Speedy
11-18-2009, 09:35 PM
Kennedy was the last Democratic president with even a hint of testicles!

Kennedy has made a great martyr but was only a so-so President. His "we choose to go to the moon" speech was great, though.

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 09:41 PM
I'm a Democrat, but one of the things that infuriates me most about my party is their timidness when it comes to foreign policy and domestic safety. You have Obama not being able to give a general an answer for 8 months now, wanting to try a terrorist in court wanting to give illegals amnesty; the Democratic leadership thoroughly indulging in political correctness and even encouraging it. Not only that, but even culturally--The Democratic Party was always a religious party (with FDR leading the nation in prayer on D-Day, LBJ referencing God in his speeches, etc)

When did it come to this? Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman did whatever they had to do, no matter how morally questionable, to secure our nation's safety--From the internment of the Japanese, to the firebombings of Germany and Japan, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Truman creating loyalty oaths to guard against communists in the postwar period. I mean FDR was a Democrat and here he wanted to put into effect the Morganthau Plan--which was perhaps one of the most unmerciful post war strategies ever conceived by a victorious party in a war.

I mean, I don't think FDR or Truman would've tried the Japanese soldiers in a civil court in Pearl Harbor; I don't think FDR, Truman or even LBJ would've associated with or even befriended domestic terrorists. I mean FDR even implied that he felt anti-war people were traitors who hurt the military's cause.

So when did this big change happen and why?

Study the progressive political movement and you will find the answers you seek.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 09:48 PM
Kennedy has made a great martyr but was only a so-so President. His "we choose to go to the moon" speech was great, though.

I said hint of testicles!

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 09:49 PM
Bay of Pigs.

Kennedy had more than a HINT of testicles. Difference between Kennedy and the rest is in who he was owned by.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-18-2009, 09:51 PM
Study the progressive political movement and you will find the answers you seek.

Yeah but weren't FDR and Truman by definition progresses? And they were hard line on our national defense.

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 09:53 PM
Yeah but weren't FDR and Truman by definition progresses? And they were hard line on our national defense.

FDR was hard-line against Fascists and imperial japan. He was MADLY in love with Uncle Joe.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 09:55 PM
Bay of Pigs.

Kennedy had more than a HINT of testicles. Difference between Kennedy and the rest is in who he was owned by.

The bay of pigs didn't end well. The Vietnam war he started didn't end well. If he would have shown the soviets earlier that he had balls the Cuban missile crisis would never have happened. He served bravely on the PT109 but that was not a presidential accomplishment. They made him a hero because he took a bullet!

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 09:58 PM
The bay of pigs didn't end well. The Vietnam war he started didn't end well. If he would have shown the soviets earlier that he had balls the Cuban missile crisis would never have happened. He served bravely on the PT109 but that was not a presidential accomplishment. They made him a hero because he took a bullet!

I retract - I meant Cuban Missile crisis not bay of pigs. :o In my defense I'm hopped up on pseudoephedrine.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-18-2009, 10:00 PM
Study the progressive political movement and you will find the answers you seek.


FDR was hard-line against Fascists and imperial japan. He was MADLY in love with Uncle Joe.

I don't know about that--I think at first he thought he could control Stalin, as he said to Churchill in a letter, but if you read the last telegrams he sent Churchill a day or so before he died, FDR says that he realizes Stalin isn't to be trusted, as he had already broken all of the promises he made at Yalta and that they (the other Allies) must keep their eyes on him. I think FDR would've started the Cold War anyway, had he lived.

And Truman, who was also a progressive, at first awed Stalin when they met at Postdam--Truman still being a newbie on the international stage-- but then hated him and started the Cold War.

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 10:09 PM
I don't know about that--I think at first he thought he could control Stalin, as he said to Churchill in a letter, but if you read the last telegrams he sent Churchill a day or so before he died, FDR says that he realizes Stalin isn't to be trusted, as he had already broken all of the promises he made at Yalta and that they (the other Allies) must keep their eyes on him. I think FDR would've started the Cold War anyway, had he lived.

And Truman, who was also a progressive, at first awed Stalin when they met at Postdam--Truman still being a newbie on the international stage-- but then hated him and started the Cold War.

I think you need to remember that FDR has been lionized and practically deified by the left to the point that they can see no wrong what ever in what he did, said, or thought. You are going to be hard pressed to find an objective assessment of FDR - If FDR didn't like Stalin - why did he cede eastern Europe to the man?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-18-2009, 10:27 PM
I think you need to remember that FDR has been lionized and practically deified by the left to the point that they can see no wrong what ever in what he did, said, or thought. You are going to be hard pressed to find an objective assessment of FDR - If FDR didn't like Stalin - why did he cede eastern Europe to the man?

I think FDR viewed Stalin as another Hitler--And felt that giving him a bit of red meat, so to speak, would keep him happy. Also, they were in the middle of a war--I guess he felt the concession of Eastern Europe was necessary to keep the Alliance (which was already beginning to weaken by 1945) together. He rapidly regretted it, though, as I said, when he realized Stalin wasn't going to live up to his end of the bargain at all.

He said this in a 1942 letter to Churchill:

''I know you will not mind my being brutally frank when I tell you I think I can personally handle Stalin better than your Foreign Office or my State Department. Stalin hates the guts of all your top people. He thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to do so.5''

Then there was this exchange at Yalta:

When Presidential aide Admiral William Leahy read the compromise document on Poland submitted at the plenary meeting on February 10, he remarked to FDR that it was "so elastic that the Russians can stretch it all the way from Yalta to Washington without technically breaking it." To this, FDR replied: "I know, Bill -- I know it. But it's the best I can do for Poland at this time.''21

I think a lot of it was the fact that FDR was already facing Hitler and Japan, and did what he could to not add another foe to the fore. I guess he picked the easiest option at Yalta--concession--and felt that he'd be able to ''handle'' Stalin in the future and be able to get some of those concessions back after the war. It must also be remembered that FDR was dead within two months of Yalta, so perhaps his health had had an effect--As I've read even his aides later said they felt he would've performed better had he been in better health.

Even Churchill, it seems, was misled by Stalin, as he said: "Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong about Stalin."

I'm not blind though, to know that FDR did a LOT of things wrong--Especially Yalta. But I believe nonetheless overall he was a good president.

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 10:30 PM
I think FDR viewed Stalin as another Hitler--And felt that giving him a bit of red meat, so to speak, would keep him happy. Also, they were in the middle of a war--I guess he felt the concession of Eastern Europe was necessary to keep the Alliance (which was already beginning to weaken by 1945) together. He rapidly regretted it, though, as I said, when he realized Stalin wasn't going to live up to his end of the bargain at all.

He said this in a 1942 letter to Churchill:

''I know you will not mind my being brutally frank when I tell you I think I can personally handle Stalin better than your Foreign Office or my State Department. Stalin hates the guts of all your top people. He thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to do so.5''

Then there was this exchange at Yalta:

When Presidential aide Admiral William Leahy read the compromise document on Poland submitted at the plenary meeting on February 10, he remarked to FDR that it was "so elastic that the Russians can stretch it all the way from Yalta to Washington without technically breaking it." To this, FDR replied: "I know, Bill -- I know it. But it's the best I can do for Poland at this time.''21

I think a lot of it was the fact that FDR was already facing Hitler and Japan, and did what he could to not add another foe to the fore. I guess he picked the easiest option at Yalta--concession--and felt that he'd be able to ''handle'' Stalin in the future and be able to get some of those concessions back after the war. It must also be remembered that FDR was dead within two months of Yalta, so perhaps his health had had an effect--As I've read even his aides later said they felt he would've performed better had he been in better health.


Source(s)?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-18-2009, 10:33 PM
I think you need to remember that FDR has been lionized and practically deified by the left to the point that they can see no wrong what ever in what he did, said, or thought. You are going to be hard pressed to find an objective assessment of FDR - If FDR didn't like Stalin - why did he cede eastern Europe to the man?


Source(s)?



http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_6/stefan.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5131

AlmostThere
11-19-2009, 12:25 PM
Since at least the mid-20th century, it's been a slow progression (pardon the pun) on the Liberal side. There was somewhat of an explosion of progressiveness when the teenagers and very young adults of the Vietnam era reached maturity. The rolls of academia in America are ample proof of that.