Blogs and Stories
Why Liberals Kill
AP Photo; Getty Images (2)
The left may be pressuring President Obama to exit Afghanistan. But their heroes—from FDR to JFK—promoted U.S. involvement in more wars than all modern GOP presidents combined.
Should President Barack Obama continue his escalation of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will be the liberal thing to do.
What too few Americans realize—especially the president’s anti-war supporters, who accuse him of betraying liberal or "progressive" values—is that if he accedes to General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan and intensifies the drone attacks in Pakistan, he will follow squarely in the footsteps of the great liberal statesmen he has cited as his role models. Though opponents of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cheered loudly when Obama spoke reverentially in his campaign speeches of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy, those heroes of the president promoted and oversaw U.S. involvement in wars that killed, by great magnitudes, more Americans and foreign civilians than all the modern Republican military operations combined.
Though liberals are routinely chastised for their “secular relativism,” as Bill O’Reilly puts it, American statesmen who waged the largest wars were driven by the Christian doctrine of “good works,” often enunciated in Obama’s speeches as the duty to be “our brother’s keeper.”
What should be even more troubling to those who call themselves progressives but oppose the current wars: Obama's motivations for pursuing them are rooted in the central tenet of progressivism, enunciated by his idols, that the American national government is responsible for the reform and uplift of those "we" deem to be living below "our" standards, and that "they" must be protected from their oppressors. Obama's role models followed the logic of that moral calling to the ends of the earth.
And though liberals are routinely chastised for their "secular relativism," as Bill O'Reilly puts it, liberal statesmen who waged the largest wars were driven by the Christian doctrine of "good works," often enunciated in Obama's speeches as the duty to be "our brother's keeper." Whereas the traditional conservative notion of Christian communal obligation is limited to one’s family or nation, Obama’s political ancestors extended it to the world.
Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson declared that God had given American leaders—"Christ's Army," according to Wilson—the divine duty to "improve" the backward peoples of America and the world. Roosevelt and Wilson used that rationale to establish modern progressivism and American imperialism, both of which were part of what Roosevelt called "the long struggle for the uplift of humanity." They argued that greater government intervention, through social welfare and regulatory programs at home and military incursions abroad, would remake American slums and all the countries of the world into the Puritan ideal of a "city on a hill."
To fulfill this mission, Roosevelt championed many social-welfare measures, including pure-food and worker-safety regulations, but he also pushed the United States to attack Spain and occupy Cuba and the Philippines—the so-called Spanish-American War, which historians characterize as America's "first imperial war.” The assault and subsequent occupations resulted in the deaths of more than 10,000 Cubans, several hundred thousand Filipino civilians, and 4,541 American soldiers.
Wilson believed that to "Christianize the world" required the radical expansion of government power. Along with fellow progressives in Congress, Wilson established three classic progressive institutions: the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, and the federal income tax. But Wilson's self-appointed obligation to rescue and “redeem” all the world's people compelled him, beginning in 1916, to push the country toward intervention in Europe with what many historians call a "missionary zeal." The United States, he said, "must assume the messianic mantle" and had "the right and duty to intervene whenever and wherever" its leaders thought necessary. Some 116,000 U.S. servicemen were killed and more than 200,000 wounded in World War I, which ended in a virtual stalemate.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the next president to take up the liberal mission. According to Robert Dallek's award-winning biography, the origin of FDR's commitment to social-welfare programs and international interventionism was "the Christian gentleman's ideal of service to the less fortunate: the conviction that privileged Americans should take a part in relieving national and international ills."
Long before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt urged intervention against Japan's expansion in the Pacific. And there is considerable evidence and substantial agreement among scholars that Roosevelt did everything in his power to force Japan into a conflict with the United States. Though Japan wished to avoid confrontation with its principal trading partner, in 1937 Roosevelt suggested that military action was needed to “quarantine the aggressor.” And beginning in 1940, he imposed a series of embargoes on the island nation, which was almost entirely dependent on U.S. imports for its industrial production. After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt promised both victory against Japan and "the establishment of an international order in which the spirit of Christ shall rule the hearts of men and nations."
Roosevelt's successor, Harry Truman, whose Baptist evangelical upbringing informed his pledge “to win the world back to peace and Christianity,” made immense incursions across the globe. Truman rejected the doctrine of defensive "containment" of the Soviets in favor of a "rollback" policy, elaborated by the CIA in 1950, to aggressively" foster a world environment in which the American system can survive and flourish." In September 1950, Truman turned the Korean War into an all-out offensive mission by launching a military assault that pushed North Korean communists deep into their own territory. A large portion of the 37,000 American casualties in the war came during the offensive.
John F. Kennedy devoted his political career to realizing America's "mission" to seize "direct control of world destiny." He campaigned for the presidency in 1960 on the charges that Eisenhower had left the poor to languish and allowed Communists to continue their subjugation of the world’s innocents. In his inaugural address, Kennedy vowed to uplift "those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery."
To heed his calling for humankind meant making U.S. intervention in Vietnam into a war. Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military personnel there from a few hundred when he took office to 15,000 by the time he was assassinated, and shipped massive amounts of military equipment to the Vietnamese war zone.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama mentioned Lyndon Baines Johnson only once and only in passing. Perhaps this was because Johnson's continued escalation of both the Vietnam War—which resulted in the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans and an estimated 3 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians—and programs to help the poor caused the left to oppose aggressive foreign policies and the right to turn militantly against social-welfare initiatives. This halted, for three decades, the grand liberal project of the 20th century.
The trinity of evangelism, large government intervention, and global transformative aspirations was revived, ironically, in the Republican administration of George W. Bush. It is well-documented that the so-called neoconservatives in and around the Bush administration identify with the very same presidents Obama admires. Indeed, their No Child Left Behind program mandating standardized testing in public schools, use of enhanced executive powers, and "regime-change" foreign policy were anathema to traditional, "paleo" conservatives.
During his campaign, Obama echoed neoconservatives and channeled his Democratic role models by declaring that the United States "must lead the world, by deed and by example." Thus far the president and his cabinet have pledged to expand and further centralize No Child Left Behind and initiate New Deal-style public works projects, refused to reduce the new powers of the presidency, expanded the military, and called for "state-building" and interventions on behalf of "victims" in Somalia, Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, Pakistan, and, most immediately, in Afghanistan.
Those who call themselves liberals or progressives but are reluctant to project American military force are now confronted with the question of whether they wish to continue the renewal of the project that Obama champions.
Thaddeus Russell has taught history, philosophy, and American Studies at Columbia University, Barnard College, Eugene Lang College, and the New School for Social Research. He is the author of Jimmy Hoffa and the Remaking of the American Working Class (Knopf, 2001) and the forthcoming A Renegade History of the United States (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2010).
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Undercover Boss' Creepy Politics
Thaddeus Russell is the author of the forthcoming A Renegade History of the United States (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2010). He teaches history and cultural studies at Occidental College and has taught at Columbia University, Barnard College, Eugene Lang College, and the New School for Social Research.
Blame the Smug Climate Warriors
Thaddeus Russell is the author of the forthcoming A Renegade History of the United States (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2010). He teaches history and cultural studies at Occidental College and has taught at Columbia University, Barnard College, Eugene Lang College, and the New School for Social Research.
The Nobel War Prize
Thaddeus Russell is the author of the forthcoming A Renegade History of the United States (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2010). He teaches history and cultural studies at Occidental College and has taught at Columbia University, Barnard College, Eugene Lang College, and the New School for Social Research.
andrew0823
Wow...a somewhat differentt but a new angle on how this has become Obama's war......I for one want him to bring our troops home, but to blame him for what has happened to date and for how he has been painted into a corner to do is incredible.
case1234
This article attempts to take historical happen stance and weave it into some sort of guiding principle. Democrats happened to be in the Whitehouse at these critical moments. At you claiming that a Republican Pres would have kept the US out of both WWI and II? How could you even begin to postulate?
This is no different than assuming that we would not be in Afghanistan had Gore been President.
--Also, does this author concede that Theodore Roosevelt wouldn't even be considered a Republican or even a conservative by the modern GOP.
eurydice9276
I don't think that's what this article is doing. I think the point is that we need to look at our history of war in a larger perspective. So much of the current rhetoric has been to single out Bush and the GOP as imperialist, evangelical war-mongers (who, like past Democrats, also "happened to be in the White House" at a critical moment) - but we don't make the effort to recognize that most of our attitudes are and have been shared by both parties. And that just because we now have a Democrat in the White House doesn't mean that we can relax and assume we'll become more peaceful, because history shows us that it's just not true.
VagrantPhilosopher
Historical happen stance? bullshit, Wilson was even nuttier than this article claims, try to read his book "The State" or any of his writings and its clear this is a man who worshipped power, believed it was his divine destiny to spread christianity, and divinized the government as a divine tool to this end.
No one is claiming that war wasnt necessarily inevitable but classical liberals (not progressives mind you) hold a very clear doctrine on foreign entanglements, a non interventionist doctrine.
And Teddy was just as much a progressive in his day as say FDR, even more so than Kennedy, he would not fit into the idea of conservative thinking.
aackc1
I think it brings up a good point... CASE... What would have Al Gore done after 9/11? Iraq? Most likely no. Afghanistan? Maybe? Would he have sat there and done nothing? What would have been that result?
Please don't respond that Bush knew about it and could have done something. Clinton knew of bin laden, but could do nothing controversial, b/c he was handcuffed b/c he banging chubby chicks. He could have taken out bin Laden on multiple occasions.
Denjudge
aackc1...."Please don't respond that Bush knew about it and could have done something. "
And then you say Clinton was "banging chubby chicks."
What's your problem with this hypocritical nonsense?
kilroy
Speaking about war, NPR has an amazing discussion with Seymour Hersh on how the Bush administration hoped to provoke Iran 6 months before the end of its term while the American public clearly was opposed to this. Even more amazing is the Dem leaders went along with this so as not to give Republicans political advantage.
http://tinyurl.com/6yyhv4
parke47
the bull moose party was founded as a progressive reform party.so I don't think roosevelt would be seen as a conservative.
MaliciousDisorder
It's simply another cover attempt for Obama's.. screw you I'm not going to lose this "good" war campaign promise no matter how many of you get pissed at me.
retired-army-1SG
Actually, a GOP president may well have kept us out of WWII. One of the planks of the GOP in '36 was "no foreign entanglements." Antiwar sentiments were strong and vocal prior to Pearl Harbor. In addition, a strong America First movement proposed to run Charles Lindbergh as their candidate with the express purpose of keeping the US out of the war.
FDR, on the other hand, worked with Churchill to ensure America's involvement (I think rightly). Pearl Harbor only accelerated the time table. JFK could have easily disengaged from Vietnam, given there were only 3200 military advisors in country.
galeso
To me it seems like the difference is mostly a result of two factors.
First, the different styles. Democrats seem to want to negotiate and Republicans seem to like to draw a line in the sand. Some see the willingness to negotiate as a sign of weakness and go too far. And the Republican wars sometimes could have been avoided.
Second, we have the paradox of politics. This is when the party you least expect to support something is the one that gets things done. When it comes to things military, the Republicans have nothing to prove. In civil rights, the Democrats have nothing to prove, but the Republicans freed the slaves, got civil rights passed, had the first black Secretary of State, the first black female Secretary of State, ... Does this mean we should vote for the party we hate the most???
lynnbob
If we stay in Afghanistan long enough we could turn all 50 US states into slums.
MaliciousDisorder
The democrat controlled cities are already there. Detroit, New Orleans, St Louis, Baltimore and on and on...
mcmchugh99
I am a progressive who supports the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban because I consider them Islamic fascist movements that have a long track record of attacking the West. They also have a track record of setting up totalitarian police states whenever they have the chance, so to my mind, these are good enough reasons for fighting them.
I don't have time or space to go into too much detail about all the liberal and progressive presidents of the past, whether they were really more realistic behind the scenes than their crusading, idealistic rhetoric in public might indicate. FDR almost certainly was more of a realist than an idealist, and Obama is very likely the same.
Realism has usually not been all that popular with either party, at least in their public utterances, and Nixon was one of the few presidents who actually admitted openly that he was following a realist-balance of power policy. Behind the scenes, though, there was a lot more of George Kennan in US foreign policy than all the public talk about crusades for freedom and democracy would indicate.
Indeed, Kennan argued that the US was often too quick to use military force, when economic, political and diplomatic power should have been utilized more. Today, Clinton and Obama call that "smart power", but realists of the past like Nixon, Kennan and Kissinger would have understood it very well.
In US history, there is also a powerful strain of nationalism and isolationism that favors avoiding foreign wars and alliances as much as possible. Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR had to deal with this, and it was one factor that limited their ability to intervene in the world wars. In both 1914 and 1939, these presidents had to contend with public opinion that was skeptical of fighting for the British and French Empires, distrustful of Russia, more interested in concentrating on problems at home than in foreign policy. In both world wars, they provided a great deal of aid to the Allies short of war--so much so that the Germans did not regard the US as behaving in a very "neutral" manner. In both world wars, the enemy finally made the decision for the US president by attacking first.
Truman in Korea and LBJ in Vietnam also lost public support for what seemed to be long, drawn out quagmire wars being fought for purposes that were unclear at best. In both cases, they were replaced by Republican successors who promised to wind down the war and be less aggressive in foreign policy. This is ironic because in both wars, the Republicans had started out being at least as gung-ho and saber rattling as the Dems, but their enthusiasm cooled the longer the wars went on, and it became clear that they might not be able to "win" them at anything like an acceptable cost, and perhaps not at all.
This is good reason for Obama to be cautious in his war, and to be sure that he has the right strategy to prevent it from turning into an unpopular, unwinnable quagmire. If that happens, he is likely to be replaced by a Republican who at least talks more like a moderate than a hawk. In any case, the 2012 election is Obama's to lose, since all of the political cycles in US history indicate that reforming presidents are always elected again to a second term--four terms in the case of FDR.
But there is no way around the fact that public opinion and domestic politics have a big effect on foreign policy, and always have. Despite the hawkish rhetoric of the Right, public opinion in America also goes in cycles, and after a long period of engagement and activism in foreign policy, it tends to cycle back into nationalism and isolationism. I think this is already happening now.
sabocat
I fail to see how supporting the corrupt and misogynistic war lords grouped as the northern alliance is progressive in any sense of the word. And, now that Al Qaeda is scattered to the winds, why exactly are we in Afghanistan? They seem to be mainly in Yemen and Pakistan. What a stupid war.
mcmchugh99
Interesting, the professor who taught me about the generational reform cycles in US history, Charles Forcey, also said that each major reform era tended to be associated with a major war--and in the 20th Century with a very activist and aggressive foreign policy. This means a major war every 30-40 years. The Civil War is associated with the the Lincoln reform cycle; World War I with the Progressives; World War II with the New Dealers, and Vietnam with the New Frontier and Great Society. If one wants to include Bush Junior with the reformers--dubious at best, in my opinion--then the wars we're in now are also associated with the Second Progressive Era that's going on right now. In any case, they are Obama's wars now, although he seems more like a pragmatist and realist to me than some kind of idealistic, evangelical crusader out to remake the world.
Like I said in my other post, I tend to see the idealistic, crusading rhetoric as more for public consumption, while the actual policies being pursued behind the scenes are more realistic. I am also skeptical about just how crusading the American public really is, since its preferred default position seems to be more like nationalism and isolationism--keeping the world at a distance and avoiding long wars. There is also a lot of continuity in US foreign policy from one administration to another, like NATO, the alliance with Japan, South Korea, etc, etc.
So was my professor right? When there is a reform cycle at home, does it cause more imperial hubris and desire to reform the whole world? I see some tendencies like that in US history, but also see many reformers who would prefer to concentrate on domestic problems and not fight any wars at all unless the US is attacked.
spotted
If your professor were correct, this would be the end of the reform period. Each of the others were at the zenith of their respective periods.
The theory may be less relevant as the wars are more removed from the general consciousness. Also, how did the Korean War fit in?
I think it's more of a pendulum swing in that Cheney and Bush's excesses precipitated the mandate for change.
AllAlongTheWatchtower
I had to stop reading after you stated that Wilson established "the federal income tax."
President Taft proposed an income tax in 1909, but since tax on income had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court some years earlier, Congress, which was dominated by Republicans in both Houses, passed the 16th Amendment.
The amendment was ratified by the states during Wilson's first year in office with opposition from the "progressive" Northeast and support from the "conservative" West.
I suppose you could argue that the first constitutional income tax was passed during his Administration, but Wilson hardly established it.
The premise of the rest of your article may be correct, but if you fail to get a simple fact straight, your reasoning may be substantially flawed.
VagrantPhilosopher
The idea of taxing income is very old but its perfectly fair to say Wilson established it, it was his administration campaigning (that is propagandizing) the public for it, using the press to push it, using sedition acts to silence those who spoke against it, and hiring thugs to give 4 minute speeches at town halls and to beat down dissenters (metaphorically and literally)
Without income tax it would have been impossible for Wilson to realize his massive divinized vision of the state where "everything in the state, nothing outside the state" its essentially a fascistic doctrine of state worship, for Wilson believed government to be an organic, holistic expression of gods will on earth. Without the income tax, the government would have no way to reach its massive size that exists today, nor support our foreign wars and the military industrial complex.
AllAlongTheWatchtower
Vagrant, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. The Republican Party established the income tax through the 16th Amendment whilst Wilson was the President of Princeton University...not President of the United States.
And, indeed, the idea of taxing income is very old. It goes all the way back to the Han Dynasty in China. As a matter of fact, the first income tax in the U.S. was instituted by...oh, my gosh, Republican Abraham Lincoln. Who'da thunk it?
And, you know the god of laissez-faire captitalism, Adam Smith? He believed in progressive taxation. Will wonders ever cease?
Philosophize on that for awhile, Vagrant.
VagrantPhilosopher
The tax under Taft established an income tax on corporate profits (those evil republicans) it wasnt until Wilson that they used it to tax the individual and his labor (way unconstitutional)
Your right about lincoln, how else would he support his foreign war? That doesnt mean i agree with it, or for that matter anything the republican party does (im a libertarian, not a follower) it was later repealed by congress, revived in 1895, and bitch slapped by the supreme court (finally)
As far as Smith, progressive taxation looks good on paper (keep in mind he wasnt talking about taxing individuals income), but it never has the intended consequences, other than to raise money by robbing the earners. I believe a consumption tax is a much more reasonable idea of taxation.
gak001
Oh, if only paleo-conservatives would retake the reigns of the Republican Party... perhaps then we would have a proper balance.
mcmchugh99
Lincoln passed an income tax during the Civil War, but the Supreme Court later declared it unconstitutional, which is why they amended the Constitution to put it in place.
There was broad agreement among the Progressives at the time on the need to tax the Rockefeller's and the other big winners of the First Gilded Age. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, William Jennings Bryan, all supported it, and Bryan actually did a lot of work getting it passed in the Senate.
In general, the Progressive program in domestic policy looked a lot like the New Deal and Great Society. There was much less agreement on an activist, internationalist foreign policy. progressives like Bryan and Robert LaFollette opposed that, and Bryan actually resigned as Secretary of State in 1915 because he thought Wilson was too eager to bring the US into World War I on the Allied side.
Bryan always said that World War I was an imperialist war and the US should stay out of it, and in this socialists like Eugene Debs agreed with him. They were basically the kind of progressives who thought that the US should concentrate on domestic problems and not try to play superpower on the world stage.
Chuckv
The income tax business is not the only fact that Russell gets wrong. He states that FDR maneuvered Japan into war by putting in place embargoes. This is half right. FDR asked Congress for authority to embargo oil, but he did not intend to cut Japan off. While he was on vacation a young Dean Acheson, who was an official in the State Department, did the deed. Communications were not then what they are now, and by the time FDR found out he could not without great loss of face countermand the order. The loss of oil did force Japan's hand. (You can read about this in Freedom from Fear, part of the Oxford HIstory of the United States.) Further, if FDR had wanted to go to war (and he probably did not) it would have been against Germany, which he realized was the far greater threat to civilization than Japan could ever be. Read the correspondence between him and Churchill.
Russell is clearly not letting inconvenient facts get into the way of his prejudices. He can't blame Truman for starting the Korean Conflict, so he blames him for continuing the war past the 38th parallel. Has Russell not heard of Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur? It was hard enough to keep him out of China. While it is true that Truman put into place much of the institutions and strategies of the Cold War, does Russell think the Republicans would have done any less?
It is simply a matter of historical happenstance that Democrats happened to be in office at the beginnings of WWI, WWII and Korea. Russell proves nothing.
mcmchugh99
He would have been even more accurate if he had mentioned that FDR thought Germany was the main enemy and he was indeed trying to provoke them into firing the first shot. There was an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic against the German U-Boats in 1941, and FDR told the US Navy to attack them on sight.
Technically, the US was still "neutral" but FDR pushed that envelope about as far as he could without actually asking for a declaration of war against Germany. By 1941, the US had a "neutrality zone" that extended all the way to Iceland, which was enforced by a "neutrality patrol" that was actively cooperating with the British Navy against the U-Boats in every way possible.
When Japan occupied all of Indochina in 1941, FDR also declared a total embargo against them, which they rightfully saw as an act of war. Well, that's too bad since they were already allied with Hitler and figured he was going to win the war. Why not take over all of Asia while he took over Europe? They had always had designs on Russia, too, and called Siberia their "Northern Resources Area".
I have never believed that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack, but by December 1941, he could hardly have been shocked that the Axis finally decided to commit overt acts of war: he had been counting on that, and yes, trying to push them into doing it, even more than Wilson in World War I.
pennsykid2000
Agreed. I addressed many of these issues in a separate post. This is reminiscent of Bob Dole's infamous comment during his VP debate with Mondale in 1976, about all the American soldiers killed during "Democrat wars of the 20th Century", as if Hitler had nothing to do with WWII, the Kaiser with WWI, Kim Il Sung nothing to do with Korea, etc. Someone should have asked Dole if he blamed FDR for his being severely wounded while fighting in Italy.
tomgnh
Also, the 16th Amendment was ratified in Feb. of 1913, but WIlson did not take office until March.
What else? Well, to call Wilson the warmonger and absolve TR, who was adamantly in favor of US involvement well before 1917, is to cherry-pick details and ignore realities. And "WWI ended in a virtual stalemate" is simply not credible.
As for FDR's drive to attack Japan? That was driven by Henry Luce, founder of TIME and a leading Republican; that party championed Chiang Kai-Shek for years. His plot to trick Japan into attacking- not widely credited.
DOn't forget that whenever Truman looked to be "soft on communism" the RIght was quick to attack.
Blaming JFK for sending hundreds and not LBJ for sending hundreds of thousands is just sloppy.
I expected an article under this headline to argue that liberals were reluctant to follows paths of peace because reactionary Republicans, from TR to Luce to McCarthy, made political hay. But nope- the democrats are warmongers.
I recall LBJ said that what the Republicans did over Korea would be "chickensh*t" compared to what they would do to him over Vietnam.
GPatton
Kennedy wasn't a liberal. He despised many liberals. He might not have escalated the Vietnam War. The Civil War, which the founder of the Republican Party, the Great Emanicipator, Abraham Lincoln, pursued so vigorously, led to the deaths of more Americans, relatively speaking, than any war the US has been involved in since. The Revolutionary War, led by G. Washington and Co. was bloodier, relatively speaking and in terms of US casualties than any 20th century conflict. We had little choice but to fight WWI, and let's not forget that the Axis powers in WWII were the most ferocious racists the modern world has ever known. Hitler and his cohorts put millions to death in the gas chamber. Perhaps the modern American public has put more faith in Democrats as war leaders. Whether or not this faith is well placed is an issue that's debatable. But charaterizing so called liberals as war mongers is nonsense. I didn't know that TDB along with all the celebrity nonsense, printed propoganda like this. George Patton
VagrantPhilosopher
Printed propaganda? I think someone needs a history lesson of the progressive movement.
Although Kennedy wasnt particularly liberal, he was a third wayer, but the way the left deifies and worships him is sickening, they all have the same mantra, they all want to be Kennedy but do what LBJ did.
GPatton
Read Kennedy's inaugural address. He was a committed cold warrior. He's now an icon, particularly to the left. But he was no left winger. During his presidential campaign he claimed there was a "missle gap" with the USSR. He moved cautiously on civil rights, etc. He formulated tax reductions to stimulate the economy long before it became a central component of "Reganomics." I think you're the one who needs a history lesson concerning progessive movents in the US. George Patton
VagrantPhilosopher
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
He calls himself a liberal, but like i said earlier, he's not particularly liberal in his policies, like i said, he was a third wayer and believed in compromise. He championed medicare for the elderly, government intervention to stop recession, kept interest rates artificially low,and wire tapped individuals (which was continued under LBJ) just to name a few, like i said, he doesnt fit into the mold of liberal or conservative, he was a third wayer (sort of like bush)
Veronicaxy
Good Lord. I'm agreeing with GPatton!
mcmchugh99
In domestic policy, LBJ was actually more "liberal" than JFK, and once said that his predecessor had been "too conservative" for him. Remember that he was FDR's protege and golden boy, and wanted very much to complete the New Deal. FDR had predicted that LBJ would be president someday from the first time he met him.
In foreign policy, LBJ and JFK shared the whole Cold War consensus of containment, falling dominoes, the alliance with NATO and Japan, etc, etc. In the 1950s and 1960s, containment had gone global, with the US trying to defeat communism wherever it appeared, including Vietnam--unfortunately for all concerned. George Kennan thought this kind of globalism was a major mistake and would cost the US dearly.
LBJ was probably quicker to use military force, and had a quicker trigger finger in foreign policy, but his ideas were well within the foreign policy consensus of the day. His advisers and officials were also JFK's, and virtually none of them were dissenters from his worldview--at least not openly. They were well away that South Vietnam was a very bad situation, of course, a domino that was ready to fall at any time--a government that couldn't even prop itself up much less contain anything. In the end, they bet the whole store on it in a way that appalled Kennan and the other realists, and of course led to an explosion of dissent at home that LBJ didn't see coming in 1965.
I think that was part of the whole reform era, too. Dissent can become very explosive in period like that.
politicalpam
The "income" in income tax was originally defined as profit. A person who works for someone else is in effect bartering his labor for money. The tax was never to be imposed upon working people. It was designed to be imposed upon business who profited from the labor of the employee. Income tax as used to today IS unconstitutional.
riall1
What I think is interesting, and this author convienently excludes this observation from his conclusions (biased perhaps????) , is that all of these people thought that GOD was behind their missions to save the world. Perhaps this is the key that pulls them together. Then we could include bush who claimed he got his support directly from god to kill people in the middle east and conclude that religious zealots get us into wars, other people do not.
connie47
That theme does run through history more than allegiance to any party.
eurydice9276
He doesn't exclude this observation at all. He brings it out quite clearly starting in paragraph 4, and becomes explicit at the beginning of the next paragraph which states that both Roosevelt and WIlson believed that God had given Americans the divine duty to save the world.
Both the left and the right have used God or some other Greater Good as an excuse for their policies - whether those using this excuse are actual believers or not, the result seems to be the same.
Janotec
This argument seems to be establishing Roosevelt (both of them), Wilson and Truman as acolytes of the Neocon faith, just like Bush (both of them). Is the professor suggesting that the Bushes were liberal? Or that they are not "liberal" simply because there were not enough American casualties to make the grade?
And speaking of Presidents who spread the Gospel (or a sort of Gospel) by bayonet and cannon, one should never fail to mention Lincoln. He was a Republican wasn't he?
VagrantPhilosopher
How on earth does it try to establish them as acolytes to the neo con faith? Realatively speaking of Bush, he ran on a platform of compassionate conservativism, which in other words he is a more progressive conservative. Conservatism believes in small, limited government, individual liberties, and personal responsibility, none of which Bush represented. Your response is a sweeping generalization which completely fails to grasp the zeitgesit of the article, it points to intellectual laziness.
sonofloud
Come on, all the cool kids want to fight. Are you a chicken? or gay?
What are you Russell, 12 years old?
What's next, your going to double dare us?
Hyperdelic
There I was, thinking that this was quite an intelligent feature, when I came across the phrase "...World War I, which ended in a virtual stalemate."
So the Treaty of Versailles was really a business agreement between mutally respectful adversaries, right?
FAIL!
ritamary
World War I ended in a negotiated peace instead of completely destroying Germany. That is why Germany was able to recover from the war and re-arm to continue fighting. The period between the two wars could be viewed as a truce. Allies learned a lesson and demanded unconditional surrender and occupation of Germany after World War II.
nysecjd
The Allies may not have divided Germany politically, but they sure as heck destroyed it economically - and, no, it was not able to recover because it was being bled to death economically by its duty to pay war reparations - until it denounced and repudiated the treaty of Versailles. After WWII, the allies provided the resources to rebuild Germany economically. So, I guess arguably the Allies learned more than one lesson; they also had learned the futility of trying to neutralize a military threat with economic sanctions - a lesson which would appear to be lost on today's leaders.
MikePost
The professor has left out of his construction all the Republican and conservative presidents who have done and said exactly the same things as he accuses liberals of doing.
This isn't a liberal vs conservative concept of American power and exceptionalism... it's just the way it is for all of our political leaders throughout our history. Maybe you can blame it on Christanity and The Crusades?
penscott
Don't knock the Crusades. They were a counterattack against four centuries of attacks by Muslims. Too bad they didn't have greater success.
debbieqd
A completely ridiculous article. And, sir, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. I'm sure you know that?
VagrantPhilosopher
Yeah, and all republicans believe in the exact same thing and govern the same way right?? How on earth would someone not consider Teddy a progressive is beyond me.
SteveStone
Hard to imagine a worse-researched, worse-written, more amateurish piece!
Republican Teddy Roosevelt was not an elected official during the Spanish-American war in which he proved his courage. Democratic President Wilson refused to enter WWI until the Lustiania was sunk by a German U-Boat, and Democratic President couldn't enter WWII until the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor.
And it was good ol' born-again fundamentalist Christian/Republican George W. Bush who ELECTED to wage war on Iraq.
Now all together, children, can you say "ignoramus?"
VagrantPhilosopher
Wilson was using passenger ships to ship arms and aid to German enemies, effectively using american lives as a shield to protect his militaristic interests, the Germans even took out newspaper advertisements urging americans not to sail into the war zone, Wilson effectively baited the germans into action and then used that as justification for war. More or less the same thing with Rossevelt, any scholar of Rossevelt will tell you he believed intervention absolutely necessary but public support was not behind, so he cut off trade with oil, and other essential goods effectively baiting them once again and using that as justification for action.
And where does it say Teddy was an elected official during the Spanish-american war??
George Bush was basically a progressive republican, and like his progressive forefathers believed god had instilled him with the right to do his work on earth, did you even read the article??
penscott
FDR did everything in his power to antagonize the Japanese and Germans.
He needlessly got us into a horrible war that got 400,000 Americans killed, and how many more maimed or driven insane.
JohnConnughton
"Obama's motivations for pursuing them are rooted in the central tenet of progressivism, enunciated by his idols, that the American national government is responsible for the reform and uplift of those "we" deem to be living below "our" standards, and that "they" must be protected from their oppressors."
Mr. Russell is a total moron. Nobody in their right mind of ANY political party seeks war, and America has long been isolationist until dragged in by attacks either direct (Pearl Harbor, NYC) or on treatied allies (Korea). To say FDR was looking for a way to force Japan into war is idiocy-he did see what was already happening in Asia and knew where it was going, and he tried to get America ready for it, but that is a long way from wanting it. To say WW1 ended in 'virtual stalemate' is a thin way of saying the Kaiser's SURRENDER accomplished a peace that didn't last very long. I will allow some credit for Teddy Roosevelt, the Repulican who left to start the short-lived 'Progressive Party.'
But all in all, a poorly thought paper. F .
VagrantPhilosopher
To deny the Militarism of the Teddy, FDR and Wilson administrations is to gloss over an ugly part of our history, they all believed in intervention around the world effectively being the police of the world by ANY means necessary, be that force or dimplomacy.
Who am i going to bet has a better grasp of history? you or Russel
"Thaddeus Russell has taught history, philosophy, and American Studies at Columbia University, Barnard College, Eugene Lang College, and the New School for Social Research."
I'm waiting for your credentials.
JohnConnughton
Hello Vagrant.
I conceded Teddy somewhat; Wilson and FDR were both leaders dragged into war by enemy attacks. What is your problem, didn't you know about those?
As to credentials, I did not hear yours, and I am not really interested. This is a forum for opinions. I can tell you this though. My MBA and 58 years have taught me that not all academics are geniuses. My living in and hitch-hiking through Africa and Europe taught me more than my formal education. And my intense interest in history in my on-going search to understand us qualifies me to say that, based on this article, Mr. Russell is a boob. Like me or don't, he's still a boob.
JohnConnughton
By the way, I gave him an F-plus. Now I know this version of text-only is REALLY sensative, so I'll spell it out next time. Yes! I can still be taught! Can you?
By the way, do you think Obama is militaristic? Prof. Russell seems to, while Obama is still trying to figure out what to do with his inherited wars.
(My own opinion is, if we don't kill Bin Laden and Company, they will be back to kill some more of our friends and neighbors, maybe our kids. Does that make ME militaristic?)
VagrantPhilosopher
John
Im not going to sit here and bore you with the history of Wilsons sedition acts (which made it illegal to speak against the government) his army of civilian goons who beat down opposition, his censorship of newspapers, his imprisonment of tens of thousands of americans, or his belief that it was gods will for him to lead christs army, instead ill post some links
http://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/index.asp?section=timeline&file=timeli nesearch_day&id=1608
http://books.google.com/books?id=cgPc0rsBxSAC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=wilson militarism&source=bl&ots=ayHgdnYh0v&sig=nx5W5nkxgPGzGB_FU_fMsq6FXTc&hl=en&e i=gMHbSt-cLYeV8AbI59W3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBQQ6A EwAw#v=onepage&q=wilson%20militarism&f=false
And ill suggest a book "Liberal fascism" by jonah goldberg.
FDR believed america was the police of the world, how is that doctrine not militaristic? When supreme court wouldnt give him his way, he wanted to pack it, he wished to change the constitution, he imprisoned americans because they looked different, he was militaristic.
As far as Obama goes i wouldnt classify him as militaristic, although some of his programs have the subtle odor of militarism (such as his wish to revive a program like the CCC) but all and all he's played his presidency rather safe compared to his predecessors and the people he admires and compares himeslf to.
And no, believing a war is necessary for our safety isnt militaristic, however, believing your neighbors are gun toting nuts who need the government to control them is.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.