Essentially, historically, conservatives were opposed to the US getting involved in world affairs. Remember George Washington's famous pronouncement as he left the White House. Some were pro war of course, but it was the more liberal wing who was more likely to be for foreign adventures. Of course, one thing aiding this was the definition of "foreign". America had the West to conquer, and this was not considered "foreign". Once the Indians were completely defeated, America moved to getting overseas colonies, and this is when conservatives start to consider overseas ventures more positively... the Spanish American War being the key starting point, of course. And liberal Republican president Teddy Roosevelt was an ardent warmonger.
But still, until 1942, the Republican party was the primary isolationist force. Many Democrats were isolationists too, certainly, but fewer; Republicans were the ones saying that we should simply ignore Hitler. It was liberals like President Roosevelt who wanted to intervene. After all, sure bad things are going on, but they're going on in other countries. Who cares about other people?
You still hear this sentiment from some on the conservative side, but the dominance of the pro-war neocons has pushed them to the fringes. Think Pat Buchanan, for instance.
Anyway, after World War II forced America to engage in the world, it realized its power and decided to take over, essentially. Americans abandoned isolationism as a powerful domestic force; the tendency is still there, but since Pearl Harbor, it has been much weakened. I don't consider this a bad thing at all, because though America's adventures in the world have very often been for the worse, would things really be better if we had done nothing? In some cases yes, others definitely no... and as long as we are engaged, at least we have the possibility of doing the right thing and engaging people to try to reduce violence and totalitarianism.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Yeah, it's obvious that Iran is as bad as Nazi Germany and all liberals would be Nazi-sympathizers.
Yup, of course.
Weltall Wrote:Quite so, but today the opposite would very clearly be true.
Liberals support more wars and military actions than you think. The groups that are opposed to all wars do not dominate the Democratic party any more than the groups opposed to all foreign interventions dominate the Republican party. Both parties have pro-interventionist main lines. The difference is, how should our power be used?
Opposition to the Iraq War comes from the fact that it was a horribly planned, horribly executed, horribly thought out disaster with no reason. Iraq had not done anything bad enough to deserve being invaded. We have made things worse and helped no one in the country. What should we do now? I'm not sure... it really depends on whether, if we left, things would get better or worse. If our leaving would set off a civil war and dissolution of the state, we can't leave... but if it would end much of the violence because the violence is being caused by our presence, then we must. But we just don't know which of those it is...
Anyway, there are plenty of military actions I support. For instance, the bombing of Serbia in 1999. There I think that we should have had a strong force there on the ground... in 1991. Not 1999. There I'd say the problem is that we didn't care enough and did nothing, and just sat back and watched people die...
Exactly like we are doing now in Darfur. Taking no action simply because a country has no oil or resources we want is wrong (A key policy difference between liberals and conservatives! Liberals want to help people in other countries. Conservatives don't.).
Afghanistan, too. The Bush Administration's actions in Afghanistan have been criminal. Essentially, we took a country we could have saved, and ignored it to death. Because of far too little money and troops because of the pointless Iraq War, the Taliban are back, the Afghan government is pitifully weak, and the nation continues to backslide. If there is one reason to try to end the Iraq War decently as soon as possible, it is so we can refocus on Afghanistan and do our best to fix that broken country...
Oh yes, we should also be doing a LOT more to try to do something about Somalia. A LOT more. And I'd almost support an invasion of Burma... not quite, but I would support us just sending in aid somehow, whether their government likes it or not. We should NOT sit back and watch while the Burmese junta lets tens of thousands more people die because they're more afraid of the impact of Western aid and presence in their country than they are of the death toll. There must be something we can do...
As our disastrous failures in Iraq prove we need to be very, very careful before we do anything, plan for it, plan for the aftermath, and know what we're getting in to... but hopefully it will not lead to America giving up on the world again in despair.
We also need to impeach Cheney and Bush (in that order) for high crimes and misdemeanors, of course. As long as they're in office it's not too late!