Get real.

[Little kid voice]But if we don't defend our friends they won't be our friends anymore![/Little kid voice]

Seriously, you think the folks making the boats and tanks and bombs and guns are going to allow us to stop giving them so much of our money?

Look! A terrorist!! (Back in the day it was a 'Communist!')

Sometimes there are no good choices.

I worked with a guy who was a refugee from the Hungarian uprising of 1956. The illusion that communism was no threat would have been a hard sell to him. Or the Koreans overrun by the Northern Communists in 1950. Yeah, I'm old and that's so historical. Hardly anyone remembers.

But you are young enough to remember Sept 11, 2001, where thousands of people would have learned that ignoring threats or mocking them or pretending that they don't exist doesn't make it so. Except they died.

Britain didn't want war either, but war they had. The European Jews would have gladly ignored the Nazis, but the Nazis didn't ignore them. They died, too. By the millions.

Life is unfair, but you can't complain about it if you are dead.

mmm, the Truman doctrine seems so quaint and is easy to skewer...

Seems kinda important to note that the commies actually were evangelizing worldwide, startin' wars and stuff.

D'ya think the USSR would really have not expanded if we had decided to not get involved? I'd wager Stalin would really have started WWIII, They were definitely in a mood.

Looking back at history, it's easy to say woulda, coulda, shoulda.

But whatever point you pick as departure, life moves in unpredictable ways with a major change like that, and there is no telling what difference it might have made in the world.

We are only responsible for our own time, and that feeds the future.

I'm surprised by Saudi Arabia Crid.

You're forgetting we subsidize meds too.

And as Joe Stalin is supposed to have said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." Let's review how we got here...

WWII. Nazi Germany clearly had long-range ambitions to attack the United States. They were designing weapons with which to do so. Fortunately we got to them first, and their plans didn't get very far. But the cost was enormous in lives and treasure, far more than anyone of the current generation can comprehend.

Afterwards, people said, "It would have been a lot less costly if we had nipped that in the bud. We should have isolated and shut down Hitler as soon as he appeared." And then after WWII the Soviet Union very quickly went from being an ally of convenience to an enemy, as they themselves made clear. One of their strategies was the "domino theory" (no, we didn't invent it; it was a Khruschev innovation). The Soviets lusted for empire anyway, and they figured that by knocking off countries one by one, they could eventually surround and isolate the U.S. People today still argue about whether this was plausible, but it certainly seemed so at the time. Truman and Eisenhower determined to stop the dominoes from falling in Korea, and that began the Cold War and the smaller hot wars of containment.

A big part of containment was countering the very clear threat the the Soviets posed in western Europe. They had literally millions of troops gathered along the Iron Curtain borders with the western European nations. People in the U.S. said "oh no, not again" and took pretty aggressive actions to discourage the Soviets from getting any ideas about an invasion, which doubtless would have been successful once the Soviets gained a foothold. We used various strategies to counter that, but one impact was that we had to put a bunch of people and materiel in Europe to keep the threat credible. And little by little, we fell into the trap of providing western Europe's defense for it, even as Europe used the money they were saving to implement socialism.

(more)

Anyway, there was a curious mixture of idealism and realpolitik that arose. The idealism part was trying to bring the benefits of Western civilization to other parts of the globe where people knew none of those things. The realpolitik part was that we supported some pretty brutal regimes because they were willing to ally with us against the Communists. (Although in at least some of those cases, it was a choice between a repressive right-wing regime that would ally with us, and a repressive left-wing regime that would ally with the Soviets.)

As the Democratic Party moved towards a pacifist position in the 1980s, it was from the idealism part of the containment strategy that the neocon philosophy arose. This philosophy held that bringing democracy to the world was a primary American purpose. After all, we appeared to have both the resources and the will to do it. This became especially true after the Soviet Union fell. What to do with all the military resources that had been dedicated to containing the Soviets? Send them out to spread our philosophy around the world.

As we see now, there were two problems with this. The first is that we don't really know if it was an appropriate thing to do; as we learned in Iraq, not everyone wants to, or is ready to, live in a Western-style democracy. The military part of the Iraq War was actually pretty successful, but the Western philosophy never gained enough adherents to form a critical mass in Iraq, so as soon as we let up on our constant surveillence, it all fell apart. It didn't help that some neocons fell into the "purity of war" trap, and demanded that we intervent militarily only in places where America specifically did not have a national interest. (Bill Clinton has stated that the thing he most regrets about his Presidency was not intervening in the Rwandan genocide.)

The second problem was the peaceniks. After the Soviet Union fell, they demanded a "peace dividend", sharp cuts to the military with the money being spent elsewhere (entitlements). For the most part, they got their way. This left the neocons with a lot fewer resources to work with, and it brought into very sharp focus the squandering (imagined or real) of American resources in conflicts where America had no national interest. Soviet repression had had the side effect of keeing the lid on a lot of anarchist movements in territories that it controlled, and these burst forth after the Union fell. The neocons wanted to intervene in the resulting chaos, but it was a fruitless task since it was impossible to identify a "right" or "wrong" side, and the picture changed from hour to hour as allegiances shifted. In places like Somolia, it not only made America look weak but foolish, and considerably damaged America's reputation among people who might have once looked towards Westernism as a guiding light.

You're forgetting we subsidize meds too.

I included that (in my head, at least) in my thinking that we subsidize medical care.

(more)

So here we are. I understand and support the impulse to scale back our international involvements while we catch our breath. There are a lot of things we need to do. Our military is in dire shape and we need to rebuild it. Same goes for a lot of our domestic infrastructure. We have an invasion taking place on our own border, and our own government is waging a civil-war-by-proxy, allying with the invaders against the citizenry. Our economy is crap and we don't have the resources for international adventures.

And most importantly, there's been a loss of confidence in Western values. Make no mistake, this is what the international enemies of freedom and self-determination have been working towards all along. There are a lot of people out in the world who hate Western civiliazation becuase it represents an existential threat to the powers and privileges of their class. They want the world to return to a pre-Reneissance state, where they can rule in perpetuity unchallenged (or so they imagine). They are not our friends, in any way, shape or form, and negotiating with them or engaging them diplomatically is pointless. Nor has free trade worked out very well. One lesson we've learned is that you can't have free trade with a nation that doesn't have economic freedom and a similar standard of living; you just set yourself up to be exploited, as we've seen with China and us.

So yes, reduced involvement in foreign affairs. Yes, tighter (not closed, but tighter) borders and tighter standards for preferred trading partners. No to pacifism. Just because we aren't engaging in a dozen international ward doesn't mean we should cash in our military chips; in fact, we need to buy some more of those chips.

And yes, cheerleading for America. Corny and shameless. That doesn't mean we should ignore problems, but it does mean we should keep things in perspective, and not let the people who are opposed to us invent problems where none exist. I think we're all tired of being lectured at by our so-called leaders. Less talk and more action, and keep reminding them of who works for who.

Harry Truman was a hero. A hero that survived World War I, and knew what he had to do to end a World War II .

He was the last real democratic President before the party turned into a bunch of Socialistic Narcissistic nitwits.

Laugh at the Truman Doctrine if you want to, but that laughter is a 14 year old's response to a brutal and complicated world of which you have almost no historical understanding.

And DrCos?

You couldn't lead a troop of hungry Girl Scouts to a Hamburger stand....

Hmmm...the only thing I can say is that isolationism worked so well.

I would have to say, despite the costs, the Truman doctrine worked out in our favor.

Western Europe wasn't conquested by the Soviets.

South Korea remained free.

No one was pushed to the brink so badly that they felt the need to fire nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in anger.

[Truman] was the last real democratic President before the party turned into a bunch of Socialistic Narcissistic nitwits. ~ Posted by: Isab at March 20, 2015 10:37 AM

Ironically, he was in a large part responsible for the Democratic Party becoming "a bunch of Socialistic Narcissistic nitwits."

He was too conservative for Henry Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, and the liberal wing of the party; and too liberal for J. Strom Thurmond and the conservative wing of the party.

By 1948, the Democratic Party had become a hodge-podge of political interest groups - Southern states rights advocates, Midwestern liberals, labor unions, urban dwellers, and civil rights groups.

Franklin Roosevelt had engineered the fragile coalition that gave the national Democratic Party the presidency. He held the coalition together through charm, political maneuvering, and brute force. After the war, the philosophical divisions had become too great and Truman was unable to keep it together.

The Dixiecrats split from the party over civil rights and creeping federalism, running Strom Thurmond for president in 1948.

[Note, Truman's Republican opponent in the 1948 election, Thomas Dewey, was a Northeastern liberal and also supported the passage of a civil rights bill.]

Truman won the election, and in revenge, isolated and neutered the former Dixiecrats when they came back to the party after the election.

By 1964, most (not all) of the conservative Democrats had defected to the Republicans. Edward Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Adlai Stevenson, and "Tip" O'Neill continued moving the Democratic Party to the left. The Blue Dogs (Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, Paul Tsongas, etc.) remained, but owed their position and electoral longeivity more to their state power bases than to the national party. Pelosi, Reid, and Soros finally completed the transition of the Democratic Party to doctrinaire liberalism.

@Conan

I think you are assigning way to much blame for the direction of the Democratic Party, to Truman, and way too little to FDR.

Harry Truman was the last democratic president not to make a total hash of of foreign policy because he was honestly concerned about the best interests of Americans, and the world, and much less concerned about winning the next election.

He also integrated the Armed Forces, so I don't know where this *too conservative* meme came from.

You can speculate all you want, but the two party system in the US has guaranteed, that each party will be a collection of special interest groups.

And that is the way it will always shake out in a winner take all system.

There are a few Canadians who understand US history, culture, and foreign policy.

Wendy McElroy is not one of them.

I think you are assigning way to much blame for the direction of the Democratic Party, to Truman, and way too little to FDR. ~ Posted by: Isab at March 20, 2015 1:29 PM

Perhaps I do, but Roosevelt was able to keep the conservative elements of the party in the coalition. He actively courted the disparate interest groups in the Party where Truman did not.

He also integrated the Armed Forces, so I don't know where this *too conservative* meme came from. ~ Posted by: Isab at March 20, 2015 1:29 PM

He was in favor of containment over detente in dealing with the Soviets. That put him at odds with the liberal elements of the Democratic Party.

The competing strategies for dealing with the USSR were containment, rollback, and detente. Isolationism was also advocated, but many believed that had led to World War II and would result in Soviet domination of Europe, so it was a hard sell.

Truman favored containment. Roosevelt had favored detente, as did the CIO and Henry Wallace (once Roosevelt's Vice President and then Truman's Secretary of Commerce). Rollback was favored by conservatives like William F. Buckley. Isolationism was favored by Herbert Hoover and Senator Robert Taft.

I also mentioned that Truman was too liberal for the Southern Democrats. He favored many elements of the New Deal, civil rights, and favored strong federal control (he even tried to nationalize the steel industry in 1952).

You can speculate all you want, but the two party system in the US has guaranteed, that each party will be a collection of special interest groups. ~ Posted by: Isab at March 20, 2015 1:29 PM

Yes, a two-party system will always render each party a collection of diverse political philosophies and special interests. That will leave one or the other party dysfunctional for various periods time.

Unlike a parliamentary democracy where the special interests tend to form their own parties, run in elections, and become part of a coalition government, our system leaves interest groups little choice to align with an existing party to gain influence.

Like FDR, Reagan cobbled together a political coalition of his party's diverse elements - fiscal conservatives, states' rights federalists, social conservatives (evangelicals), and the Rockefeller Republicans (Northeastern liberals who tend to favor federal control over federalism and are generally willing accept higher taxes to fund government programs).

Like Truman, George H. W. Bush was unable to hold his predecessor's coalition together. He'd had to move farther to the right in 1992 (compared to 1988) to keep the social conservatives on his side which alienated the Northeastern liberal Republican; and reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge alienated the fiscal conservatives.

The Democrats, who managed to come together behind Bill Clinton and Al Gore, swept into the Oval Office in the 1992 election.

With the Republicans still in disarray, the Dems kept the White House in 2002. Bob Dole was unable to unify the increasingly disparate interests that by then made up the Republican Party.

Clinton was able to create and hold together a fragile coalition in his own party with his "Third Way" politics. Compromises with Republicans alienated some elements of his coalition, but his impeachment unified the Democrats in their hatred of and opposition to the Republicans.

The price for the party's unqualified support of Bill Clinton was paid by Al Gore, who inherited an exhausted and morally-bankrupt party. Even so, he managed to eke out the edge in the popular vote, losing the electoral vote.

During the Bush years, the hardcore liberals won control over the Democratic Party as the old guard conservative Democrats retired and the Blue Dogs found themselves under fire from voters in 2010 for their role in the party's passage of Obamacare.

The Democrats' chief make-up these days is populist progressives (Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, etc.), liberal elite corporatists (Hillary Clinton), and hardcore single-issue special interest groups (environmentalists, feminists, etc.). Big Labor has lost some of its influence with the Democrats as the government employee unions (SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, etc.) have usurped the unions' traditional role as champions of the working class.

The Democrats are actually hurt by Hillary Clinton's dominance. She is not liked by the populist progressives despite her efforts to portray herself as one. She's seen as a corporatist and limousine liberal and will have a hard time uniting the Democrats behind her candidacy, much less attracting the independents.

The Democratic Party is in danger of becoming a boutique party, like the Republicans were from the '30s to the '60s. Eisenhower was the only Republican president during the 36 years between Hoover and Nixon. And Ike's election was due less to the party than to his role in World War II (the Democrats had also courted him to run for president on their ticket).

This would seem like the perfect time for the Republicans to pounce, but they've not yet been able to coalesce around a single candidate and their platform is in disarray. None of the current front runners tick enough of the various interest groups' boxes. It's still early, however.

Big Labor has lost some of its influence with the Democrats as the government employee unions (SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, etc.) have usurped the unions' traditional role as champions of the working class.

That is self-proclaimed champions of the working class.

"ps I do, but Roosevelt was able to keep the conservative elements of the party in the coalition. He actively courted the disparate interest groups in the Party where Truman did not."

I think you are unfairly assuming that FDR was a better leader than Truman.

The United States was totally occupied domestically by the Depression, followed by the very real fear of losing World War II. These two events gave FDR about as unified a public as any political leader could wish for.

Truman as a post war president had nothing but a war jaded public that wanted to pretend that the world was now a safe place, and put the war years, and the depression behind them as quickly as possible, much as the British voters turned on Churchill.

My mother, who is older than I am, and that's saying something at this point, was talking last week about Britain's apparent retreat from world history, and how this had been a surprise to her generation.

She'd never said it out loud before. While having recognized the outlines of the pattern my whole life, I was glad to hear her say that... Because in the last two or three years, I've seen that the Brits (like the rest of Europe, and even as London rises as the world's indisputable financial capital) are not merely cheap or lazy: They're racing in a Olympic retreat towards childlike irresponsibility, where Daddy America pays and bleeds for everything.

They nonetheless want to tell us how morality works.

For Ppen.

S.A. spends that money because they have it to spend, and because Iran will (someday, again) almost certainly dominate the region as it historically has.

Saudi Arabia is not spending the money well... (On, say, engineering degrees for young women.)

But for now, the Saudis can afford to let American fracking devastate the market prices for their only trade product, because they know Teheran can't afford it so readily.