Q: What are "traditional Democratic values?"

[Writer]

I'd like to know what they ARE, not what they are not.

I humbly ask that this thread stick to discussing the question, not resort to yet more discussion on any particular Democratic organization. I do not want flamebait on this thread, only an answer to my question.

Thanks! :hi:

Oh edit: I will compile everyone's entries and make a master list that I will post later. Thanks!

[ulysses]

1. help for those in need.

Without that, nothing else matters.

[imenja]

13. so why do so few on this website express interest in that?

Threads on global famine are ignored in favor of comments on Novak's profanities and other trivialities. I agree that is what Democratic values should represent. Sadly, few care.

[ulysses]

14. outrage diffusion.

There's too much to pay attention to, so you say "fuck it" and go hang out in the lounge. It happens to me too.

Also, it's easier to imagine helping out someone around the block than overseas.

I think most folks here care, but just don't know what to do to make any kind of difference.

[imenja]

17. no, it's ethnocentric callousness

people obviously prioritize trivialities above social justice. Threads on famine and appeals to act for greater global equality are either ignored or argued against--systematically. People simply do not care. They define themselves politically in terms of hatred for Bush, as though that substituted for political ideology. It is a short-sighted provincialism of which I am increasingly disgusted.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. People think there's nothing to be done except

say "How terrible" and maybe send a little money. But we should be trying to think of other ways to deal with these situations, like working to mobilize public opinion in favor of helping people in famine areas.

[welshTerrier2]

26. my focus is a little different ...

hi imenja !!

i have no disagreement with your statement about ethnocentric callousness ... regardless of one's position on the political spectrum, i'm afraid Americans have far less exposure to world news and world cultures than many people from other countries do ...

but i see the DU community in a slightly different way ... not that this is all one way or the other, but i see a very distinct divide here between those who focus on issues and ideologies versus those who focus on politics ... a snapshot exchange to demonstrate this would be:

ideology guy: i won't vote for any candidate who supports the war
political guy: well, then, you might as well just vote republican ...

or this one:

political guy: you "purists" should stop complaining ... we need to get in power first before we start "burdening ourselves" with issues ...
ideology guy: we won't get in power at all without defining who we are ...

so, while i don't at all disagree with your observations on the lack of attention to issues like famine, i think many here are much more focussed on politics than on issues to begin with ... and then among those strongly focussed on issues, there are many competing themes ... the war, nuclear proliferation, global warming, the economy, abortion, gay rights, education, corporatism, electoral corruption, labor rights , tax fairness and many other issues ... these issues are certainly not trivial ...

without question, the issues that most immediately impact the lives of our fellow countrymen generally get far more airtime on DU ... and i really don't disagree that there is an insensivity and an ethnocentricity to our priorities ... but, it seems to me, there are many other factors involved ... that's not an excuse but rather an analysis of what other distractions, beyond solely ethnocentricity, cause our inattentiveness to the issues you've raised ...

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

45. "throwing money at every problem"

Gee, where have I heard that one before? :eyes:

Enjoy your stay.

[babsbunny]

2. Equal rights for all

in everything!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Do what's good for the people,

not for corporations, like Medicare, Rural electrification, etc.

[Somawas]

4. A strong working class, support of trade unions, a strong middle class.

An economy that creates jobs and opportunity. Social benefits and opportunity investment in education for the poor and disadvantaged.

[uppityperson]

5. Be humane

encourage those who need encouragement
help those who need help
adequate shelter, health care, food, job
for the people, not the corporations
don't hurt people or the world

[Trajan]

6. 'Tradition' has changed over the centuries ...

But since FDR they have been centered around one specific creed:

" It is the role of government to use the nation's resources to lift the lot of the common citizen "

To provide free public education, a safety net of social security and unemployment insurance to protect the elderly from want in their later years and to provide for the basic needs of families in times of temporary lack of income, to protect working men and women from the hazards that might exist in the workplace, to lift the wage basis which directly impacts the well being of the american family by implementing a minimum wage, and regulating work hours through overtime laws, and to regulate the markets to preclude speculators and greedy charlatans from manipulating stocks and other financial instruments so that investors can be protected. It is also a Democratic 'tradition' to defend the nation in times of war. "

One need only to study the FDR government and the legislation he and congress passed to see what the standard goals of the Democratic Party had been for many decades ....

It is THAT agenda, the New Deal, Great Society agenda, that is now under attack ......

[Diamonique]

7. A foreign policy that...

... respects and nurtures its alliances, leads the rest of the world towards democracy, peace and prosperity. Leading by example and diplomacy rather than bullying.

[rhett o rick]

73. I vote for this one. nt

[Son of California]

8. 6 basic tenents of a true blue Democrat

1) to protect the average citizen against the caprice of the rich and powerful.

2) to treat every citizen, regardless of whatever inborn trait or appearance, as equal before the law. To fight and destroy prejudice and discrimination in every form.

3) to provide the best possible education to our young and to promote education and growth as a life long pursuit.

4) to uphold the separation of church and state without exception and protect the rights of the minority.

5) to ensure that military strength for the sake of our safety and sovereignty as a nation does not deteriorate into imperialism at the behest of the rich and powerful.

6) to make sure that the decisions made by our leaders are guided by common sense, scientific knowledge and hope, not by religious dogma, prejudice and fear.

[jimshoes]

16. Right on brother

Those are excellent! PS (it's tenets)

[Son of California]

18. you caught me

and I pride myself so on my grammar, *sigh*

[Cosmocat]

27. I don't think ...

These are core D beliefs ... I think that because we have been overtaken by an extremist, power hungry political machine, that these tenents simply are the extreme opposites of what exists now ...

The Ds WILL have to work along the lines of these tenents to clean up the mess at some point ... BUT, I don't think THESE are D tenents in and of themselves ...

1) to protect the average citizen against the caprice of the rich and powerful.

I don't think that Ds look to protect average citizens agains the rich and powerful ... They WILL have to do so in the next few years, but on average, I think the Ds look to champion the cause of the average person ...

2) to treat every citizen, regardless of whatever inborn trait or appearance, as equal before the law. To fight and destroy prejudice and discrimination in every form.

Again, I think the first sentence is true, but that second sentence is an extreme position that does not reflect a D mindset - to "destroy" is not the D way ...

3) to provide the best possible education to our young and to promote education and growth as a life long pursuit.

This does ring true, I think ...

4) to uphold the separation of church and state without exception and protect the rights of the minority.

I don't think the Ds work to uphold the seperation of the church and state ... I just think that despite the Rs banging in the drum of "following the constitution" they warp the concept, while Ds live the concept ...

5) to ensure that military strength for the sake of our safety and sovereignty as a nation does not deteriorate into imperialism at the behest of the rich and powerful.

Again ... This is a VERY new concept to us ... Prior to George W Bush, I think we all just lived knowing that this was not even a reality ...

6) to make sure that the decisions made by our leaders are guided by common sense, scientific knowledge and hope, not by religious dogma, prejudice and fear.

Again ... While I think the Ds definitely operate more from common sense, I think the extremes to which this admin/congress have operated have not existed in my life ...

[Son of California]

90. You make a fair argument

When I wrote these, I was feeling the moment in history -you know?

I think a lot of these values are really core American values in and of themselves.

I guess it is the salesman in me that wants to blur the line between Democrat and American.

[rhett o rick]

74. Very good. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Working for the good of all - not just a select group - of Americans

Unlike the arrogant administration we now have in DC.

[Arkana]

10. Freedom of choice, equal rights for all, helping those in need...

[Lone_Wolf]

11. They boil down to freedom, opportunity, prosperity, fairness...

along with community building, cooperation, and open and honest two-way communication.

[bahrbearian]

12. You are kind of demanding ...don't you think?

"I humbly ask that this thread stick to discussing the question, not resort to yet more discussion on any particular Democratic organization. I do not want flamebait on this thread, only an answer to my question."

[ulysses]

15. it's a way

to have a DLC thread without anyone being able to actually mention the org.

[snowbear]

20. If you have to ask.......

... you don't have them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :eyes:

[chknltl]

21. I hope a respect for the environment

and a desire to protect all creatures great and small could make this list. Thank you for compiling this Writer, wonder if it will match up with the "official" list of Dem values if there is such a thing.

[Writer]

24. No problem. It will be interesting to see these values put together! n/t

[aspberger]

22. show me the money

Democrats are the arch enemies of poverty and the lack of opportunity for everyone to live the American dream.

[Q]

23. Although we dare not speak its name...

...the organization we can't mention seems to be on a quest to change the meaning of 'traditional Democratic values' to fit their own agenda and their desire to not associate with the 'special interest' groups of the New Deal, equal rights and social safety net.

[Cosmocat]

25. Reply ...

There are bad seeds ... BUT ...

To me, the D party is about honesty, decency and rule for the people ...

[dajoki]

28. equal rights for all...

anti-discrimination, women's rights, right to privacy, take care of the needy and the poor, living wage, truthlulness, count every vote, real diplomacy. i could go on, but you get the point.

[welshTerrier2]

29. OK ... here's my little list ...

first, fairness ... Democrats have traditionally believed that government could be used in a positive way to make the lives of our citizens better ... this included the very important belief in the regulation of corporations ... it meant that we believed that government should be as minimally invasive to business as necessary as long as the best interests of Americans were protected ... protecting the public and the national interest was the top priority; not the rights of corporations ...

now, unfortunately, we have become so concerned about being labeled "anti-business" that we allow the "free market" to exploit the American public and American consumers ...

second, we believed in a foreign policy that reflected American values ... we believed in the Marshall Plan ... we believed in the Peace Corps ... we believed in the UN ... we believed that war was sometimes necessary but we were not afraid to stand up for PEACE ...

now, it seems, we have gone along with those who send American agents abroad to topple foreign governments or export American jobs overseas or squeeze the lifeblood out of weak foreign economies through abuses at the World Bank ...

and, perhaps more importantly than anything anyone has listed on their laundry list of traditional Democratic values, we believed that we could make the world a better place for all to live in ... we had idealism ... we had an anchoring faith that we believed in justice in all ventures and that we were "the good guys" ...

idealism in the Party seems to have been replaced with the false vision of "pragmatic triangulation" ... there is no idealism beyond this blinding focus; there is only winning ... when a deep, abiding reverence for our beliefs returns and is made central to both our platform, our message and our actions, only then will the Party be lifted back up to its role as a majority Party ...

we've gotten so busy tinkering with the gears that we've forgotten to steer the ship ... when we truly return to our "traditional Democratic values", we will realize a tidal wave of support for the Democratic Party ... Americans are waiting for the day that Democrats return to their roots ... we will not need a sophisticated message; we will not need different framing; we will not need to have our own media ... a simple message that kept Democrats in office for generations will suffice ...

it really is tragic that we have been blown so far off course and those at the helm clearly do not know the way back home ...

[Writer]

30. Thanks for your responses, everyone.

Can we keep this kicked for more?

:kick:

[mvd]

31. Well, here's one I follow

Do not think short term, and think about how your decisions will affect society. Republicans don't do that enough. In fact, a fault of Bush's might be that he wants what he wants now. Meanwhile, we win in the end.

[eridani]

32. Truman first proposed universal health care--

--that remained as a part of the national party platform until 1996. Lots of state platforms still have it.

[Q]

33. The Democratic Party...

...is the oldest political party in the United States. Yet...some are still confused or pretend not to know what we're all about. And while it's true that many 'democrats' become republicans after the civil rights act of 64...the party has always been about representing the interests of the working class and the poor against the ruling class and the rich and powerful.

But this IS an important question...no matter the motivation of the questioner.

The Democratic rank and file was thrown into confusion during the 80s and 90s...when factions within the party began to promote policies that steered away from 'traditional' principles of a 'big tent' party of the people. Coincidentally...these policy shifts coincided with what the Right wanted the Democratic party to become.

Unions and worker's rights were the first to be abandoned for the benefit of a ruling class that resented workers having ANY voice in the workplace. Among the other changes in the Democratic agenda: Choice. Separation of Church and State. Weakening of Corporate and Environmental regulations. Public Education. Social programs, etc. In other words...the weakening or elimination of every program that shared tax dollars with the people. The result was that corporate welfare replaced social welfare in the Democratic version of trickle down, supply side economics.

Although the thread author may not like it..these days it's easier to define what the Democratic party ISN'T as opposed to what it is. It's not your grandfather's Democratic party. It's not even your father's party. It's the party of Clinton, triangulation and RWing appeasement.

Some say the Democratic party keeps losing because it can't provide a clear message to the people. But that's not it. It's that more and more Americans/Democrats don't like the 'new' party's new message that can't or won't take a stand for doing what's right over what's politically expedient.

[ClassWarrior]

34. RESPONSIBILITY and EMPATHY.

Below those blanket values come broad prosperity, mutual responsibility, effective government, a better future, and a stronger nation.

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

35. how far back do you want to go, Writer?

If we're talking about tradition...

The anti-strong central government/pro states rights period of the early 1800s?

The pro-slavery period of the 1850s?

The "let's make peace with the Confederacy" period of the 1860s?

I mention these not because I think these are great periods of time in the history of the Democratic party but because some here only have a knowledge of the party post 1960s.

On many major issues - civil rights, free trade, strong military, etc., the two major parties have traded positions back and forth as time went on.

In reality, I believe the current traditions of the Democratic party took root during and after WWI.

For most of the 20th century, the Democratic party was the party of free trade. The Republican Congress, backed by a G.O.P. President, passed theprotectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. Most economists and virtually all Democrats blamed this tariff for the onset of the Great Depression. And for more than three decades the Democrats waved the red shirt of Smoot-Hawley against the Republicans.

The "liberal internationalism" period of Woodrow Wilson post WWI which called for the spreading of American Democracy and values abroad?

This concept was used by Democrats throughtout the 20th century: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, - and most recently when Clinton explained to the American people that the U.S. must intervene in Bosnia because “our values and interests as Americans require that we do so,” and all but six Democrats in the Senate voted for an amendment giving the president the power to use force. In 1994, Clinton dispatched American troops to restore democracy in Haiti. In the House vote, 88% of Democrats voted to support Operation Uphold Democracy. The same was true for humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and the escalation of American intervention in Somalia: Democrats supported the pursuit of liberal ends backed by American power. (Taking Back Liberal Internationalism )

The New Deal - most of which FDR saw as a temporary solution to lift us out of the depression.

Civil rights for all - though there are many revered Democrats who weren't quite as strong on this front as we might believe.

I could go on, but my point is the Democratic party was not born in the 1960s.

So, "traditional Democratic values?" You'll get a million answers.

Here is mine, in no specific order:

Strong military and a willingness to use it.
Civil rights
Free trade, or at least "Fair" trade.
Sensible laws concerning issues of safety (firearms.)
Rights of privacy

And Writer, despite what someone else wrote in this thread, I don't believe you have any dark motive for asking the question - unless giving everyone a historical perspective is a bad thing.

[Q]

36. No one is saying that the Dem party was 'born' in the 60s...

...but it sure split up in the 60s and 70s over war and civil rights.

And you only get a 'million answers' from those who want to move the party to the right and leave behind the party of the 'new deal' and equal rights.

No one is talking about a 'dark motive'. But let's not be naive here. You and other fans of the 'new' Democrats have been working this board for months trying to convince us that the 'left' is a pitiful minority representing no one but themselves and that there is no such thing as 'traditional Democratic values'. They dismiss words like 'traditional' so they can write in values that reflect their own agenda...not that of the majority of Democrats.

Strong military and a 'willingness to use it'? This is not a 'value'. It's a policy position. And it's one promoted by the New Democrats along with their 'all wars are good wars' Progressive Patriotism. It's also a mantra used to attack the 'left' for it's peacemongering and to coverup the fact that the 'new' Democrats back the Bush Doctrine of 'preventative war' despite knowing it's all based on lies.

Civil Rights? Why then didn't the 'new' Democrats support investigations into civil rights abuses in the 2000 and 2004 elections? To this day they won't admit that Blacks and others were disenfranchised in these elections.

Free or Fair Trade? That doesn't describe the trade policies of the NeoDems.

We could go round and round forever. But the fact is that the new Democrats are assisting the Right in killing off the 'old' Democratic party of the people and replacing it with something more to the liking of the anti-worker, anti-democracy, pro-war/corporation cabal running this country right now.

[welshTerrier2]

39. "Strong military and a 'willingness to use it'"

this is a very, very disturbing phrase ...

i've seen many posts from "new" Democrats suggesting that our Party has a long history of engaging in warfare, when appropriate, and implying that "the left" thinks the Party's "traditional past" is only one of pacifism ... they just love to push those themes ...

the truth, and most know it's the truth, is that many on "the left", regardless of whether they do so correctly or not, have a set of values on which they determine whether any given war is justified or NOT justified ... yes, some are, god forbid, pacifists ... but many believe that many or most wars fought by this country have been fought for other than their advertised purposes ... this does not make "the left" against a strong military and it does not make "the left" unwilling to use force when necessary ... the emphasis on "willingness to use force" without an equivalent emphasis on the necessity of evaluating the justification for war is NOT a Democratic Party traditional value ...

to suggest that the Democratic Party's traditions are in favor of a "Strong military and a 'willingness to use it'" without acknowledging that the underlying values are to use warfare ONLY AS A LAST RESORT and only when warfare is justified is an outright fabrication ... the problem with the revisionist history embodied in the phrase "willingness to use it" is NOT that the phrase is in error by "commission" but rather that it is in error by "omission" ...

the VALUE in which the use of the military in traditional Democratic Party beliefs is best encapsulated is that we, as Democrats, recognize the horrors of war and that, while it is sometimes necessary, we reserve the right to speak out against committing our country to war when we do not believe the war is justified ...

the reference "Strong military and a 'willingness to use it'", absent a recognition that war should be used only as a last resort and that citizens should reserve the right to protest against their government when they believe war is unjust, is a distortion of what the Democratic Party used to, and should still, stand for ...

[Q]

40. It IS a disturbing phrase...

...as is their new 'Progressive Patriotism'. But without qualifying these policy statements with definitions...what they're asking for is unquestioning NATIONALISM.

When all is said and done...this is exactly what the Right is offering.

[theboss]

52. Until the Gulf War, every conflict since WWI was fought by a Dem Pre

WWI - Wilson
WWII - FDR and Truman
Korea - Truman
Vietman - Began to take shape under Kennedy/escalted by LBJ

Nixon inherited Vietman and expaded it into Cambodia. Reagan for his cowboy image only had Lebanon, Grenada, and a raid on Lybia. Bush I had the Gulf War and, I guess, Somalia. Clinto had the constant raids on Iraq and Kosovo. And then there's this idiot....

Democrats do not back down from a fight. And sometimes, we'll start a fight so we can prove that we won't back down.

[welshTerrier2]

66. and this is responsive to what i wrote in what way?

i'm pretty sure i did not make any reference to who started all the wars you listed ... Democratic presidents have indeed started most of the wars in the 20th century ...

i did not suggest that Democrats have backed down from a fight ... what the hell is your point ??

[wyldwolf]

69. the point being...

Democrat have always advocated a strong military and a willingness to use it.

:shrug:

Seems clear to me.

[theboss]

72. I think what you wrote is naive

There are probably only two instances in American history (post the Revolution) where the US truly went to war as a last resort:

1. The Civil War, which had been brewing for two decades, and in which we actually fought against ourselves, and

2. World War II, which had been ongoing since 1938 in Europe, earlier still in the Pacific, in which Britain was begging us to join, and in which both of our chief adversaries both declared war on us first. Of course, FDR - the Democrat's Democrat - was interested in getting into the war far before most of the rest of the country.

Whether Korea, Vietnam, or Kosovo, Democratic leaders have rarely used the "war as a last resort" model of foreign policy. War has - rightfully in my view - been seen more as the most forceful foreign policy tool.

The difference, I think, between Democrats and Republicans is that we see war as part of foreign policy whereas Republicans see war as part of an economic policy. And, therefore, I think there are times when Republican business leaders have been able to manipulate Democrats into going to war.

[wyldwolf]

56. uh, no...

the reference "Strong military and a 'willingness to use it'", absent a recognition that war should be used only as a last resort and that citizens should reserve the right to protest against their government when they believe war is unjust, is a distortion of what the Democratic Party used to, and should still, stand for ...

You clearly don't have a grasp on Democratic party history.

Here. Let me get you started:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0375507426.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375507426/ref=ase_coloradodemocrat/002-7900126-2624842?v=glance&s=books



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0791461696/qid=1123537333/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_2/002-7900126-2624842



http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Lf4X9lABG5&isbn=0842023941&TXT=Y&itm=1

[welshTerrier2]

65. allow me to quote a Democrat who may know about this

"He (bush) also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that."

Who said this Wlydewolf?? ... some radical, 1% of the Party peacenik ??? is that what you're arguing???

This was said by John Kerry during a debate with bush last year ... or is your point that he was blazing a new radical left path during the campaign ...

thanks for stopping by ... i enjoyed looking at all the nice pictures of the books you linked to ...

what the hell is your point, Wyldewolf?? i mean, are you just here to disparage those who believe war should only be used as a last resort??? ... would you like the Party to articulate the position you seem to be advocating? do you really think being willing to go to war without trying to find alternative solutions makes for an effective platform??? you have a problem with recognizing the horrors of war and doing whatever you can, everything in your power, to prevent the loss of America's sons and daughters ???

if you'd like to explain where you think Kerry's statement differs with the values all the Democrats i know believe in, i'm all ears ...

[wyldwolf]

68. You clearly don't have a grasp on Democratic party history

i mean, are you just here to disparage those who believe war should only be used as a last resort???

I'm merely stating a fact that the Democratic party has seldom if ever went to war as a last resort. It's a fact I see you're uncomfortable with, but it is a fact nevertheless.

You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing a stated fact from advocacy.

Interesting conversations we could have:

Wyldwolf: More 16 year olds die in car accidents each year than 30 year olds.

welshTerrier2: what the hell is your point, Wyldewolf?? Do you think 16 year olds should dies in car accidents? What have you got against them????

You clearly don't have a grasp on Democratic party history.

Here. Let me get you started:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0375507426.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/037550742...



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0791461696/qid=1...



http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry...

[welshTerrier2]

70. try this dialog

welshTerrier2: Kerry said war should only be used as a last resort. Isn't Kerry part of Democratic tradition?

Wlydewolf: just because 16 year olds die more often than 30 year olds in car crashes doesn't mean i think they should ... YOU, welshTerrier2, but not John Kerry, are merely advocating YOUR position ... Kerry's advocacy for using war as a last resort is NOT a part of Democratic tradition ... you don't have a grasp of Democratic Party tradition because you believe that arguments Kerry made during debates last year can in any way be construed as part of Democratic Party position ...

[wyldwolf]

77. you're changing the subject

Your point on Kerry is a later edition into our discussion and has little or nothing to do with the point of our exchange - namely - that the Democratic party has always advocated a strong military and a willingness to use it.

Try staying on topic.

[welshTerrier2]

81. staying on topic

if i recall correctly, i believe my point on Kerry demonstrates, unless you want to argue that Kerry's campaign last year should not be included as an indication of Democratic Party tradition, that using war as a last resort IS part of Democratic Party tradition ...

this has nothing to do with being a "later edition" ... i have provided Kerry's position as an indication that it is you who are out of touch, not Kerry ...

are you actually trying to make the point that Kerry's position, and mine but apparently not yours, that calls for using war as a last resort does NOT represent Democratic Party traditional values ???

before you begin to duck out of responding, why not start right out by answering the question ...

[wyldwolf]

86. as was stated in an earlier post...

There are probably only two instances in American history (post the Revolution) where the US truly went to war as a last resort:

1. The Civil War, which had been brewing for two decades, and in which we actually fought against ourselves, and

2. World War II, which had been ongoing since 1938 in Europe, earlier still in the Pacific, in which Britain was begging us to join, and in which both of our chief adversaries both declared war on us first. Of course, FDR - the Democrat's Democrat - was interested in getting into the war far before most of the rest of the country.

Other wars and military entanglements - most of which were waged by Democrats - were never entered into as "the last resort."

Woodrow Wilson’s invasion of Mexico, US sabotage of Italian elections under Truman, Truman's involvement in Korea, Kennedy’s attacks on Cuba, Kennedy's and Johnson's Viet Nam war, and Clinton's peacekeeping missions in such places as Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia.

Our actions in these were never "the last resort."

So, perhaps there has been a low lying "last resort" philosophy among some Democrats, but it has seldom been put into practice.

As for Kerry, consider his 2003 address to the Council on Foreign Relations where he endorsed a “new progressive internationalism” buttressed by renewed alliance and enforced by a dominant US military.

Kerry’s “new” foreign policy has its roots in a policy paper entitled, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Yep! DLC.

AND an almost exact replica of Woodrow Wilson's Liberal Internationalism - advocated by every Democratic president since.

[welshTerrier2]

76. well, perhaps some of these people do - they're Democrats, you know ...

source: http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/mt-static/archives/issues/000657.html

July 4, 2004
Democratic Party platform (draft)
The draft takes direct aim at the central document that defines how Mr. Bush has changed American foreign policy, "National Security Strategy of the United States," published by the White House two years ago. Treading carefully, the Democratic document does not rule out the use of pre-emptive military action. But it describes it as an act of last resort, not a tenet of American foreign policy.

<skip>

"This platform reflects John Kerry," Ms. DeLauro said. "It shows what Democrats believe and what direction the country can go in under a Kerry presidency."

<skip>
(off topic but shows that those calling for withdrawal prior to obtaining "stability" are in the majority in the Party)
That is the case despite the finding in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll that, by a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent, people who call themselves Democrats say the United States troops should "leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable" rather than "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy."

source: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040802&s=forum

George Lakoff
"At a time when terrorist threats come from groups of individuals rather than states, when wars occur within nations, when "free markets" exist without freedom, when overpopulation threatens stability, when intolerant cultures limit freedom and promote violence, when transnational corporations act like oppressive governments and when the oil economy threatens the planet's future, the central problems in today's world cannot be solved by state-level approaches.

Part of the answer is to recognize interdependence and focus foreign policy on diplomacy, alliances, international institutions and strong defensive and peacekeeping forces, with war as a last resort. "

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0528-20.htm

JFK
"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. This generation of Americans has had enough -- more than enough -- of war." (American University commencement, 1963)

source: http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/oct60/jfk311060_philly01.html

JFK
But I am convinced that peace can be obtained only through a stronger America - an America in which a strong economy, supporting a strong defensive posture, is manned by a citizenry strong in their sense of purpose, their sense of justice, and their dedication to the truth. The next war may be started and won by merely pushing a button - but there is no pushbutton magic for winning the peace.

source: http://www.themoderntribune.com/ted_kennedy_resolution_in_senate_january_29_2003_-_comments_by_ted_kenneddy.htm

Ted Kennedy
The disarmament of Saddam Hussein is essential. But the Administration has not made a persuasive case that the threat from Iraq is so immediate that it justifies resort to war now when the inspections process is obviously making progress. Clearly, we have not reached the last resort.

source: http://www.hickorytech.net/~leighp/warisstupid/

Robert Byrd
"To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be the last resort, not a first choice."

JFK
"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."

LBJ
"The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure."

[wyldwolf]

78. "starting a war" & "having a strong military and a willingness to use it"

Are two entirely different things.

But the quotes from JFK and LBJ are ironic, don't you think?

Did Viet Nam start that war???

[welshTerrier2]

83. "willingness to use it" AS A LAST RESORT

well, here we agree, it seems ...

yes, perhaps there was something a wee bit ironic about what they preached versus what they actually did ...

perhaps this makes a good case that they failed to adhere to the traditional Democratic values they espoused ... i'm confident you were fully supportive of those who protested this hypocrisy ... that seems to me to be the soul of the Democratic Party; that we don't just blindly go along and as i said in my first post in this thread, that we allow each and every Democrat to assess whether war is right or wrong based on their own values ...

so, what about the quotes from the other Democrats ... Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, George Lakoff ... do their views on the issue of using war as a last resort stray from your understanding of "traditional" Democratic values ???

[wyldwolf]

84. they're certainly expressing an opinion

I've never once advocated unprovoked war though I do firmly believe in liberal internationalism's tenet of intervening in humanitarian crises and on peacekeeping missions in such places as Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia.

But I stated a fact whether today's left likes it or not: The Democratic party - as policy - has always advocated a strong military and a willingness to use it.

[welshTerrier2]

85. and i stated a fact as well

my consistent theme here has NOT been that i disagreed with your "fact" that "The Democratic party - as policy - has always advocated a strong military and a willingness to use it."

i ADDED to that statement that the Party, and this was very clearly demonstrated by the views i provided in the quotes from many leading Democrats, has, for a very long time, valued a tradition of using war as a last resort ...

[wyldwolf]

87. demonstrate to me the tradition of using war as a last resort ...

...as it pertains to the war/military intanglements Dems have waged...

I can only think of one - WWII.

On the other hand - we have Wilson’s invasion of Mexico, US sabotage of Italian elections under Truman, Truman's involvement in Korea, Kennedy’s attacks on Cuba, Kennedy/Johnson in Viet Nam, Clinton in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti, and a host of other minor military expeditions carried out at the whim of Democratic-led US governments.

As I said before, I realize that since Viet Nam, SOME have said we should only use war as a last resort, but I certainly can't see calling it a "tradition."

[Donna Zen]

88. Apples and oranges:

The foreign policy/attitude about armed intervention regarding the stance of the two parties has evolved and changed over the past two hundred years. We could discuss the Civil War, which the Democratic party opposed for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, traditionally the republicans had a strong element of anti-foreign intervention among its constituent core. My parents told me that when Democrats were in power we had wars; when republicans were in power we had depressions. They of course were Democrats, but very savvy ones at that.

But that is not the apple or the orange in this case. Comparing the Cold War period, one in which both parties shared a similar foreign policy, with the post-Cold War period, a time of an evolving foreign policy, may make for enjoyable heated arguments, but tend to make for murky thinking.

The current foreign policy being advanced by the republicans is the PNAC agenda. It was natural that without a clearly stated policy that was agreed upon by a majority of the public, the void would be filled with something. The Democratic policy was slowly evolving under Clinton (according to Blumenthal it was the work of Clinton, Holbrook, Albright and Clark) but was not set in stone.

bush presented the new policy at West Point, iirc, in 2002.

By the time 2008 rolls around, the PNAC policy may be so far along that trying to turn it back becomes a work of Herculean proportions.

Anyway, looking at the historical stance of Democrats and republicans is not going to solve anything. We need a new policy for the country. The choice is yours. And that is why I support General Clark...he gets it. A Democratic administration would also need to reconfigure the military, because their policy will call for much more "soft power." (somewhere on the net, maybe Ice's site, is his speech at Johns Hopkins. He is much better than I can ever be at explaining this.)

[wyldwolf]

89. we were discussing TRADITION...

... so the discussion of course deals with the past.

[Donna Zen]

92. If you want to lock the party in the past

to justify their vote for war, I suppose that is your right. Nevertheless, foreign policy is an evolving subject, and hopefully the Dems. will become smart enough to turn the page.

Nevertheless, all of the wars that you site as having resulted from a willingness to use force as something other than a last resort, at the time were sold to the people as exactly that. Some trumped up charge or another was used to gin up for war. Remember the Maine! Actually, you did site WWII, which the isolationist, who were very powerful at the time (besides they were making money) did try to avoid.

Samantha Powers notes that never in our history before Kosovo did we go to war for humanitarian reasons.

Again, whether or not we have a policy of using force whenever we damned well please, even this war--a preemptive war--was trumpeted as a sort of last resort. Mushroom clouds in 15 minutes if we don't do something quickly. Agressive action is a built in no-no in the UN charter.

International law trumps diplomacy, and diplomacy trumps force. That is not a Democratic stance, war as the last resort is the rule for civilized societies.

"Bad things happen when you have wars, that is why you don't want to have them."
~Wes Clark.

[wyldwolf]

93. now where did I say that?

But we were discussing TRADITION. That is the past. That is what the thread about. I try to stay on topic in threads.

Further, I've been discussing and detailing matters of historical fact. I haven't expressed my approval or disapproval of them nor have advocated a position. The question was asked, "what are traditional Democratic values." My answer, among other things, was "a srong military and a willingness to use it."

This is not my opinion or interpretation. This has been a common theme in both the practice of Dem administrations and party platforms.

[Donna Zen]

94. "A strong military and a willingness to use it"

As a traditional policy position, even if we raise the profile of that position to view it as a value by citing it as an agreement to "protect and defend" is a point of agreement. One it seems that is held by various posters on this thread. Where the difference lies is with this statement made in post #84:

"I'm merely stating a fact that the Democratic party has seldom if ever went to war as a last resort. It's a fact I see you're uncomfortable with, but it is a fact nevertheless."

First, the wars you refer to were presented to the public as "the last resort." Yes, the actual reasons that started those wars were often invented, but if the policy position hadn't included the concept of "the last resort" there would have been no need for the Democrat in office to use propaganda. It was not the policy, nor was starting wars a traditional value of the party.

Furthermore, to confuse the act of individuals with a traditional value of the party is not a presentation of "fact" but an obfuscation of the reality of what the Democratic Party stated as their position.

Until bush's speech at West Point, no matter how duplicitous the actions of our leadership, the concept of "preventive" war, as defined by that speech which redefined the understanding of "preemption," was not a policy of either Democrats or republicans. Whether or not you are personally advocating for the idea, you are advancing the theory that Democrats have embraced that position as a "traditional value." I disagree, and believe that congressional Democrats are remiss in their duties for not challenging it.

[wyldwolf]

96. demonstrate to me...

...how the wars I refer to were presented to the public as "the last resort." Quotes? Links?

and, again - and you can read it in the party's platform over the years - this has been a common theme in both the practice of Dem administrations and party platforms - "A strong military and a willingness to use it"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

91. One word:

Word.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kenny blankenship]

37. The most important one that is being lost is

the willingness to fight for what you say are your principles. Saying what you believe in is all very well; upholding what you say you believe in is another thing altogether. Many of the principles listed by respondents above could also be claimed by the Republicans. But the Republicans are insincere when they appropriate fairness and equality of opportunity. And unfortunately many Democrats claiming traditional Democratic values have ALSO been insincere, talking about fairness while acceding to or actively advancing an elitist political economy which is more properly the goal of the Republican Party, betraying the base of the Democratic Party and the Party's traditional values, for their hopes of a spot at the corporate trough.

[geek tragedy]

41. Sticking up for "the little guy." eom

[Raiden]

43. Populism -- Plain and simple

On any given issue, you can expect (or rather SHOULD expect) Democrats to stand up for the working PEOPLE.

[LittleClarkie]

44. At the Dem booth at our State Fair, some seemed to think FDR

and going all the way back to the New Deal populism was the ticket.

[wyldwolf]

46. If the party today mirrored FDR's platform 100%...

many heads on DU would explode.

There's a reason the left broke with the party in 1948...

[ulysses]

48. perhaps, but it's not the left

that's made headlines by tearing holes in what's left of the New Deal.

[wyldwolf]

49. then I guess it would be safe to say...

..that not too many people in the party - left or moderate - would be too happy if FDR's agenda was inacted 100% today.

[ulysses]

51. well, as has been pointed out to me ad infinitum,

we can't be purists about these things.

The man ran four presidential campaigns starting over seventy years ago. Add to that FDRs own patrician heritage and sure, I'm sure there are aspects of those platforms I'd not be happy about in todays world. It's a bit disengenuous, however, to demand 100% acceptance of those platforms 70+ years on when what people mean when they pine over the Roosevelt era now is the New Deal.

edit: added "era"

[Ian_rd]

47. I hate to sound like a troll ...

... but I believe the values that the Democratic Party once had - especially those of economic justice, have taken a back seat to the party's marriage to Corporate America. Some Dems voted for CAFTA after all, which is easily the biggest blow to the working class since NAFTA and the WTO.

As far as racial justice, those values are being skillfully co-opted by the Republican Party (look at G.W.'s cabinet - you can't deny it). Which is rather strange, because the party relies on rascists as one of it's reliable voting blocks.

[ulysses]

50. out of curiosity, Writer,

what's your take on what they are?

[ulysses]

61. I'm quite sincere, btw.

I'd very much like to know.

[MissMarple]

53. Civil rights,national security,a fair chance for individual prosperity,

maintaining a strong and knowledgeable citizenry. All of these work together to the benefit of all, no matter how lucky or unlucky you have been in life. And all of the others contribute to the all too essential national security.

IMHO. What are your thoughts?

[theboss]

54. Commitment to labor should be issue #1

Civil rights has only been a big part of our agenda since the late 60s. Labor has been the issue since the 30s.

And frankly, without labor rights, civil rights don't mean as much.

[MissMarple]

58. well, I always view labor rights as a logical extension of the prosperity

thing. Also, if we have fast numbers of workers who live on and over the edge of poverty, we have compromised our overall prosperity as well as our national security. And civil rights are based on the Bill Rights and the subsequent amendments. Labor rights, in other words, with their living wages, safety protections, health benefits and pension funds keep America strong and help insure for the general prosperity. As has the public education system.

I think Democrats, at least in the past, have understood that a strong middle class, not a rich corporate few, is the strength that keeps America a free and democratic republic.

on edit: Here's the Preamble:

" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So... maybe the prosperity thing comes under general Welfare and ensuring domestic Tranquility. Labor and farmers became quite incensed with their plights in the 19th century and early 20th century. Keeping things fair and just for them help maintain domestic tranquility.

How does that sound? :)

[More Than A Feeling]

55. The core Democratic value is optimism about the future

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." -FDR

Democrats have always believed that human beings and societies have the power to make the future better than the past. That people who are given fresh opportunities can rise above their birth status, or their unsavory past. This has manifested itself in Democratic support for equal access to public education as a means of raising the impoverished into the working class, and the working class into the middle class. It also appears in the liberal foreign policy belief that America can help pull developing countries out of poverty, and that closer relationships among rival countries can prevent war. Finally, it leads to working on longterm projects like equal rights for all, because we believe that in the future, there will be enough for all, if we are given the power to bring our ideas to life. Therefore, new rights for others does not inflame insecurity within us.

To be a Democrat means that no matter how bad things look now, or how much the Republicans have screwed everything up, Democrats can make it better in the future, and that gives us hope. None of us would be here if we thought the problems of America had no solution.

[frankly_fedup2]

57. Family, honesty, helping those that are less fortunate, volunteerism,

community, having a conscience, knowing in your gut when something is wrong, love with pride of our Country, strong convictions, tender hearted.

I could put all kinds of things, I just know how I feel and how bad I want to fight the injustices of the Bush Administration. I don't have a clue as to where to begin though. We need to take our country back from these PNAC extremists.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Probably bad ones.

Remember that 160 years ago the Democrats opposed the abolition of slavery, and I'm sure that 100 or maybe even 75 or 50 years ago most of them would have been against abortion, racial equality and gay rights.

The values of the Democratic party are relatively modern, not traditional, although they're none the worse for that.

I do wonder what the citizens of 2050 or 2100 will think of today's politics.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Here are a few ideas about the values that Democrats stand for

This was excerpted from Wes Clark's speech in Maine yesterday. Didn't want to re-post the whole thing, but didn't want to cut it up too much, so I bolded what I thought were his points that talked to your question about Democratic values.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrats stand for family values. That's a message that will not only ripple across America, we want it to rocket across America.

Because our values are the values that it takes to have and nurture a family. Values like believing in the importance of having real employment. Democrats know how to build a strong economy, and create jobs.

We believe in family values like education, because if you can't get a good education for your kids, they're not going to be able to provide for their families.

We believe in family values like health care, because if you don't have strong health care, you can't take care of a family. So this is a Democratic Party of family values.

We're also a Democratic Party that has strong faith. It doesn't matter what church you belong to, or temple, or whether you have your own spirituality, by yourself or with groups, it doesn't matter. But, Democrats lead in faith. Because what's common to every religion I've ever been associated with or studied, is one simple fundamental principle, and that is those who are more advantaged in life should reach out and help those who aren't so advantaged.And that's what this party stands for.

...

And one thing Democrats know very clearly, we believe in a strong national security. But we will use all the instruments of national power before we use the military. The military needs to be used only, only, only as a last resort.

So that's what Democrats stand for, and that's why this country needs strong Democratic leadership in office.

[powergirl]

62. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED

:grouphug:

[usregimechange]

63. Living wage.

[Writer]

64. I'm really sorry, but I need to cut this off somehow...

simply because I'm busy cutting and pasting and don't have to time to paste anymore of these wonderful comments.

Thanks to all DU'ers. You're the best! :hi:

[Donailin]

67. watchin seinfeld, letting my teens have a glass of wine with dinner

and being more informed than authoratative figures so I can clean their clock in debates.

plus all that stuff in post#8. :-)

[CWebster]

71. Odd that it even needs to be questioned.

Wonder if Durbin, Kennedy, Boxer, Harkin, Feingold, Kucinich, Lee, Waters, Conyers, McDermott, etc. even need to ask?

[rhett o rick]

75. Great idea. When you think you have a consensuse, i would like to

have a link to them from DU.

[Vinca]

79. #1 value: we don't slaughter people willy nilly.

In addition, we want prosperity for all, not just the wealthy. We want universal health care. We want jobs to remain in the United States. We want to keep our noses out of women's reproductive organs. Most of us don't care if Joe and Fred get married if that makes them happy. We think family "values" is more than a campaign slogan. Whenever anyone asks me the difference between Republicans and Democrats I always tell them we care about everybody, they care about themselves.

[journalist3072]

80. Democratic values

Here are some of the issues that I want to believe are Democratic values:

1. We stand for equality and civil rights. We understand that unfortunately, the playing field has not yet been leveled, so we stand for protecting affirmative action.

2. We stand for quality public education. We support the teachers who touch our children's lives.

3. We stand for keeping faith with the American people, realizing that those in public service must always be honest with the people they serve. We believe in course correction, and always being a part of the reality-based community.

4. We stand for healthcare for all Americans.

5. We believe that we are not in this world alone, and so it is important to build alliances and forge partnerships with other nations.

OK--I know there is more I can write, but my brain is fried!

[Donna Zen]

82. The Common Good

It is not one child's education, it's that all children need to be educated

It is not if you have health care, it's that all Americans have health care.

It is not about one person having civil rights, it is about all Americans enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

^^^^^^^^^^

The list goes on. Americans have been swayed into thinking that this country was founded on Me, Me, Me... but that is not the strength of our nation. A democracy is built on US--out of many one. An educated, healthy, and free citizenry is what keeps us strong.

Both parties should care about this, but since the republicans would sooner champion greed, we can only hope that one party will shape up and start voting for the "Common Good." People refer to our representatives who vote for the Common Good as liberals, when actually, they are just doing their job.

Oh, and since a bogus useless war is currently threatening to destroy this democracy, I would think that understanding that issue's importance is vital.

Everyone's talking about freedom, but no body's talking about justice.

[theboss]

95. Read "The Boss" by Mike Royko

Learn about Dick Daley and how he ran his city.

He is probably the most "traditional" Democrat since FDR.

That should tell you everything you need to know.

[patcox2]

97. Listen to Franklin Roosevelt, the four freedoms, and more

"The basic things expected by our people of their political
and economic systems are simple. They are :
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a
wider and constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, the basic things that must never be
lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of
our modern world. The inner and abiding straight of our
economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree
to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for
immediate improvement. As examples :
We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age
pensions and unemployment insurance.
We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or
needing gainful employment may obtain it.
I have called for personal sacrifice, and I am assured of
the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that
call. A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more
money in taxes. In my budget message I will recommend that
a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for
from taxation than we are paying for today. No person
should try, or be allowed to get rich out of the program,
and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability
to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our
legislation.

If the congress maintains these principles the voters,
putting patriotism ahead pocketbooks, will give you their
applause.
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four essential human
freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression --everywhere
in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his
own way-- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world
terms, means economic understandings which will secure to
every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants
--everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into
world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to
such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation
will be in a position to commit an act of physical
aggression against any neighbor --anywhere in the wold.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite
basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and
generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of
the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators
seek to create with the crash of a bomb."