Liberalism and anti-militarism do not necessarily go hand in hand [View All]

[DerekG]

There is a fascinating discussion going on right now, wherein the OP asks us whether Lyndon Johnson was the most liberal president in American history. A portion of posters dismiss the charge, claiming that his genocidal war in Vietnam cancels out the "liberal" label. It seems liberalism is associated with peace.

Yet, in his essay, "Just and Unjust War," historian Howard Zinn points to the progressive administrator's penchant for shrouding barbarous foreign policies in the cloak of idealistic rhetoric; said author asserts we should be *more* wary of these progressives, for they were more successful in masking their crimes, their brutality, through benevolent domestic visions.

And I agree--we should cast a doubtful eye on these human paradoxes.

The great "trust-buster" T. Roosevelt? Did he not play a part in our imperialist venture in the Philippines (+200,000 lives); quite proud of himself for carving up Latin America?

The idealist, Woodrow Wilson? Was he not the man who sent a generation of American boys to die in the cauldron of Europe?

That Fair Dealer and de-segregationist of the armed forces, Harry Truman? The man who atomized two Japanese cities and became quite unpopular for his "police action" in Korea (with the blessings of the U.N.--so that makes everything all right)?



On edit: Changed wording to subject line.