Liberalism and anti-militarism do not necessarily go hand in hand

[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.

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. Great post!

Liberalism/progressivism is not, per se, anti-military. A strong national defense canot be had by merely economic and diplomatic means, but requires a credible military deterrent component to be successful. Any fair examintion of our history for the last 100 years shows the folly of our failure to maintain a sizeable, peacetime military force.

[Gman]

2. Gee, does the strong military penchant plus social compassion =

moderate?? Horrors to so many here!

The fact is those that try to adhere to a purely liberal ideology are no different from the purely ideological neocons. Both are out on the fringes. We are watching a train wreck play out where ideological purity prevails over all decisions. A similar train wreck looms if a purely liberal philosophy were to prevail.

[hollowdweller]

3. I think Clinton was the only US president to use the military for altruis-

tic rather than greedy reasons. For prevention of human suffering rather than for greed or pride or other selfish reasons.

[DaveinMD]

4. FDR

I think WWII was a noble war. I wouldn't be alive without it. In fact, we should have gotten in the war sooner.

[Maddy McCall]

7. His reasons for entering the war were not altruistic.

If they had been, then we would have entered upon learning of the slaughter of the Jews.

Instead, we entered yet another war on the side of business interests, particularly in the Philippines.

And there's the matter of the internment of Japanese to consider.

[DaveinMD]

8. FDR

wanted to get into the war for a long time to come to the aid of the British. He didn't think he could politically and he was right about that. His motives for going to war in Europe were correct.

I don't know as much about the war in the Pacific.

[el_gato]

5. You are fooling yourself

you need to look past the rhetoric

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. I disagree...

we had our own selfish reasons for getting involved.