Zell Miller recently started an organization called Democrats for Bush. Now Miller is often pilloried for being a Republican in sheep's clothing and called upon to just switch parties already. But to him, the current crop of Democrats has departed from the traditions of Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

Quotes like:

From Truman's 1948 Inaugural Address Inaugural Address

or


JFK said those words on the morning he was shot. President John F. Kennedy: 11/22/63

Miller is organizing a group called "Democrats for Bush". Democratic Senator Blasts Kerry at Rally




Two questions for Debate:

1. Are the views of historical Democrats closer to those of Bush or closer to those of Kerry?
2. Can a current Democrat publicly endorse Bush without being run out of the party?

In answer to the questions:

1. Militarily, of course, historical Deomocrats are closer to the Republicans than to most current Democrats. Witness Kennedy's dealings with Cuba and the Soviets, for example. I think that economically, however, the difference isn't nearly so great.

2. Can a current Democrat publicly endorse Bush without being run out of the party? Probably not. On the other hand, I doubt you'd see a Republican endorse Kerry without a political lynching, either. It does seem to go both ways, in these times.

To answer question #1.. I believe there are many like myself and my wife, who about 12 years ago looked around our party and found there was not one Democrat we could vote for. Not from the local to the national arena was there one Democrat we felt represented us. So we became independents. Now we are forced to vote for Republicans because they more closely represent the Democratic principles and ideals we were taught as children by our parents and grandparents, who were life long Democrates. Both my wife and I have voted in every election since we had turned twenty-one and made this change in our early fifties.

So, IMO, the views of earlier Democrats to FDR & JFK were more inline of today's Moderate Republican.

Question #2.. One of the things I have come to detest about many Democrats is their vilification of anyone and anything that does not agree with them. I've seen it from school board meetings all the way to the "HATE BUSH" Ranters.

So IMO, any Democrat that publically supports Bush is in for very hard time from the people in her/his party. They might as well come on over to the independents, we're a lot happier people.

1SG

1. Are the views of historical Democrats closer to those of Bush or closer to those of Kerry?
On Domestic Policy, the Economy, etc historic Democrats line up with the views Kerry holds.

I don't believe that you can really compare their views on foreign policy to modern times because we live in a different world. In their day we lived in an era of Cold War. America had a foreign policy that it would not allow communism and dictatorships to spread.

After all of that ended we had a period of prosperity where not much of anything happened. You cannot compare the 50's to 70's to the post 9/11 world. President Bush reacted to the event and I think that if you had a chimp in office they would have reacted the same way -- the American people wanted payback and someone to be held responsible. Now his actions after Afghanistan are what is questionable to me and I think the democrats would have handled better.

Bush does not hold the principals of any of those historical Democrats and even severely departs from the principals of his own party on many issues.

2. Can a current Democrat publicly endorse Bush without being run out of the party?

No, not unless they want to do their party a disservice. The same, however, goes for Republicans. People here on AD can scarely critisize Bush, even if facts are on their side, without taking heat. It would be career suicide for a republican politician to do so.

I disagree.

The Cold War, for the most part, can be portrayed as the United States facing off against the biggest perceived threat of the time (the Soviet Union and the spread of Communism). The US sought after Allies, but did not limit itself to conforming to the decisions made by those Allies. Thinking back, the US set the agenda, and whoever was on board (usually for their greater good) was on board.

The same play is unfolding today. Just as there was early opposition to the dominant United States in the 1940s, there is resistance today. There was a desire for Allies in the past, but the US did not wait for the the decisions reached by those Allies to reach a quorum. Do you think Truman would have run the decision regarding dropping the bomb past the Allies? He led by example, for good or for ill. He made his decision and then went to bed, content that after all deliberations were over, HIS decision was the final one. He did not wring his hands about what his Allies would think. He did not wring his hands over what the Soviets would think. He led and he made decisions. His decision was based as much upon the future threat of the Soviets as it was on the current military threat of Japan. He was forward thinking and I would argue, a preemptive attempt to contain the Soviet menace by attacking another, weakened enemy.

History is repeating the same drama again. The Soviet menace has been replaced by the Islamic Fundamentalist menace. There are some who still fail to see the threat, just as there were those who failed to recognize the Soviet threat. There are those that oppose the US taking bold action in its own interest without the approval of its Allies. The final stroke against Saddam is the initial stroke against Islamo-fascists. It provides a warning shot across the bow, putting the enemies of America on notice that we are willing to act in our own defense.

1. Are the views of historical Democrats closer to those of Bush or closer to those of Kerry?

This is tricky, you can find similarities between all the Presidents. There are so many factors to consider I don’t know if you can make a solid argument either way. It'll be interesting to see the responses.

2. Can a current Democrat publicly endorse Bush without being run out of the party?
You really can’t get ‘run off’ in the sense you’re forced to register with another party. The party hard liners will dismiss you as a kook and after your 15 minutes of fame the media will ignore you as well.

Same would happen with a Republican stumping for a Democrat. I think it’s great when a person can break from the party in support of the opposition, it just may not be the best career move.

Ok, point taken. I would agree that terrorism and islamic fundamentalists have effectively replaced what the Soviet Union and others were to the US in the cold war days.

However... I believe it is still a fundamentally different situation. The Soviet Union, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and their ilk, they were all countries. We engaged those countries, sometimes taking specific action against them. We held negotiations with them, spied on them and they were somewhat held in check because they always had to be concerned with their physical resources.

Terrorists and Islamic Fundamentalists are completely different. There is no state any more, you are fighting a group of people, ideas even. You can't stop the spread of those ideas the same way you can place a military presence in Korea and stop the spread of communism. In many cases, you can't even identify where your enemy is attacking you from or who they are. Terrorists most assuredly cannot be reasoned with or negotiated with as we did so many times with the Soviet Union.

My point is, this isn't the same old problem that can be addressed with the same old strategies. We have to devise new ways to combat this threat. I am by no means a counter-terrorism expert or anything but I would see investigative and intelligence work with small surgical strikes as a tool as being a much better strategy. We shouldn't be invading countries (like Iraq) and trying to use the old model.

Therefore, you cannot really compare the great leaders of the last century to the problems of today. To suggest that was possible would be the same as suggesting that you send infantry against an armored motorized division -- it just wouldn't work.