Neocon-PART A--What I find interesting in these 2 Dem. Presidents' 2 foreign policy issues is how both policies were driven by the opponents' core interests not the Presidents' Political interests. Though trade and anti-communism could well be accurate and good national policies, politically such things are not always right to do. More likely, dramatic movement is predicated on political [and political backers] gain.
The Democratic anti-communism, from FDR and Truman, certainly included both conventionally fought wars and proxy fighting, but also preventative aid. Moving from aid to proxy to conventional was dramatically different. Likewise, the Clinton trade agreements were dramatic extensions toward global business, rather than continuing to give heavy consideration to the US workers affected by globalization [and other corporate issues]. The older, compromise position on trade has been vehemently advocated by all unions, among other Democrats. This group is an enormous Democratic political constituency, yet Democratic Clinton fully crossed them.
Summing, the Vwar was a dramatic extension of Democratic foreign policy for the nation, and was not justified by politics [including backers] within the Democrats. Who else created this change, but LBJ political opponents, pushing their interests and, in turn, giving up to the President more of his? The loser--our soldiers. Likewise with Clinton's push on trade. The President and his opponents gain, the rank and file Democrats lose. Lose now, surely , for only the hope of gain, later. |
