Patrick Belton, over at Oxblog posts about a new group calling itself 'Truman Democrats'; I definitely want to know more about this, but on a quick scan, I want to sign up...
The co-directors of the Truman National Security Project just sent us their interesting thoughts toward how Democrats can gain public trust on security as the party of principled strength; among other things, they explore the relationship between Realism and Wilsonianism within the Democratic party, as well as the putative values gap. Since one of the directors of the Truman Project happens to be my wife, Rachel, I'm happy to include their thoughts in full here.It’s been just two weeks since the polls closed, and Democrats have accepted that their defeat stemmed from losing the values-debate. But in the first minutes after the election, conventional wisdom served up another theory for the Democratic loss: Americans don’t trust Democrats to protect them from terror. These voting blocks were only three points apart. But these theories are in danger of becoming mutually exclusive. Instead, they need to be unified. Americans want a candidate with a strong moral vision, and a commitment to their security. For Democrats to win elections again, we must embody strength, with principle.
Good luck on this to every sensible Democrat. The Leftists will fight it tooth and nail, as your views and theirs are incompatible.
You could sign up ... here.
That's important. But...
Equally important, Democrats are so impatient for "social justice" that, rather than arm people to achieve it on their own, they feel justified taking other people's money to get there fast. Yet, in the end, they often don't reach that justice, they just cover up the original problem.
Did Truman believe in that?
Truman was a New Deal Democrat. YMMV.
Hmm. Maybe the concept is a good idea, but the name "Truman Democrat" strikes me as odd. Didn't Truman incinerate 100,000 innocent women and children? It's sort of like being a "Nixon Republican" or a "Hitler Socialist" -- it's a bad marketing strategy.
>>Equally important, Democrats are so impatient for "social justice" that, rather than arm people to achieve it on their own, they feel justified taking other people's money to get there fast. Yet, in the end, they often don't reach that justice, they just cover up the original problem.
Yep. That's the Democrats all right.
Thieving communists.
The comment about Truman "incinerating" 100K "innocent women and children" is indicative of the problems Democrats face in convincing the public they are serious about National Security.
Truman had the following choices: a. Hold hands with the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces and sing Kumbaya; b. a massive Okinawa style invasion that would have killed half a million allied forces, millions of Japanese; or c. Drop the bombs.
Even so, it was a near thing and the younger officers nearly pulled off a coup to keep fighting (and inflict massive casualties to "persuade" the Americans to leave Japan alone).
Most Democrats want to pretend that Barney and Puff the Magic Dragon will hold hands with bad guys and resolve everything by singing. That might work in Kindergarten, but once you get past the Sesame Street phase reality sets in.
I hope that my party will get serious
Hmm, it seems that the name could be a good filter for suitable membership - if you think that "Truman Democrats" is appropriate, then you're a potential member; on the other hand, if you think that it's inappropriate because Truman was a Bad, Bad Man, then you're probably not the sort of person that the group is looking for.
"incinerate 100,000"
Ah! You are not a Truman Democrat, you are a knee-jerk Democrat. If you are going to be a good Democrat... or a good Republican, for that matter... then you'd better get a Sense of Time and of your place in it. Learn from history; don't be a hostage to it.
Both wise pacifists and generals understand war is a nasty place to be. They simply disagree about how to avoid it. Socrates didn't want to fight, but when necessity struck, he fought fiercely.
Your job is to learn from Truman--and the other Presidents--about the sensible things they did. If you discount those lessons because they did something else you didn't like, you are more stupid than you need to be.