Monday, July 10, 2006

Fighting Over Truman

Noemie Emery has written an article for the Weekly Standard that is getting a lot of play in conservative circles as a response to liberal efforts to revive a Harry Truman-style Democratic foreign policy.

I will reserve comment, hoping that I can defer to the world's foremost Truman expert if he weighs in. But what we have in the Emery column is yet another attempt by conservatives and Republicans to defend their contemporary foreign policy by calling it the heir to liberal Democratic foreign policies. I'm not saying there isn't much to admire about FDR and Truman, but there is more to pre-Ike conservatives and Republicans than isolationism. Why ignore traditions handed down by some of our greatest leaders?

For more on this, see my discussion with Jonah Goldberg.

10 comments:

Stephen said...

I always want to ask conservatives what is/was wrong with Tom Dewey.

Stephen said...

Or, at least, what is wrong with a foreign policy tradition founded in a conversation between Dewey, Taft, and Eisenhower.

Tom said...

Or how about Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, and William Howard Taft?

Paul said...

"How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel, and push those rice-eaters back to the great wall of China. Then take the fucking wall apart brick by brick and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever?"

"All right. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a pussy wimp to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those Commie bastards!"

Stephen said...

I'll take them. Throw in Lodge, Root, Hay, and don't forget Mahan.

greg said...

Don't forget Gifford Pinchot.

Stephen said...

Foreign policy?

greg said...

Just an all around good guy. That's waht we're talking about right?

Stephen said...

I thought we were talking about the Republican Party's foreign policy tradition.

greg said...

Oh. I liked Reagan's foreign policy. I lilked Pinchot's conservation ethic.