From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:09:12 GMT

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

>Freeze.  This is a post hoc argument.  You could certainly argue the
>point if you chose.  (E.g. you could argue that even without a formal
>policy of MAD that the threat of nuclear weapons use was a deterrent.)

No, you cannont argue this. Anything less than mutual destruction
would have left the temptation open for either side to attack, win,
and survive. After seeing what the Soviet power elite did to its own
population and environment to stay in power, your argument is
ridiculous.

>>That's the
>>primary reason why (with the exception of Carter) we have had
>>Republican presidents for the last 25 years. 

>Hmm.  If you use a post hoc argument to back up another post hoc
>argument, does the penalty double? :-)  I think the economy was at
>least as much of an issue in 1980, and things weren't that great in
>1976, either.

I stand by my statement. Cold war foreign policy has been the
Republican's strong suit for the last 30 years.

>>The US has historically
>>demonstrated that after a war, it is very likely to bring in the
>>opposition party. 

>They do?  Let's see:  

>After the War of 1812, Monroe succeeds Madison; nope.
>After the Mexican War, Whig Zack Taylor did win; yup
>  (note that Taylor was a War Hero nominated by the Whigs out from under Polk)
>After the Civil War, the US returns Republicans in the next 4 elections; nope
>After the Spanish American War, the US votes in Republicans until 1912; nope
>After WWI, the Republicans *do* in fact tacke over in 1920; yup
>After WWII, Truman does manage to win again; nope
>The Korean Conflict is tricky, since hostilities cease in 1953, right after
>    the election; you make the call.
>After Vietnam, the White House does change hands, but nobody really thinks
>    that was the reason; technically yup.

>In my book, 4 out of 8 (at best) is not "very likely", and I don't
>think you've proved much about causality.

Can we stay in the 20th century, please? It is hard enough to compare
the US as a nation in 1812 to the one we know today, let alone
presidential election dynamics (was Monroe even popularly elected?).

>>Foreign policy is not thrilling when you win, but it is a whole other
>>ballgame when you lose. 

>I don't understand this sentence.

I will explain it for you. When a country makes foreign policy
decisions, and most of its major policy objectives (not all, 
mind you) are gained, it did not lose. The major US foreign policy
objective since WWII has been the containment and defeat of Soviet
expansionism. The office of the president's main function is foreign
affairs, not domestic policy (that is the primary domain of Congress).
Voter's during the cold-war continually turned to Republican
candidates because their policies of non-appeasement and a strong
defense were viewed as better than the Democratic policies of
unenforcable treaties, and less emphasis on a strong military. One of
the reasons Carter was elected was that he was the strongest advocate
of a strong military when compared to all other Democratic hopefulls
in cold-war era. That, and a public backlash against Nixon's Watergate
antics are the reason for his election.


>Proof by statement?  How do you know this?  I'm a bit young to say
>much about McGovern other than he denounced the failed US war in
>Indochina, 

How about the fact that Clinton (with his wife Hillary) worked on
McGovern's national election campaign. Is that enough to say Clinton
looked up to, and believed in McGovern's platform, maybe enough to say
he was a political mentor?


>What precisely are you trying to get at with
>your blanket statement?

Only that Clinton is a political leftist in the
McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis tradition in moderate clothing.

>Neither Mondale nor Dukakis have been allowed anywhere
>near the Clinton campaign, and their campaign chairs have been reduced
>to writing these weird columns I sometimes see in the LA Times.

Only to camouflage Clinton's true leftist leanings. Once safely
elected, they will become much more visible.

As a side issue, McGovern been making some remarkable statements,
lately. Since his retirement from the Senate, he bought and is running
a bed and breakfast type place in, I think, Maine. He said on NPR last
month (and I paraphrase): "I think that no one should be allowed to
serve in Congress without first owning a business. I never realized
the impact of laws and regulations passed by Congress have on
business." Clinton's only business experience has been running for
office. Another good point, eh?

>I guess I miss this one, too.  The War of 1812 was your basic failed
>land grab.  I don't *think* Polk's expansionist policies were driven
>by economic problems.  The Spanish-American war was declared in a
>Republican administration, and well after the Panic of 1893.  Our
>entry into World War I was really strange; take that one if you like.
>If you really care to defend the Republican Isolationist position of
>the 1930s, be my guest.  I fail to see an economic cause for the
>Korean Conflict, and The Vietnam (Non-)War was an outgrowth of US
>activities in the region begun in the Eisenhower administration; and
>how in the world could you argue that this one was caused by US
>economic problems of the time?

Let's stay in the 20th century. See above.

As far as Vietnam, outgrowth of Kennedy's policies or not, it is
Johnson's war, and it did solve the recession we were in during the
mid 1960's.

>I sleep more uneasily in the knowledge that our president capriciously
>invaded Panama and dealt so ineptly with Sadam Hussein that we ended up
>having to send half a million troops into the desert to straighten the
>whole thing out.  Your sleep cycles obviously differ.

Bush put together a coalition of Arabs (rivaling Carter's
accomplishments), with a stated objective for the war - removal of
Hussein's army from Kuwait and his threat to world's greatest oil
reservses in Saudi Arabia. When the objective was achieved, the force
was dispanded. Wish I could say as much for Vietnam.

>jking
				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17344 alt.politics.clinton:11021