Why are Democrats so bad at conducting foreign policy?

Question

Liberals are very big on taking 'the long view' when evaluating their foreign policies. They create horrendous foreign policy disasters, but then eventually, a Republican is elected President and cleans up the mess. They said containment would work and, lo and behold, forty years later -- right at the end of the Reagan administration -- the Soviet Union was stopped dead in its tracks!

Answer 1

They are appeasers first and foremost.

Answer 2

Let's see, in WW II, help the Russians against Hitler or let Hitler run thm over. That's a tough call. I think FDR working with Stalin was a good idea there. Yeah Reagan had to outspend them to put them away ultimately but I'd rather deal with Stalin and the cast of characters that followed than the 3rd Reich.

As far as the current situation, it was spiralling out of control before Bubba got a crack at it. Bush decided that the Middle East situation needed more fire so what better way to get that then to invade 2 countries. The first one was called for, the second one was a bad call. Anything you missed here

Answer 3

I suspect it is because they are forced by their ignorance to play the game of moral equivalency. You know there really is no difference between Communism and capitalism, can't we all just get along. Other countries take advantage of that soft headed thinking, knowing that all they have to do is say the right things and call liberals the right names (if you do not stop Isreal from defending itself you are RACIST)(If you don't give us money you hate the poor, and make people starve) Well you get it. Of course after a republican comes along and sets things right, not only do liberals not credit them but actually denies it happened and gives the credit to some failed democrat( Reagan didn't bring down the USSR it was the policy of containment started by Truman that won the day) or worse denied that a threat even existed Reagan didn't bring down the USSR, they were falling apart for decades) There is nothing so delusional as a liberal democrat

Answer 4

Reagan supported the Taliban against the USSR in Afghanistan. He supported Saddam against Iran while simultaneously trading arms with Iran. Great foreign policy!George W. Bush has been making enemies of just about the entire rest of the world.
No Republican President can come close to matching FDR, Truman, Kennedy, or Clinton at conducting foreign policy.

Answer 5

The Democratic Party really gained its strength from enormous domestic problems here in the US. Since FDR is credited with having "stopped the Great Depression", Democratic candidates gain proxy favor to voters through legacy. Doesn't really mean Republicans are so much better, though they've tended to have more success on the international front.

Answer 6

We've had 7 years of republican leadership w/ George Bush. Can you honestly say that his foreign policy initiatives are working? Obviously not. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Our former allies are now our enemies and they hate us for what our republican leaders have done and the way they've been treated by Bush and Company. (Remember "old europe"?). I'm ready to give the democrats a chance.

Answer 7

Obviously, some people disagree with the "Dancer"!
She seemed to "dance around" the fact that our current administration's foreign policy is a disaster that has:
a) Tarnished America's reputation as a world leader and global peacekeeper;
b) Put American taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, which our great-grandchildren will still be paying off;
c) Created an economic climate in this country which will almost certainly result in the worst depression in U.S. history shortly after Bush leaves office;
d) Continues to allow tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers to die so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful. -RKO- 09/05/07

Answer 8

The USSR failed because
1. it tried to compete as an economic entity
2 high levels of corruption
3 Gorby tried to give the people a LITTLE bit of freedom - that's like being a little bit of a virgin.

If you want to give praise for bringing down the USSR - don't pick Republican Regan, pick the socialist union leader Lech Wałęsa.

BTW - we tried bombing the hell out of Libya - didn't work. But 20 years later, containment got the job done.

Answer 9

Wow I think another retarded blonde tried to act smart lol. Where have you been? Have you seen the forign policy Bush has created in his 7 years! Clinton strengthened our ties with the rest of the world and then Bush came along and destroyed most of what progress was made. But that is just like republicans, always trying to turn america into 11th century europe.

Answer 10

it would be not something different than a waste of money. If each administration investigated the previous one then not something might get accomplished. Democrats have greater considerable issues to do. the final element to do precise now could be purely precise the deliver and flow on. The bush administration had purely 7 months in place of work ideal upto 9/11. as a result ought to not have probable planned it and lined it up in purely 7 months, and as a result the government.ought to not have probable been responsible. LMFAo @Homestamerican and Stephen.

Answer 11

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton’s bill on this matter and called it “totalitarian.” In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled “Banking on Secrecy” published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, “Without the world’s financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world’s financial system of dirty money was short-circuited.”