Liberal Pacifism

For decades, we were told not to worry.  It would be many years before North Korea could put a nuclear weapon atop an intercontinental missile.  The United States was safe and therefore we did not have to take decisive action against the rogue state.

This allowed Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama to engage in appeasement.  They could hold endless talks, offer up buckets full of cash, and propose to build clean nuclear reactors.  All they required in return were promises that the communist regime never had any intention of keeping.

Today the mask has fallen.  Kim Jong-Un’s government has successfully fired long-range missiles and miniaturized nuclear warheads.  As a result, it almost has the wherewithal to hit the continental U.S. and has not been shy about threatening to do so.

Susan Rice has consequently admitted that the Obama administration’s policy of strategic patience failed.  Her solution, however, is to accept the new reality.  After all, we learned to live with a nuclear-armed China.  Why not North Korea—even though its leaders are wildly unpredictable?

President Donald Trump will have none of this.  He has demanded that the communist regime give up its bombs and missiles.  More than this, he has threatened military action to back up his words.  He warned that there would be “fire and fury” if the North did not desist.

What has been the reaction of the Democratic party?  While there have been inconsistencies, over sixty members of congress sent a letter asking the president to stop being provocative, while Keith Ellison, deputy head of the Democratic National Committee, claimed that Trump was less responsible than Un.

As for the national media, Trump has been roundly castigated for his belligerence.  Routinely berated for being too extreme in his language, he is given little credit for standing up against an existential threat.

The point is that the fundamental pacifism of the left is again beginning to show.  Despite the obvious dangers of recent developments, a deep-seated desire for peace at any price befuddles liberal minds.  Instead of calculating what is best for the nation, Trump bashing takes precedence.

Once Democrats understood the importance of peace through strength.  Franklin Roosevelt mobilized the country to defeat the Nazis.  Harry Truman drew a red line in Korea and backed his words with troops.  Even John Kennedy employed military resources.  He used these to get the Soviet Union to reverse course during the Cuban Missile crisis.

The turning point came with Lyndon Johnson’s escalation in Viet Nam.  Many Americans thought the price too high.  They therefore marched and chanted against the conflict.  Ultimately the U.S. was forced to withdraw, with a Democratic congress pusillanimously refusing to further fund the South Vietnamese military.

Although the pacifist-minded George McGovern lost the presidential election to Richard Nixon, the die was cast.  Thenceforward, liberals would be stridently anti-war.  Despite Reagan’s victorious confrontation with the Soviets, they championed a decrease in American power.

Bill Clinton, for instance, although he verbalized support for the military, hoped to use the “peace dividend” on domestic programs.  He virtually had to have his arm twisted to intervene in Kosovo.  As for Korea, he enthusiastically gave in to nuclear blackmail.

Obama, of course, was one of our most pacifist presidents.  When he voluntarily pulled us out of Iraq, one could almost hear him proclaiming “peace in our time.”  Then, after he was compelled to take action in Afghanistan, he set an arbitrary end date to the surge.

The generals cautioned Barack that this was a self-defeating strategy, but he over-ruled these warmongers.  Eventually, once he was obliged to confront ISIS, he instituted rules of engagement that prevented substantial progress.  In addition, more concerned with global warming than with defending American safety, he utterly capitulated to Iranian militancy.

Liberals seem to believe (Obama said as much) that the arc of history is bending toward rationality.  We do not have to protect our future with military assets because we are fated to win without them.  If we are nice to others, they will be nice to us.  It’s that simple!

Forgive me for being skeptical.  Forgive me for wanting to carry Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick—and being prepared to use it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University