(edited: 12/21/23)
It is difficult to say who is the more pro-war political party in the U.S. today. For years it seemed it was the Republican Party while the Democrats only reluctantly went along.
Gradually that changed, probably in reaction to the poor treatment received by returning Vietnam vets–themselves victims of a war ideology, as both parties campaigned on strong military support.
When the Russian-Ukrainian war began, both Parties expressed strong support for Ukraine. Republican support gradually faded into a less war-like stance for both budgetary and isolationist reasons. Libertarians, during the current era, tend to reside in the Republican Party and are generally opposed to war. This adds to the strength of the anti-war movement within the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, the Democrats, under a Democratic President who along with most of his predecessors appears stuck in a Cold War mentality, demonstrated enthusiastic support for the anti-Russian military effort. As a result, pre -Gaza, the Democratic Party seemed to be the more pro-war party.
The Republicans, while always having an isolationist wing, seem to have, lately, become more anti-war. It certainly helps, of course, that a Democrat holds the White House. This is very different than during the 60s and the early 70s when the anti-war movement firmly resided on the Left.
The Republicans are not an anti-war party, they are, perhaps, just a little more so than the Democrats; which all together is not much. The Republicans, like their Democratic comrades, love massive military budgets which create jobs within their various territories, and to enhance their flag-waving credentials. Politicians on both sides like to talk tough.
Republican Congressional members strongly support Israel’s war effort in Gaza, which they do in order to maintain their evangelical-fundamentalist base–a base which believes that the Jewish people have a special place in the eyes of God.
The stronger anti-war sentiment in the Republican Party, at least in regards to Ukraine, seems to have started when Donald Trump, of whom I am no fan, correctly stated: “it would be great if we could get along with Russia”. Of course he was correct, and this seems to have pointed some members of the Republican Party towards the heretical thought that the continuation of decades of Western competitive efforts directed at Russia, manifested in European Union and NATO expansion to the Russian borders, might be a stupid idea.
The transformation on war views from the two parties has been strong enough that, when posting anti-war essays on this Page and elsewhere, there have been a few times when members of the Left have accused me of being a Republican. With due respect to my Republican brethren, I am not only far to the left of the Republican Party, I am far to the left of the Democratic Party as well; this does, however, put me in closer alignment with the Democratic Party.
This all kind-of verifies a personal long held view that the two major parties dance around the center until they end-up on the opposite side from where they started. Somewhat like the 1990s when Democratic President Bill Clinton was finishing the charge for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), originally begun during the Reagan Administration. It seemed strange at the time for a Democratic President, the Party traditionally associated with the working class–at that time anyways–of promoting a free trade pact which arguably threatened the domestic labor market.
Changes to the domestic labor markets, given the development of international competition, was likely inevitable; NAFTA, however, enabled the U.S. to exert some control over the direction of the change. It is at that moment, however, that the Democratic Party began to disassociate from its working class roots and to transform into a bourgeois party with progressive values while the Republican Party became a strange brew of rich and reactionary working class folks. But this is all besides the point. The broader point is that the parties have changed.
Perhaps the view expressed here of the Democratic Party’s transformation to that of a more pro-war Party is not completely fair. There is currently a strong demand within the Left for a cease-fire in Gaza. This could be considered part of a broader anti-war sentiment, and if so, might undermine some of what is stated above. The motivations for a cease fire, however, I think have less to do with a general disbelief in war as a solution to international conflict, and more to do with the general shock of the slaughter of the Palestinian civilian population.
To be clear, the argument here is not that either Party is an anti-war Party; neither Party is anti-war, both are very pro-war. The argument is simply, to the extent an anti-war movement exist in either Party, at this moment, the movement might be larger in the Republican Party than it is in the Democratic Party
In any case, it is good there is an anti-war movement, however small it might be, among members of both Parties. We need a lot more of it. I’m just feeling a bit Dazed and Confused, and frankly, disappointed, that I find myself feeling a closer to the Republicans on this issue than to the Democrats.
Postscript:
Generally I try to avoid partisan politics on this Page due to the anger it provokes. So, if you have comments, please express the comments in a civil manner. The path to peace begins with us.