...at least when it comes to foreign policy.

Except for ageing progressives, Democrats have abandoned progressive foreign policies.



When a prominent Washington peace activist was asked recently to name the leading anti-interventionists in the Senate, he responded, “Rand Paul and Mike Lee,” both Republicans. Democrats are in the midst of a furious struggle over what they stand for and who is included in their coalition, yet on foreign policy questions, their silence is deafening...

The Democratic establishment’s record on foreign policy has been disastrous. Most Democratic leaders supported the war of choice in Iraq, the largest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. They cheered the “humanitarian intervention” in Libya that has ended in the humanitarian horror of a ruined country, racked by violent conflicts, where the Islamic State is consolidating a backup caliphate. They applauded President Barack Obama’s surge in Afghanistan even as that war dragged on year after year. They touted the United States as the “indispensable nation,” demonstrating a predilection for military intervention and regime change that rivals that of Republican neoconservatives. Many considered Obama too weak and too wary of intervention, despite the fact that he left office bombing seven nations, dispatching Special Operations forces to more than 120 countries and calling for increased spending on a military that already consumes nearly 40 percent of the world’s military budget.

The latest evidence of this shift in the left-right paradigm happened Thursday.



No one was more surprised than Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday when her language revoking the administration's war authority was unexpectedly backed by Republicans and added to a must-pass defense spending bill.

“Whoa,” Lee wrote on Twitter following a voice vote that pushed through her amendment to sunset the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Lee’s measure, which prompted applause when it was adopted in the House Appropriations defense bill, would revoke the AUMF eight months after the passing of the defense act, forcing Congress to vote on a new law in the interim.

As even congressional members pointed out, kids are dying in Afghanistan that were in elementary school when the 2001 AUMF was passed.

Whoa. My amdt to sunset 2001 AUMF was adopted in DOD Approps markup! GOP & Dems agree: a floor debate & vote on endless war is long overdue. pic.twitter.com/FS8LfYWo5J — Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) June 29, 2017

Kay Granger (R-Texas) was the lone lawmaker to oppose the amendment.

If this was the only example then it wouldn't mean much, but it isn't the only example.

Consider the question that The Nation asks: ﻿ Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?

Tulsi Gabbard has proposed H.R.608 - Stop Arming Terrorists Act. A common sense, slam-dunk for Democrats, right?

It has only 14 cosponsors.

If you look closely, 8 of those 14 are Republicans.

What was the Democrats reaction to Gabbard's opposition to supporting terrorists in Syria?

This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress. https://t.co/yDTh43GZam — Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 9, 2017

People of Hawaii's 2nd district - was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?1 https://t.co/jbwGuZIJ6R — Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) April 7, 2017

Then there is Trump's bombing of a Syrian airfield in April, and the overwhelming liberal Democratic support.

Basically the Democrats are at least as bad as Republicans, if not worse.



Beyond their support for the Syrian airstrike, top Democrats have disappointing records on issues of war and peace. Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer is a leading supporter of Israel, despite its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi also has a history of hawkishness in the Middle East, as documented by the Institute for Policy Studies. And Hillary Clinton, the Democratic standard bearer in the 2016 presidential election, promoted militaristic solutions to international issues as Secretary of State, as well as during her campaign for President.

Even Democrats like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have failed to articulate a progressive foreign policy. During his presidential campaign, Sanders’s main foreign policy talking point was his vote against the war in Iraq. While he was less hawkish overall than Clinton, Sanders didn’t rule out continuing Obama’s drone program that has killed thousands of civilians.

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the women-led peace group CODEPINK, tells The Progressive that Democrats “have a foreign policy message that is pretty much a continuation of what George Bush had and Obama followed. It’s hard for them to challenge Donald Trump because they have a vision that’s quite similar. I think that the Democrats are really a war party, just like the Republicans are.”

...“The Democrats are never going to lead the progressive movement,” Bennis says. “The movements lead and demand of the Democratic Party that if they want support from the most mobilized, most conscious, and most committed component of their base, they damn well better include a progressive foreign policy vision.”

Obviously there are exceptions, like Lee and Gabbard, and the polls show that Dem voters are more progressive than Repub voters, but the Democratic Party doesn't represent its members anymore.