October 6, 2006
Strong on national security?
Matthew Yglesias links to this good article in the Washington Post that points out something totally non-surprising to historians, but possibly newsworthy to other people:
There is a little noticed tendency about the character of national political parties, that is, they tend to trade places or invert positions on critical issues over time ... These profound intergenerational shifts in partisan philosophy and issue identification should serve as a cautionary note to those who would argue that the Republican advantages on war and national security issues are permanent and immutable.
Indeed. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, until World War II changed many of their minds it was the Republican Party that housed the non-serious isolationalist and pacifist tendency in American politics. Not surprisingly it was the Democratic party that had a significant advantage on foreign policy during World War II; an advantage somewhat maintained by Truman in the post-war period.
Being in office, and exercising the foreign policy prerogatives of office, tends to make parties look better able to do what they're doing. Unless you really screw up.
(Source: "The Quarter's Polls." The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4. (Winter, 1944-1945), p.570.)
(Source: Mildred Strunk. "The Quarter's Polls." The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 1. (Spring, 1948), p.166.)