Throughout the history of the United States, Presidents have really only ever had two jobs.  The first is to go to war, and the second is to increase their power so they can have more jobs.  And yet, throughout history, there have been presidents who have managed to successfully run as "isolationists".  This seems to be an especially important stance today, because many of the Democratic hopefuls, and even a couple of the Republicans are sounding like isolationists.  But if they were to become President, would that be something worry about?  And if it's not something to worry about if they were to become president, is it even something to take into account when voting for them?

I bring this up in reference to this post that was highlighted on Reason which was asking whether the war is a reason to vote Democrat in '08:

Looking beyond Iraq, I have completely lost faith in preventive war as a way of dealing with nuclear proliferation. Consequently, my sense now is that military action against Iran would backfire badly, perhaps disastrously.

So the knee-jerk hawkishness of the leading Republican candidates sends me running in the other direction. This one, in particular, really gives me the willies.

The implication here is that whatever Democrat comes into office will be much more isolationist, and we'll have a "break from war".  But is that true?  Let's take a scan through our history books shall we?

Thomas Jefferson:  Great President... founding father.  Pretty isolationist.  His inaugural address famously said that he wanted "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."  But, when the leader of Tripoli demanded more tribute, Jefferson had no problems asking and receiving a declaration of war.  Interestingly enough, Thomas Jefferson never vetoed a bill in two terms of office.  Sound familiar?

Woodrow Wilson:  He ran on the platform "He kept us out of the war."  Of course, he also made the decision to send the dough boys to Europe in order to fight in WWI.  Later on he tried to form a League of Nations, which was an utter failure, perhaps as a way to atone for his sins as an interventionist.

George W. Bush:  Not H. W... George W. Bush.  In the second presidential debate against Al Gore, Bush declared "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building".  In fact, that was a major campaign point.  He blasted Clinton and Gore for their intervention in Somalia and the Balkans.  And many Republicans backed him up, saying it was time for the United States to pull back away from being the "World's Policeman".  Ask anyone on the street today, and how many people would remember that at all?

My point is this.  When a Democrat is President, the Republicans blast the wars they participate in as ill timed and poorly managed.  Anyone who disagrees needs to look back at how Newt Gingrich's Congress went after Clinton for Somalia and Kosovo before you comment.  And now when a Republican is in charge, the Democrats are doing the same thing.

But is there really any doubt that if a Democrat were to win next year that s/he wouldn't be just as much of an interventionist as every other President in history when push comes to shove?  That power to fight a war is a lot different when you're in charge, and not just watching from the sidelines.  So while some of the nutty folks at Reason are saying that you should vote Democrat in order to avoid more war, I'm saying that any Democrat who becomes President will be just as likely to go to war as any Republican.  Republicans are just more up front about it.

Am I off here?  I really don't know... but I think it's something to think about.  Discuss.