Are Democrats Regretting Trying To Out-Hawk Trump?
Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.) thinks Democrats should return to their antiwar roots—and be open to negotiating with Russia.

The Democratic Party has been trying to paint negotiations as appeasement. During the 2024 elections, the Democratic platform condemned then-candidate Donald Trump's "fecklessness" on Iran and "love letters" to North Korea. When Trump argued that the U.S. should negotiate with countries like Iran and Russia over economic sanctions, Kamala Harris' campaign attacked his "weak" and "reckless foreign policy."
But some Democrats seem to regret taking that line. "Being afraid to negotiate, to my mind, is the ultimate sign of weakness because it just proves that you think that if I get in a room, you're going to trick me and I'm going to do something stupid," Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.) said during a panel discussion Wednesday.
Smith, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, was speaking to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an antiwar nonprofit where I worked as a researcher in 2020 and 2021. When asked by Quincy Institute Vice President Trita Parsi whether Democrats were seen as warmongers, Smith admitted that the party "walked into that problem."
The congressman argued that Democrats must "much more aggressively embrace diplomacy. I think we should have been much louder during the Biden administration." He claimed to have always believed "that the Biden administration should have directly talked to Russia," although not in a way that led to "shutting off Ukraine and leaving them completely vulnerable the way Trump just did."
Smith concurred with Parsi's claim that Democrats could "reclaim the position as the party that actually promoted diplomacy, opposed stupid wars."
Not all Democrats agree with Smith's criticism, of course. During confirmation hearings for Trump appointee Elbridge Colby last week, several Democratic senators doubled down on a hawkish line of attack, complaining about Trump's eagerness to talk to Russia. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.) put it the most bluntly: "Trump is in the middle of a capitulation, not a negotiation."
At the Quincy Institute event, Smith blamed "pressure from the right and pressure from the left" for the Democrats' muddled stance. The Democratic Party is trying to balance between Republicans, who call Democrats weak in the face of adversaries, and leftists, who believe that Democrats are in bed with "neoconservative global dominance visions" and "jump all over us for anything we do," he argued.
"My father used to have this expression that between two stools, you sit on the floor," Smith concluded.
Smith isn't the first person to note the problem of the "defensive crouch" in Democratic foreign policy. By accepting hawks' "framing of the issues" and trying to win on those grounds, Democrats often "box themselves in to continuing policies that they have previously declared failures," journalist Daniel Larison wrote in 2021, several months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine began.
Rather than drumming up public support, Democrats' hawkish turn has hurt them politically. Americans disapproved of former President Joe Biden's handling of Russia and Ukraine by 22 percent in 2024, but a slim majority approved of Trump's handling of the issue by February 2025, polls showed.
Trump's more hawkish proposals—taking over Gaza, Greenland, and Canada—poll very badly. A new poll released by CNN on Wednesday shows that a slim majority thinks that Trump is not "an effective world leader." It's not that Trump's foreign policy is particularly popular; it's that Democrats' hawkish approach has been particularly unpopular.
Beyond criticizing the domestic politics of hawkishness, Smith acknowledged that it's "simply not possible to have that level of dominance" over the entire world that the U.S. had after World War II or the Cold War. "We're going to have to look for partnerships, alliances and a little bit more flexibility on the whole democracy, autocracy thing, in order to build that stable world that we envisioned," he said.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Poll in one hand, shit in the other...
The “great reset”.
The capitalist free market economy is based on the simplest principle of all, fuck or get fucked.
Our economists and politicians manipulate the details in a feeble attempt to make it a “gentle fucking”. One where both parties can coexist, albeit unhappily on unequal grounds.
Trump doesn’t fuck gently. Never had to learn to.
Well, America is now a pariah, blatantly supporting genocide when it suits them. Many western nations are too, just still trying to be “gentle” while advocating and supporting Zionist genocide in Gaza.
Trump’s “reset” is simply to reaffirm that “might makes right”, it doesn’t, not in a civilized free society anyways.
Might does make right in the satanic Zionist fascist new world order that Trump is advocating.
Refuted!
And, as usual, retarded.
You should be deported like that a Syrian scumbag. Are you an Islamist? You’re always so scared to say. Which makes sense, as you are a gutless pussy and a coward.
Oh, and refuted.
How naive. The Democrats are antiwar when it suits their interests against their domestic enemies, and prowar to promote a globalist agenda. Then, they team up with the neocons to do so. The 60s are long over.
The Democrats are antiwar when it suits their interests
That is where I landed. There were plenty of people who opposed U.S. involvement in Vietnam on principle, but the bulk of the Democrat opposition was really just anti-Nixon.
The same thing applies to free speech.
There was Democratic opposition to LBJ's Vietnam war too. Remember their 1968 convention, and LBJ refusing to run for re-election.
This is true. It's my view that the left's opposition to Vietnam was really about not wanting to fight communists.
It was partly that, partly opposition to the draft and partly actual opposition to our involvement in the war (etc.). There's never just one thing that anything is "really about".
Or it might be the observation that poor people got drafted and rich people went to graduate school.
You don't have to go back that far, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were only 23 years ago. Where was the pink hat brigade opposing US intervention in Ukraine for the last 3 years?
They only say they have a problem with Russia because they told their rank-and-file that the Russians hacked the 2016 election.
Which party voted against aid for South Vietmam in 1975?
No they didn't.
They told the rank and file that Russia actively supported Trump (which they did).
Yes they did. They claimed that Russia "interfered" in the US elections in 2016-- which included but was not limited to literal hacking. If all they did was claim Russia "supported" Trump (which they didn't in 2016, BTW) then Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would be in jail right now over the UK interference in the 2020 election.
"But Rick James, you sharp-witted man of history with an amazing long memory," I hear you say, "no one would run an 8-year long criminal probe into a candidate merely because a foreign nation 'supported' them during an election! There had to be something there!"
You're correct, there was something there... the 'there' was the assertion that the Russians did more than "support" Donald Trump, it's that they materially interfered, including, but not limited to literal hacking.
If all they did was claim Russia "supported" Trump
And, once again and as usual, if all they did was support Trump then we've deported an awful lot of people for an awful lot of behavior that was an awful lot more like *necessary* free speech/association than Kahlil and Co.'s occupation of property that wasn't theirs.
It goes back further than that, it started in the days of Bush the Younger. They needed to find another bogeyman to take the place of Middle Eastern terrorists. It started with changing the bad guys in the movie Sum of all Fears from Palestinian terrorists to Austrian (really Austria?) neo Nazis. From there they kept moving east….more and more Russian either Mafia or government officials. Other than the few movies that show combat in Iraq or Afghanistan against locals can you name a single movie since 2002 that has a Middle Eastern villain?
Yeah, it's always somebody else's fault.
Funny how he think there's anyone to the left of the Dems. What, he's worried about Mao and Lenin all of a sudden?
Also makes me wonder what he thinks left and right mean in the context of negotiating with foreigners.
I got an idea: why not just have no foreign policy? Close the embassies, fire all diplomats, close all overseas bases and bring all the troops home, and tell citizens that if you're dumb enough to go hiking near the Iran/Iraq border, or try to distribute Bibles inside North Korea, you're on you own. You want charity, foreign aid? You better convince the public you deserve it, not a bunch of bureaucrats looking for kickbacks.
Sure,
Russia gives back all the land it took and pays reparations for all the damage they did plus the cost of removing ALL the land mines.
Ukraine will go back to not attacking Russia.
China will rethink taking Taiwan by force.
North Korea will rethink taking South Korea.
Seems fair to me.
Because you’re an imbecile
Ukraine will go back to not attacking Russia.
And the US will go back to not moving NATO one inch eastward and we'll stop instigating putsches of their duly elected leaders?
Why do you hate (D)emocracy?
That won’t happen. Amd why weren’t you on about this before now? Russia has been in Crimea since 2014 when Obama did nothing about it.
Democrats are full of bullshit. Time to get rid of them.
Let's try and stick with a realistic plan.
Russia is not giving up land they have gained and that Ukraine is unable to dislodge them from.
It's all about money. War is big money.
"Trump's more hawkish proposals—taking over Gaza, Greenland, and Canada"
TRUMP IS PLANNING TO INVADE GAZA, GREENLAND AND CANADA!!!
Amazing, Petti.
But somehow when Poland joined the EU it wasn't an invasion.
I think we should force Canada to give the Palestinians the Northwest Territories as the official state of Palestine. Move them all to Canada. Give them all a free coat and hat and gloves. Sell Gaza to Trump for $1, to build some hotels on it. It's a win win win win. Canada gets to feel good for not only supporting Palestinians, but actually becoming Palestine. Palestinians get a home. Isreal gets some cool hotels and golf courses. Trump makes money.
I don’t want a bunch of Palestinian filth anywhere near me. No one wants them. Not even other Muslim countries.
We're not going to give them good coats...
Is Petti throwing his hat in the ring with Boehm, Sullum, and Lancaster for Reason’s biggest retard?
Are Democrats Regretting Trying To Out-Hawk Trump?
So there was this election in 2016 where they had an opportunity to regret it, then in 2020... after um, 'fortifying' the election, a doddering old neocon hawk won the Democratic nomination and then went on to win the general election with an astounding, history-breaking, unprecedented 81 million votes-- some of which were won strategically and reluctantly-- then there was this election in 2024 that hasn't seemed to have really sent any clear messages...
then there was this election in 2024 that hasn't seemed to have really sent any clear messages...
Two non-consecutive terms? Survived an assassination attempt? All the swing states? Cleveland did it first, Roosevelt and Reagan did it better. Clearly just politics as usual. Get off your high horse. You voted for a felon.
Mad. Mad, Mad, Mad, you have got to get your sarcasm meter recalibrated. Also, look at the poster's name before responding. That's Rick James, bitch! He's pretty clearly being snarky as fuck.
I know, I know. You have undoubtedly seen people post that sort of crap elsewhere and mean it entirely seriously. Poe's Law has apparently ratified as a Constitutional amendment these days. But it is possible.
>>Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.) thinks Democrats should return to their antiwar roots
totes adorbs a handful of remaining septua/octogenarians still believe the (D) is antiwar lie
Yeah, as was said in the past --- "They were not anti-war. They were pro-the other side"
Now, where will Liz Chaney go?
Thank you. The Democrats are the party of Liz Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Gloria Nuland and Reason's friends at the Bulwark. But some guy thinks they can reclaim their imaginary anti war cred. And Petti thinks this fantasy is somehow viable. Trump is the primary force trying to end war and the Democrats are doing every thing in their power to sabotage his agenda. Just piss off with this bullshit.
Back to her coffin shortly before sunrise?
What "antiwar" roots?
When Democrsts hold the Presidency they are fairly belligerent. After years of saying George W. Bush's War on Terror actions were illegal because he only had an authorization to use military force rather than a full declaration of war, they went into the President does not need any by your leave from Congress when Obama wanted to intervene in the Syrian Civil War.
There is no principled antiwar roots in the Democrat Party.
There is no principled antiwar roots in the Democrat Party.
Ever. All the way back. Never antiwar, at best just anti-defense spending and even then generally only as popular or a political ploy and still willing to undermine, assassinate, or destroy their opposition with force.
.
I am skeptical that the "stable world" they envisioned is possible.
“Are Democrats Regretting Trying To Out-Hawk Trump?”
How exactly is Trump a ‘hawk’?
Democrats regret human existence, especially theirs.
To be fair, I also regret their existence.
Democrats don't really stand for anything other than opposition to the republicans and the vast majority of independents.
Omigosh! The Dems put their fingers into the wind and determined that they should OPPOSE TRUMP ... no, wait ... AGREE with Trump ... er ... um ... flip flop!
"Being afraid to negotiate, to my mind, is the ultimate sign of weakness because it just proves that you think that if I get in a room, you're going to trick me and I'm going to do something stupid," Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.) said during a panel discussion Wednesday.
I'd love to think the awareness is refreshing but I'm pretty sure that really, like an LLM spitting out a string of words that it probabilistically determines that the user wants, the lack of awareness is redundantly hilarious.