Is this the Modern Democrat Party?

This exchange is from a transcript of Sunday's Meet the Press:

SEN. GRASSLEY: The president did not declare war on January the 20th in his speech. What he declared is the natural goal of human beings all over the world and that's simply to be free. It's just natural.
REP. RANGEL: By American troops?
SEN. GRASSLEY: It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.
REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.

Put aside the 20th century wars in which the U.S. indeed did fight for other people's freedoms. Could Rep. Rangel be so myopic as to forget the Civil War and the Union soldiers who died in the struggle for "other people's freedom"? Certainly the Democrat party of the Civil War era would have agreed, to paraphrase Rep. Rangel, that no Union soldiers should die for the freedom of America's slaves, but is today's Democrat party prepared to take that position today?

Perhaps this is the persuasive case that the Democrats insist that Sen. Kerry would have made to convince the rest of the world to share the burden in Iraq: We are tired of having our children die for your freedom, so its your turn to die. If Rep. Rangel's view is the predominant foreign policy position of the modern Democrat party, not only does it represent a retro position, but it may once again put the Republicans in power for a long time.