It is usually said that in foreign policy the Democrats are the “doves” – they prefer negotiation to war – and the Republicans are the “hawks” – they prefer an aggressive foreign policy. Looking at the 7 presidents (skipping Ford) during the Cold War, from Truman to Reagan (4 Democrats, 3 Republicans), to what extent is this really true?
Someone might be able to provide a better answer, but I would say that the hawk/dove dichotomy is not meant to line up directly with party affiliations. Rather, it is meant to differentiate between policymakers seeking war and peace, regardless of party affiliation, and the labels are only used during times when conflict seems imminent. The first labeling of "War Hawk" that I know of was given to some members of the Democratic-Republican Party (as opposed to the Federalist Party) during the run-up to the War of 1812.
Being more aggressive is the definition of a hawkish policy, and being more peaceful the definition of a dove.
Should this question be "to what extent is it true that Democrats" try to negotiate while "Republicans prefer an aggressive stance?" - in other words are democrats doves and republicans hawks?
Or is it a question about perceptions - ie. do (US?) leaders who are perceived as hawks (eg. Reagan) fight more wars compared to those perceived as doves (eg. Carter)?