Democrats undermining party´s History including anti-war-1
Rizwan Ghani
April 15, 2008
Despite supporting Obama´s message for change, I don´t approve Obama´s ´shame on you Hillary´ campaign strategy. Come what may men must always be chivalrous towards women. In my view, Obama should review his strategy and tender an apology to Hillary for his line of attack even if he strongly feels he is correct. It will help revive good old American values where men were respectful towards women. Obama must not leave an unhealthy precedent for the millions-both young and elderly- who are watching the election campaign.
In terms of Democrats undermining party´s anti-war history, I would like to remind the Democrats party´s anti-war history to help them end American military occupations across the globe.
Historically speaking liberals and conservatives have opposed each other on every subject including war. A close review of conservatives shows that they look at liberals as some kind of lowly creatures. Or mildly put second to them in social hierarchy. The core of my argument is that if liberals start acting like conservatives they will not be accepted as/turn into conservatives. Similarly, come what may however advanced American society might think it is, the conservative-liberal divide is not going to go away.
The liberals who historically joined Democratic Party therefore should take a realistic account of ground realities and try to uphold Party´s history including rejecting military occupations for following reasons: 1) It is a conservatives war in which liberals are dying. 2) Democrats as working class support pro-business policies not war. Historically Democrats have supported pro-people policies. America´s policy in Iraq has failed which was evident in the CNN documentary in which a mother was shown who while ´servicing´ her clients had to use her three minors to stand guard to avoid being caught by militia, police or religious force. If caught prostituting she would have been executed-end of democracy for Iraq at grassroots and so much for spreading democracy in ME! On the other end within US reportedly the military families have been exposed to all kinds of exploitations including rapes and murders, while on average a family has to pay 100 extra in the counter as three trillion Iraq war piles each American with 21,000 dollars war debt.
The fact of the matter is liberals rich or poor will never be treated as conservatives because they are liberals. Therefore, it is useless for Democrats to show Obama as representing affluent liberals or Hillary having strong blue-collar base. Democrats are democrats because they are not Republicans. It is time to leave politics aside and focus on issues-economy, economy and economy. And for that the Iraq war and Afghan occupation must end.
Liberals have always supported trade, commerce and connectivity at individual, community and global level. In contrast conservatives have by and large maintained their distance. Liberals pursue policies while Conservatives follow doctrines. Instead of commenting on these observations it would be better to quote passages from American history to help readers understand liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.
Conservatism, a general state of mind that is averse to rapid change and innovation and strives for balance and order, while avoiding extremes. Originally conservatism arose as a reaction against the Age of Enlightenment. Conservatives advocated belief in faith over reason, tradition over free inquiry, hierarchy over equality, collective values over individualism, and divine or natural law over secular law. At a given time in a given society, conservatism emphasizes the merits of the status quo and endorses the prevailing distribution of power, wealth, and social standing. Political conservative thought, however, has reconciled itself with constitutional democracy and individual rights as well as with prudent and orderly social and economic change.
Conservatism received its classic formulation in the works of the British statesman Edmund Burke, notably his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), in which he rejected the principles of the French Revolution and presented a comprehensive philosophy of society and politics. Burke viewed society as an organic whole, with individuals performing various roles and functions. In this society a natural elite—by virtue of birth, wealth, and education—is supposed to provide the leadership. The community is held together by venerable customs and traditions; gradual changes can be made, but only when they have gained wide acceptance.
Burke rejected the principles of equality, popular representation, and popular sovereignty. He also rejected the universal franchise and majority rule (the notion that a numerical majority of the citizenry should be empowered to make decisions). He advocated order, balance, and cooperation in society; restraints on government; and, above all, the supremacy of law—natural, divine, and customary. Burke did allow for limited governmental controls calculated to avoid malfunctions and frictions among the various groups and to moderate economic strife and competition. In all probability it explains current stimulus package as profits have been pocketed, losses are being socialized and there is no accountability.
The main currents of American political thought converged throughout the 19th century into a broad consensus that incorporated economic individualism and constitutional democracy with powerful restraints on the government. This had little in common with the conservative doctrines of Edmund Burke; it was in fact closer to liberalism, with the principles of individual freedom and equality taken as self-evident. Thus, the major characteristics of American conservatism emerged as economic individualism, social Darwinism, and nationalism.
Economic individualism accepted the free play of the market and extolled individual acquisitiveness. Individual freedoms and property rights were identified with moral, religious, political, and civil rights. It was assumed that growth, change, and progress derived mainly from individual effort and competition. Wealth was considered proof of a person's natural superiority; poverty connoted moral inadequacy and lack of resourcefulness. What was advocated, then, was capitalism—free of federal controls. Since the "best government" was the one that "governed the least," a great emphasis was placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power.
Social Darwinism transposed Darwin's theory of the "survival of the fittest" from nature to society. Competition for goods, services, wealth, and power was considered natural and therefore necessary. Those who succeeded were supposed to be the fittest. Social Darwinism was also used to justify distinctions among races and among nations as well; some were deemed superior and others inferior.
In the 19th century, American nationalism claimed to have a "manifest destiny" to guide and educate "lesser" peoples in the world. Many conservative intellectuals and political leaders, therefore, favored a colonial policy for the United States. Something echoed in Bush´s foreign policy that over rides public opinion by imposing ´president knows best´.
With the Great Depression of the 1930s and the New Deal introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, American conservatism became a distinct political movement. Many Americans applauded the New Deal legislation that introduced serious constraints on free-market activities and allowed for the growth of the federal government, heavy taxation, and governmental intervention in and regulation of the economy. The conservatives disapproved of the New Deal and restated the fundamental premises of a free-market economy. The most forthright rejection of the New Deal appeared in a book by the Austrian-born economist Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944), in which he argued against governmental economic controls and planning. Conservatives continued to insist on a return to the free-market economy and on a retrenchment of the federal government and its bureaucracy. In 1962 a Conservative Party devoted to these principles was founded.
Conservatives gradually made important inroads among Republicans and even among Democrats. Eventually the liberal consensus that had been originally established around the New Deal welfare philosophy was seriously challenged. In 1980 renewed support for religious and national values as well as strong opposition to high taxes, government controls, and federal spending accounted for the ascendancy of the conservatives within the Republican Party. This led to the defeat of many liberal senators and representatives in the 1980 national election and the victory of the Republican presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan. Today, in many ways it helps to understand McCain and other Republican´s love for Regan and what awaits America and rest of the world if Republicans return to White House. It also explains McCain´s support for foreign policy and continuation of military occupations. It also explains Bush´s refusal to regulate Wall Street.
The most notable phenomenon of the 1980s, however, was the conservative movement in the U.S. After World War II an entire generation lived under a liberal consensus, based on expanding government controls and welfare measures, that crystallized into a dogma and was taken for granted. The conservatives as a whole and their most vocal wing—called the New Right—challenged liberalism vigorously, calling for a return to basic individualistic values in the economy and (hierarchical) society. They successfully urged more limited growth of domestic spending, a strong defense posture, and a more explicitly anti-Communist foreign policy. Bush´s Europe missile defense shield could be the latest manifestation of anti-communist foreign policy dubbed as cold war. Republicans moving closer to Sarkozy heading presidential monarchy in France undermining country´s social economic plans is reminiscent of Conservative Europe cozying up with Conservative America, an echo of rallying ´Old Europe´ to stand with Bush in an attempt to save Blair, downplay anti-Iraq war sentiment and avert British troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Although Conservatives (now transformed into Republicans) met with less success in efforts to outlaw abortion, legalize prayer in public schools, and enact New Right positions on other social, religious, and family issues, they continued their efforts in these directions throughout the 1980s. The support for funding for faith based schools, sex-abstinence cum sex education campaigns and anti-abortion cum pro-life positions show that Republicans New Right challenge to liberalism is still being vehemently pursued.
Continued: for liberalism see Democrats undermining party´s History including anti-war-2
References:
1. Farber, David. "Anti-Vietnam War Movement." Microsoft® Student 2008.
2. Gay, Peter. "Liberalism." Microsoft® Student 2008
In terms of Democrats undermining party´s anti-war history, I would like to remind the Democrats party´s anti-war history to help them end American military occupations across the globe.
Historically speaking liberals and conservatives have opposed each other on every subject including war. A close review of conservatives shows that they look at liberals as some kind of lowly creatures. Or mildly put second to them in social hierarchy. The core of my argument is that if liberals start acting like conservatives they will not be accepted as/turn into conservatives. Similarly, come what may however advanced American society might think it is, the conservative-liberal divide is not going to go away.
The liberals who historically joined Democratic Party therefore should take a realistic account of ground realities and try to uphold Party´s history including rejecting military occupations for following reasons: 1) It is a conservatives war in which liberals are dying. 2) Democrats as working class support pro-business policies not war. Historically Democrats have supported pro-people policies. America´s policy in Iraq has failed which was evident in the CNN documentary in which a mother was shown who while ´servicing´ her clients had to use her three minors to stand guard to avoid being caught by militia, police or religious force. If caught prostituting she would have been executed-end of democracy for Iraq at grassroots and so much for spreading democracy in ME! On the other end within US reportedly the military families have been exposed to all kinds of exploitations including rapes and murders, while on average a family has to pay 100 extra in the counter as three trillion Iraq war piles each American with 21,000 dollars war debt.
The fact of the matter is liberals rich or poor will never be treated as conservatives because they are liberals. Therefore, it is useless for Democrats to show Obama as representing affluent liberals or Hillary having strong blue-collar base. Democrats are democrats because they are not Republicans. It is time to leave politics aside and focus on issues-economy, economy and economy. And for that the Iraq war and Afghan occupation must end.
Liberals have always supported trade, commerce and connectivity at individual, community and global level. In contrast conservatives have by and large maintained their distance. Liberals pursue policies while Conservatives follow doctrines. Instead of commenting on these observations it would be better to quote passages from American history to help readers understand liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.
Conservatism, a general state of mind that is averse to rapid change and innovation and strives for balance and order, while avoiding extremes. Originally conservatism arose as a reaction against the Age of Enlightenment. Conservatives advocated belief in faith over reason, tradition over free inquiry, hierarchy over equality, collective values over individualism, and divine or natural law over secular law. At a given time in a given society, conservatism emphasizes the merits of the status quo and endorses the prevailing distribution of power, wealth, and social standing. Political conservative thought, however, has reconciled itself with constitutional democracy and individual rights as well as with prudent and orderly social and economic change.
Conservatism received its classic formulation in the works of the British statesman Edmund Burke, notably his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), in which he rejected the principles of the French Revolution and presented a comprehensive philosophy of society and politics. Burke viewed society as an organic whole, with individuals performing various roles and functions. In this society a natural elite—by virtue of birth, wealth, and education—is supposed to provide the leadership. The community is held together by venerable customs and traditions; gradual changes can be made, but only when they have gained wide acceptance.
Burke rejected the principles of equality, popular representation, and popular sovereignty. He also rejected the universal franchise and majority rule (the notion that a numerical majority of the citizenry should be empowered to make decisions). He advocated order, balance, and cooperation in society; restraints on government; and, above all, the supremacy of law—natural, divine, and customary. Burke did allow for limited governmental controls calculated to avoid malfunctions and frictions among the various groups and to moderate economic strife and competition. In all probability it explains current stimulus package as profits have been pocketed, losses are being socialized and there is no accountability.
The main currents of American political thought converged throughout the 19th century into a broad consensus that incorporated economic individualism and constitutional democracy with powerful restraints on the government. This had little in common with the conservative doctrines of Edmund Burke; it was in fact closer to liberalism, with the principles of individual freedom and equality taken as self-evident. Thus, the major characteristics of American conservatism emerged as economic individualism, social Darwinism, and nationalism.
Economic individualism accepted the free play of the market and extolled individual acquisitiveness. Individual freedoms and property rights were identified with moral, religious, political, and civil rights. It was assumed that growth, change, and progress derived mainly from individual effort and competition. Wealth was considered proof of a person's natural superiority; poverty connoted moral inadequacy and lack of resourcefulness. What was advocated, then, was capitalism—free of federal controls. Since the "best government" was the one that "governed the least," a great emphasis was placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power.
Social Darwinism transposed Darwin's theory of the "survival of the fittest" from nature to society. Competition for goods, services, wealth, and power was considered natural and therefore necessary. Those who succeeded were supposed to be the fittest. Social Darwinism was also used to justify distinctions among races and among nations as well; some were deemed superior and others inferior.
In the 19th century, American nationalism claimed to have a "manifest destiny" to guide and educate "lesser" peoples in the world. Many conservative intellectuals and political leaders, therefore, favored a colonial policy for the United States. Something echoed in Bush´s foreign policy that over rides public opinion by imposing ´president knows best´.
With the Great Depression of the 1930s and the New Deal introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, American conservatism became a distinct political movement. Many Americans applauded the New Deal legislation that introduced serious constraints on free-market activities and allowed for the growth of the federal government, heavy taxation, and governmental intervention in and regulation of the economy. The conservatives disapproved of the New Deal and restated the fundamental premises of a free-market economy. The most forthright rejection of the New Deal appeared in a book by the Austrian-born economist Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944), in which he argued against governmental economic controls and planning. Conservatives continued to insist on a return to the free-market economy and on a retrenchment of the federal government and its bureaucracy. In 1962 a Conservative Party devoted to these principles was founded.
Conservatives gradually made important inroads among Republicans and even among Democrats. Eventually the liberal consensus that had been originally established around the New Deal welfare philosophy was seriously challenged. In 1980 renewed support for religious and national values as well as strong opposition to high taxes, government controls, and federal spending accounted for the ascendancy of the conservatives within the Republican Party. This led to the defeat of many liberal senators and representatives in the 1980 national election and the victory of the Republican presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan. Today, in many ways it helps to understand McCain and other Republican´s love for Regan and what awaits America and rest of the world if Republicans return to White House. It also explains McCain´s support for foreign policy and continuation of military occupations. It also explains Bush´s refusal to regulate Wall Street.
The most notable phenomenon of the 1980s, however, was the conservative movement in the U.S. After World War II an entire generation lived under a liberal consensus, based on expanding government controls and welfare measures, that crystallized into a dogma and was taken for granted. The conservatives as a whole and their most vocal wing—called the New Right—challenged liberalism vigorously, calling for a return to basic individualistic values in the economy and (hierarchical) society. They successfully urged more limited growth of domestic spending, a strong defense posture, and a more explicitly anti-Communist foreign policy. Bush´s Europe missile defense shield could be the latest manifestation of anti-communist foreign policy dubbed as cold war. Republicans moving closer to Sarkozy heading presidential monarchy in France undermining country´s social economic plans is reminiscent of Conservative Europe cozying up with Conservative America, an echo of rallying ´Old Europe´ to stand with Bush in an attempt to save Blair, downplay anti-Iraq war sentiment and avert British troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Although Conservatives (now transformed into Republicans) met with less success in efforts to outlaw abortion, legalize prayer in public schools, and enact New Right positions on other social, religious, and family issues, they continued their efforts in these directions throughout the 1980s. The support for funding for faith based schools, sex-abstinence cum sex education campaigns and anti-abortion cum pro-life positions show that Republicans New Right challenge to liberalism is still being vehemently pursued.
Continued: for liberalism see Democrats undermining party´s History including anti-war-2
References:
1. Farber, David. "Anti-Vietnam War Movement." Microsoft® Student 2008.
2. Gay, Peter. "Liberalism." Microsoft® Student 2008