Democrats undermining party´s History including anti-war-2
Rizwan Ghani
April 15, 2008
Liberalism is an attitude, philosophy, or movement that has as its basic concern the development of personal freedom and social progress. Liberalism, mainly deals with political, economic, and social reform.In domestic politics, liberals have opposed feudal restraints that prevent the individual from rising out of a low social status; barriers such as censorship that limit free expression of opinion; and arbitrary power exercised over the individual by the state. These failure of US Democratic Party dominated Congress to deliver in these areas explains Congress´ 13 % approval ratings.
In international politics, liberals have opposed the domination of foreign policy by militarists and military considerations and the exploitation of native colonial people, and they have sought to substitute a cosmopolitan policy of international cooperation. It puts in perspective average American´s frustration with Democratic Party´s failure to end Iraq war and domestic and Muslim world´s disapproval of US Afghan occupation/ likely plans of its attack. It shows Democratic Party´s failure to uphold party´s anti-war tradition.
Interestingly, John Locke, a philosopher and liberal influenced framers of US Constitution. He argued for popular sovereignty, the right of rebellion against oppression, and toleration of religious minorities. According to the thought of Locke and his many followers, the state exists not to promote people's spiritual salvation, but to serve its citizens and to guarantee their life, liberty, and property under a constitution. Thomas Jefferson also echoed Locke in the Declaration of Independence and in later pronouncements defending revolutions, attacking paternalistic government, and upholding free expression of unpopular opinions. Something Obama and Hillary are struggling to challenge.
Liberals insisted that the state should be supreme over the church and demanded universal religious toleration, abolition of censorship, lenient punishment of criminals, and a strong state acting only under general rules of law against forces obstructive of social progress and individual liberty. In religion, liberals have fought against church interference in the affairs of the state and attempts by religious pressure groups to influence public opinion. Hillary´s use of Reverend Wright´s loop to her advantage speaks of her commitment to liberal values traditionally protected by Democratic Party.
Both Obama and Hillary are failing to uphold international laws and conventions in terms of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan at national level, international platforms and Democratic Party platform. Instead Democrats are confused and in most cases critical of Jimmy Carter´s plans to visit Hammas,who won democratically held elections.
In all probability Democratic Party needs to correct party direction in line with Voltaire the French philosopher and dramatist Denis Diderot, who envisaged role of state as a machine for the creation of happiness and a positive instrument designed to check a strong nobility (Republicans) and a strong church, the two forces considered most uncompromisingly dedicated to the conservation of old institutions.
Democrats have failed to uphold the US Supreme Court decision of 1936 known as New Deal legislation in which it was decided that that individual citizens must be protected against overpowering economic groups and from disasters they have not brought on themselves. They have failed to protect economic interest of their voters in terms of 30 % dollar devaluation, fuel price hike, inflation, subprime meltdown or Katrina.
Similarly, Hillary and Obama have failed to uphold the New Deal Legislative enactments provided for old-age and survivors insurance, unemployment insurance, federal control of various financial interests, minimum wages, supervision of agricultural production, and the right of labor unions to organize and bargain collectively.
Today unions are banned/compromised. Health care is derailed, insurance sector is not answerable to anyone. Unemployment is on the rise, Washington is supporting wall street not main street. Agri-wages are almost ´static´ since 1960. According to independent observers they have proportionately reduced by 60% in last three decades. The Hillary campaign is quick to criticize Obama´s interpretation ´small towns´ but is unwilling to address the core issue of their economic deprivation that ultimately leads human beings to finds support and religion is an established support. Hillary camp to uphold true political campaign to resolve issues than focusing on Obama´s use of small towns.
Similarly, Obama campaign should as promised help labor unions to organize and bargain collectively to bring the pay ratio of workers and bosses down from 279:1 to 5:1.
In terms of ending Iraq war Democrats have failed to learn from party´s history of successfully organizing anti-Vietnam war Movement. Democratic Party´s antiwar protesters played a role in Lyndon Johnson´s decision not to run for reelection and in reforming the Democratic Party´s process for nominating presidential candidates. Many major figures in the Democratic Party in the 1970s and 1980s, such as Senator Gary Hart, Senator John Kerry, and Governor and then President Bill Clinton, emerged from the antiwar, reform wing of the party. Something that Obama has so far failed to achieve as harbinger of Change. Hillary´s failure to send clear message on ending war has left the voters to accept the allegation that she stands for status quo. As an observer, I feel that Democratic Party´s divided stand on Iraq war has harmed America´s economic interests and its reputation worldwide and in the process undermined party´s historic image of pro-peace party.
Similarly, both Obama and Hillary have failed to protect Democratic Party´s 1950´s era legacy of the antiwar movement. The anti-Vietnam war movement had development a far more questioning citizenry, less trustful of mass media and government officials, and more open to alternative sources of news and information. Today´s American media, mainstream Democratic leadership including Obama and Hillary has failed to challenge the lies that are being sold to average American.
Increasingly, well-respected, even mainstream figures began to oppose the war. Arkansas Democratic senator William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, began holding hearings about U.S. policy in Vietnam in 1966. Fulbright wanted basic answers: Why was the United States fighting in Vietnam? How did the United States propose to win? After grilling Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Fulbright concluded that American policy was wrongheaded and doomed to failure. Fulbright, like other antiwar moderates, decided that the conflict in Vietnam was a civil war and by 1967 he had become an outspoken opponent of the war.
On Christmas Day, 1966, the New York Times began a series of reports from Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam, indicating that President Johnson had misled the country when he said that only military targets were being bombed in North Vietnam. In April 1967 civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke out against the war, saying: "I opposed the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against it, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart...This war is a blasphemy against all that America stands for."
Democratic Party has failed to keep the mass media free in line with Vietnam anti-war movement where media had turned independent in reporting on foreign policy and was unwilling to trust official government reports. It helped citizens make informed choices. The vigilant citizens, more skeptical press forced U.S. government officials in the 1970s and 1980s to respect public opinion in setting foreign policy and, especially, in undertaking military intervention. Respecting public opinion is a constitutional requirement for president of America which Democrats have failed to uphold, exercise and even educate the general public about.
Unlike Vietnam anti-war movement Democrats have failed to support anti-Iraq movements on lines of Students of Democratic Society and Student Non violent Democratic Committee. The majority of the members of these setup later become citizen-activists and continued to stay active, becoming mainstays of human rights, environmental, consumer, and many other independent citizen groups. In turn help America shine as beacon of liberty, democracy and law.
Today it appears as if Democratic Party is inching towards 1968 Chicago DNC convention where supporters of the Democratic Party split over the Vietnam War and nomination process. Many moderate antiwar activists supported the presidential candidacies of Senator Eugene McCarthy or Senator Robert Kennedy, who both opposed the war. Despite winning almost all of the open Democratic Party state primaries, the antiwar forces were not successful. Although President Johnson did decide not to run again, the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey (see Chicago Convention of 1968). Humphrey had won the support of most of the party´s leaders, who still controlled the nominating process. During the convention about 15,000 people, both radicals and moderates, protested both the war and the process by which Humphrey had been nominated. These protesters clashed with police, and the violence in the streets of Chicago was televised across the nation.
Although the antiwar movement had grown significantly, the majority of Americans still believed that public protests against the war, like those at the Chicago convention, were unpatriotic while American troops were fighting. The Republican candidate for the presidency in 1968, Richard Nixon, blasted antiwar protesters with his ´Silent Majority´ support speech in which he told Americans that he would bring "peace with honor" to Vietnam. But like Bush Nixon never explained what he meant by it; indeed, he later admitted that he had no real plan to end the war. Ironically today Bush is accused of not having a plan to end Iraq war. Will Bush like Nixon admit down the line that he too had no plan only time will tell. With Democrats divided over the war, Nixon won the presidency. Hillary is just doing that. DNC has been rendered powerless due to the spirit of democracy that cannot tell candidates to step down. Republicans by voting for Hillary in the primaries are making it hard for Obama to win big and settle the Party´s presidential nomination.
Today, Republicans are using history to stay in Iraq despite opinion polls showing that 81% American feel that country is led in wrong direction. Interestingly opinion polls in 1969 showed that 80 percent of Americans were "fed up and tired of the war" and 50 percent even believed that the war was "morally indefensible." Still, Americans felt that antiwar protests were counterproductive but wanted execution of Nixon´s plan of "peace with honor" to return victorious from Vietnam. The problem was Nixon himself didn´t know what he meant by ´peace with honor´. Despite their own doubts about the war, Americans continued to believe it was unpatriotic to protest the war while American lives were at risk. Tragically, like Bush, Obama, Hillary and Democratic Party have also failed to come up with a plan to end Iraq war and avert further loss of life, US image and restore global peace.
Nixon continued to aggressively pursue a military solution to Vietnam war. In April 1970,he expanded the war into Cambodia. Today Iran´s name is on the list. Today´s Democratic Party leadership is not prepared like the Democrats of 60´s. In response to Nixon´s widening of the war, protests exploded around the country. At a demonstration at Kent State University in May, panicky National Guardsmen opened fire, killing four students. After the shootings, an estimated 1.5 million students went on strike against the war.
Slowly, Nixon did begin to bring U.S. troops home from Vietnam. He pursued a course of "Vietnamization," meaning that he was, step by step, forcing the South Vietnamese military to take over the fighting. Interestingly Bush´s latest promise of ´pause´ and ´cut in troop number in Iraq ´ appears to be a page taken from the history of Vietnam war in which it was said North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate America. Today, Al-Qaida cannot defeat or humiliate United States. Nixon continued President Johnson´s policy of having the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spy on, harass, and intimidate antiwar activists. He used the Justice Department to hound antiwar leaders and to bring legal action against them whenever possible. No wonder people like Cindy Sheen has withdrawn from anti-war campaign.
During 1971 the antiwar movement continued struggling to stop the fighting. In April half a million people demonstrated in Washington, D.C. The Nixon administration responded with mass arrests, incarcerating both peaceful marchers and more radical protesters; some 12,000 people were arrested. At one protest at the Capitol, organized by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a thousand veterans, some in wheelchairs, others on crutches, took their combat medals and threw them away. Democratic Party has failed to protect its anti-war policies. It shows the gravity of challenge for the party, country and global peace.
In June the New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers. This report revealed that presidential administrations since Harry Truman´s had deceived the public about aspects of the situation in Vietnam. Today American media has simply failed to question the authenticity of what all is being fed to the public in the name of Iraq war, Iran, ME and terrorism and absence of media acting as watchdog is only making matters worse including prolonging of war.
In 1972 organized protests against the war dwindled. Nixon had brought home most of the American ground troops, although the air war continued. Most mainstream antiwar activists had turned from demonstrations to working within the Democratic Party to win the presidential nomination for the outspoken antiwar candidate, Senator George McGovern. McGovern won the nomination but was defeated by Nixon, who was able to tell Americans just before the November election that "peace was at hand" in Vietnam.
It is therefore hoped that Democrats will learn from the American history, Party´s anti-war struggles to avoid repeat of Nixon´s election victory in form of McCain returning to power to continue Bush´s third term in office. In January 1973 Nixon did sign a peace treaty with the North Vietnamese. Since Nixon had taken office in 1969, 20,000 Americans had died in Vietnam. In total more than 58,000 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. When the South Vietnamese government fell and surrendered unconditionally to North Vietnam in 1975, the North Vietnamese reunited the country under a Communist government. Today, Bush has even visited Vietnam.
Finally, Democratic Party has failed to uphold party´s anti-war history. It is struggling to sustain economic, social and political legacies of liberalism. I am of the opinion that Obama, Hillary and Party leadership needs to get their acts together to successfully challenge Republicans in upcoming presidential elections to help restore global peace, end military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and resolve outstanding issues including Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and Darfur. A clear adoption of Democratic/liberal policies will automatically define country´s immigration, trade and other policies. It will automatically improve America´s relations with rest of the world because trade and commerce based economies don´t rely and cannot rely on use of military power to protect their economic interests. The current direction of Party on these issues shows that it is far from its objectives. The unclear foreign policy including Iraq war and Afghan occupation (attacking Afghanistan is no policy), undecided economic direction on immediate/long term issues by Obama and Hillary campaigns shows Party has still ´miles to go´ in terms of successfully challenging Republicans in these areas in national elections. The writing is on the wall if Iraq war continues Democrats could very much lose their numbers in Congress, Senate in addition to losing Presidential election.
References:
1. Farber, David. "Anti-Vietnam War Movement." Microsoft® Student 2008.
2. Gay, Peter. "Liberalism." Microsoft® Student 2008
In international politics, liberals have opposed the domination of foreign policy by militarists and military considerations and the exploitation of native colonial people, and they have sought to substitute a cosmopolitan policy of international cooperation. It puts in perspective average American´s frustration with Democratic Party´s failure to end Iraq war and domestic and Muslim world´s disapproval of US Afghan occupation/ likely plans of its attack. It shows Democratic Party´s failure to uphold party´s anti-war tradition.
Interestingly, John Locke, a philosopher and liberal influenced framers of US Constitution. He argued for popular sovereignty, the right of rebellion against oppression, and toleration of religious minorities. According to the thought of Locke and his many followers, the state exists not to promote people's spiritual salvation, but to serve its citizens and to guarantee their life, liberty, and property under a constitution. Thomas Jefferson also echoed Locke in the Declaration of Independence and in later pronouncements defending revolutions, attacking paternalistic government, and upholding free expression of unpopular opinions. Something Obama and Hillary are struggling to challenge.
Liberals insisted that the state should be supreme over the church and demanded universal religious toleration, abolition of censorship, lenient punishment of criminals, and a strong state acting only under general rules of law against forces obstructive of social progress and individual liberty. In religion, liberals have fought against church interference in the affairs of the state and attempts by religious pressure groups to influence public opinion. Hillary´s use of Reverend Wright´s loop to her advantage speaks of her commitment to liberal values traditionally protected by Democratic Party.
Both Obama and Hillary are failing to uphold international laws and conventions in terms of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan at national level, international platforms and Democratic Party platform. Instead Democrats are confused and in most cases critical of Jimmy Carter´s plans to visit Hammas,who won democratically held elections.
In all probability Democratic Party needs to correct party direction in line with Voltaire the French philosopher and dramatist Denis Diderot, who envisaged role of state as a machine for the creation of happiness and a positive instrument designed to check a strong nobility (Republicans) and a strong church, the two forces considered most uncompromisingly dedicated to the conservation of old institutions.
Democrats have failed to uphold the US Supreme Court decision of 1936 known as New Deal legislation in which it was decided that that individual citizens must be protected against overpowering economic groups and from disasters they have not brought on themselves. They have failed to protect economic interest of their voters in terms of 30 % dollar devaluation, fuel price hike, inflation, subprime meltdown or Katrina.
Similarly, Hillary and Obama have failed to uphold the New Deal Legislative enactments provided for old-age and survivors insurance, unemployment insurance, federal control of various financial interests, minimum wages, supervision of agricultural production, and the right of labor unions to organize and bargain collectively.
Today unions are banned/compromised. Health care is derailed, insurance sector is not answerable to anyone. Unemployment is on the rise, Washington is supporting wall street not main street. Agri-wages are almost ´static´ since 1960. According to independent observers they have proportionately reduced by 60% in last three decades. The Hillary campaign is quick to criticize Obama´s interpretation ´small towns´ but is unwilling to address the core issue of their economic deprivation that ultimately leads human beings to finds support and religion is an established support. Hillary camp to uphold true political campaign to resolve issues than focusing on Obama´s use of small towns.
Similarly, Obama campaign should as promised help labor unions to organize and bargain collectively to bring the pay ratio of workers and bosses down from 279:1 to 5:1.
In terms of ending Iraq war Democrats have failed to learn from party´s history of successfully organizing anti-Vietnam war Movement. Democratic Party´s antiwar protesters played a role in Lyndon Johnson´s decision not to run for reelection and in reforming the Democratic Party´s process for nominating presidential candidates. Many major figures in the Democratic Party in the 1970s and 1980s, such as Senator Gary Hart, Senator John Kerry, and Governor and then President Bill Clinton, emerged from the antiwar, reform wing of the party. Something that Obama has so far failed to achieve as harbinger of Change. Hillary´s failure to send clear message on ending war has left the voters to accept the allegation that she stands for status quo. As an observer, I feel that Democratic Party´s divided stand on Iraq war has harmed America´s economic interests and its reputation worldwide and in the process undermined party´s historic image of pro-peace party.
Similarly, both Obama and Hillary have failed to protect Democratic Party´s 1950´s era legacy of the antiwar movement. The anti-Vietnam war movement had development a far more questioning citizenry, less trustful of mass media and government officials, and more open to alternative sources of news and information. Today´s American media, mainstream Democratic leadership including Obama and Hillary has failed to challenge the lies that are being sold to average American.
Increasingly, well-respected, even mainstream figures began to oppose the war. Arkansas Democratic senator William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, began holding hearings about U.S. policy in Vietnam in 1966. Fulbright wanted basic answers: Why was the United States fighting in Vietnam? How did the United States propose to win? After grilling Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Fulbright concluded that American policy was wrongheaded and doomed to failure. Fulbright, like other antiwar moderates, decided that the conflict in Vietnam was a civil war and by 1967 he had become an outspoken opponent of the war.
On Christmas Day, 1966, the New York Times began a series of reports from Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam, indicating that President Johnson had misled the country when he said that only military targets were being bombed in North Vietnam. In April 1967 civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke out against the war, saying: "I opposed the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against it, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart...This war is a blasphemy against all that America stands for."
Democratic Party has failed to keep the mass media free in line with Vietnam anti-war movement where media had turned independent in reporting on foreign policy and was unwilling to trust official government reports. It helped citizens make informed choices. The vigilant citizens, more skeptical press forced U.S. government officials in the 1970s and 1980s to respect public opinion in setting foreign policy and, especially, in undertaking military intervention. Respecting public opinion is a constitutional requirement for president of America which Democrats have failed to uphold, exercise and even educate the general public about.
Unlike Vietnam anti-war movement Democrats have failed to support anti-Iraq movements on lines of Students of Democratic Society and Student Non violent Democratic Committee. The majority of the members of these setup later become citizen-activists and continued to stay active, becoming mainstays of human rights, environmental, consumer, and many other independent citizen groups. In turn help America shine as beacon of liberty, democracy and law.
Today it appears as if Democratic Party is inching towards 1968 Chicago DNC convention where supporters of the Democratic Party split over the Vietnam War and nomination process. Many moderate antiwar activists supported the presidential candidacies of Senator Eugene McCarthy or Senator Robert Kennedy, who both opposed the war. Despite winning almost all of the open Democratic Party state primaries, the antiwar forces were not successful. Although President Johnson did decide not to run again, the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey (see Chicago Convention of 1968). Humphrey had won the support of most of the party´s leaders, who still controlled the nominating process. During the convention about 15,000 people, both radicals and moderates, protested both the war and the process by which Humphrey had been nominated. These protesters clashed with police, and the violence in the streets of Chicago was televised across the nation.
Although the antiwar movement had grown significantly, the majority of Americans still believed that public protests against the war, like those at the Chicago convention, were unpatriotic while American troops were fighting. The Republican candidate for the presidency in 1968, Richard Nixon, blasted antiwar protesters with his ´Silent Majority´ support speech in which he told Americans that he would bring "peace with honor" to Vietnam. But like Bush Nixon never explained what he meant by it; indeed, he later admitted that he had no real plan to end the war. Ironically today Bush is accused of not having a plan to end Iraq war. Will Bush like Nixon admit down the line that he too had no plan only time will tell. With Democrats divided over the war, Nixon won the presidency. Hillary is just doing that. DNC has been rendered powerless due to the spirit of democracy that cannot tell candidates to step down. Republicans by voting for Hillary in the primaries are making it hard for Obama to win big and settle the Party´s presidential nomination.
Today, Republicans are using history to stay in Iraq despite opinion polls showing that 81% American feel that country is led in wrong direction. Interestingly opinion polls in 1969 showed that 80 percent of Americans were "fed up and tired of the war" and 50 percent even believed that the war was "morally indefensible." Still, Americans felt that antiwar protests were counterproductive but wanted execution of Nixon´s plan of "peace with honor" to return victorious from Vietnam. The problem was Nixon himself didn´t know what he meant by ´peace with honor´. Despite their own doubts about the war, Americans continued to believe it was unpatriotic to protest the war while American lives were at risk. Tragically, like Bush, Obama, Hillary and Democratic Party have also failed to come up with a plan to end Iraq war and avert further loss of life, US image and restore global peace.
Nixon continued to aggressively pursue a military solution to Vietnam war. In April 1970,he expanded the war into Cambodia. Today Iran´s name is on the list. Today´s Democratic Party leadership is not prepared like the Democrats of 60´s. In response to Nixon´s widening of the war, protests exploded around the country. At a demonstration at Kent State University in May, panicky National Guardsmen opened fire, killing four students. After the shootings, an estimated 1.5 million students went on strike against the war.
Slowly, Nixon did begin to bring U.S. troops home from Vietnam. He pursued a course of "Vietnamization," meaning that he was, step by step, forcing the South Vietnamese military to take over the fighting. Interestingly Bush´s latest promise of ´pause´ and ´cut in troop number in Iraq ´ appears to be a page taken from the history of Vietnam war in which it was said North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate America. Today, Al-Qaida cannot defeat or humiliate United States. Nixon continued President Johnson´s policy of having the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spy on, harass, and intimidate antiwar activists. He used the Justice Department to hound antiwar leaders and to bring legal action against them whenever possible. No wonder people like Cindy Sheen has withdrawn from anti-war campaign.
During 1971 the antiwar movement continued struggling to stop the fighting. In April half a million people demonstrated in Washington, D.C. The Nixon administration responded with mass arrests, incarcerating both peaceful marchers and more radical protesters; some 12,000 people were arrested. At one protest at the Capitol, organized by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a thousand veterans, some in wheelchairs, others on crutches, took their combat medals and threw them away. Democratic Party has failed to protect its anti-war policies. It shows the gravity of challenge for the party, country and global peace.
In June the New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers. This report revealed that presidential administrations since Harry Truman´s had deceived the public about aspects of the situation in Vietnam. Today American media has simply failed to question the authenticity of what all is being fed to the public in the name of Iraq war, Iran, ME and terrorism and absence of media acting as watchdog is only making matters worse including prolonging of war.
In 1972 organized protests against the war dwindled. Nixon had brought home most of the American ground troops, although the air war continued. Most mainstream antiwar activists had turned from demonstrations to working within the Democratic Party to win the presidential nomination for the outspoken antiwar candidate, Senator George McGovern. McGovern won the nomination but was defeated by Nixon, who was able to tell Americans just before the November election that "peace was at hand" in Vietnam.
It is therefore hoped that Democrats will learn from the American history, Party´s anti-war struggles to avoid repeat of Nixon´s election victory in form of McCain returning to power to continue Bush´s third term in office. In January 1973 Nixon did sign a peace treaty with the North Vietnamese. Since Nixon had taken office in 1969, 20,000 Americans had died in Vietnam. In total more than 58,000 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. When the South Vietnamese government fell and surrendered unconditionally to North Vietnam in 1975, the North Vietnamese reunited the country under a Communist government. Today, Bush has even visited Vietnam.
Finally, Democratic Party has failed to uphold party´s anti-war history. It is struggling to sustain economic, social and political legacies of liberalism. I am of the opinion that Obama, Hillary and Party leadership needs to get their acts together to successfully challenge Republicans in upcoming presidential elections to help restore global peace, end military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and resolve outstanding issues including Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and Darfur. A clear adoption of Democratic/liberal policies will automatically define country´s immigration, trade and other policies. It will automatically improve America´s relations with rest of the world because trade and commerce based economies don´t rely and cannot rely on use of military power to protect their economic interests. The current direction of Party on these issues shows that it is far from its objectives. The unclear foreign policy including Iraq war and Afghan occupation (attacking Afghanistan is no policy), undecided economic direction on immediate/long term issues by Obama and Hillary campaigns shows Party has still ´miles to go´ in terms of successfully challenging Republicans in these areas in national elections. The writing is on the wall if Iraq war continues Democrats could very much lose their numbers in Congress, Senate in addition to losing Presidential election.
References:
1. Farber, David. "Anti-Vietnam War Movement." Microsoft® Student 2008.
2. Gay, Peter. "Liberalism." Microsoft® Student 2008
Print
Share
Email
