60´s Radicals: Should Democrats Disown Party's anti-war History in 08 Election Campaign
Rizwan Ghani
April 17, 2008
New York Times has run this story 60´s Radicals Become Issue in Campaign of 08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17truth.html under Check Point. Interestingly, my articles Democrats undermining Party´s history including anti-war 1 http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58529
and 2 http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58537 that were published on 15 April in same space can help viewers/readers understand questions in light of US history. I didn´t know that George Stephanopoulos, of ABC news was going to bring 60´s into the debate.
In my opinion details show that in the first place Obama stood for hardcore Democratic issue that affected the area´s least advantaged, including welfare reform, affordable housing" and "tax policy as a tool in reducing poverty."
Interestingly in the broader sense the US anti-Vietnam war history covered in Part 2 of my article clearly shows that 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. It was the anti-war movement that distinguished these leaders from rest of the politicians of the day. It is the anti-Vietnam war movement that has sustained the US human rights struggle and political activism movement through 80´s, 90´s and whatever is left of it to date.
In a way it explains Bill Clinton´s pardons.
In all probability, Bill Clinton´s first hand knowledge of US history helped him make the decision. The history shows that 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 (refer: anti-Vietnam war protests).
In terms of supporting ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns most Americans support a ban. Ironic it may be but few understand the relation between freedom of possessing gun and Democracy. The day America will amend the gun law including ban on possession that will be the end of American Democracy and onset of ´federalism´. The framers of US Bill of Rights understood the role of guns in ensuring and securing individual and political freedom of the country.
The American media somehow ignores to highlight the crucial role of guns in protecting constitutional rights of an average Americans, states and their leaders. It can be argued that guns guarantee continuation of Democracy.Both Obama and Hillary should use history to educate the voters about important issues and their solutions including Nixon´s expansion of war to Cambodia in April, 1970. Media by highlighting Democratic Party´s achievements from the American history including Party´s struggle to end Vietnam war will help viewers/voters make informed choices. It is hoped that Democratic Party will learn lessons from party's anti-war history and recognize importance of guns in sustaining democracy in America.
and 2 http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58537 that were published on 15 April in same space can help viewers/readers understand questions in light of US history. I didn´t know that George Stephanopoulos, of ABC news was going to bring 60´s into the debate.
In my opinion details show that in the first place Obama stood for hardcore Democratic issue that affected the area´s least advantaged, including welfare reform, affordable housing" and "tax policy as a tool in reducing poverty."
Interestingly in the broader sense the US anti-Vietnam war history covered in Part 2 of my article clearly shows that 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. It was the anti-war movement that distinguished these leaders from rest of the politicians of the day. It is the anti-Vietnam war movement that has sustained the US human rights struggle and political activism movement through 80´s, 90´s and whatever is left of it to date.
In a way it explains Bill Clinton´s pardons.
In all probability, Bill Clinton´s first hand knowledge of US history helped him make the decision. The history shows that 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 (refer: anti-Vietnam war protests).
In terms of supporting ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns most Americans support a ban. Ironic it may be but few understand the relation between freedom of possessing gun and Democracy. The day America will amend the gun law including ban on possession that will be the end of American Democracy and onset of ´federalism´. The framers of US Bill of Rights understood the role of guns in ensuring and securing individual and political freedom of the country.
The American media somehow ignores to highlight the crucial role of guns in protecting constitutional rights of an average Americans, states and their leaders. It can be argued that guns guarantee continuation of Democracy.Both Obama and Hillary should use history to educate the voters about important issues and their solutions including Nixon´s expansion of war to Cambodia in April, 1970. Media by highlighting Democratic Party´s achievements from the American history including Party´s struggle to end Vietnam war will help viewers/voters make informed choices. It is hoped that Democratic Party will learn lessons from party's anti-war history and recognize importance of guns in sustaining democracy in America.
Print
Email
