I have gone on many times about the descent of the Democratic party from one of national dominance for having both stood up for the 'common' working man, and stood up unblanchingly for american interest in the world.
This is not a clean business on either side. FDR both saved the nation in 1932 and held Somoza's hand as "our SOB", as well as Stalin's when necessity commanded. He also attempted to change by fiat and statute the Supreme Court from 9-13 justices.
Harry Truman killed segregation in the armed forces, saved millions by unflinchingly using nuclear weapons, and then chose the wrong side in Southeast Asia, and tried to nationalize the steel industry in the midst of both a strike and the Korean War.
No president is perfect. Just imagine if the present occupant of 1600 Pa. Ave had attempted these actions.
Yet these men are certainly among the greatest presidents, and greatest democrats in history.
ALL OF HISTORY.
Today the democratic party is trying to extinghuish the last of it's men who fall into that category of democrat. They have been dwindling. From Hubert Humphrey through today.....
9 comments:
Truman chose "the wrong side" in SE Asia???? Who would that be, the South Koreans against the North?
I think you need to explain that comment.
Epa just outed himself as a fascist.
:)
Truman could have co-opted Ho Chi Minh who approached him in 1947, and offered to ally himself with the USA.
Instead he aligned the US with the French Colonial forces. IMHO, he should never have chosen the past (rank colonialism) over what might have been an independent US aligned SE asian nation.
But that's heavy monday morning stuff. Acheson and Ball were also against going with Ho Chi Minh. Maybe there was some heavy stuff on with the french in '47, but in the light of 1975, it WAS the wrong side.
I'm not exactly sure what's his problem... I'd have to disagree with his main point, that the Democrat's core philosophy is anti-American. Democrats have been champions of seperation of church and state, which is exactly what we need to fight terrorist Islamist ideologies.
David Stinson,
I think you might be interested to know that both Epa and I are lifelong Democrats. However, as it stands, I will never vote for another Democrat again. The core philosophy of the Democratic party at this point, in my opinion, is radical. They invited Michael Moore to sit with Jimmy Carter, in a seat of honor at the Dem Convention in 2004. They have ostracized Joe Lieberman for supporting the war. They have accused George Bush of lying to get us into the war. They have accused our soldiers of being worse than the Gulag. Murtha accused those soldiers of enacting a massacre, before the evidence was in. Have you noticed you don't hear about that one anymore. That's because it turned out not to be true.
Yes, the Dems have been champions of separation of church and state traditionally. But, that is not the only issue. The war on Islamofascism is the big issue now, and the Dems have gone pacifist, in rhetoric if not in reality.
Either way it is bad. If it is only in rhetoric then it smacks of the worst kind of political gamesmanship, because our lives are on the line.
David I don't know what to say to you...I have given you the direct quote, MANY TIMES STATED by the largest money giver in political history. If you don't think this man (Soros) executes the largest single influence via campaign contributions, I don't know how to answer you. Nor is he alone in his feeling. Howard Dean has MANY TIMES referred to his suspicion and others beliefs that 'somehow' the admin is responsible for 9/11.
This CRAP is as utterly stupid as the isolationist freaks of the repub party and FDR in 1941-42, who blamed him for Pearl Harbor.
Someone like Mr. Lieberman is the perfect democratic weapon to defeat the republicans, but he is excoriated PRECISELY because his beliefs, that we ARE the last best hope, lead him to certain conclusions about what we are comeplled to do in this world. Conversely the democratic starting point as stated by Mr. Soros is that the UNited States IS the problem in this world. That's not my INTERPRETATION, those are the words used.
The democratic party may win some isolated election, and even regain control of the house, but like Clinton's exceptional election, they offer no central core of ideas to cohesivley lead the nation - OTHER THAN what Mr. Soros stated.
I agree that the Democratic party is in disarray right now. But to win the War on Terror you need to frame it terms of a larger ideological struggle - a fight against religious persecution, of all kinds. That was how we won the Cold War - well actually in that case they were the ones that did the framing, they just chose the wrong issues. But in this case, SOCAS is an important issue, and one that I don't really see the Republicans acting on.
The minute I see this word - "FRAME" every hair on my neck stands on end.
Frmaing is not about substance its about perception.
This CLASH is 100% substance.
The war on terror is not a war about religous persecution of all kinds. It's about KILLING the people who teach, support, and finance the philosophy of Ibn Tamiyya, Sayd Qutb and his brother, the former HEAD of the school of Islamic studies at King Abzul Aziz U.
It's about CRUSHING the organization of the muslims brotherhood worldwide, and KILLING those who promulgate it's philosophy.
BTW, we won the cold war, AFAIK, in three ways
FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - we decided to WIN (give credit where it's due - that was Reagan)
Second - Mdonald's the Gap and commercials ate away at the people of the USSR's belief system
Third - our military and economic prowess brought them to the edge of total anarchy
What is SOCAS?
The dem party is NOT is disarray, it's central philosophy is gutted by the SUCCESS of civil rights, and social programs, and obliterated by trying to make every foreign action in to the 'lesson' of Vietnam.
Why aren't Schmuer and Emanuel rallying everyone around a simple, DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE founded in the strength of the party in the 20th century ... the severe reduction/redefinition of poverty thru education? With a plan that doesn't involve more taxes, and helps local guidance of education, not dictates it?
Because they are too busy kowtowing to the $$, and the money says that the United States is THE FORCE preventing peace and justice in the world.
Horrific ! For all americans.
Oh, sorry. SOCAS = separation of church and state.
The Democratic party sure is in dissaray. People are starting to talk about carving a new centrist party out of it (Lieberman, and others too.)
Reagan put the finishing touches on a strategy (containment) that was started way back when he was a movie star - by Kennan, in his 1947 'Long Telegram.' Kennan predicted that, given enough time, the USSR would simply implode under the weight of its internal contradictions, which it did.
This victory came entirely from soft power "framing." At the start of the Cold War, one would have looked at the US and the USSR and seen basically equal military powers. But by the end of the war we were clearly superior. This gap, which was what allowed Reagan to decisively end the war, came from the inherent superiority of our ideas. And for the War on Terror we need to tap these ideas once more.
Post a Comment