Demokrat Perdamaian

Demokrat Perdamaian


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Demokrat adalah partai politik yang terpecah belah pada akhir tahun 1850-an, setelah menjadi mangsa pertengkaran antar seksi. Mereka tidak dapat bersatu pada tahun 1860, sebuah kekurangan yang menjamin terpilihnya Abraham Lincoln. Selama Perang Saudara, Partai Demokrat di Utara terdiri dari dua faksi:

  1. Demokrat Perang. Faksi ini sangat mendukung upaya militer untuk mempertahankan Persatuan, tetapi sangat kritis terhadap perilaku perang Lincoln. Kritik ini tumbuh dengan daftar panjang kerugian militer Union dan dengan tindakan keras presiden, seperti penangguhan habeas corpus. Partai Demokrat Perang mewakili sebagian besar anggota partai Utara.
  2. Demokrat Damai. Banyak Demokrat dalam kelompok ini berharap bahwa Persatuan dapat diselamatkan, tetapi merasa bahwa cara-cara militer tidak dibenarkan. Fraksi ini menegaskan sebagai berikut:
    • Utara bertanggung jawab untuk mendorong Selatan agar memisahkan diri
    • Partai Republik berkomitmen untuk membangun kesetaraan ras, prospek yang ditentang oleh banyak imigran kelas pekerja yang ingin melindungi pekerjaan bergaji rendah mereka dan oleh kaum rasis.
    • Lincoln telah menjadi seorang tiran dan bertekad menghancurkan kebebasan sipil
    • Perang adalah tragedi nasional dan harus diakhiri, bahkan jika itu berarti memberikan kemerdekaan kepada Konfederasi.
    Dukungan untuk Demokrat Perdamaian paling kuat di Midwest, terutama di Ohio, Indiana dan Illinois. Penduduk daerah-daerah ini sangat tidak percaya pada Timur, pusat kekuasaan Republik, dan mempertahankan ikatan komersial dan sentimental yang kuat dengan Selatan. Nama "Copperhead" diterapkan pada kelompok ini oleh pers Republik yang tidak setuju, yang menyamakannya dengan Partai Demokrat. tindakan untuk orang-orang dari ular berbisa. Demokrat Perdamaian mencoba mengubah nama itu untuk keuntungan mereka dengan mengenakan kerah mereka uang tembaga bergambar kepala dewi Liberty. Clement L. Vallandigham dari Ohio adalah juru bicara faksi yang paling menonjol. Namun, pada tahun 1863, ia diadili oleh pengadilan militer dan dibuang ke Konfederasi karena mengungkapkan simpati Selatan. Demokrat Perdamaian terkemuka lainnya adalah Fernando Wood, mantan walikota New York City yang masuk Kongres pada tahun 1863. Pada tahun 1864, Demokrat Perdamaian mengendalikan Konvensi Demokrat. Vallandigham, yang telah bekerja kembali ke negara itu, berhasil merekayasa papan untuk platform partai yang menyebut perang itu gagal dan menyerukan perdamaian yang dinegosiasikan. Posisi itu segera ditolak oleh calon Demokrat, George B. McClellan. Jatuhnya Atlanta pada bulan September membalikkan jalannya perang, meyakinkan pemilihan kembali Lincoln dan mengambil angin dari layar Demokrat Perdamaian. Dalam pasca-perang Utara, banyak pemilih menganggap Partai Demokrat bertanggung jawab atas tindakan Copperheads, menugaskan mereka menyalahkan karena memperpanjang konflik. Demokrat tidak bisa lepas dari ketidaksetujuan pemilih sampai memasuki tahun 1870-an. Baru pada tahun 1884 seorang Demokrat terpilih menjadi presiden.

Gerakan Antiperang di AS

Para pengunjuk rasa Perang Vietnam membawa tanda-tanda antiperang berbaris di San Francisco dari Market Street ke Stadion Kezar Golden Gate Park untuk unjuk rasa yang disebut Mobilisasi Musim Semi untuk Mengakhiri Perang di Vietnam

Terkait

7 Oktober menandai ulang tahun kedelapan invasi AS ke Afghanistan — perang yang telah bergeser dari kampanye ke perang salib menjadi dekat rawa ketika AS telah memikirkan kembali dan mendefinisikan ulang strateginya dalam perang melawan terorisme. Menurut CBS/New York baru-baru ini Waktu jajak pendapat, 53% orang Amerika sekarang mengatakan hal-hal buruk bagi AS di Afghanistan. Dan hanya sedikit yang mengatakan itu dengan keras seperti mereka yang memilih hari jadi sebagai hari mereka untuk berdemonstrasi. Organisasi mahasiswa di 25 kampus, bersama dengan anggota kelompok antiperang seperti koalisi Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) dan Veterans for Peace mengadakan rapat umum pada 7 Oktober, lainnya telah turun ke Washington. Pada 5 Oktober, 61 orang ditangkap dalam demonstrasi di ibu kota, termasuk Cindy Sheehan, mantan wajah gerakan antiperang Irak, yang merantai dirinya ke pagar Gedung Putih. (Lihat gambar untuk memperingati 50 tahun simbol perdamaian.)

Demonstrasi seperti ini terhadap petualangan militer bangsa telah muncul di hampir setiap konflik penting dalam sejarah AS. Demokrat Perdamaian tahun 1860-an menjadi dikenal sebagai Copperheads — setelah ular Tenggara yang menyerang tanpa peringatan — karena penentangan mereka terhadap Perang Saudara. Demokrat Perdamaian sebagian besar adalah pemukim baru-baru ini di Midwest (Ohio, Indiana dan Illinois) dengan akar Selatan dan minat untuk mempertahankan Persatuan, dan mereka membuat tujuan bersama dengan kelompok-kelompok Utara yang menentang emansipasi dan wajib militer. Kerusuhan antidraft tahun 1863 — didramatisasi dalam film Martin Scorsese 2002 Geng New York — dipicu oleh penentangan terhadap Undang-Undang Wajib Militer yang baru saja disahkan pemerintah dan, sebagian, oleh ketakutan di antara para imigran Irlandia bahwa budak yang dibebaskan akan datang ke Utara dan mengambil pekerjaan.

Wajib militer memainkan peran berulang dalam protes untuk abad berikutnya. Pada awal Perang Dunia I, Sosialis dan isolasionis menentang rancangan tersebut dengan alasan kebebasan sipil: Charles Schenck, sekretaris jenderal Partai Sosialis Amerika, dihukum karena melanggar Undang-Undang Spionase tahun 1917 karena menyebarkan selebaran yang mendesak pria untuk melawan draf. Dalam kasus yang terkenal Schenck v. Amerika Serikat, Schenck berpendapat (tidak berhasil) bahwa wajib militer setara dengan "penghambaan paksa" dan dengan demikian dilarang oleh Amandemen ke-13.


Perdamaian demokratis

Editor kami akan meninjau apa yang Anda kirimkan dan menentukan apakah akan merevisi artikel tersebut.

Perdamaian demokratis, proposisi bahwa negara-negara demokratis tidak pernah (atau hampir tidak pernah) berperang satu sama lain.

Konsep perdamaian demokratis harus dibedakan dari klaim bahwa demokrasi pada umumnya lebih damai daripada negara-negara nondemokratis. Sementara klaim yang terakhir kontroversial, klaim bahwa negara-negara demokratis tidak saling berperang secara luas dianggap benar oleh para sarjana dan praktisi hubungan internasional. Pendukung perdamaian demokratis kembali ke filsuf Jerman Immanuel Kant dan, baru-baru ini, kepada Pres. Woodrow Wilson, yang menyatakan dalam pesan perangnya tahun 1917 kepada Kongres bahwa Amerika Serikat bertujuan untuk membuat dunia “aman untuk demokrasi.”

Di dalam Proyek untuk Perdamaian Abadi (1795), Kant membayangkan pembentukan zona damai di antara negara-negara yang dibentuk sebagai republik. Meskipun ia secara eksplisit menyamakan demokrasi dengan despotisme, para sarjana kontemporer mengklaim bahwa definisi republikanisme Kant, yang menekankan sifat perwakilan pemerintahan republik, sesuai dengan pemahaman kita saat ini tentang demokrasi liberal. Dengan demikian, istilah perdamaian demokratis (atau perdamaian liberal) dan perdamaian Kantian saat ini sering digunakan secara bergantian.

Proyek untuk Perdamaian Abadi menerima sedikit pemberitahuan dari mahasiswa hubungan internasional sampai, dalam serangkaian artikel berpengaruh yang diterbitkan pada pertengahan 1980-an, sarjana hubungan internasional Amerika Michael Doyle meminta perhatian pada karya Kant dan berpendapat bahwa zona perdamaian yang dibayangkan oleh Kant secara bertahap menjadi kenyataan. . Selanjutnya, dan terutama setelah berakhirnya Perang Dingin, perdamaian demokratis menjadi salah satu subjek penelitian paling populer dalam hubungan internasional. Banyak penelitian dikhususkan untuk itu, banyak di antaranya menggunakan metode kuantitatif untuk menunjukkan bahwa perdamaian demokratis adalah fakta sejarah. Apa yang telah ditunjukkan oleh penelitian itu bukanlah bahwa perang antara negara-negara non-demokrasi, atau antara negara-negara demokrasi dan non-demokrasi, telah sering terjadi, tetapi telah menunjukkan bahwa, meskipun perang antarnegara secara umum adalah peristiwa yang jarang terjadi, perang antara negara-negara demokrasi bahkan lebih jarang.

Meskipun sejumlah kritikus mempertanyakan kebenaran proposisi tersebut, klaim bahwa demokrasi tidak saling berperang terus diterima secara luas dalam disiplin hubungan internasional. Namun, ada sedikit kesepakatan tentang mengapa perdamaian demokratis itu ada. Dua penjelasan utama yang bersaing (jika tidak saling eksklusif) telah diuraikan. Sementara beberapa berpendapat bahwa demokrasi lebih damai satu sama lain karena budaya bersama, yang lain menganggap faktor utama adalah struktural (atau institusional). Pendukung pandangan pertama berpendapat bahwa budaya politik masyarakat demokratis diliputi oleh norma bahwa perselisihan harus diselesaikan dengan cara damai. Warga negara demokratis, menurut argumen tersebut, menerapkan norma itu pada hubungan mereka dengan masyarakat demokratis lainnya. Oleh karena itu, ketika dua negara demokrasi terkunci dalam perselisihan, para pemimpin mereka mengharapkan satu sama lain untuk menghindari cara-cara kekerasan untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan tersebut. Pendukung penjelasan kedua berpendapat bahwa institusi politik dalam demokrasi lebih penting daripada norma yang dianut oleh warganya. Pemisahan kekuasaan dan karakteristik checks and balances dari sistem politik demokratis membatasi kemampuan para pemimpin terpilih untuk menggerakkan negara mereka secara gegabah menuju perang. Jadi, ketika konflik muncul antara dua negara demokratis, para pemimpin mereka tidak perlu takut akan serangan mendadak. Proses pengambilan keputusan keamanan nasional yang lambat di kedua belah pihak memungkinkan cukup waktu bagi diplomat untuk menyelesaikan konflik secara damai.


Demokrasi dan Perang di 1900-an

Mungkin bukti terkuat yang mendukung Teori Perdamaian Demokratis adalah fakta bahwa tidak ada perang antar negara demokrasi selama abad ke-20.

Saat abad ini dimulai, Perang Spanyol-Amerika yang baru saja berakhir telah membuat Amerika Serikat mengalahkan monarki Spanyol dalam perjuangan untuk menguasai koloni Spanyol di Kuba.

Dalam Perang Dunia I, AS bersekutu dengan imperium Eropa yang demokratis untuk mengalahkan imperium otoriter dan fasis Jerman, Austro-Hongaria, Turki, dan sekutunya. Hal ini menyebabkan Perang Dunia II dan akhirnya Perang Dingin tahun 1970-an, di mana AS memimpin koalisi negara-negara demokratis dalam melawan penyebaran komunisme Soviet yang otoriter.

Baru-baru ini, dalam Perang Teluk (1990-91), Perang Irak (2003-2011), dan perang yang sedang berlangsung di Afghanistan, Amerika Serikat, bersama dengan berbagai negara demokratis berjuang untuk melawan terorisme internasional oleh faksi jihad radikal dari kelompok Islam otoriter. pemerintah. Memang, setelah serangan teror 11 September 2001, pemerintahan George W. Bush mendasarkan penggunaan kekuatan militernya untuk menggulingkan kediktatoran Saddam Hussein di Irak dengan keyakinan bahwa hal itu akan membawa demokrasi—dengan demikian perdamaian—ke Timur Tengah.


Presiden Kennedy mendirikan Peace Corps

Pada tanggal 1 Maret 1961, Presiden John F. Kennedy mengeluarkan Executive Order #10924, mendirikan Peace Corps sebagai badan baru di dalam Departemen Luar Negeri. Pada hari yang sama, dia mengirim pesan ke Kongres meminta dana permanen untuk badan tersebut, yang akan mengirim pria dan wanita Amerika yang terlatih ke negara-negara asing untuk membantu dalam upaya pembangunan. Peace Corps menangkap imajinasi publik AS, dan selama seminggu setelah pembentukannya, ribuan surat mengalir ke Washington dari anak muda Amerika yang berharap untuk menjadi sukarelawan.

Perintis langsung dari Peace Corps'Point Four Youth Corps' diusulkan oleh Perwakilan Henry Reuss dari Wisconsin pada akhir 1950-an. Senator Kennedy mengetahui proposal Reuss selama kampanye kepresidenannya tahun 1960 dan, merasakan antusiasme publik yang meningkat terhadap gagasan tersebut, memutuskan untuk menambahkannya ke platformnya. Pada awal Oktober 1960, dia mengirim pesan ke Demokrat Muda yang menyerukan pembentukan “Youth Peace Corps,” dan pada 14 Oktober dia pertama kali secara terbuka berbicara tentang ide Peace Corps pada pidato pagi hari di Universitas Michigan di Ann Arbor. Malam sebelumnya, dia telah melibatkan Wakil Presiden Richard Nixon dalam debat presiden ketiga dan terkejut menemukan sekitar 10.000 siswa menunggu untuk mendengarnya berbicara ketika dia tiba di universitas pada jam 2 pagi. Para siswa yang berkumpul mendengar presiden masa depan mengeluarkan tantangan : Berapa banyak dari mereka, tanyanya, yang bersedia mengabdi pada negara mereka dan tujuan kebebasan dengan hidup dan bekerja di negara berkembang selama bertahun-tahun?

Proposal Peace Corps mendapatkan momentum di hari-hari terakhir kampanye Kennedy, dan pada 8 November ia terpilih sebagai presiden Amerika Serikat ke-35. Pada tanggal 20 Januari 1961, dalam pidato pengukuhannya yang terkenal, dia menjanjikan bantuan kepada orang miskin di dunia. “Kepada orang-orang di gubuk dan desa di belahan dunia yang berjuang untuk memutuskan ikatan kesengsaraan massal,” dia berkata, “kami berjanji upaya terbaik kami untuk membantu mereka membantu diri mereka sendiri, untuk periode apa pun yang diperlukan𠅋ukan karena komunis mungkin melakukannya, bukan karena kami mencari suara mereka, tetapi karena itu benar.” Dia juga mengimbau orang Amerika untuk ȁJangan meminta apa yang negara Anda dapat lakukan untuk Anda, tanyakan apa yang dapat Anda lakukan untuk negara Anda. ”

Setelah 1 Maret, ribuan pemuda Amerika menjawab panggilan tugas ini dengan menjadi sukarelawan untuk Peace Corps. Badan tersebut, yang dipimpin oleh saudara ipar Kennedy, R. Sargent Shriver, akhirnya memilih sekitar 750 sukarelawan untuk melayani di 13 negara pada tahun 1961. Pada bulan Agustus, Kennedy menyelenggarakan upacara Gedung Putih untuk menghormati beberapa orang yang pertama. Relawan Korps Perdamaian. 51 orang Amerika yang kemudian mendarat di Accra, Ghana, selama dua tahun pelayanan segera membuat kesan yang baik pada tuan rumah mereka ketika mereka berkumpul di landasan bandara untuk menyanyikan lagu kebangsaan Ghana di Twi, bahasa lokal.

Pada tanggal 22 September 1961, Kennedy menandatangani undang-undang kongres yang menciptakan Korps Perdamaian permanen yang akan “mempromosikan perdamaian dan persahabatan dunia” melalui tiga tujuan: (1) untuk membantu masyarakat dari negara-negara yang berkepentingan dalam memenuhi kebutuhan mereka akan pria dan wanita yang terlatih ( 2) untuk membantu mempromosikan pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang orang Amerika di pihak orang-orang yang dilayani dan (3) untuk membantu mempromosikan pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang orang lain di pihak orang Amerika.

Pada akhir tahun 1963, 7.000 sukarelawan berada di lapangan, melayani di 44 negara. Pada tahun 1966, pendaftaran Peace Corps mencapai puncaknya, dengan lebih dari 15.000 sukarelawan di 52 negara. Pemotongan anggaran kemudian mengurangi jumlah sukarelawan Peace Corps, tetapi hari ini lebih dari 7.000 sukarelawan Peace Corps melayani di lebih dari 60 negara. Sejak 1961, lebih dari 240.000 orang Amerika telah bergabung dengan Peace Corps, melayani di 142 negara.


Iklan palsu: Bagaimana Demokrat mencoba menulis ulang sejarah

Sejak Presiden Donald Trump Donald Trump 'QAnon dukun' akan mengikuti ujian kompetensi di penjara federal Colorado Trump memukul Biden, Demokrat dalam kembali pasca-presiden ke panggung reli Pengawas menemukan karyawan EPA terus digaji oleh Trump yang ditunjuk setelah mereka dipecat: laporan LEBIH muncul di panggung politik , Demokrat tanpa henti menantang kebenaran pernyataannya.

Menertawakan apa yang disebut "fakta alternatif" Trump, Demokrat memiliki beberapa "fakta alternatif" mereka sendiri.

Ambil pernyataan ini dari halaman “Our History” di situs web DNC: “Selama lebih dari 200 tahun, partai kami telah memimpin perjuangan untuk hak-hak sipil, perawatan kesehatan, Jaminan Sosial, hak-hak pekerja, dan hak-hak perempuan.”

Setiap pelajar sejarah dapat segera mengidentifikasi mengapa pernyataan ini tidak hanya menyesatkan tetapi dalam beberapa hal benar-benar bohong.

Demokrat hari ini mungkin mengklaim untuk memperjuangkan ide-ide ini, tetapi ini jelas tidak terjadi selama "lebih dari 200 tahun."

Yang paling penting, Demokrat hampir tidak memperjuangkan hak-hak sipil. Untuk sebagian besar sejarahnya, partai berjuang dengan perpecahan atas pertanyaan hak-hak minoritas. Isu perluasan perbudakan mencabik-cabik Demokrat sebelum dan sesudah Perang Saudara.

Itu sebenarnya Partai Republik yang didirikan pada gagasan bahwa perbudakan harus dihapuskan.

Pada tahun 1864, platform Partai Republik menyatakan, “Perbudakan bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Pemerintah Republik. Keadilan dan keamanan Nasional menuntut pemusnahan total dan menyeluruh dari tanah Republik.”

Maaf, Tom Perez, pihak Anda sendiri yang memulai Perang Saudara karena Anda mendukung "hak sipil" pemilik budak.

Ketidaksepakatan tentang masalah hak-hak sipil di dalam Partai Demokrat berlanjut lama setelah Perang Saudara. Karena perpecahan di dalam partai, Demokrat hanya mampu memegang satu kursi kepresidenan antara tahun 1896 dan 1932. Pada tahun 1948, pertama kali Demokrat secara resmi mengadopsi platform pro-hak sipil, Demokrat Selatan keluar dari Konvensi Nasional Demokrat sebagai protes.

Kesenjangan tetap ada sepanjang tahun 1950-an dan 60-an, dengan Demokrat selatan berusaha untuk filibuster Undang-Undang Hak Sipil tahun 1964.

Faktanya, 80 persen dari Partai Republik memilih mendukung bagian terakhirnya, berbeda dengan kurang dari 70 persen demokrat yang mendukungnya.

Apakah ini terdengar seperti sebuah partai yang telah “memimpin perjuangan untuk hak-hak sipil” selama lebih dari 200 tahun?

Partai Demokrat juga secara historis menentang hak pilih perempuan. Partai Republik mendukung hak perempuan untuk memilih dalam platformnya pada tahun 1854. Namun, karena hambatan Demokrat, baru pada tahun 1920 perempuan diberikan hak pilih universal.

Ketika amandemen itu datang sebelum kongres, 82 persen anggota GOP memilihnya, sementara hanya 59 persen Demokrat yang mendukungnya.

Apakah itu terdengar seperti partai yang memimpin perjuangan hak perempuan selama lebih dari 200 tahun?

Demokrat memiliki ingatan selektif dalam hal sejarah partai mereka. Ini bukan untuk mengatakan bahwa sejarah Partai Republik tanpa cacat selama bertahun-tahun, GOP tidak diragukan lagi berjuang dengan identitasnya sebagai sebuah partai juga. Namun, mengingat kritik mereka terhadap kejujuran Trump, penulisan ulang Demokrat tentang masa lalu secara terang-terangan munafik.

Pertimbangkan Andrew Jackson, misalnya, presiden pertama yang mengidentifikasi diri sebagai seorang Demokrat. Partai dengan cepat melupakan Jackson, setelah pengusiran brutalnya terhadap penduduk asli Amerika.

Atau Woodrow Wilson: Demokrat akan memuliakannya sebagai pejuang perdamaian tetapi tidak akan menyebutkan bahwa dia tidak terlalu peduli dengan hak-hak sipil dan memandang segregasi di lembaga federal sebagai keuntungan bagi minoritas.

Atau John F. Kennedy: advokasi hak-hak sipilnya disorot, tetapi banyak Demokrat mengabaikan kedalaman kalkulus politik dan keraguan ekstrem yang digunakan JFK untuk mendekati isu-isu hak-hak sipil.

Kecenderungan untuk mengabaikan atau mengubah citra tokoh Demokrat tertentu tidak hanya berlaku untuk Demokrat di masa lalu tetapi juga untuk para pemimpin partai saat ini.

Salah satu alasan negara menolak Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonTrump memukul Biden, Demokrat pasca-presiden kembali ke panggung reli Conan O'Brien mengakhiri lari larut malam setelah lebih dari 4.000 episode Pemungutan suara komuni menyoroti umat Katolik Hispanik LEBIH karena dia mencoba menjadi segalanya bagi semua orang, dan pada akhirnya, tidak ada yang benar-benar tahu di mana dia berdiri dalam masalah ini.

Demokrat mengklaim memiliki sejarah 200 tahun memimpin perjuangan untuk hak-hak sipil, perawatan kesehatan, Jaminan Sosial, hak-hak pekerja, dan hak-hak perempuan?

Tapi sejarah berkata lain.

Tergantung pada Demokrat mana yang Anda lihat, angka itu mungkin bahkan tidak sepuluh tahun.

Jika Demokrat akan menyerang Trump karena berbohong dan menipu rakyat Amerika, mereka harus berhati-hati dengan apa yang mereka iklankan.

Christopher Reid adalah pengacara praktik umum di Birmingham Alabama. Dia telah bekerja untuk kepemimpinan Partai Republik di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Amerika Serikat di Washington, DC, dan merupakan penasihat kebijakan kesehatan untuk Gubernur Alabama. Dia saat ini menjadi pembawa acara bersama acara radio konservatif untuk radio berita yellowhammer yang terdengar di seluruh negara bagian Alabama.

Pandangan yang diungkapkan oleh kontributor adalah milik mereka sendiri dan bukan pandangan The Hill.


Di Mana Posisi Partai Demokrat dalam Perang, Perdamaian, dan Hubungan Internasional?

Setelah hampir empat tahun pemerintahan Trump, pemilih A.S. memiliki gagasan yang cukup bagus tentang kebijakan yang diperjuangkan oleh Presiden dan sekutu Partai Republiknya dalam hal hubungan Amerika dengan negara lain. Kebijakan-kebijakan ini termasuk peningkatan besar-besaran dalam pengeluaran militer, perang panjang di luar negeri, ancaman perang nuklir, penarikan dari perjanjian iklim dan perlucutan senjata nuklir, tindakan keras terhadap pengungsi, dan pengabaian lembaga-lembaga internasional.

Tapi bagaimana dengan Demokrat? Apakah mereka, seperti yang dituduhkan beberapa orang, hanya mencerminkan Partai Republik dalam hal keterlibatan Amerika dengan dunia? Platform resmi Partai Demokrat, yang diadopsi Agustus ini di konvensi nasional Partai Demokrat, memberikan jawaban yang berguna untuk pertanyaan ini.

Bagian urusan luar negeri dari platform dibuka dengan bantahan tajam terhadap pendekatan nasionalis Trump yang agresif. Menantang militerisme, ia berjanji untuk &ldquomenggunakan kekuatan hanya bila diperlukan, selalu sebagai upaya terakhir, dan dengan persetujuan rakyat Amerika.&rdquo Ia juga berjanji untuk memanfaatkan kemitraan dan lembaga internasional untuk &ldquomemenuhi tantangan bersama yang tidak dapat dihadapi oleh negara mana pun. sendiri.&rdquo

Diskusi platform tentang kebijakan militer AS sangat mencolok. &ldquoKita perlu mengakhiri perang selamanya dengan bertanggung jawab,&rdquo dokumen menyatakan. &ldquoKeterlibatan militer kita, yang membentang dari Afrika Barat hingga Asia Tenggara, telah menelan biaya lebih dari $5 triliun dan merenggut lebih dari setengah juta nyawa. Perang kami di Afghanistan adalah perang terpanjang dalam sejarah Amerika.&rdquo Oleh karena itu, &ldquoit&rsquos waktunya untuk mengakhiri konflik yang tak henti-hentinya selama hampir dua dekade.&rdquo

Oleh karena itu, platform tersebut menyerukan penyelesaian damai di Afghanistan, penghentian dukungan AS untuk perang yang dipimpin Saudi di Yaman (perang yang &ldquois bertanggung jawab atas krisis kemanusiaan terburuk di dunia&rdquo), dan untuk menerapkan pelajaran dari konflik yang membawa bencana ini. Ini berarti, antara lain, bahwa &ldquokami akan bekerja dengan Kongres untuk mencabut otorisasi yang telah berusia puluhan tahun untuk penggunaan kekuatan militer dan menggantinya dengan kerangka kerja yang sempit dan spesifik yang akan memastikan kami dapat melindungi Amerika dari ancaman teroris sambil mengakhiri perang selamanya. &rdquo Platform menambahkan: &ldquoDaripada menduduki negara dan menggulingkan rezim untuk mencegah serangan teroris, Demokrat akan memprioritaskan alat diplomatik, intelijen, dan penegakan hukum yang lebih efektif dan lebih murah.&rdquo

Sejalan dengan pendekatan baru ini, platform tersebut menyerukan untuk memotong anggaran militer pemerintahan Trump yang membengkak&mdashapa yang disebutnya, dalam bahasa Washington, &ldquomemulihkan stabilitas, prediktabilitas, dan disiplin fiskal dalam pengeluaran pertahanan.&rdquo Sebagai pembenaran, platform mencatat bahwa &ldquokami menghabiskan 13 kali lebih banyak pada militer daripada yang kita lakukan pada diplomasi. Kami menghabiskan lima kali lebih banyak di Afghanistan setiap tahun daripada yang kami lakukan untuk kesehatan masyarakat global dan mencegah pandemi berikutnya. Kita dapat mempertahankan pertahanan yang kuat dan melindungi keselamatan dan keamanan kita dengan harga yang lebih murah.&rdquo

Platform ini juga berjanji bahwa Demokrat akan memulai reformasi lain di militer AS. Ini termasuk upaya untuk menghentikan &ldquotpemerintahan Trump&rsquos politisasi angkatan bersenjata,&rdquo membasmi serangan seksual dalam barisan mereka, dan menjaga &ldquotkemerdekaan sistem peradilan militer&mdashnot maafkan penjahat perang.&rdquo

Menjanjikan untuk &ldquorevitalisasi diplomasi Amerika,&rdquo platform berpendapat bahwa, &ldquodaripada memiliterisasi kebijakan luar negeri kita,&rdquo Demokrat akan menjadikan diplomasi &ldquoalat pilihan pertama.&rdquo Di bawah pemerintahan Demokrat, pemerintah AS akan bergabung kembali dengan Organisasi Kesehatan Dunia, Badan Manusia PBB Dewan Hak, dan Dana Kependudukan PBB dan berusaha untuk memodernisasi lembaga internasional. Memperjuangkan program bantuan dan pembangunan asing, platform ini mendukung &ldquoinvestasi AS dalam pencegahan dan pengentasan kemiskinan, kelaparan, penyakit, dan konflik,&rdquo dan &ldquopemberdayaan populasi rentan dan terpinggirkan.&rdquo Ini juga menjanjikan bahwa &ldquoDemokrat akan memimpin upaya internasional untuk membantu pembangunan negara bertahan dan pulih dari krisis utang yang disebabkan oleh pandemi COVID-19.&rdquo

Memang, platform Demokrat dengan tajam menolak pendekatan nasionalis sempit dari pemerintahan Trump. Ini berisi komitmen kuat untuk bertindak secara kooperatif dengan negara lain untuk memastikan kesehatan global (misalnya, dengan memulihkan peran AS sebagai penyandang dana utama dan mitra teknis WHO), memerangi perubahan iklim (dengan bergabung kembali dengan Perjanjian Iklim Paris dan mengembangkan global yang lebih ambisius. tujuan untuk mengurangi polusi gas rumah kaca), memanfaatkan teknologi untuk kepentingan publik (dengan menjaga internet terbuka), dan memperluas penerimaan pengungsi. Dalam upaya lain untuk menghormati hak-hak negara lain, platform tersebut berjanji untuk memindahkan hubungan pemerintah AS di Timur Tengah dari intervensi militer dan untuk mengakhiri kebijakan kejam pemerintahan Trump terhadap Kuba dan Venezuela.

Sejalan dengan penurunan penekanan pada kekuatan militer dan peningkatan penekanan pada kerjasama internasional, platform menyatakan bahwa Demokrat mendukung &ldquoeliminasi&rdquo senjata kimia, biologi, dan nuklir. Mereka mendukung &ldquomengurangi ketergantungan kita yang berlebihan dan pengeluaran yang berlebihan untuk senjata nuklir&rdquo&rdquo dan menyatakan bahwa &ldquoproposal pemerintahan Trump&rsquo untuk membangun senjata nuklir baru tidak perlu, boros, dan tidak dapat dipertahankan.&rdquo Selanjutnya, &ldquoDemokrat berkomitmen untuk memperkuat&rdquo Perjanjian Nonproliferasi nuklir, &ldquomempertahankan moratorium senjata nuklir peledak pengujian, mendorong ratifikasi Perjanjian Perdagangan Senjata PBB dan Perjanjian Larangan Uji Komprehensif, dan memperpanjang START Baru.&rdquo Selain itu, mereka akan &ldquobekerja dengan Rusia&rdquo untuk &ldquomenegosiasikan perjanjian kontrol senjata [nuklir]. . . dan memindahkan dunia kembali dari jurang nuklir.&rdquo

Diakui, platform Demokrat 2020 juga berisi retorika pengibaran bendera sesekali dan sejumlah posisi yang pasti akan mengganggu setidaknya beberapa kritikus kebijakan Trump. Juga, tentu saja, platform partai adalah pernyataan preferensi kebijakan&mdashbukan jaminan implementasinya.

Meski begitu, dalam hal perang, perdamaian, dan hubungan internasional, Partai Demokrat telah menggariskan program yang sangat berbeda dari mitranya dari Partai Republik. Dalam pemilihan November ini, pemilih Amerika akan memiliki pilihan yang jelas tentang peran seperti apa yang mereka inginkan untuk dimainkan negara mereka di dunia.


Partai Perdamaian dan Kebebasan: Sejarah, Fakta, dan Keyakinan

Partai Perdamaian dan Kebebasan. Terjepit di antara partai-partai politik besar seperti Partai Republik dan Demokrat, partai sayap kiri kecil ini berusaha menemukan landasan kokoh di dunia politik yang terjerat yang didorong dengan tujuan kesetaraan, feminisme, dan demokrasi. Artikel OpinionFront ini menelusuri sejarah, fakta, dan keyakinan Partai Perdamaian dan Kebebasan.

Partai Perdamaian dan Kebebasan. Terjepit di antara partai-partai politik besar seperti Partai Republik dan Demokrat, partai sayap kiri kecil ini berusaha menemukan landasan kokoh di dunia politik yang terjerat yang didorong dengan tujuan kesetaraan, feminisme, dan demokrasi. Artikel OpinionFront ini menelusuri sejarah, fakta, dan keyakinan Partai Perdamaian dan Kebebasan.

Pelawak Roseanne Barr adalah kandidat resmi Partai Perdamaian dan Kebebasan untuk pemilihan presiden 2012.

Partai kiri California ini sama sekali tidak terkait dengan Liga Internasional Perempuan untuk Perdamaian dan Kebebasan yang merupakan organisasi anti-perang, meskipun itu berasal dari demonstrasi anti-perang. Tidak ada satu pemimpin pun yang dianggap sebagai pendirinya, melainkan ada beberapa individu yang melayani selama tahap pembentukannya dari berbagai lapisan masyarakat. Buruh tani, hak-hak sipil dan aktivis anti-perang membentuk partai ini karena frustrasi politik yang dilontarkan partai Demokrat kepada negara.

Setelah dimulai, partai tersebut menjadi terkenal di negara bagian California yang multi-budaya dan pada awal tahun 1968 berhasil mencapai status pemungutan suara di negara bagian tersebut dengan mendaftarkan lebih dari 105.000 pemilih di bawah panji politiknya yang khas.

Sejarah Singkat

Partai Perdamaian dan Kebebasan berdiri pada tanggal 23 Juni 1967 karena efek langsung dari Perang Vietnam. Aktivis anti-perang mengadakan protes damai terhadap pemerintahan Lyndon Johnson karena mendorong Amerika ke front perang yang dituduhkan.

Pada tanggal 23 Juni 1967, ketika Presiden Johnson menyampaikan pidato di Century City di Los Angeles, ribuan pria, wanita dan anak-anak kulit putih kelas menengah turun ke jalan memprotes untuk mengakhiri propaganda Vietnam dan memanggil pasukan kembali ke rumah. Polisi menyerang kerumunan dan mulai memukuli para pengunjuk rasa yang menciptakan kekacauan dan kekacauan bahkan ketika media merekam seluruh adegan secara langsung. Kejadian ini semakin menimbulkan ketidakpercayaan masyarakat terhadap Partai Demokrat.

Katalisator lainnya adalah petani yang tidak bahagia yang ingin membentuk serikat pekerja dan melakukan boikot nasional terhadap Demokrat karena kenaikan pajak mereka. Dengan demikian para petani, para aktivis anti perang berkumpul dan membentuk partai independen mereka untuk menangani masalah ekonomi, politik, dan sosial.

Keyakinan Partai

Pesta tidak menampilkan slogan resmi, tapi keyakinan fundamentalnya secara luas didasarkan pada demokrasi, sosialisme, feminisme, ekologi, dan kesetaraan ras. NS logo pesta terdiri dari sebuah lingkaran hitam yang terdiri dari seekor merpati putih dengan tulisan ‘Pesta Perdamaian dan Kebebasan’ dalam teks hijau, dan dua belenggu logam merah yang putus di kiri dan kanan.

Sosialisme
Sebuah partai yang terutama menjaga kelas pekerja di bawah agendanya mengadvokasi produksi pertanian & industri untuk kebutuhan manusia, penyatuan tenaga kerja, penghapusan kapitalisme kekaisaran, menghasilkan kondisi kerja yang lebih baik, cuti orang tua untuk perawatan anak, membela hak-hak pekerja, penghapusan lembur dengan kerja 30 jam dan upah 40 jam, promosi undang-undang keselamatan, dan penghasilan dasar universal dengan jaminan manfaat sosial.

Menegakkan Perdamaian dan Keadilan Internasional
Mereka berkomitmen untuk bekerja menuju perdamaian antara negara-negara dengan perlucutan senjata global, menghapus ketidakstabilan pemerintah asing, menyingkirkan semua agen rahasia pemerintah seperti CIA, NSA, AID, dan lembaga lainnya, menghapuskan kesepakatan dan perdagangan senjata, realokasi dana militer untuk sosial. manfaat, dan penghapusan senjata ruang angkasa dan drone yang mengganggu privasi orang.

Persamaan Hak dan Kebebasan
Partai percaya pada kesempatan kerja yang sama dan perlakuan hormat terhadap pekerja oleh majikan mereka serta pemerintah.

Hak Perempuan
Keyakinan mereka merupakan mengakhiri peran seks yang menindas dalam masyarakat, mempromosikan hak yang sama untuk membesarkan anak, menyediakan perawatan anak berkualitas tinggi, aborsi gratis sesuai permintaan, mencegah aborsi paksa, mengamankan perawatan prenatal, dan mengakhiri kekerasan sosial dan domestik terhadap perempuan.

Rasisme dan Penindasan Nasional
The party proposes to put an end to all forms of racism and social discrimination, and legally prosecute law and prison authorities who mistreat and murder prison inmates.

Establish Language Rights
They encourage co-equal status for Spanish language and culture in the state of California and abolish all English-only laws.

Protection of Undocumented Workers
They aim to establish full political, economic, and social rights to the immigrant workers, opening up of the borders, and end deportation of illegal immigrants.

Defends the Native Americans
The party strives to work for the acknowledgement of indigenous tribes, honor their hunting, fishing, and natural resources, abolish the FBI harassment of these tribes, and stop the desecration of their sacred burial grounds.

Acknowledges Varied Sexual Orientations
The party promotes equal rights for every individual despite their personal sexual orientation, rights to gay marriage, healthy sex education at schools, and insures equal child custody, adoption, visitation privileges, and foster parenthood rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Equality for People With Disabilities
The party encourages equal rights for people with disabilities to receive education, housing, health care, recreation, and transportation rights.

Propagation of a Healthy Ecosystem
They believe in creation of open public spaces, regulate pesticides, herbicides, industrial wastes and genetically modified foods to defend human food, air and water, and species habitat. They aim to end environment racism, protect species and bio-diversity.

Efficient Agricultural System
The party believes in developing an agricultural system that assures sufficient food and farm products to meet all human needs, end animal husbandry, end the use of genetically engineered organisms in food production, ban terminator seeds and chemically induced agricultural products.

Better Education
The PFP believes in promoting multi-lingual and multi-cultural education, cancellation of student debt, federal funding for special education, free education till graduation level, and snips on public library services.

Promotes Housing and Rent Control
Their ideologies include rent and eviction laws to be re-evaluated and re-updated, introduce collective bargaining for tenants, promote affordable homes for all, and emphasize public financing for housing the homeless.

Equal Voting and Election Rights
The party ascertains direct voting facility to the public, voting rights to non-residents especially in school and local elections, voting rights for people of color, homeless, and non-English speakers, and free access to media for all political candidates.

Better Health Care
PFP believes in promoting free and high-quality health care for all, price control on drugs and medical installations, more funding on research of diseases caused by man-made substances, and more substance abuse treatment, prevention of epidemic diseases, and free immunization.

Reduction of Tax Burden
PFP advocates the abolition of Proposition 13, removal of property taxes on modest homes, increase in registration fees on luxury vehicles, high tax on unearned income, restoration of renters tax credit, and tax business activities of churches on the same basis as other organizations.

Famous Candidates

Political activist and beatnik poet John Haag was one of the prominent leaders. He ran for the public offices of California lieutenant governor in 1970 and California state controller in 1986. Eldridge Cleaver ran for presidential elections and Douglas Fitzgerald Dowd for vice presidential elections on its ticket for the 1968 election.

Other presidential candidates who stood for elections include activist and pediatrician Benyamin Spock in 1972, feminist activist Sonia Johnson in 1984, and Native American activist Leonard Peltier in 2004. Vice-presidential candidates included Benyamin Spock in 1976, Matinecoc Nation Native American activist Asiba Tupahache in 1992, and lawyer and politician Matthew Edward Gonzalez in 2008. California candidates for governor have included Chicana feminist and activist Elizabeth Martínez, Chicana activist Maria Elizabeth Muñoz in 1986, and again in 1990, and activist Janice Jordan pada tahun 2006.

More recently comedian Roseanne Barr contested the 2012 presidential elections.

Pros & Cons

Pros:
1. An efficient platform for Native American rights, equal social, sex, and women rights, better health and education goals, tax cuts, labor benefits, and agricultural production.

2. The party completely opposes all kinds of war and harbingers peace.

Cons:
Extremely active, but only in California other states have yet to witness its beneficial agenda.

Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) relentlessly make their presence felt in the nation’s political scene by nominating presidential, congressional, and senate candidates. The party holds regular demonstrations against the wealthy society and corporate houses who hoard public wealth for their benefits. It also carries out protests against the biased mandate of the media and cash-rich political parties who deny other candidates a ballot chance to present their views. With all these efforts, it will soon gain enough attention from the public to establish their party goals.


Democratic peace theory and historical examples.

The subject of democratic peace theory (the idea that democratic states don't fight each other) has come up on here a few times. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of historical exceptions to this rule (Philippine-American war, Irish war of Independence etc) one of my hunches is that democracies havent fought it each other simply due to the fact that they have little to fight about anyway. Democratic peace theorists on the other hand would explain this using regime type.

For example Joanne Gowa (playing devils advocate) sums up this argument by saying
“The checks and balances that define a democracy
constrain the autonomy of its leader. These constraints apply a fortiori to decisions
involving force, delaying the dispatch of troops abroad even in international crises. Sebagai
such, they create a window of opportunity that diplomats can exploit to settle conflicts of
interests without recourse to arms.”*

However if this was the case you would think that there was some example of two democracies having some dispute that they would have fought over were it not for democratic constraints, so presumably there would be some case where two democracies came to the brink of war and then stopped. Does such an example exist?
*http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/wip/dempeace_final.pdf p5

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

I am always wary of broad generalizations and absolutes in politics.

For instance, simply defining what is a "Democratic nation" is difficult. Some nations have the FORMS of democracy without the substance. Then there's the question of "pure democracy" vs "representative democracy", and the question of who gets to vote or hold office, and the question of civil rights and so forth.

Usually we end up just assuming that we're talking about the sort of governments that currently exist in the USA, Britain, Canada, and most of Western Europe. Well there's actually a LOT of variation just in that group, but we'll set that aside for now and accept the popular assumption for the sake of argument.

I would disagree with the assertion that two "Democratic" nations would NEVER go to war with each other.

I would however, support this statement: "Democratic nations jarang engage in wars of aggression against other democratic nations, absent substantial provocation or dire necessity."

And this one: "Autocracies, Oligarchies, Fascists and Theocracies are generally more likely to engage in wars of aggression than Democratic Republics."

Nations go to war mainly for one of these reasons:

1. Expansion, either of territory or influence, or the acquisition of resources.
2. Defense, including pre-emptive attack of a nation that seems to be a threat.
3. Other vital conflicts of intrest itu adalah insoluble through diplomacy.

I think Number 3 is worth further consideration. Two "democratic" nations (whatever that really means) could still find themselves in an insoluble conflict of intrests. If both nations needed resources available in a border region to prevent their economies from collapsing, and there wasn't enough resource in that border region to share between the two of them, that might do it.


Pro-War Democrats Push Revisionist History at DNC

Beyond the fact that the Democrats&rsquo virtual national convention appeared to have been produced by a high school A/V department , the event was one of the most blatant exercises in revisionist history ever foisted on the American body politic.

While nominating one former senator who voted to authorize the Iraq War -- Joe Biden -- the DNC enlisted another , John Kerry, to portray Democrats as the &ldquoparty of peace.&rdquo

Biden and Kerry are career politicians who have supported war for the length of their time in Washington and are members of the military/industrial/congressional complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

&ldquo[Trump] doesn&rsquot know how to defend our troops,&rdquo Kerry claimed, based on a bogus and debunked &ldquoRussian bounties&rdquo scandal that he, President Obama, and Joe Biden either knew about or Sebaiknya have known about because it supposedly happened and was first reported under their watch.

Kerry and the rest of the Obama-Biden administration dramatically expanded the war in Afghanistan, leading to over 1,000 Americans killed in action, and dragged the country into new, thankless interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere &mdash never intending for them to win in the field.

These open-ended military engagements without military value or clearly defined objectives or outcomes result in the diminution of military morale and capability and simply grind up our finest men and women. Kerry even had the nerve to claim that &ldquoOur troops can&rsquot get out of harm&rsquos way by hiding in the White House bunker.&rdquo

Buried within that idiotic jibe about the president, who was following Secret Service protocol while radicals attacked U.S. Park Service Police outside the White House, Kerry unintentionally got something right.

Our overtaxed soldiers can only get out of harm&rsquos way if they have a president who is committed to 1) letting them win a war when they are deployed and then 2) getting them home and out of harm&rsquos way as soon as possible after the victory.

After fulfilling his promise to destroy ISIS, President Trump brought our troops home from Northern Syria &mdash where Kerry, Biden, and Obama had sent them to sit for years in a war zone for the benefit of &ldquomoderate rebels&rdquo (note: there is no such thing as a &ldquomoderate rebel&rdquo). Against incredible pressure from the foreign policy establishment, Donald Trump also committed to getting thousands of additional American troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Next up was Kerry&rsquos predecessor, Colin Powell, who was among the leading engineers of the Iraq War while serving as secretary of state under former President George W. Bush.

&ldquoOur country needs a commander-in-chief who takes care of our troops in the same way he would his own family,&rdquo Powell said while endorsing the Democratic ticket, as he has done in all four presidential elections since leaving office. &ldquoWith Joe Biden in the White House, you will never doubt that he will stand with our friends &hellip he will trust our diplomats and our intelligence community[.]&rdquo

Powell, after all, is the same man who sat before the United Nations Security Council and lied, bald faced , about weapons of mass destruction in order to start a war. How dare he talk about &ldquotaking care of our troops&rdquo when he is personally responsible &mdash as a politician, not a soldier &mdash for the deaths of 4,507 American servicemen and women? How dare the man who lied to and coerced our closest allies into needlessly sacrificing hundreds of their own brave soldiers in a quagmire of his own administration&rsquos creation talk of &ldquostanding with our friends?&rdquo How dare Powell &mdash who pushed obviously false intelligence reports that confirmed his views and twisted those that did not, and who elevated the word of self-interested Iranian-backed conmen into Gospel truth, humiliating America and undermining our credibility to this day &mdash talk of &ldquotrusting our intelligence community?&rdquo

The height of hypocrisy, however, came during the three-minute tribute to the long personal friendship between Biden and the late Sen. John McCain. &ldquoIt was a friendship that shouldn&rsquot have worked,&rdquo the narrator intoned .

Never addressed in the entire video is mengapa that friendship &ldquoshouldn&rsquot have worked&rdquo &mdash in many ways, Biden and McCain were two sides of the same coin. The two men, both establishment figures in their respective parties and occasional presidential candidates, were integral members of the same Washington foreign policy &ldquoblob&rdquo for decades. To the extent that the two men differed on foreign policy views, it was only in that McCain was a more extreme devotee of the failed interventionism ideology to which they both subscribed.

John McCain was the single leading advocate of military adventurism in post-Cold War America. In addition to being the Iraq War&rsquos greatest booster, he also tried to push America to the brink of war with Russia. He tried to pressure our allies into adding the tiny, Russia-adjacent country of Georgia into NATO, which would have obligated us to go to war with a nuclear power over the breakaway &ldquorepublic&rdquo of South Ossetia, which has a population of just 53,000. When the Obama-Biden administration was bungling its schizophrenic intervention in Syria, McCain was right there on the ground, posing for photos with the jihadist-allied &ldquomoderate rebels.&rdquo

It is only thanks to a new breed of Republicans who repudiated and marginalized the Biden/McCain school&rsquos foreign policy views &mdash Donald Trump foremost among them &mdash that this country has avoided more of the saber-rattling lunacy of the Iraq War era. These new Republicans demand accountable use of the military. They believe the military should be used as a last resort, but when used should be given clear, achievable objectives and ALLOWED to win. They believe in ending the meandering, vague, and open-ended military engagements that cost blood and treasure but secure nothing for the U.S. or our allies &mdash engagements that Biden has openly called for and supported throughout his entire 47-year political career.

The consistently anti-Trump McCain&rsquos proxy endorsement from beyond the grave only proves the president&rsquos point: establishment figures from both parties were in cahoots with each other all along.

In 2016, Donald Trump called out the D.C. establishment&rsquos lies and the bellicose dogmatism that got thousands of Americans killed and permanently alienated many of our closest allies. Since then, the Trump administration has reoriented our foreign policy toward peace, restraint, effective and limited use of military power, and putting America first. Joe Biden would return us to the old ways, and all the revisionist history in the world can&rsquot change this fact.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (ret) is a Bronze Star recipient for combat in Afghanistan, a retired CIA-trained senior intelligence operations officer, and president of the London Center for Policy Research.


The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels? How about Joseph Hayne Rainey? If not, you&rsquore not alone. I taught history and I never knew half of our nation&rsquos past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda.

Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it&rsquos the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties. Luckily, we can still venture back into America&rsquos real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things. Let&rsquos take a closer look.

An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they&rsquore all Republican!

  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901): Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War. He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America&rsquos first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894): Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman. He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868. In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874): Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868. From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops. He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled. Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man. However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses. But that didn&rsquot stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887): Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872. In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.

Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. Bagaimana ini bisa terjadi? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic&rsquos founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation. Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress. This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead. Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864. Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise. Then there&rsquos the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.

In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party&rsquos achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn&rsquot elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!

Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party&rsquos alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats&rsquo struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK&rsquos first Grand Wizard. But don&rsquot bother checking the Democratic National Committee&rsquos website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they&rsquove scratched even more history. Apparently, they believe it&rsquos easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s. Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There&rsquos even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan&rsquos connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK&rsquos prominent role in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: &ldquoEvery Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation&hellip. Democrats must go in as large numbers&hellipand well-armed.&rdquo An issue of Harper&rsquos Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: &ldquoOf Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!&rdquo

This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.

The Klan&rsquos primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out &ldquopush cards&rdquo -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) &ldquoRadicals&rdquo of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks dan 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.

Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work. Instead, they do it themselves. You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state&rsquos new right-to-work legislation stating, &ldquoWhoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.&rdquo An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, &ldquoThere will be blood!&rdquo

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It&rsquos a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today&rsquos Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms. This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled. If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself. There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition.

Kimberly Bloom Jackson is a former actress turned teacher who holds a doctorate in cultural anthropology. Her many writings on Hollywood, education, and culture can be found at SnoopingAnthropologist.com.

Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels? How about Joseph Hayne Rainey? If not, you&rsquore not alone. I taught history and I never knew half of our nation&rsquos past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda.

Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it&rsquos the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties. Luckily, we can still venture back into America&rsquos real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things. Let&rsquos take a closer look.

An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they&rsquore all Republican!

  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901): Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War. He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America&rsquos first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894): Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman. He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868. In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874): Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868. From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops. He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled. Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man. However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses. But that didn&rsquot stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887): Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872. In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.

Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. Bagaimana ini bisa terjadi? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic&rsquos founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation. Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress. This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead. Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864. Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise. Then there&rsquos the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.

In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party&rsquos achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn&rsquot elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!

Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party&rsquos alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats&rsquo struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK&rsquos first Grand Wizard. But don&rsquot bother checking the Democratic National Committee&rsquos website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they&rsquove scratched even more history. Apparently, they believe it&rsquos easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s. Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There&rsquos even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan&rsquos connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK&rsquos prominent role in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: &ldquoEvery Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation&hellip. Democrats must go in as large numbers&hellipand well-armed.&rdquo An issue of Harper&rsquos Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: &ldquoOf Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!&rdquo

This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.

The Klan&rsquos primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out &ldquopush cards&rdquo -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) &ldquoRadicals&rdquo of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks dan 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.

Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work. Instead, they do it themselves. You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state&rsquos new right-to-work legislation stating, &ldquoWhoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.&rdquo An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, &ldquoThere will be blood!&rdquo

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It&rsquos a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today&rsquos Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms. This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled. If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself. There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition.


Tonton videonya: VIRAL Prajurit TNI Hadang Tank Israel di Perbatasan Lebanon