Why was Clinton able to win the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996? Clinton won the 1992 election, because Republicans could not forgive Bush after he broke his promise to not raise taxes. Bush also lost votes in the middle-class because he did not address the economy, and instead focused on foreign policy. Bush’s campaign raised doubts about Clinton’s character and personal life, however Clinton addressed these matters on national television, and focused his own campaign of the economy, an area that Bush failed to address. Clintons was an excellent campaigner and promised things such as healthcare and tax cuts.
Senate, Long began a national political career that at times appeared boundless. He took little interest in the Senate, using it principally to advance his larger national ambitions. At first, he was an energetic supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But by the middle of 1933, he had broken with the president and struck out on his own. Long voiced populist resentments that many depression-era Americans felt toward 'wealthy plutocrats' and 'bloated fortunes.'
Despite his ‘too relaxed and assured’ campaign Wilson was not to blame but instead it was a combination of ‘unfavourable trade figures’ and Enoch Powell that swung the vote. This idea of last minute trade figures playing major part of the election is supported in Source C and although Crossman tries to suggest that in fact the economy wasn’t a ‘very big toll’ against Labour I feel this is a smokescreen. Crossman was a minister in Wilson’s government and he is writing just after Labour’s defeat in 1970. He would have an agenda to defend his actions both personally and as a minister. He would look to shift the blame from Labour onto other factors like ‘Heath’s warnings’ and the ‘result of abstentions’.
The trade would give us money to pay our dept. Hamilton created a national bank which helped us with trade finance and manufacturing. Thomas Jefferson on the other hand thought completely different. He believed in the common man and thought they were very intelligent. He though people could make their own good smart decisions.
He believed the bank helped lead to the Panic of 1819, and signified Eastern power and prosperity. He felt the bank was used only by the wealthy, who cared not for the common people. The bank’s financial authority threatened democracy. Jackson sensed that it might try to take control of the government. Jackson did have evidence; all federal tax revenues were deposited in the National Bank instead of private banks, so the wealthy earned the extra interest.
Over half the public wasn’t fit for survival, didn’t deserve to live, should be terminated and forgotten; that’s what the government led to be believed. So it did what it knows best, it eradicated the disease, simply by eradicating the people. Even the news fornicated death. If a political leader was assassinated, first it was discussed how they would pretend he died, “Perhaps a stroke, no no, to horrific. How about a quiet dignified death in his sleep?” –President of the news network.
Compare and contrast Herbert Hoover’s economic policies with those of Franklin Roosevelt. At the time of the stock market crash, nobody could foresee how long the downward slide would last. President Hoover was wrong, but not alone in thinking that prosperity would soon return. President Hoover believed the nation could get through the difficult times if the people took his advice about exercising voluntary action and restraint. Hoover urged businesses not to cut wages, unions not to strike and private charities to increase their efforts for the needy and jobless.
I can acknowledge an opinion, especially if it is an informed one, however, I must say my reaction to this chapter is one of slight disgust at the lack of respect Zinn shows for a previous president. There are no mentions of Clinton’s healthy behavior or good deeds as president, and this is something that I think many chapters lack. As I continue to read, I find myself using more energy trying to preserve my own thoughts. I disagree with much of what Zinn says, yet I can find validity in some of it as well. I will say that even though the Clinton presidency was not the most effective presidency we have had, it is certainly not the most destructive, and at most, left the country in a passive
Economically, he dominated the economic structure for his beliefs in the Bank of America being run by the wealthy. The Jacksonian Democrats were, to some extent, champions of the Constitution, democracy, liberty, and equality; in other ways, Jackson and his followers clearly failed to live up to their ideals. Certainly, many common working people were satisfied with Jackson's attempts to protect their equality of economic opportunity from the rich during the age of the market revolution. They believed that Jackson was a true success for the common man as is evident in 'The Working Men's Declaration of Independence" of 1829 (Doc. A).
Mills advocated the movement of the labor union toward the political left. He became disillusioned when in 1947 Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, after it had been vetoed by President Harry Truman. The political climate did not encourage union leaders to challenge the cold war and arms race, and during the “Red Scare” most unions ousted their radical leaders. Mills confidence in the labor movement caused him to drift from working with progressive labor activists and he became more interested in the “American way of life” and the white collar, middle class (Dreier,