A question for Democrats

Boston Globe ^ | 4/19/09 | Jeff Jacoby

[MartinaMisc]

ARE HUMAN RIGHTS still a Democratic priority?

To Democrats of a certain age, such a question might seem incomprehensible. After all, it was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy, whose inaugural address proclaimed "to friend and foe alike" that Americans would resist "the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed." It was another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who made support for human rights an explicit foreign-policy concern, declaring at his inauguration: "Because we are free we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere." It was Senator Henry Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik - Democrats both - whose landmark Jackson-Vanik amendment helped win freedom for tens of thousands of Soviet dissidents and refuseniks.

But somewhere along the way, Democratic priorities seem to have changed.

For example: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have used her recent trip to China to vigorously defend human rights - to make it clear to those who rule the world's largest dictatorship that the new administration in Washington cares about the liberty and dignity of China's people. Instead, she more or less announced in advance that talking to Beijing about human rights was pointless, since "we pretty much know what they're going to say." Besides, she told reporters, human rights must not "interfere" with more important issues, such as the economic crisis or climate change.

China got the message. As Clinton arrived in Beijing, dozens of pro-democracy dissidents were placed under virtual house arrest. True to her word, the secretary of state made no fuss about the regime's brutality.

[samtheman]

Asking substantive questions of Democrats and expecting an honest answer... now there’s an exercise in futility.

[Quiller]

ARE HUMAN RIGHTS still a Democratic DEMOCRAT priority?

Only if you're one of their pet humans.

[Vaduz]

Democratic priorities seem to have changed,not true same priorities just different words used they are still are socialists party.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I love the smell of a Sunday weeper piece in the morning.

[DB]

The Democrats priorities are power whatever the cost.

[blackdog]

The smartest woman in the world is eclipsed only by the guy with all the speech writers and teleprompters. So many resources in the administration are being spent to prop up Barry, that Hillary has been left entirely unscripted and genuine. She’s being exposed as the self interested lightweight she really is. A very unprincipled person she is. (as Yoda would say)

[blackdog]

Imagine year #4 of the Barry-Fest. All the human rights issues will compress of the prior three years, and bombs, hit squads, and general armed to the teeth mayhem in at least a dozen countries will ensue in order to make sure an adequate response to human rights injustices is given full credit for legacy dressing.

[DB]

It is as simple as this. Obama desperately needs China to buy US treasury notes. That priority trumps all others with China and now China knows it and they still balked...

So now that they can't find enough buyers the Federal Reserve is going to “buy” their own long term debt. Or in other words they are simply going to print money with no further ado... That is the kiss of death for the dollar. It is now backed by nothing. It is becoming a banana Republic currency...

[nathanbedford]

If you think that Venezuela in 2006 was a bastion of human rights you will no doubt be fully in accord the following sentiments delivered in a speech there by Obama's colleague, William Ayers:

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and materialism—turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together, voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

… Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failing of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.

William Ayers saw Venezuela as a place where people came together to resist capitalism which only promotes "racism and materialism-turning people into consumers, not citizens." Venezuela is superior in America because it is a place of "participatory democracy" whereas America is a place of capitalism which means it is a place of racism and materialism populated by consumers who are not citizens.

Jimmy Carter was certifiably a leftist who staked his entire presidency on the issue of international human rights. Was his version of human rights like your version and my version or was it like Bill Ayres' version? Has Carter not always cozied up to tyrants, has he not always blamed America first?

Bill Ayres does not see Venezuela as a rank violator of human rights. His other remarks suggests that he holds the same opinion of Castro's Cuba. Is there anything in Barak Obama's biography or his associations with people like Bill Ayers which offer hard and substantive reasons why Barak Obama's view of human rights is not absolutely congruent with William Ayers'?

Far from deploring human rights violations in Venezuela, William Ayers thinks they occur in America but will be solved automatically when we get rid of capitalism. Is there any factual evidence Barak Obama believes otherwise?

[blackdog]

And just what world does Ayers exist in? Certainly not one which the human condition prevails? Coming together as equals full of self realization and engaged in full participation must exist somewhere, but not on this planet. But I suppose that’s what allows him to make such statements, they are just unsupportable rhetoric which really can’t be argued because they sound so nice.

[The Great RJ]

I am not so sure the Obama crowd is very supportive of personal liberty and free speech in our own country. Given the chance Congress would quickly shackle talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine, Congress and Obama want to do away with secret ballots in union elections, health professionals may soon be stripped of their right of conscience about performing abortions and the government is already seeking to regulate the wages we earn,the kind of vehicle we drive and how much carbon we use.

[reefdiver]

Your right, The democrats of today admire the power of castro,& chavez, Why else would they be so concerned with the second amendment.