Ajalugu Podcastid

1980. aasta demokraatlik konvent - ajalugu

1980. aasta demokraatlik konvent - ajalugu


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.


Ted Kennedy mäletab 1980. aasta demokraatide konventsiooni

1980. aastal kandideeris senaator Ted Kennedy ametisse asuva Jimmy Carteri vastu. Kennedy kaotas Carterile ja ta läks konvendile.

Meie Edward M. Kennedy suulise ajaloo projektist mõtiskles Kennedy selle konventsiooni üle. Tema kõne jäi hästi meelde, sealhulgas käepigistuse ebamugav hetk.

Kennedy: . konvendile minnes keskenduti sellele, mida nad nimetavad „ustavaks delegaadiks”. Meil oli kogu riigis paremini läinud ja tundus, et demokraadid on meie kandidatuurist üha enam huvitatud. Üks asi oli see, et mõned väljavalitud ja Carterile lubatud delegaadid näisid olevat valmis toetama minu kandidatuuri hilisemas protsessis, kuid Carteri kehtestatud eeskirjad olid muutunud, öeldes, et kui delegaat on pandiks valitud, pidid nad nii jääma. Nad nimetavad seda „ustava delegaadi reegliks”, mis tähendab, et kui nad lubasid, ei saanud nad oma meelt muuta. See tekitas delegaatides pahameelt, lihtsalt üldiselt polnud see populaarne. Seetõttu seadsime selle oma peamiseks eesmärgiks: platvormiks majandus- ja terviseküsimustes ning muudes sise- ja välispoliitilistes küsimustes ning muuta ustava delegaadi reeglit.

Meil oli väljastpoolt võimalus ustavat delegaatide reeglit muuta ja see pidi sisaldama kombinatsiooni - mäletan, et Cyril Wechtil Pennsylvaniast oli 15 või 20 häält ja siis olid Lõuna -Carolinas mõned mustanahalised, kes olid valmis minema. Teised olid valmis minema - Louisiana ja mõned teised -, kuid kõik tahtsid olla need, kes meid üle andsid. Nad ei tahtnud olla baasrühm. Me ei suutnud panna mõnda inimest olema valmis baasrühmaks, et alustada reegli muutmise hääletust. Kõik nad tahtsid olla need, kes neid üle panevad. Ja lõpuks ütles Paul Kirk lihtsalt: „Me ei saa seda teha. Me ei saa neid numbreid kokku panna. ” Isegi kui ma olin käinud ringi ja rääkinud paljudes nendes kokkutulekutes, isegi sellistes kokkutulekutes, kus Kennedy valdav toetus puudus, saime nendes kautsjonides suurepärase vastuvõtu osaliseks.

Mul oli enne konventsiooni Carteriga kohtumine. Olime kutsunud ta arutelule ja märkinud, et kui meil oleks arutelu, oleksin võib -olla nõus tagasi astuma. Ta kaalus seda ja ütles siis, et me väljendame oma seisukohti platvormikomiteede kaudu.

Kõnega seotud asjad olid väga olulised, sest igal õhtul kell 10.30 hotelli tagasi jõudes olid mu õed kohal. Kõik mu õed: Jean [Kennedy Smith], Pat [Kennedy Lawford] ja Eunice [Kennedy Shriver] olid kohal. Ja nad tulid tuppa ja töötasid paar tundi jutti. Algusosa autor oli ja soovitas ning teised osad tegi [Robert] Shrum, kuid see osa, mis mind häirib ja häirib, on kast, kus kõik need muudatused olid. Keegi varastas selle minu kontorist. Nii et mul pole plaati kõige varasematest koopiatest kuni lõpuni.

See kõne oli täielikult muutunud ja täielikult muutunud. Panime selle põrandale, panime kõik põrandale ja ma mäletan alati, et olin üleval ja kõik mu õed lugesid selle erinevaid osi ja ütlesid: „Vaata, Teddy, sul on see osa siin. "Neil on väga hea otsustusvõime ja väga hea poliitiline meel ning nad on tõesti head toimetajad. Pat loeb seda ja luges varem kõike ning on väga hea ja Jean samuti ning Eunice'il on palju tervet mõistust. Ja nad kõik olid väga teravad. Nad on endiselt teravad, kuid siis olid nad eriti teravad ja nad kõik olid olnud kampaania osa. Neil oli väga oluline mõju. Ma mäletan seda ja see pole kunagi välja tulnud, aga igal õhtul umbes kümnest üheni - me ei teinud õhtuti midagi, vaid igal õhtul tulime sinna tagasi ja töötasime selle kallal ning tegime muudatusi. Nad kirjutasid selle osa teises osas ümber ja lisasid selle asja ning järgmisel õhtul on see uuesti kohal.

Dr Stephen Knott: Peaksime tõesti käepigistuse päringule salvestama.

Kennedy: Noh, pärast minu kõnet oli imeline reaktsioon ja suurepärane vastuvõtt selle eest. Viibisime seal mõnda aega ja läksime siis tagasi hotelli. Olin järgmisel päeval kohal. Tegelikult läksin järgmisel päeval lõuna ajal koos õdedega P.J. Clarke'i juurde. Mäletan, et hamburgerid ja muu selline tuli tagasi.

Ma ei mäleta. Kas minu oma oli teisipäeva õhtul? Ja siis oli meil platvorm, ma arvan, et see oli kolmapäev? Ja siis ta rääkis neljapäeva õhtul? Kas see oli see? Nad olid seal kolmapäeval ja tegid platvormi. Ma ei suutnud uskuda, et me ikka veel platvormi pärast võitleme ja kakleme. Kogu pärastlõuna ja õhtu helistati meile: „Me võtame selle, me ei võta seda vastu. "Ja keegi ütles:" Noh, neil on hääled selle hääletamiseks, kuid meil võiksid olla vähemusraportid, "nii et rahvas saaks endiselt nendest asjadest rääkida, mis ajas ka Carteri inimesed hulluks.

Meil oli kogu see pinge lõpuni ja mul oli väga suur toetajate rühm, kes ütlesid, et nad oleksid pärast kogu seda platvormi lahingut väga solvunud, kui ma isegi Carteriga lavale läheksin. Seal oli väga suur seltskond. Ja siis oli veel üks grupp, kes ütles: "Sa peaksid." Aga ma arvan, et see oli väga vaieldav - ka väga head inimesed.

Carteri inimesed ei olnud päris kindlad, kas ma jään, kuid nad ei pingutanud. Olin seal terve kolmapäeva ja neljapäeva, nagu mainisin. Ta oleks võinud öelda: „Noh, sa tuled alla, ma tahaksin sind näha ja toon su pere alla. Rosalynn [Carter] tänab teid väga. ” Nad oleksid võinud saada kõik maailma pildid selles kohas ja: "Ma tahaksin teilt küsida, kas saate üles tulla." Ma pean jah ütlema või neljapäeval tegema. Või tule minu juurde! See oleks olnud armuline tulla üles ja öelda: "Kas ma võin teid õnnitleda?" Seda ma arvasin, et ilmselt ta teeb. Te arvate oma mõtetes, et tõenäoliselt teete seda.

Kuid nad jätkasid nende asjade pärast võitlust. Me võitlesime nendega endiselt. Ja siis tekkis küsimus, kas me läheme, aga ma olin neile öelnud, et me tundsime, et ma lähen, ja siis ütlesin salateenistusele, et lahkume pärast seda öösel. Ma pidin tagasi minema, sest just siis jätab salateenistus teid maha. Nad jätavad teid sel õhtul koju ja buum, nad on kadunud. Ja nii, ma ütlesin: "Noh, kus me oleme?" Ja nad ütlesid: "Võite jääda hotelli, sest teie vastuvõtt kestab 25 minutit ja tema vastuvõtt 25-35." Ma ütlesin: "See on hea."

Niisiis, buum! Tema kõne lõppes ja me läksime. Meil oli saatja all. 15 minutit, 17 minutit oli selles kohas vaikne. Kogu asi oli läbi. Ja nii, selle asemel, et minna hoiuruumi, kuulsin vaid: „Tule üles! Sa pead jooksma! Kõik muretsevad ja mõtlevad: "Kus kurat sa oled olnud?" "Nad kisasid, sest ma jäin hiljaks. See on uskumatu, sest kui ma ütlesin, et jään sinna, oli see minu jaoks hea. Ma ei hoolinud. "Ei ei. Sa ei pea. "

Ja siis, nagu nägite, kui ma platvormile läksin, oli neil terve rida teisi inimesi, kes läksid edasi. Ma surusin tema kätt, surusin Rosalynni kätt. Ja otse minu taga oli Tip O’Neill ja kohe tema taga pidu - Bob Strauss ja terve rida parteijuhte, kes kõik seal tunglesid. Sa vaatad pilti sellest poodiumist, seal on 30 inimest ja mitte ainult mina ja tema, vaid mina kõrval. Sa võisid näha kõiki teisi inimesi, kes sinna läksid. Mondale tegeles sellega. Joan Mondale oli seal. Meil oli üks pilt rahvahulga vastas, kus Carter oli ühel küljel, ja ma arvan, et need on Bob Strauss ja Mondale ning siis mina ja siis minu kõrval on, ma arvan, proua Carter. Ma arvan, et ta tuli kohale ja tõmbas mu sisse.

Ilmselt olen temaga kaks -kolm korda kätt löönud. Aga ma ei tõstnud tema kätt üles, ta ei pingutanud minu oma tõstmiseks! Arvasin, et see on piisavalt õige. Aga nagu ajakirjandus märkis, poleks minul ühtegi pilti, kuidas ma tõstaksin tema kätt, mida ma poleks oodanud, aga kui ta oleks tõstnud meie mõlemad käed, poleks ma sellele kindlasti vastu hakanud.

Meil oli mõni aeg hiljem vestlus. Olen hämmastunud, et meil pole märkmeid, sest mul on alati meeles, et kirjutasin iga kord, kui olin presidendiga maha istunud, märkmeid selle kohta, mida me kavatseme teha või mida kavatsen teha. Palusin temalt abi mõne õhtusöögi puhul ja ta ütles, et aitab, ja palus mul mõnesse kohta minna ning ma ütlesin, et lähen.

Bryan Craig on presidendi suulise ajaloo programmi vanemteadur ja töötanud Edward M. Kennedy suulise ajaloo projekti kallal


Lisateavet selle teema kohta

Suur tänu, Barbara Mikulski, väga sõnakuuleliku ja sõnaka sissejuhatuse eest. Lugupeetud seadusandja, selle riigi majandusliku demokraatia ja sotsiaalse õigluse suurepärane pressiesindaja, tänan teid kõneka sissejuhatuse eest.

Noh, asjad toimisid natuke teisiti, kui ma arvasin, kuid lubage mul teile öelda, et ma armastan endiselt New Yorki.

Minu kolleegid demokraadid ja kolleegid ameeriklased, ma tulin täna õhtul siia mitte kandidaadina vaidlema, vaid kinnitama asja.

Ma palun teid - ma palun teil uuendada demokraatliku partei pühendumust majanduslikule õiglusele.

Ma palun teil uuendada meie pühendumust õiglasele ja püsivale õitsengule, mis võib Ameerika tagasi tööle panna.

See on põhjus, mis tõi mind kampaaniasse ja mis toetas mind üheksa kuud 100 000 miili ulatuses 40 erinevas osariigis. Meil olid oma kaotused, kuid meie kaotuste valu on palju -palju väiksem kui nende inimeste valu, kellega ma olen kohtunud.

Oleme õppinud, et on oluline võtta küsimusi tõsiselt, kuid mitte kunagi end liiga tõsiselt võtta.

Täna õhtul meie ees seisnud tõsine probleem on põhjus, mille nimel Demokraatlik Partei on oma parimatel tundidel seisnud, mis hoiab meie partei noorena ja teeb sellest oma vanuse teisel sajandil selle vabariigi suurima ja pikima erakonna. püsiv poliitiline partei sellel planeedil.

Meie asi on Thomas Jeffersoni päevil olnud tavalise mehe ja tavalise naise põhjuseks.

Meie pühendumus on olnud Andrew Jacksoni päevilt alates kõigile neile, keda ta nimetas "ühiskonna alandlikeks liikmeteks - põllumeesteks, mehaanikuteks ja töötegijateks". Selle alusel oleme määratlenud oma väärtused, viimistlenud oma poliitikat ja värskendanud oma usku.

Nüüd astun ebatavalise sammu, kandes oma kampaania eesmärki ja pühendumist isiklikult meie riiklikule konventsioonile. Ma räägin sügavast kiireloomulisusest ahastusest ja ärevusest, mida olen näinud kogu Ameerikas.

Ma räägin sügavast usust Demokraatliku Partei ideaalidesse ning selle partei ja presidendi potentsiaali midagi muuta. Ja ma räägin sügavast usaldusest meie võime suhtes jätkata julgelt ja ühise visiooniga, mis tunnetab ja ravib meie aja kannatusi ja meie partei lõhesid.

Selle platvormi majanduslik plaan näol puudutab ainult materiaalseid asju, kuid see on ka moraalne küsimus, mille ma täna õhtul tõstatan. See on paljude aastate jooksul võtnud mitmeid vorme. Selles kampaanias ja selles riigis, mida me püüame juhtida, on 1980. aasta väljakutse anda oma hääl ja hääl nende demokraatlike aluspõhimõtete poolt.

Lubage, et me ei kasuta kunagi töötust, kõrgeid intressimäärasid ja inimlikku viletsust valerelvana inflatsiooni vastu.

Lubame, et tööhõive on meie majanduspoliitika esimene prioriteet.

Lubagem, et kõigi nende jaoks, kes praegu töötavad, on turvalisus ja lubame, et kõigile töötuks jäävatele inimestele leidub töökohti ja me ei tee kompromisse töökohtade küsimustes.

Need ei ole lihtsustatud lubadused. Lihtsamalt öeldes on nad meie traditsiooni süda ja nad on olnud meie partei hing läbi põlvkondade. Meie traditsiooni au ja ülevus on rääkida nende eest, kellel pole häält, meenutada neid, kes on unustatud, vastata pettumustele ja täita kõikide ameeriklaste püüdlused, kes otsivad paremat elu paremal maal.

Me ei julge sellest traditsioonist loobuda.

Me ei saa lasta Demokraatliku Partei suurtel eesmärkidel muutuda ajaloo möödunud lõikudeks.

Me ei tohi lubada vabariiklastel haarata jõukuse loosungeid ja nende järgi tegutseda. Kuulsime, kuidas kõned nende konvendil üritasid rääkida nagu demokraadid. Nad tõestasid, et isegi vabariiklastest kandidaadid võivad tsiteerida Franklin Roosevelti enda eesmärgil.

Grand Old Party arvab, et on leidnud suurepärase uue nipi, kuid 40 aastat tagasi proovis sama trikki vabariiklaste varasem põlvkond. Ja Franklin Roosevelt ise vastas: "Enamik vabariiklaste liidreid on kibedalt võidelnud ja blokeerinud keskmiste meeste ja naiste edasijõudmise õnne poole püüdlemisel. Ärgem laskem end eksitada, et üleöö on neist juhtidest saanud keskmiste meeste ja naiste sõbrad."

"Tead," jätkas ta, "väga vähesed meist on nii kergeusklikud." Neli aastat hiljem, kui vabariiklased seda trikki uuesti proovisid, küsis Franklin Roosevelt: "Kas vana kaardivägi saab end uue tehinguna edasi anda? Ma arvan, et mitte. Me kõik oleme näinud tsirkuses palju imelisi trikke, kuid ükski esinev elevant ei saa pöörduda käevõru, ilma et see kukuks lamama. "

1980. aasta vabariiklaste konvent oli meie majandusliku häda pärast krokodillipisaratega täis, kuid te tunnete neid nende pikaajalise ajaloo ja mitte hiljutiste sõnade järgi.

Needsamad vabariiklased, kes räägivad tööpuuduse kriisist, on esitanud mehe, kes kunagi ütles ja ma tsiteerin: "Töötuskindlustus on ettemakstud puhkusekava vabakäijatele." Ja see kandidaat pole töö sõber.

Need samad vabariiklased, kes räägivad kesklinnade probleemidest, on nimetanud mehe, kes ütles ja ma tsiteerin: "Olen iga päev lisanud oma hommikused ja õhtused palved palve, et föderaalvalitsus New Yorki ei päästaks." Ja see nominent ei ole selle linna ja meie suurte linnakeskuste sõber kogu selles riigis.

Samad vabariiklased, kes räägivad eakate turvalisusest, on esitanud mehe, kes ütles vaid neli aastat tagasi, et "sotsiaalkindlustuses osalemine tuleks muuta vabatahtlikuks". Ja see kandidaat ei ole selle rahva eakate inimeste sõber.

Samad vabariiklased, kes räägivad keskkonna hoidmisest, on nimetanud mehe, kes tegi eelmisel aastal ebameeldiva avalduse ja ma tsiteerin: "Kaheksakümmend protsenti meie õhusaastest pärinevad taimedest ja puudest." Ja see nominent ei ole keskkonna sõber.

Ja needsamad vabariiklased, kes Franklin Roosevelti poole pöörduvad, on esitanud mehe, kes ütles 1976. aastal ja need on tema täpsed sõnad: "Fašism oli tõesti New Deal'i alus". Ja sellel nominendil, kelle nimi on Ronald Reagan, pole õigust tsiteerida Franklin Delano Roosevelti.

Suured seiklused, mida meie vastased pakuvad, on teekond minevikku. Edusammud on meie pärand, mitte nende pärand. See, mis meile demokraatidena sobib, on ka demokraatide jaoks õige viis võita.

Ma püüan mitte kulutada vaateid, vaid vanu väärtusi, mis ei kao kunagi. Programmid võivad mõnikord vananeda, kuid õigluse ideaal jääb alati püsima. Asjaolud võivad muutuda, kuid kaastunde töö peab jätkuma. Kindlasti on õige, et me ei suuda probleeme rahale visates lahendada, kuid õige on ka see, et me ei julge oma rahvuslikke probleeme tähelepanematuse ja ükskõiksuse vanarauale visata. Vaesed võivad olla poliitilisest moest väljas, kuid nad ei ole ilma inimvajadusteta. Keskklass võib olla vihane, kuid nad pole kaotanud unistust, et kõik ameeriklased saaksid koos edasi liikuda.

Meie rahva nõudlus 1980. aastal ei ole väiksema valitsuse või suurema valitsuse, vaid parema valitsuse järele. Mõned ütlevad, et valitsus on alati halb ja et sotsiaalsete põhiprogrammide kulutamine on meie majandusliku pahede juur. Aga me vastame: praegune inflatsioon ja majanduslangus maksavad meie majandusele aastas 200 miljardit dollarit. Me vastame: inflatsioon ja töötus on kõige suuremad kulutajad.

Juhtimise ülesanne 1980. aastal ei ole patuoinaid paraadida ega reaktsioonina varjupaika otsida, vaid sobitada meie jõud edusammude võimalustega. Kui teised rääkisid vabast ettevõtlusest, siis demokraatlik partei tegutses ja me lõpetasime lennu- ja kaubavedude liigse reguleerimise ning taastasime konkurentsi turul. Ja ma olen rahul, et see dereguleerimise seadus, mida ma sponsoreerisin ja võtsin vastu Ameerika Ühendriikide kongressil.

Demokraatidena tunnistame, et igal ameeriklaste põlvkonnal on kohtumine erineva reaalsusega. Ühe põlvkonna vastustest saavad järgmise põlvkonna küsimused. Kuid Ameerika taevalaotuses on juhtiv täht. See on sama vana kui revolutsiooniline veendumus, et kõik inimesed on loodud võrdseks, ja sama selge kui Liberty City ja Lõuna -Bronxi tänapäevane olukord. Ikka ja jälle on demokraatlikud juhid sellele tähele järgnenud ning nad on andnud uue tähenduse vanadele väärtustele - vabadus ja õiglus kõigile.

Me oleme partei - oleme uue vabaduse, uue tehingu ja uue piiri partei. Oleme alati olnud lootuste partei. Pakume sel aastal uut lootust, uut lootust Ameerikale, kes on ebakindel oleviku suhtes, kuid mille tulevikupotentsiaal on ületamatu.

Andke kõigile neile, kes Ameerika linnades ja tööstusharudes jõude on, loome uue lootuse kasuliku töö väärikusele. Demokraadid on alati uskunud, et kõigi ameeriklaste põhiline kodanikuõigus on nende õigus teenida oma teed. Rahvapartei peab alati olema täistööhõive partei.

Kõigile neile, kes kahtlevad meie majanduse tulevikus, andkem uut lootust Ameerika taasindustrialiseerimisele. Ja las meie nägemus jõuab kaugemale järgmistest valimistest või järgmisel aastal uue jõukuse põlvkonna juurde. Kui suudaksime pärast Teist maailmasõda Saksamaad ja Jaapanit uuesti üles ehitada, siis kindlasti suudaksime oma rahva taasindustrialiseerida ja 1980ndatel taaselustada oma linnad.

Andke kõigile neile, kes näevad kõvasti vaeva elatusraha eest, lootust, et nende töö hind ei kujuta endast ohtlikku töökohta ja surma varasemas eas.

Andke kõigile neile, kes elavad meie maal Californiast New Yorgi saareni, Redwoodi metsast Golfi oja veteni, lootkem uut lootust, et õitsenguid ei osteta õhu, jõgede ja loodusvarade mürgitamisega. selle mandri suurim kingitus. Peame nõudma, et meie lapsed ja lapselapsed päriksid maa, mida nad võiksid tõepoolest nimetada Ameerikaks ilusaks.

Pakume uut lootust stabiilsele majandusele kõigile neile, kes näevad oma töö väärtust ja sääste inflatsioonist. Peame praeguse aja survele vastu tulema, tuginedes valitsuse täielikule võimule hindade tõstmisel. Peame ausalt ütlema, et föderaalset eelarvet saab tasakaalustada ainult poliitikaga, mis viib meid täieliku tööhõive ja hinnapiirangute tasakaalustatud õitsengule.

Ja kõigile neile, kes on ülekoormatud ebaõiglase maksustruktuuriga, andkem uut lootust tõelisele maksureformile. Klassiruumide sulgemise asemel sulgegem maksude varjupaigad. Selle asemel, et koolilõuna ära lõigata, katkestagem maksusoodustused kallitele ärilõunale, mis pole rikaste jaoks toidumargid.

Meie vabariiklaste vastaste maksukärbe võtab maksureformi nime asjata. See on imeliselt vabariiklik idee, mis jagaks tulud vales suunas ümber. See on hea uudis kõigile, kelle sissetulek ületab 200 000 dollarit aastas. Vähestele teist pakub see 14 000 dollari väärtuses kullapotti. Kuid vabariiklaste maksukärbe on keskmise sissetulekuga perede jaoks halb uudis. Paljude teie jaoks kavandavad nad 200 dollarit aastas ja seda ei tähenda demokraatlik partei, kui ütleme maksureformi.

Valdav enamus ameeriklasi ei saa endale lubada seda imerohtu vabariiklaste kandidaadilt, kes on hukka mõistnud progressiivse tulumaksu kui Karl Marxi leiutise. Kardan, et ta on segi ajanud Karl Marxi Theodore Rooseveltiga - selle hämara vabariiklaste presidendiga, kes otsis ja võitles maksevõimel põhineva maksusüsteemi eest. Theodore Roosevelt ei olnud Karl Marx ja vabariiklaste maksuskeem ei ole maksureform.

Lõpuks ei saa me õiglast õitsengut eraldada õiglasest ühiskonnast. Seega seisan jätkuvalt riikliku tervisekindlustuse eest. Me peame - me ei tohi alla anda - me ei tohi alistuda järeleandmatule meditsiinilisele inflatsioonile, mis võib peaaegu igaühe pankrotti viia ja mis võib peagi murda valitsuse eelarveid igal tasandil. Rõhutagem tõelist kontrolli selle üle, mida arstid ja haiglad võivad nõuda, ja lahendagem, et perekonna tervislik seisund ei sõltu kunagi pere rikkuse suurusest.

Presidendil, asepresidendil ja kongressi liikmetel on meditsiiniline plaan, mis vastab täielikult nende vajadustele, ja kui senaatorid ja esindajad pisut külmetavad, näeb Kapitooliumi arst neid kohe, ravib neid kiiresti, täidab retsepti kohapeal. . Me ei saa arvet isegi siis, kui me seda küsime, ja millal arvasite, et kongressi liige küsis viimati föderaalvalitsuselt seaduseelnõu? Ja ma ütlen veel kord, nagu ma olen varem öelnud, et kui ravikindlustus on piisavalt hea presidendile, asepresidendile, Ameerika Ühendriikide kongressile, siis on see teile ja igale Ameerika perele piisavalt hea.

Olid mõned - olid mõned, kes ütlesid, et peaksime selle konventsiooni ajal oma erimeelsustest vaikima, kuid Demokraatliku Partei pärand on olnud demokraatia ajalugu. Me võitleme kõvasti, sest hoolime sügavalt oma põhimõtetest ja eesmärkidest. Me ei põgenenud selle võitluse eest. Me tervitame kontrasti tühja ja otstarbeka vaatemänguga eelmisel kuul Detroidis, kus ühtegi nominatsiooni ei vaidlustatud, ühtegi küsimust ei arutatud ja keegi ei julgenud kahtlusi ega eriarvamusi tekitada.

Demokraadid võivad olla uhked, et valisime teise kursuse ja erineva platvormi.

Võime olla uhked, et meie partei seisab investeeringute eest turvalisesse energiasse, mitte tuumaenergia tulevikku, mis võib tulevikku ennast ohustada. Me ei tohi lubada, et Ameerika naabruskonnad jäävad jäädavalt varju hirmust teise kolme miili saare ees.

Võime olla uhked, et meie partei seisab õiglase eluasemeseaduse eest, et avada diskrimineerimise uksed lõplikult. Ameerika maja jagatakse enda vastu seni, kuni on eelarvamus ameeriklaste kodu ostmise või üürimise vastu.

Ja võime olla uhked, et meie erakond seisab selgelt ja avalikult ning järjekindlalt võrdsete õiguste muudatuse ratifitseerimise eest.

Naistel on meie konvendil oma õiguspärane koht ja naistel peab olema Ameerika Ühendriikide põhiseaduses õige koht. Selles küsimuses me ei allu, me ei kahtle, me ei ratsionaliseeri, selgita ega vabanda. Me seisame E.R.A. ja lõpuks äratundmiseks, et meie rahvas koosnes nii asutajatest kui ka asutajatest.

Õiglane õitseng ja õiglane ühiskond on meie nägemuses ja haardeulatuses ning meil pole kõiki vastuseid. On küsimusi, mida pole veel küsitud ja mis ootavad meid tuleviku süvendites. Kuid selles võib olla kindel, sest see on kogu meie ajaloo õppetund: koos saavad president ja rahvas midagi muuta. Olen avastanud, et see usk on endiselt elus, olenemata sellest, kus ma olen selle maa läbi rännanud. Nii et lükkagem tagasi taganemisnõuanne ja üleskutse reageerida. Läheme edasi teadmises, et ajalugu aitab ainult neid, kes aitavad ennast.

Järgnevatel aastatel tuleb ette tagasilööke ja ohverdusi, kuid olen veendunud, et oleme rahvana valmis andma oma riigile midagi tagasi selle eest, mis see meile on andnud.

Olgu see - olgu see meie kohustus: kõik ohvrid tuleb tuua ja jagatakse õiglaselt. Ja olgu see meie enesekindlus: meie teekonna lõpus ja alati meie ees särab see vabaduse ja õigluse ideaal kõigile.

Lõpetuseks lubage mul öelda paar sõna kõigile neile, kellega olen kohtunud, ja kõigile neile, kes on mind sellel konvendil ja kogu riigis toetanud. Meie teekonnal oli raskeid tunde ja sageli purjetasime vastu tuult. Kuid alati hoidsime oma rooli tõena ja teid oli nii palju, kes jäid kursile ja jagasid meie lootust. Sa andsid oma abi, aga veelgi enam, sa andsid oma südame.

Ja teie pärast on see olnud õnnelik kampaania. Olete tervitanud Joanit, mind ja meie perekonda oma kodudes ja linnaosades, kirikutes, ülikoolilinnakutes ja ametiühingute saalides. Ja kui ma mõtlen tagasi kõikidele kilomeetritele ja kõikidele kuudele ja kõikidele mälestustele, mõtlen ma teile. Ja ma tuletan meelde luuletaja sõnu ja ütlen: "Millised kuldsed sõbrad mul olid."

Teie seas, mu kuldsed sõbrad üle selle maa, olen kuulanud ja õppinud.

Olen kuulanud Lääne -Virginias Charlestonis klaasipuhujat Kenny Duboisi, kellel on ülal pidada kümme last, kuid kes on 35 aasta pärast töö kaotanud, pensioni saamisest jäi puudu vaid kolm aastat.

Olen kuulanud perekonda Trachta, kes talub Iowas ja mõtleb, kas nad suudavad oma lastele head elu ja head maad edasi anda.

Olen kuulanud Ida -Oaklandi vanaema, kellel pole enam telefoni, et oma lastelastele helistada, sest ta loobus sellest, et oma väikese korteri üüri maksta.

Olen kuulanud noori töötajaid töölt, üliõpilasi ilma kolledžiõppeta ja peresid, kellel pole võimalust kodu omada.

Olen näinud suletud tehaseid ja seiskunud konveieri Andersonis, Indiana osariigis ja South Gate'is, Californias, ning olen näinud liiga palju, liiga palju jõudeolevaid mehi ja naisi, kes on meeleheitel.

Olen näinud liiga palju, liiga palju töötavaid peresid, kes soovivad meeleheitlikult kaitsta oma palga väärtust inflatsiooni laastamise eest.

Ometi olen ma tajunud ka igatsust uue lootuse järele inimeste seas igas osariigis, kus ma olen olnud.

Ja ma olen seda tundnud nende käepigistustes, nägin seda nende nägudel ja ma ei unusta kunagi emasid, kes kandsid lapsi meie kogunemistele.

Mäletan alati eakaid inimesi, kes on elanud Ameerikas suure eesmärgiga ja kes usuvad, et see kõik võib korduda.

Täna õhtul tulin nende nimel siia nende nimel rääkima. Ja nende pärast palun teil nendega seista. Nende nimel palun teil korrata ja kinnitada meie partei ajatu tõde.

Õnnitlen president Carterit siinse võidu puhul.

Olen - olen kindel, et Demokraatlik Partei taasühineb demokraatlike põhimõtete alusel ja et koos marsime demokraatliku võidu poole 1980.

Ja kunagi, kaua pärast seda konverentsi, kaua pärast seda, kui märgid on langenud ja rahvahulgad ei rõõmusta, ja bändid lõpetavad mängimise, võib meie kampaania kohta öelda, et me hoidsime usku.

Olgu meie partei kohta 1980. aastal öeldud, et leidsime oma usu uuesti üles.

Ja olgu meie kohta öeldud nii pimedates kohtades kui ka helgetel päevadel Tennysoni sõnadega, mida mu vennad tsiteerisid ja armastasid ning millel on minu jaoks praegu eriline tähendus:

"Ma olen osa kõigest, mida olen kohanud
[Tho] palju võetakse, palju jääb
See, mis me oleme, oleme -
Üks võrdne kangelaslike südamete tuju
Tahtes tugev
Püüdlema, otsima, leidma ja mitte järele andma. "

Minu jaoks sai see kampaania paar tundi tagasi läbi.

Kõigi nende jaoks, kelle mure on olnud meie mure, töö jätkub, põhjus püsib, lootus elab ja unistus ei sure kunagi.


Nagu me liiga hästi teame, võib erakondade toetuse saamine LGBT -õigustele olla (ja on olnud) pikk ja vaevarikas protsess. Nii juhtus Ameerika Ühendriikide Demokraatliku Parteiga, kes oli seda teemat arutanud mitu aastat, enne kui LGBT õigused lõpuks oma poliitilisse platvormi 1980. aastal kaasati.

Esimesed märgid liikumisest olid 1972. aastal, kui avalikult LGBT -kõnelejatel Madeline Davisel ja Jim Fosteril lubati esineda demokraatliku rahvuskonvendiga. Ainuüksi see, et see juhtus, peegeldab LGBT poliitilise organisatsiooni taseme tõusu kogu riigis.

Näiteks 60ndatel ja 70ndatel piirdusid LGBT poliitilised kandidaadid suuresti kohalike kampaaniatega piirkondades, kus on palju imelikke inimesi, nagu San Francisco, New York ja Los Angeles. Kuid peagi sai nii kandidaatidele kui ka Demokraatlikule Parteile selgeks, et LGBT valijatel võib olla märkimisväärne poliitiline mõju. Selle tulemusena liikusid LGBT õigused üha enam riiklikule poliitilisele tegevuskavale.

Muidugi polnud see sujuv purjetamine. Vaatamata Davise ja Foster ’ murrangulistele kõnedele 1972. aastal, oli parteis siiski palju neid, kes kartsid, et LGBT õigused kaotavad hääle. Näiteks 1972. aasta konvendi teine ​​esineja – Kathy Wilch – pidas eriti vaenuliku kõne ja selle tulemusel hoiti LGBT -õigused demokraatide poliitilisest päevakorrast eemal.

Kuigi Wilchi kõne pidurdas demokraatide pühendumist LGBT -õigustele, aitas see kaasa ka LGBT -aktivistide toetamisele nii Demokraatlikus Parteis kui ka väljaspool seda. Davise ja Fosteri kõnedes õnnestus LGBT-poolthääletuse tähtsusele märkida ka mitte-LGBT-poliitikutele. Nii palju, et demokraatide presidendikandidaat George McGovern tegi kiiresti avalduse, mis distantseeris end Wilchi positsioonist.

Neli aastat hiljem jätkas Jimmy Carter oma presidendikampaania ajal ka LGBT -hääletust ja kohtus pärast tema valimist LGBT -kogukonna juhtidega. (Kahjuks ei suutnud ta oma valimislubadusi täita).

Ja nii hoog jätkas kasvamist ning LGBT õigused toodi 1980. aastal taas demokraatlikule konvendile, seekord märgatavalt edukamalt. Praktikas tähendas see veidi muud kui nende diskrimineerimisvastase avalduse muutmist seksuaalse sättumuse lisamiseks. Kuid see oli vähemalt lähtepunkt, millele rajada.


Tv Eesistujariik Jimmy Carter 1980. aasta demokraatlik rahvuskonvent CSPAN 23. august 2020 10:21 kuni 11:15 EDT

President Jimmy Carter (D) võttis 1980. aasta New Yorgi demokraatide rahvuskongressil vastu oma partei presidendikandidaadi teiseks ametiajaks. President Carter nimetas oma kõnes oma vastase Ronald Reagani ideid "fantaasia -Ameerikaks" ning ründas härra Reagani kaitsekulutusi ja maksukärbe plaane.

Sponsor: Demokraatlik rahvuskomitee

TEEMA Sagedus Carter 20, Ameerika 16, Meie 6, Iisrael 4, Ameerika Ühendriigid 4, Franklin Delano Roosevelt 3, Harry Truman 2, Humphrey 2, Ronald Reagan 2, Kuuba 1, Põhja-Ameerika 1, Preeriad 1, Afganistan 1, Zimbabwe 1, Moskva 1, Iraan 1, New Yorgi linn 1, Vietnam 1, Edela -Aasia 1, Dallas 1


Hullemad konventsiooni hetked, mida te pole kunagi kuulnud

Konvendi ajalugu on täis dramaatilisi, isegi farsilisi sündmusi, mis on poliitika kulgu muutnud.

Jeff Greenfield on viiekordne Emmy võitnud võrgutelevisiooni analüütik ja autor.

Leegion poliitilisi ajakirjanikke suundub sel kuul Clevelandi ootusärevusega, mida pole aastakümneid olnud: lõpuks ometi üleriigiline konventsioon, kus on oodata, et võib juhtuda midagi ootamatut.

After decades of suspenseless, pro forma conventions where the identity of the party’s nominee has been known for months in advance and every moment has been as scripted as a corporate product launch, the Republican National Convention at least holds out the possibility for something approaching unpredictability.

Will Trump face a delegate walkout? Will Ted Cruz’s army whip together the votes to change convention rules and unbind delegates? Will the party, in a wild election season, find mõned way to break out of the droning, made-for-TV coronation that the conventions have become?

Boring conventions weren’t always the norm. Throughout most of American history, in fact, raucous and mercurial gatherings were the rule rather than the exception. The unexpected was routine—grand speeches, lost battles, dragged-out fights with meaningful implications for the course of the country.

Now, as Donald Trump seeks to finally and officially win the nomination of a party that his candidacy has badly fractured, there’s at least a chance that some of that old high drama could return.

And if not, there’s still a chance that something meaningful will happen. History is dotted with less-famous convention moments that have provided the drama—even farce—that added spice to what has become a diet of gruel. And sometimes they, too, changed the course of politics.

FDR and the Voice From the Sewer

In 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was halfway through his eighth year in office and at pains not to be seen breaking the “no third term” tradition that had been recognized by every president since George Washington. Roosevelt himself had often expressed his wish to retire, but with Europe engulfed in war and a strong isolationist movement resisting any attempt to help beleaguered Britain, the absence of Roosevelt could prove decisive for both party and country.

There were big-name Democrats eager to succeed him for the nomination, including Vice President John Nance Garner, and longtime FDR aide James Farley. But one question loomed over Democratic convention-goers in Chicago: What were Roosevelt’s real intentions?

The answer to that key question became even more uncertain after Kentucky Senator Alben Barkley read a message from Roosevelt to the assembled convention: “[The president] wishes in earnestness and sincerity to make it clear that all of the delegates in this convention are free to vote for any candidate.”

Mis tahes candidate? Did that include Roosevelt himself? In the confusion, before a debate could break out in the convention hall, a voice suddenly roared over the loudspeakers: “Illinois Wants Roosevelt! Ohio Wants Roosevelt! We All Want Roosevelt!”

Delegates quickly joined in on the chant, and “We Want Roosevelt!” echoed through the Chicago Stadium rafters.

And whom did that voice on the loudspeakers belong to? None other than Thomas Garry, superintendent of Chicago’s Department of Sanitation and—more importantly—boss of the 27th Ward and a loyal footsoldier of Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly, a New Dealer and an FDR loyalist.

History does not reveal whether this “voice from the sewers” was Kelly’s brainchild or was inspired by people inside Roosevelt’s inner circle. What is clear is that the rallying cry helped stampede the convention into nominating FDR for a third term in office. Garner and Farley, who had entered the convention as the most popular declared candidates, each ended up with less than 7 percent of the vote. The unexpected intervention over the P.A. system made a decisive difference in who led the nation through the Second World War.

Reagan’s “Co-Presidency” Tease

Ronald Reagan had locked up the 1980 Republican nomination long before the party gathered in Detroit. But two days into the convention, an incredible story was spreading: Reagan was seriously considering naming former President Gerald Ford, the man he had nearly unseated four years earlier, as his running mate. Ford more or less confirmed the rumors in a series of TV interviews. CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite pinned down Ford, asking whether he and Reagan were considering a “co-presidency.” Ford didn’t shoot down the rumors and, as the interview progressed, displayed a deep knowledge of the constitutional complications that such an arrangement would produce.

Allies of the two men were meeting to discuss the terms of such a deal. Would ex-President Ford be given “portfolios” to manage—say, foreign policy? Would Henry Kissinger return to power under a President Reagan, who had for years denounced Kissinger’s foreign policy approach? Late into Wednesday night, the convention came to a standstill, and delegates on the floor were buttonholing TV reporters to ask about the latest rumors (it was a pre-cellphone age).

The expectations turned to near certainty—Reagan and Ford were heading to the convention! And then Reagan himself, in a sharp break with tradition, came to the hall, unaccompanied, to say that the much-discussed “co-presidency” would not happen. He had chosen a running mate: his rival during the primary campaign, George H.W. Bush.

It was in political terms, a near-escape for Reagan. That year, the Democrats’ chief critique of Reagan was that he was in over his head. The specter of a nominee turning to a defeated ex-president for gravitas would not only have fed that narrative, but validated the accusation.

Two Speeches That Launched Presidencies (And Two That Didn’t)

The best-known convention speech in American history is almost surely the fiery attack that 36-year-old former Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan made on the gold standard at the 1896 Democratic Convention. “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns!” he thundered. “You shall not crucify mankind upon a Cross of Gold!” The speech propelled Bryan into the first of three losing campaigns as the party’s presidential nominee.

Bryan, however, never won the White House. By contrast, look at what happened after a far less memorable speech at the 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York. A promising political figure, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had served as assistant secretary of the Navy during the Great War, and in 1920, was the Democratic candidate for vice president. A year after that campaign, he was disabled by polio. It was certain that this disability would sideline his designs on running for a higher office. But in 1924, the 42-year-old Roosevelt maneuvered himself up to the rostrum at Madison Square Garden and entered New York Governor Al Smith’s name into nomination. It marked Roosevelt’s return to politics. Four years later, he succeeded Smith as governor of New York eight years after that, he won the presidency in a landslide election.

Decades later, another promising 42-year-old Democrat gave a more memorable though equally historic speech. In 2004 in Boston, Democratic convention-goers listened to an obscure Illinois state senator with an odd name enrapture delegates with his assertion that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America—there’s the United States of America.” Barack Obama’s introduction to a national audience was a powerful tutorial on how you can tell if a convention speech is truly memorable: the delegates stop cheering every 10 seconds, and actually begin to listen.

At the other end of the spectrum, Texas Senator Phil Gramm was picked to keynote the 1992 GOP convention in Houston. Gramm was a man of high intelligence, undisguised presidential ambitions, and minimal people skills (“even his best friends can’t stand him,” according to one popular gibe). A few minutes into his address, Gramm was talking about President Bush unveiling a new commemorative postage stamp. It was clear that Gramm was not connecting with his audience: The delegates weren’t cheering, and they weren’t really interested in listening to him, either. He continued to speak for a half hour more. It was an early clue that Gramm’s 1996 presidential bid would not end well.

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter limped into the New York convention after a bruising primary battle with Senator Ted Kennedy. After an effort to “unbind” the delegates failed, Kennedy conceded to Carter in a lofty, moving speech with a rousing conclusion: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

The bar was high for Carter’s acceptance speech: It needed not only to inspire a divided convention but also deliver an image of unity to viewers in the hall and watching at home: The president needed a friendly Carter-Kennedy embrace, and a festive post-speech celebration.

It didn’t quite happen like that. In his acceptance speech, Carter tried to pay tribute to liberal champions of the past, including “a great man who should have been president, who would have been one of the greatest presidents in history: Hubert Horatio Hornblower—Humphrey!”, thus conflating the name of Minnesota’s progressive champion with that of a fictional British naval officer.

But the “Hornblower” flub was a mere prelude to twin disasters at the end of his address.

First, when his defeated primary foe, Kennedy, came to the platform, Carter desperately wanted the “arms raised in victory” photo shot Kennedy offered only a tepid handshake. Second and simultaneously, the obligatory balloon drop became snarled in the rigging of Madison Square Garden instead of the anticipated blizzard of red, white and blue, there came a pathetic dribble of occasional balloons, as though the convention hall had become afflicted with an enlarged prostate. (In 2004, the same thing happened to the balloons in Boston after John Kerry’s acceptance speech CNN somehow managed to broadcast it with audio of the increasingly frenetic and obscenity-laced demands of a convention logistics manager, who likely knew full well how the news media would seize on the incident as a symbol of a faltering campaign.)

The “Undermine the Catholic” Plan

There was a time when newspapers would print “scorecards” so that radio listeners and TV viewers at home could watch how candidates’ fortunes ebbed and flowed through several convention ballots. They haven’t done it in a while, probably because the last time any major-party national convention went past a first ballot was in 1956—and it wasn’t to choose a presidential nominee.

After winning the presidential nomination for the second time, former Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson jolted the delegates by throwing open the vice-presidential contest—in effect, letting the delegates decide who his running mate should be. It was designed to provide a dramatic contrast to Vice President Nixon, who was far less popular than incumbent President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Through two ballots, Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver and Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy staged a back-and-forth race, with Tennessee’s other Senator, Al Gore Sr., providing the difference. Following the second ballot, JFK was only a handful of delegates away from victory (he had 618 votes out of the required 687), and state delegations clamored for the recognition of the chair so that they could switch their votes. It was up to the convention chair, House Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas, to decide which state would be called upon first. Rayburn, fearing the presence of a Roman Catholic on the ticket, recognized Tennessee—whereupon Gore withdrew from the race, threw his support to Kefauver, and the stampede was on.

In one sense, it made little difference: There was no way Stevenson was going to deprive Eisenhower of a second term. In another sense, what did mitte happen proved to be a godsend: As Kennedy himself later observed, if the Democrats had lost in a landslide with JFK on the ticket, it would have been “proof” that a Catholic was still politically unacceptable to the American electorate—prematurely derailing his victorious presidential campaign just four years later.

Will we see anything in Cleveland that approaches such genuinely unpredictable and historic levels? If the 2016 GOP convention—with all of the passions surrounding the impending nomination of Donald Trump—winds up being a by-the-numbers infomercial, maybe it’s time to give up on conventions and take a lesson from the Democratic Party in 1872.

When Democrats met in Baltimore that year, they were so bereft of viable presidential candidates that they simply decided to nominate Horace Greeley, the candidate of a breakaway Republican faction opposed to GOP President Ulysses Grant, and a journalist, no less.


Carter: Kennedy was drinking before 1980 snub

By Steve Kornacki
Published September 20, 2010 7:12PM (EDT)

Jimmy Carter, left, shakes hands with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the podium at the Democratic National Convention in 1980.

Aktsiad

This week marks the publication of Jimmy Carter's private journal of his presidency, "White House Diary." The entries are often brief, but Carter does offer an interesting account of one of the most widely discussed moments of his doomed 1980 reelection effort: Ted Kennedy's apparent snub of him on the final night of the Democratic convention in New York, just after Carter had delivered his acceptance speech.

"Afterward," Carter writes in his diary, "Kennedy drove over from his hotel, appeared on the platform along with a lot of other people, seemed to have had a few drinks, which I probably would have done myself. He was fairly cool and reserved, but the press made a big deal of it."

They sure did -- and for good reason. Kennedy's challenge of Carter for the '80 nod was unusually bitter and protracted. Even though Carter won twice as many delegates in the primary and caucus season, Kennedy fought all the way to the August convention, attempting to convince delegates to support a rule change that would have allowed them to vote their conscience on the first ballot -- instead of being forced to cast a ballot for the candidate they'd been pledged to during the primary season. Only when this effort failed did Kennedy back down and end his campaign (with what was probably the best speech of his career). So it was only logical that the press would watch the body language closely when the two men came together onstage after Carter's acceptance speech two nights later -- and Kennedy's discomfort was obvious. As the Washington Post reported it:

When Kennedy did arrive, wearing that familiar tight-lipped smile his traveling press corps has come to call "the smirk," he strode into the crowd of Democratic officials already on the podium, gave Carter a perfunctory shake of the hand, and walked away to the side of the platform.

There followed a comical ballet in which Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill Jr. (Mass.) all tried futilely to lead Kennedy back to center stage for an arms-up pose with the president.

When Kennedy went to the left side of the platform to raise a fist toward his Massachusetts delegation, Carter made a beeline to join him and struck the same pose. But Kennedy's arm had come down a split-second before Carter's shot up.

You can watch some of Kennedy's snub of Carter in this video:

Carter has already rasied eyebrows while promoting his diaries. In a "60 Minutes" segment that aired over the weekend, he told Lesley Stahl that "we would have had comprehensive healthcare now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy’s deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed" as president. "It was his fault," Carter added. "Ted Kennedy killed the bill."

Steve Kornacki

Steve Kornacki is an MSNBC host and political correspondent. Previously, he hosted “Up with Steve Kornacki” on Saturday and Sunday 8-10 a.m. ET and was a co-host on MSNBC’s ensemble show “The Cycle.” He has written for the New York Observer, covered Congress for Roll Call, and was the politics editor for Salon. His book, which focuses on the political history of the 1990s, is due out in 2017.

MORE FROM Steve KornackiFOLLOW stevekornacki


1980 Democratic Convention - History

The Democrats Abroad Charter outlines the rules that our party follow as an organization. Changes in the charter are voted on by the voting body of the organization during annual general meetings.

Meie ajalugu

American Democrats living and working abroad have contributed to the political life of the United States since its very beginning. The first famous Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, drafted the Bill of Rights while in Paris, France. Since then, many other Democrats residing in foreign countries have participated in U.S. politics. In the 1960s, Democrats living overseas began to organize themselves into a group, and Democrats Abroad was born.

Creation of Democrats Abroad

During the 1960 Presidential campaign between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, Democrats in Paris and London began discussing ways they could help the Democratic Party. Four years later, they were ready.

Democrats Abroad first organized simultaneously in Paris and London in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater. Democrats in each of those cities formed committees and elected officers. Under the leadership of Toby Hyde (London) and Al Davidson (Paris), Democrats held parades and raised funds. The nascent committees also solicited votes, but few were cast from abroad because in 1964 U.S. citizens living overseas did not have a federal right to an absentee ballot.

The activities of Democrats Abroad in 1964 were the first U.S.-style political campaigns ever mounted in foreign countries they aroused considerable local interest and generated wide publicity in France and England.

Democrats Abroad also attracted interest in the United States. John Bailey, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, recognized the Paris and London committees, and the White House appointed James Rowe, a well-known political figure in Washington, as the liaison with President Johnson.

After the 1964 victory, Democrats Abroad continued to grow. In 1968, they campaigned for the Humphrey-Muskie ticket against Nixon and Agnew. Between the two elections, the leaders of Democrats Abroad started another campaign, one that would last twenty years and have a significant impact on all U.S. citizens living overseas: the campaign for full voting rights for U.S. citizens overseas.

The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 & The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA)

In the 1960s, Democrats Abroad were able to raise funds and generate publicity. Getting out the vote was another matter, since U.S. citizens overseas did not have the right to an absentee ballot. The issue was complicated by the state-based nature of voting regulations, even for voting in federal elections. Providing a federal right to vote required modifying all state voting systems.

The first demands for the right to vote by absentee ballot had been made more than 100 years earlier, in the 1860s, when Union soldiers fighting in the Civil War who wanted to vote had to return to their States for the election. In World War II, the issue of absentee ballots was raised again.

A century later, U.S. voters in the United States could vote by absentee ballot if they were unable to get to the polls on election day. It was not so easy for U.S. voters living overseas. To remedy the injustice, leaders of Democrats Abroad formed the Committee for Absentee Democrats Abroad Voting, a bi-partisan group with the Republicans, and began a ten-year struggle to expand the franchise to overseas U.S. citizens.

Hubert Humphrey and Bob Strauss were early supporters. In the Congress, Senator Claiborne Pell and Representative Thompson were formidable leaders in the campaign to end the disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens living and working all over the world.

During the final days of the 94th Congress, House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill engineered the passage of "The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975" through a crowded calendar. President Ford signed the Act into law in January 1976. Many Americans, however, refrained from voting while overseas because they feared tax consequences. In 1977-78, Dean Ferrier and Peter Alegi led the efforts to resolve this problem. In November 1978 Congress modified the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act to make clear that exercising a vote in a federal election would not by itself cause any state, local or federal tax consequences. With this solid base, Democrats Abroad then helped convince Congress to pass the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986, which laid the legal basis for a vast expansion of access to voting by Americans residing abroad. Each year more local barriers are removed as the federal legislation is enforced at the state and local level. This breakthrough legislation has swept away almost all important legal obstacles to absentee voting by Americans abroad.

In 2001, following major election irregularities in Florida, Democrats Abroad began a campaign to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to remove further obstacles to overseas voting. Chair Smallhoover and Executive Director Fina hired a Republican lobbyist to help gain access to members of the then-Republican majority. Many, but not all, of our proposals were embodied in the Help America Vote Act of 2002. These included permanent registration for two full federal election cycles (rather than one previously) and the collection of statistics on overseas absentee voting never before available.

Democrats Abroad also began to play a major role in the inclusion of overseas Americans in the decennial census. Chair Smallhoover and Executive Director Fina, with the support of Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, won the agreement of the Bureau of the Census to begin a series of trial counts after the completion of the 2000 Census to determine whether the inclusion of overseas Americans would be feasible for the 2010 Decennial Census. This trial period was begun in 2004.

The Democratic Party was far ahead of its Republican rivals in understanding and recognizing the potential political power of political rights of U.S. citizens overseas. Chairpersons of the Democratic Party since 1964 have granted increasing recognition to Democrats Abroad. John Bailey, Larry O'Brien, Bob Strauss, Chuck Manatt, Don Fowler, Ron Brown, David Wilhelm, Steven Grossman, Joe Andrew, Howard Dean, Tim Kaine and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz have all shown support for Democrats Abroad.

As a result of the view taken by the Democratic Party and its successive chairpersons, Democrats Abroad has made steady progress achieving official status within the organizational framework of the Democratic Party. Each year brought new advances:

1972: Chairman O'Brien grants nine non-voting delegates to Democrats Abroad for the National Convention in Miami. Nine Democrats Abroad from four countries attend.

1973: Chairman Strauss gives Democrats Abroad representation on the Democratic Charter Commission, a group of 160 leading Democrats from all States in the Union.

1976: Eight Country Committees form the Democratic Party Committee Abroad (the DPCA) and the DPCA's by-laws are filed with the DNC in Washington, D.C.

1976: The Party Call to the 1976 National Convention gives Democrats Abroad voting delegates, enabling us to participate directly for the first time in the selection of the Party's presidential nominee.

1976: Committees in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Switzerland and the United Kingdom hold an election for delegates to the National Convention New York City. A delegation of nine Democrats Abroad attends. International Chair Toby Hyde casts the final votes in the roll call to nominate Jimmy Carter.

1976: Democrats Abroad begins its campaign with members of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC) for an amendment to the Charter of the Democratic Party in order to give Democrats Abroad membership on the DNC.

1977: Bob Strauss, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, grants time to the DPCA Chair, Toby Hyde, to persuade the full DNC to grant DNC membership to Democrats Abroad. The DNC amends the Charter of the Democratic Party and gives the DPCA four members on the DNC, having one aggregate vote.

1977: FEC Advisory Opinion (AO 1976-112) finds that Democrats Abroad is a party committee and that transfers of funds between party committees are not subject to contribution limits. But, the FEC also found that Democrats Abroad cannot be granted the status of a state party committee but must be a subordinate of the national party committee. (See also 13 July 1990 opinion of Patton, Boggs.)

1978: Democrats Abroad is given six voting delegates to the National Party Conference, and the DPCA holds its third international election to choose delegates.

In the 1980s, Democrats Abroad continued the progress of the 1970s and expanded the activities of Democrats Abroad within the organization of the Democratic Party, particularly in the Association of State Democratic Chairs:

1980: More than 1900 Democrats participate in the Democrats Abroad Worldwide Postal Primary and elect 4 delegates and alternates to the National Convention in New York City. The delegation's Tshirts and political songs are a big hit and generate publicity.

1981: Washington Liaison position created by DPCA Chair Andy Sundberg Martha Hartman was first appointee.

1982: A Democrats Abroad delegation of 12 (consisting of the DPCA Chair and Vice-Chair, the DNC members-at-large, and eight voting delegates and alternates) attend the Party Conference in Philadelphia.

1982: DPCA sponsors the first overseas political seminar in Brussels for Democrats Abroad, covering fundraising and public relations.

1983: Democrats Abroad is granted one voting representative on each of the four regional caucuses of the DNC.

1984: More than 2500 Democrats participate in the Democrats Abroad Worldwide Postal Primary, a 20% increase. The primary receives broad press coverage because its unique timing provides results ahead of the primaries occurring on the same day in the United States.

1984: A Democrats Abroad delegation of 20 attends the National Convention in San Francisco. DPCA Chair Andrew Sundberg casts the delegation's five votes in the roll call on behalf of the "more than 2,000,000 U.S. citizens living and working outside the United States."

1985: Democrats Abroad absorbs the Latin American Democratic Party (LADP), thus becoming the only entity at the DNC representing Americans residing outside the U.S. and its territories.

1985: Eugene Theroux appointed Exec Director and Thomas Fina Deputy Exec Director by DPCA Chair Dean Ferrier.

1986: Membership on the DNC and the number of delegates to the Democratic National Convention allocated to Democrats Abroad are doubled as a result of the merger with LADP.

1985: Thomas Fina appointed volunteer Executive Director.

1986: Monthly “Letter from Washington” begun by Executive Director Fina.

1986: First direct mail fund raising campaign run by the Executive Director, with DNC.

1986: DPCA Chair Dean Ferrier testifies before the House Subcommittee on Elections on behalf of amending the Voting Rights Bill to provide for the Write-in Ballot.

1987: The Democrats Abroad by-laws are amended to provide for increasing the numbers of electors eligible for electing members to the Democratic National Committee. Democrats Abroad Handbook 35 May 2012 1987: DPCA registers with the Federal Elections Commission.

1988: After an energetic effort, the Democrats Abroad primary is recognized as a state primary. As a result, all U.S. consular posts are ordered to distribute primary ballots to those Democrats residing overseas who wish to participate in the overseas primary.

1988: First international meeting held outside Europe. 55 overseas Democrats from 12 countries attend a DPCA meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, before the Democratic National Convention.

1988: Barbara Mellman and Robert Bell cofound Democrats Abroad Canada.

1989: The number of country committees reaches 20.

1990: Democrats Abroad discusses plans for the method of selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Chair Sam Garst, a native Iowan, creates a caucus system used in several subsequent elections. 1990: Patton, Boggs & Blow memorandum of 13 July, 1990, advises DPCA and DNC of the legal status of Democrats and Republicans Abroad and explained that both must register with the FEC. Basis for our later forcing Republicans Abroad to register.

1991: Democrats Abroad adopts caucus system to elect Convention delegates.

1992: Democrats Abroad launches first international coordinated campaign. First ad campaign in major international newspapers supporting Democratic candidates cost $26,000.

1992: Democrats Abroad successfully carries out a caucus system for the selection of our presidential preference and our delegates to the New York Convention. Members gather in local, regional, and global caucuses to cast their votes in an outstanding example of global democracy.

1993: Representatives from fifteen country committees attend President Clinton's inauguration.

1993: November: Chairman Peter Alegi launches campaign to include overseas Americans in President Clinton’s universal health care system.

1993: On advice of the Executive Director, the DPCA hires former Republican Chief of Staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lobby for inclusion of overseas Americans. Country committees around the world contribute to funding.

1993: Democrats Abroad begins quarterly electronic publication in Paris of theOverseas Democrat under the editorship of Lois Grjebine and with technical support from Tom Fina. This is the first DPCA newsletter designed to provide country committees with ready-made text for local mailings.

1993: By unanimous vote, Democrats Abroad revises its bylaws in accordance with the changed political and administrative needs of a truly global organization. An Executive Committee is created to streamline management. DNC membership positions reserved for election by each of major world regions: Europe and Middle East, Asia, the Americas.

1994: Clinton Health Care legislation defeated in October, but our efforts had gotten overseas Americans included in drafts before the debacle.

1994: Democrats Abroad testifies on reform of citizenship legislation, suggesting "one-stop shopping," i.e., allowing applications to be filed abroad. The House sub-committee immediately accepts this idea and incorporates it into the bill, which becomes effective March 1, 1995.

1995: Executive Director arranges first time visit by delegation of Democrats Abroad to Oval Office led by Chair Peter Alegi to meet individually with President Clinton.

1995: Alice Lauthers succeeds deceased husband to be volunteer Assistant Treasurer in US.

1995: Incoming Chair Sally McNulty arranges successful European tour of Democrats Abroad by immediate past DNC Chair, David Wilhelm, who visits London, Paris, and Heidelberg.

1996: First non-European officer elected to DPCA— Carolyn Hansen from Taiwan.

1996: First non-European DNC member elected— Maureen Keating Tsuchiya from Japan.

1996: Executive Director negotiates procedure with Clinton White House to include Democrats Abroad in Presidential visits abroad. Democrats Abroad Handbook 36 May 2012

1996: Creation of first Democrats Abroad website by Executive Director (www.democratsabroad.org ) in Washington overseen by Vice Chair Joe Smallhoover with webmaster in US the site includes links to country committee websites. This made Democrats Abroad the first State Party to have a website.

1996: In order to make distribution of Overseas Democrat more rapid and less costly, operation shifted to Ruth McCreery in Yokohama who prepares page layouts that are transmitted as pdf files to web master who up-loads them to Democrats Abroad website for instant downloading and printing by country committees.

1996: DPCA Secretary takes over keeping of records of DPCA and Country Committee officer directory.

1996: DPCA convention in Toronto adopts resolution asking for inclusion of overseas Americans in census.

1996: E-mail begins to supplant fax as predominant communications medium with significant reduction in communications cost despite increased volume of communication.

1997: Sally McNulty leads Democrats Abroad in successful effort to maintain Section 911 of the tax code, the $70,000 exclusion of earned income from U.S. federal income tax.

1997: Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Richard C. Holbrooke attends gala Democrats Abroad fundraiser in Paris. 1998: US funds transferred from Citibank, NY, to Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust, Alexandria, VA for better and more economical service as volume of income increased.

1999: June: Chairman Smallhoover testified before House Committee on Census in support of inclusion of overseas Americans in 2010 Decennial Census.

2000: In January, Andrew Goldberg is appointed Deputy Executive Director. First paid DPCA employee.

2000: DPCA spends $115,000 for 2000 campaign advertising in Israel, Mexico, Canada,Stars & Stripes, USA täna ja International Herald Tribune.

2000: DPCA spends $115,000 for 2000 campaign advertising in Israel, Mexico, Canada, Stars & Stripes, USA täna ja International Herald Tribune.

2000: Executive Director creates Emergency Committee to Reform Overseas Voting (ECROV) to provide proposals to reform Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act (UOCAVA) in light of 2000 election irregularities.

2001: DPCA hires lobbyist to help win changes in overseas absentee voting legislation.

2001: Executive Director testifies before House Committee on Census in support of inclusion of overseas Americans in decennial census of 2010. 2001: Help America Vote Act (HAVA) becomes law in October it embodies important proposals made by ECROV. 2001: Andrew Goldberg becomes Executive Director upon the retirement of Thomas Fina, who becomes Executive Director Emeritus.

2004: At the National Convention, Democrats Abroad is moved forward in the roll call to its proper alphabetical order.

2005: Michael Ceurvorst elected first Democrats Abroad International Chair from the Asia-Pacific Region

2008: The voting weight of Democrats Abroad is increased at the National Convention.

2008: Regional caucuses held to elect DNC regional representatives and delegates to the 2008 DNC Convention in Colorado. Global meeting held in Vancouver to elect further delegates and DNC members.

2008: Autumn meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, results in the creation of a formalized Resolution process and Resolutions Committee.

2009: The MOVE Act is signed into law by President Obama, written specifically to address problems encountered by overseas voters. Democrats Abroad quickly adopts new voter registration procedures and begins monitoring states’ compliance with the law.

2010: International meeting in Florence, Italy. The DPCA Bylaws Committee presents the first draft of improvements to move towards proportional representation worldwide.

2010: Tim Kaine, DNC Chair, visits Paris.

2011: Tim Kaine, DNC Chair, visits London.

2011: International meeting in Seoul, Korea. Bylaws passed unanimously. The Czech Republic joins Democrats Abroad as an official country committee. Autumn meeting in Washington DC includes Doorknocks, which result in the formation of the FBAR/FATCA Taskforce. Democrats Abroad Handbook 37 May 2012

2012: First Global Primary held in May 2012. Number of delegates from Democrats Abroad to the DNC Convention increases. The number of Country Committees reaches 51. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz distributes a video thanking Democrats Abroad members.

2014: 50th Anniversary of Democrats Abroad celebrated in Washington DC.

2016: Second Global Primary held in March 2016. Ecuador joins Democrats Abroad as an official country committee.

2017: China joins Democrats Abroad as an official country committee. Global Black Caucus and Global Hispanic Caucus founded.

2018: Tom Perez, DNC Chair, visits Geneva and London. Nicaragua, Haiti and Romania join DA as official country committees. Global Progressive Caucus founded.

2019: Finland joins DA as an official country committee. Global Veterans and Military Families Caucus founded.

2020: Global AAPI Caucus founded.

The following have served as Chair of the DPCA since it was first granted membership in the DNC in 1977:


4 Memorable Fiascos from Past Democratic Conventions

Will the socially distanced convention of 2020 rob America of a chance to cringe in unison?

Tim Dickinson

Tim Dickinson's Most Recent Stories

Vice President Al Gore kisses his wife Tipper Gore after accepting the democratic nomination for President of the United States on the the fourth and final night of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, CA, August 17, 2000.

Robert Nickelsberg/Liaison/Getty Images

The socially distanced Democratic National Convention is sure to give us some high-tech bloopers. <<I’m sorry Governor Cuomo, you’re going to need to take yourself off mute.>> But without live delegates, in a physical stadium, with actual balloons and streamers, and politicians trying to project the best (if not most authentic) versions of themselves, Democrats will be missing something, namely a chance to broadcast cringeworthy flubs, mishaps, and miscalculations to millions across the country.

Here four moments from past DNC conventions that went sideways, and live on in infamy (or at least hilarity):

When Democrats Booed Carter

Nothing like bringing out the boo birds at your own convention. In 1980 President Jimmy Carter was going up against Ronald Reagan who promised a confrontation with the Soviet Union. Carter, eager to project his own strength on a national stage, began a simple recitation of the actions he’d taken after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. But number two on his list &mdash calling for draft registration &mdash did not hit right with Democratic delegates, in an America still reeling from its bloody and senseless misadventure in Vietnam. The leader of the Democratic party got an earful from those who ought to have been his heartiest backers:

Related

Is Biden's Climate Summit Just Big Talk or a Prelude to Real Action?
Walter Mondale, Former Vice President and Presidential Candidate, Dead at 93

Related

Singer Paulette McWilliams on Her Years With Marvin Gaye, Michael Jackson, and Steely Dan
'Silence of the Lambs': 'It Broke All the Rules'

CONVENTION THROWBACK:#OTD August 14, 1980 — Pres. Jimmy Carter is booed during his nomination acceptance speech at Democratic Convention when he says, "I called for draft registration"

pic.twitter.com/REERIQHG7J

&mdash Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) August 14, 2020

The Clinton Macarena

Long before online memes and TikTok teens performing the Renegade, there was the Macarena, the Latin dance sensation that went viral the old fashioned way &mdash awkwardly, at weddings, and birthday parties, and family reunions. To the pain of modern eyeballs, the Macarena infected the 1996 convention in Chicago, where then first-lady Hillary Clinton clapped off the beat, as convention delegates swung their hips and flailed their arms, giving alegría juurde cuerpo of absolutely nadie.

The Gore Kiss

Running in 2000, Al Gore had relatability problems. The Tennessee technocrat had a reputation for being a stiff, wooden politician with little of George W. Bush’s common touch. At the convention in Los Angeles, Gore’s advisers had plainly advised him to go out and show a little passion, a little simmer with wife Tipper, who was then known as America’s scold, a crusader against the coarseness of popular music. But as an awkward technocrat, Gore tended to over-correct when given this kind of stage direction. Instead of a spontaneous-seeming display of marital bliss, what ensued was “the kiss” (followed by an equally lamentable bear hug).

CONVENTION THROWBACK …#OTD August 17, 2000 …

THE KISS

Al Gore and Tipper Gore, on stage, on national TV, with soaring music. pic.twitter.com/OdyuZYQfHQ

&mdash Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) August 17, 2020

The Balloon Drop that Wasn’t

Conventions are all about the pomp and circumstance, and the culmination of the week-long party is the balloon-and-confetti drop to mark the official nomination of the party’s candidate for president. But at the 2004 convention at the Boston Garden, the most of the balloons somehow got stuck up in the rafters. It’s not that balloons didn’t drop. They just didn’t create the spectacle planners were hoping for. This is the kind of small anticlimax that most viewers at home would never notice. But CNN somehow had the fortune to be plugged into the profane backstage feed of the convention director progressively losing his shit as the red-white-and-blue balloons he so anticipated showering John Kerry and John Edwards failed to fall from the ceiling, finally screaming, “WTF are you guys doing up there.”


So what should we expect this year?

History would suggest that whoever goes into the convention with 1,991 delegates is pretty much assured the nomination.

True, delegates are not robots, as Mr. Kennedy tried to argue in 1980, and party rules allow them to switch allegiances. The rules say delegates “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” This gives wiggle room to a delegate who may be worried that Mr. Sanders’s objectives are too far out of the mainstream to make him electable in the fall.

“Sanders is a very polarizing candidate, and as we learn more about him we’ll have to see if people develop buyer’s remorse,” Ms. Kamarck said.

It was the same dilemma Republicans faced in 2016 when Donald J. Trump became the nominee.

But like Republicans, Democrats are unlikely to overrule voters and create a situation where candidates and party operatives begin wheeling and dealing, Professor Williams said.

“Brokered conventions are a bad thing for the health of the party and democracy,” he said. “Now it’s not the voters making a choice, but the candidates or party insiders making the choice.”



Kommentaarid:

  1. Amory

    Ma arvan, et te panete viga. Arutame seda. Kirjutage mulle PM -is, suhtleme.

  2. Glen

    Muidugi. And with this I have come across. We can communicate on this topic.

  3. Tsekani

    I suggest you go to the site, where there is a lot of information on the topic that interests you.



Kirjutage sõnum