Look at the tabs to pages above. You will see that there is a tab for historical FRQ and DBQ prompts. Go to that page and download the two documents.
Use them for study purposes.
Look at the tabs to pages above. You will see that there is a tab for historical FRQ and DBQ prompts. Go to that page and download the two documents.
Use them for study purposes.
I added a political cartoon. You can download the handouts here:Document Analysis PR
You need to read, and probably annotate things that you find important.
See? This isn’t so bad! THESE ARE DUE the first class period next week!!!
Yeah, I DO want you doing 11 – 13.
1. What did Clinton mean when he identified himself as a “New Democrat?” What groups of voters and supporters did he specifically court? How did he anger liberals in his own party? What major economic advantage did he have throughout his presidency?
2. What blunders did Clinton make early in his presidency? How was his wife involved?
3. Who were the Branch Davidians, and what made them newsworthy? What happened at Columbine and Ruby Ridge? (You may need to research outside the book to complete this.)
4. Name and describe the leader of the House Republicans in 1994. What tactics did he use to bring Republicans to power in the House? How did they create a backlash that benefited Clinton by 1996’s elections?
5. In what areas did Clinton struggle in foreign policy, specifically? What issues involved NATO during his presidency? How had NATO changed in the 1990s from its original membership and purpose? In which conflicts did he focus peace efforts worldwide?
6. On what charges was Clinton impeached? What was the original cause of the investigation of Clinton? Were these two things related?
7. How did the Clinton administration actually seem to be a continuation of the Reagan-Bush era, and why?
8. What was the controversy regarding the election of George W. Bush in 2000? How was it resolved?
9. Why did we invade Afghanistan? Who were the Taliban?
10. Why did we invade Iraq? What impact did the invasion of Iraq have on completing the mission in Afghanistan?
Now, especially given the events of the last few days and months, I want you to research online the following topics and write a 50 WORD summary of each. In each of these, please explain their connection to events in the last several months as well as their history.
11. In order to understand the information about the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, look up the Russian conflict in Chechnya. Here is a good place to start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3293441.stm
12. During the Clinton administration there were two policies/laws passed about social issues that are very important. So please provide an overview of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
13. What was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999? What did it do, and what is its relationship to the New Deal? What effects did the quiet repeal of this bill have?
Thank you Alex, for polluting my eardrums again and finding this.
This was probably the inspiration for Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign against drugs.
“The Evil Empire,”
President Reagan’s Speech to the House of Commons, June 8, 1982
Questions for understanding:
1. What famous speech does Reagan use an image from in the first paragraph? What is the connection between these two speeches?
2. In what way was Marx right, according to Reagan?
3. How does the world refugee situation prove the superiority of capitalism and democracy, according to Reagan?
4. What is the purpose of our engagement in competition with the Soviet Union?
We’re approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention
— totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy’s enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty years to establish their legitimacy. But none — not one regime — has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.
The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates the truth told in an underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is that the Soviet Union would remain a one-party nation even if an opposition party were permitted because everyone would join the opposition party….
Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe–indeed, the world–would look very different today. And certainly they will note it was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan or suppressed Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxin warfare in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.
If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma–predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?
Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war or even that it was imminent. He said, “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries.”
Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live now at a turning point.
In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West but in the home of Marxism- Leninism, the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half of what it was then.
The dimensions of this failure are astounding: a country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables. Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best resources into the making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society where productive forced are hampered by political ones.
The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise to us. Wherever the comparisons have been made between free and closed societies — West Germany and East Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam — it is the democratic countries that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their people. And one of the simple but overwhelming facts of our time is this: of all the millions of refugees we’ve seen in the modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward the Communist world. Today on the NATO line, our military forces face east to prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the line, the Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from leaving.
The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the new schools of economics in America or England or the appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is one unifying thread running through the intellectual work of these groups — rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate, the realization that collectivism stifles all the best human impulses….
Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has stressed that the competition of ideas and systems must continue and that this is entirely consistent with relaxation of tensions and peace.
Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their own constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for an instant transformation.
We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement there has been and will continue to be repeated explosion against repression and dictatorships. The Soviet Union itself is not immune to this reality. Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it, if necessary, by force.
While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections.
The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.
This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity.
Since 1917 the Soviet Union has given covert political training and assistance to Marxist-Leninists in many countries. Of course, it also has promoted the use of violence and subversion by these same forces. Over the past several decades, West European and other social democrats, Christian democrats, and leaders have offered open assistance to fraternal, political, and social institutions to bring about peaceful and democratic progress. Appropriately, for a vigorous new democracy, the Federal Republic of Germany’s political foundations have become a major force in this effort.
We in America now intend to take additional steps, as many of our allies have already done, toward realizing this same goal. The chairmen and other leaders of the national Republican and Democratic party organizations are initiating a study with the bipartisan American Political Foundation to determine how the United States can best contribute as a nation to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force. They will have the cooperation of congressional leaders of both parties, along with representatives of business, labor, and other major institutions in our society. I look forward to receiving their recommendations and to working with these institutions and the Congress in the common task of strengthening democracy throughout the world.
It is time that we committed ourselves as a nation — in both the public and private sectors — to assisting democratic development….
What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term — the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that’s why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our zero-option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads.
Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.
The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God.
I’ve often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds me of the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the blitz. As the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she’d stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing. And since she was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled the cork to give her a taste of it. She came around immediately and said, “Here now — there now, put it back. That’s for emergencies.”
Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.
During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain’s adversaries, “What kind of people do they think we are?” Well, Britain’s adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask
ourselves, “What kind of people do we think we are?” And let us answer, “Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.”
Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost an election just as the fruits of victory were about to be enjoyed. But he left office honorably and, as it turned out, temporarily, knowing that the liberty of his people was more important than the fate of any single leader. History recalls his greatness in ways no dictator will ever know. And he left us a message of hope for the future, as timely now as when he first uttered it, as opposition leader in the Commons nearly twenty-seven years ago, when he said, “When we look back on all the perils through which we have passed and at the mighty foes that we have laid low and all the dark and deadly designs that we have frustrated, why should we fear for our future? We have,” he said, “come safely through the worst.”
Well, the task I’ve set forth will long outlive our own generation. But together, we too have come through the worst. Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best – a crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation. For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.
MADD- Mothers Against Drunk Driving – founded by Candy Lightner in 1980 after her daughter was killed by a repeat offender.
The Moral Majority became a power in politics especially during the Reagan years. Founded in 1979 by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a television evangelist; it was disbanded in 1989. Here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958023,00.html) is the story from TIME magazine about its disbandment.
Solidarity was a labor union founded in communist Poland in the shipyards of Gdansk.Its most famous leader was Lech Walesa, who was later elected president of a democratic Poland. Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica summary: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/553374/Solidarity
TWO TV channels that kind of represent the ’80s were:
MTV! On August1, 1981, teens’ lives were changed forever with the launching of MTv, which has decided to be a complete poopy-pants and remove all the footage I could find from youtube about their opening launch. So here’s what happened: The first video was “Video Killed the Radio Star” by a one-hit wonder group called the Buggles. Enjoy! (The Second video was Pat Benatar’s “You Better Run”) We didn’t stop watching for DAYS.
Pat Benatar! Hard rock guitars and yet an incredible voice (the only other group who did this before her was Heart!)
CNN is launched by billionaire Ted Turner in 1980, making 24-hour access to the news possible before the internet:
A little over two months after his inauguration, Ronald Reagan was leaving a Washington hotel after addressing leaders of the AFL-CIO. John Hinckley Jr., hoping to attract the attention of the actress Jodie Foster, fired six shots, wounding four other men including Press Secretary James Brady, who was hit in the head; DC policeman Thomas Delahanty, who was shot in the neck; Secret Service Agent Timothy McCarthy was shot in the abdomen; and with the last shot Reagan was wounded by a ricochet which went through his armpit into his lungs near his heart. The .22 caliber ammunition Hinckley used was designed to explode and fracture upon impact for maximum damage.
Ever the joker, Reagan joked before being operated upon that he hoped that all of the doctors were Republicans.
No one was killed, although James Brady was permanently disabled, and he and his wife went on to found the Brady Foundation to try to limit the availability of guns for those with mental illness (such as Hinckley). Their advocacy was instrumental in obtaining the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1984, which mandated background checks of people attempting to buy firearms from gun shops.
Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and public outrage over this led to severe limitations on the use of the insanity defense. Hinckley has been confined to a mental institution since his conviction, although he is allowed to visit his parents’ home for ten days at a time.