The correct answer is it was never really defined
Although George H. W. Bush talked about it and how it was a new era of politics, it was never precisely defined as to what it stands for or what it would deal with or what the order would even be. It was a catchy phrase inspired by various events from the world but what it would be was never truly known or described.
<span>the massive amounts of people over the age of 65 or older
</span>
If I was an ordinary person in my 1930s and aged 40 with a middle income job such as an 'office assistant', I would not be in favour of helping other countries.
I would personally prefer a policy of isolation from the rest of the world. Primarily, this would be because I had seen with my very won eyes, the death and destruction bought on by World War I and more importantly the Great Depression.
With millions of job less people, poverty and people barely making ends meet, I would want our government to concentrate on the welfare of our own people, rather than go to war with countries thousands of miles away.
Answer:
D. the loss of party patronage power.
Explanation:
hope this helps! ;)
<span>McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.</span>
