Rik Schneider Online

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Real Clear Politics: Editorial: John Kass: Will Tolerance For The Faithful Be Tolerated?: What Equal Protection Under The Law is About

Will Tolerance for the Faithful Be Tolerated?

Equal protection under the law is simply that, to say we don't treat groups of people better or worse then others under law. That government at all levels doesn't discriminate against people based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality and yes sexuality. Right now equal protection under the law applies to all classes lets say except for sexuality. Right now under law Heterosexuals that is Straights are being treated better under law then Homosexuals or Gays. Why simply because of their sexuality, they are entitled to get married and not lose their job and benefits and so fourth because of their sexuality. Whereas Gays in most states can't get married to people of the same gender because of their sexuality. They can be fired just because of their sexuality and so fourth and lose benefits or be denied benefits because of their sexuality. Again all things that Straights do not have to worry about. So right now as far as sexuality in America, we don't have equal protection under the law even though constitutionality we. Are suppose to have that but similar to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, not all Americans are getting their constitutional rights. Enforced as equally as others.

Not saying that religions and people of faith have to believe that same sex marriage and homosexuality is a good thing and approve of those things. Or that they can't protest against these things and write pieces about them and so fourth or that houses of warship have to perform Gay weddings and so fourth. We still live in a Liberal-Democracy and part of that is that all Americans are treated equally under law but. That all Americans have a right to say whatever is on their mind and believe whatever they believe and we still have separation of church and state. Something that Christian-Conservatives tend not to be fans of but in this case this is something they should support because their religion and churches won't have. To approve of same sex marriage and Homosexuality broadly and won't be forced to perform Gay weddings. And government at any level won't have the authority to force them to do so.

This is not about forcing Americans and organizations to approve of Gay weddings and Homosexuality. But this is about how government treats its people and do they treat them equally with the same constitutional rights. That comes with being an American or not and since we do have a equal protection clause, government is required under the U.S. Constitution to enforce the EPC equally for all Americans.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Southern Avenger: Politics: Jack Hunter: Libertarianism For Social Conservatives: Defining Social-Conservatism in America

Libertarianism for Social Conservatives - Southern Avenger

I agree with Conservative blogger Jack Hunter that social-Conservatism shouldn't be at odds with Libertarianism and that you can be both a social-Conservative and a Libertarian. But I would perhaps put it differently with a definition of social-Conservatism and I would also add that you can't be a Statist and. A Libertarian you can't believe in both personal freedom and that the state should set certain guidelines for how Americans should live their own personal lives. Even if people aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Its not social-Conservatism thats at odds with Libertarianism but its. Religious-Statism the religious-right in America, people who I call Christian-Theocrats who want to impose their moral.  Beliefs on Americans even through law that is at odds with Libertarianism.

What is a Conservative in a political sense, someone who believes in conserving freedom. That freedom is so important that it must be protected and defended, another words conserved so its not taken away. Thats what Conservative means, so when you see Conservatives moving slowly and that government closest to. Home is the best government, which is why Conservative columnist George Will is against the Defense of Marriage Act. For Federalist reasons because he believes it is a matter for the states to decide not the Federal Government imposing their definition of marriage onto the states. And that government should move slowly when it comes to legislating in a Conservative direction so peoples. Ability to make their own decisions is not interrupted by government with a government knows best solution and that a lot of these decisions. Especially as it relates to social issues but economic policy as well should be left to the states. Which is different from the religious-right who takes more of a Nationalist position when it comes to a lot of social issues if not all of them.

So if you are social-Conservative you believe in conserving social freedom and you believe in protecting social freedom. Not restricting it to only people who view America the way you do and share your political beliefs and lifestyle and so fourth. Or subtracting freedom in America because you don't certain activities and see them as immoral. But that the individual should have the freedom to live their own lives and not be interfered by government. As long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Human Events: Politics: Mark Levin: "The Republican Party Is Going To Split, And There's Going To Be Two Parties": What a New GOP Could Look Like

Mark Levin: "The Republican Party Is Going To Split, And There's Going To Be Two Parties"

Just as an American and a political junky even though my politics are pretty clear and I'm a Liberal-Democrat. But someone who just loves politics and political debate, partisanship at its best form which is intelligent debate based on facts. And giving voters a choice in who to vote for, I would love to see the Republican Party split. And see the Republican Party going back to being a truly Conservative party in the Barry Goldwater tradition. Rather then where it is now for the last twenty years which is really a big government Neoconservative/Theocratic party that believes America has been heading downhill. Culturally the last fifty years and that the main problem with America is that we are too diverse and have too much social freedom. I would love just as a political junky see the Christian-Theocrats and Neoconservatives people I now call Neo-Confederates. People who are still fighting the Civil War, split off into another party, some far-right party that gets taken as seriously as the Democratic-Socialist Party. With the new GOP being made up of Conservatives and Conservative-Libertarians.

Thats the only way to save the GOP, unless the Confederates in the party find a way to prevent people who tend to vote Democratic from immigrating to the country. Or deporting immigrants who tend to vote Democratic or preventing native born Americans from voting Democratic. New-Americans as well as young Americans simply don't like big government. They don't want its high taxes and regulations and they don't want it interfering with how they live their personal lives. And these are the people that Senator Rand Paul and other Conservative-Libertarian Republicans are trying to communicate to. Because they know the Republican Party is too small right now and only going to get smaller if they don't bring in new. Voters and you bring in new voters not by changing who you are but. Getting back to what you were which was an economic and social freedom party that believes in fiscal responsibility. And government closest to home is the best government.

The Republican Party right now is going through what the Democratic Party went though in the 1980s. After the New-Left came into the party thanks to the antiwar movement and the Great Society. And brought a real Social-Democratic flavor to the party that America is not use to seeing. Which cost the Democratic Party 5-6 Presidential elections from 1968-88, as well as the U.S. Senate in 1980. But the Democratic Party adjusted in the early 1990s and we see where they are now and the Republican Party. Is going to have to do something similar as that which is to get back to what they are. And leave behind what they've become.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

AEI: Politics: How Should The Conservative Movement Evolve?: What The Battle of The GOP Should be Between

How should the conservative movement evolve?

If you are talking in cultural sense then I guess Conservatism would be about protecting tradition. This is how things have been done, its got us to this point which is why we shouldn't change and so fourth. Which is how religious and Neoconservatives tend to look at Conservatism. But even though culture and lifestyle are part of politics, its not the only part and when I talk about Conservatism I'm talking about it. In a political sense and what Conservatism means in that sense and thats coming from someone whose not even a Conservative. But someone who loves politics, philosophy, current affairs and history and when I think of Conservatism. I think of people like Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, Ron Reagan, Gerry Ford, Bob Dole, Bill Buckley and others. Men who believed that big government should be out of the boardroom, bedrooms and classrooms. And that individuals should be free to live their own lives and be able to make out of them what they can. Rather then government telling them how to live and what it means to be an American.

Todays GOP debate about the so called future of the GOP tends to be Conservative versus Moderate. And framed in terms of people who always hold to their principles and never compromise. Against people who will compromise for the good of the country and government so it can function and so. Fourth and well if thats the case, the Tea Party and Christian-Right in the Republican Party are the Conservatives. And establishment Republicans are the Moderates because they look Moderate compared with the Christian-Right and Tea Party. But who in America doesn't look Moderate compared with those groups. I have a hard time buying that John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives or. Senator John McCain is a Moderate, just look at their Congressional voting records but they look Moderate compared with the Tea Party. And do work with Democrats in oder to get things done when their party doesn't have all of the power.

To me the debate in the GOP should be between Conservatives who believe in individual freedom. And Neoconservatives and Christian-Theocrats who have this 1950s view of what America is and that we. Should've never evolved from that and the country has gone downhill ever since and we need to move back to that to save the soul of America. The Conservative coalition of today are the Conservative-Libertarians the Rand Paul's of the world and the Northeast-Republicans or what's left of that coalition. Versus the Bible Belt Republicans who would like to return the country back to the 1950s. And if the Conservatives win, the GOP will be back in good shape and stay there for decades to come.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Heritage Foundation: War on Poverty: Robert Rector: Examining the Means-Tested Welfare State: The Role of Social Insurance in America

Examining the Means-tested Welfare State

The public safety net or social insurance is exactly that insurance that we all pay into through taxes and then only collect from it when we need it. Similar to people who buy disaster insurance or something like that for their home and then they can collect from that when their home is hit by a storm. And social insurance does a couple of thing. One it gives money to people so they can survive and pay their bills who otherwise wouldn't be able to do that. But also a role of social insurance is to buy people who are on it time to be able to put their lives together. Look for work, go back to school to get additional schools or be in job training and job fairs and so fourth. And social insurance also provides financial assistance for people to be able to do that and the better it is at helping people move off of public assistance and into or back to the. Workforce the less expensive it is because the fewer people who'll be on it collecting from it and the better it would be for the economy. More people working and paying their own bills with money to spend and so fourth which creates more jobs.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

U.S. Representative John Kline: Education and the Workforce: Making Public Assistance Work in America

Education and the Workforce 

As I've blogged before House Leader Eric Cantor has introduced an agenda thats targeted to Americans who don't traditionally vote Republican. As a way to bring new voters into the Republican Party by going after middle class voters and people who aren't doing as well. By showing them how economic Conservatism could work for them and part of that has to do with legislation that was introduced by. Representative John Kline Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee. I haven't read this legislation yet but what I've seen so far is that it builds of what House Republicans did and tried to do in. The mid 1990s with the so called Contract with America where Welfare to Work was a big part of that. Where Welfare would be there to put people back to work and make public assistance in America work for people who are on it. But also for the tax payers as well and what Education and Workforce Republicans are doing here. Is looking to reform the job-training programs in the Federal Government, by consolidating them and expanding the types of training people can get while they are unemployed.

President Obama has already said he's for a similar approach and wants to reform job-training in America. And make Unemployment Insurance pay not just for people to collect money while they are unemployed. But for them to be preparing to go back to work, not just looking for work but getting skills and new skills so they can get themselves a good job. Which to me as a Liberal-Democrat is language I like and what I want to be hearing from people in Congress. That its not the job of government to take care of people but to empower those who need it to be able to take care of themselves. And that part of that assistance is to help them pay their bills while they are not working and are not making enough. Money to be independent but also so they can get themselves the skills that they need so they can get a good job and be independent. Working and taking care of themselves.

There's that old saying that the devil is in the details and if this legislation is a cut and run approach. Meaning you cut peoples assistance or kick them off of public assistance because they've been on it for a certain amount of time. Even if they don't have the skills to be successful in life, then this legislation is dead but if this is real assistance that empowers people to be independent in life. Then this is an area where House Republicans will be able to work with President Obama on.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Washington Times: Opinion: Charles Hurt: "Barack Obama, The Spending Jihadist": The Whole Story of the Budget Mess in Washington

HURT: Barack Obama, the spending jihadist - Washington Times

Not saying that President Obama is innocent in this whole budget showdown and the sequester and so fourth or the debt and deficit. It was President Obama who proposed the sequester probably thinking that House Republicans would do what it took. To prevent the automatic defense cuts from happening and its a gamble that he's losing. Not realizing what House Republicans are really about right now is cutting the size of the Federal Government at all costs. Not wanting to take it out on defense, poor people who have to have the public assistance they get to survive. Sure because they are poor people and where are they going to go to complain to but as long at the end of the say when the budget cuts happen, even if they are across. The board thats what House Republicans run by the Tea Party are about and the economic Libertarian wing of that coalition seems to be in charge. So when Speaker John Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted in the debt ceiling battle in 2011. I bet this was part of what he was talking about.

The main problem that I have with this to go along with the sequester, is that listening to people who were part of. The seven trillion dollars in increase debt spending from 2001-09 under President Bush talk about the debt and deficit. And the need to get these things under control, is like hearing an obese person talk about the need for good diet and exercise. What do they know about that other then what not to do, they don't have much experience if any what it comes to fiscal responsibility or balancing budgets. At least at the Federal level because they've never done it before and were in dead silence when President Bush. Was racking up debt in his eight years but now that there's a Democratic President, they see their opening to. Make the debt and deficit, as well as Great Recession all things that Barack Obama inherited when he became President. As if these things are his fault.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Human Events: Opinion: Larry Kudlow: "No Sequester Catastrophe": Why Limited Smart Government Beats Small Government

Kudlow: No Sequester Catastrophe

Here we are back in that same old, actually ancient debate of not what the role of government is. Because thats definitely a legitimate debate but the old debate of small government versus big government. As if we are so simple minded and limited in our intellectual capabilities that we only have that choice. But thats simply the debate in American politics right now, big versus small, good versus bad. When instead what the debate really should be about, what's the role of government in America. What do we need it to do, which is different from what we want it to do and then limiting government at all levels especially the. Federal Government to only to the Constitutional things that we need it to do. Instead of big government is better then small government or small government is better then big government. Hopefully most of us believe that government should be limited and that there's a limit to what government should do. If we can just get to that point which is basic common sense but in an era where ideology and partisanship. Outweighs commonsense, commonsense tends to take a backseat and the rest of the country suffers as a result.

Anyone who thinks across the board spending cuts the sequester is a good way to cut the debt and limit government. Really needs to take a course in economics after they repeat all twelve years of education before college. Because they are really not smart enough to be in this debate. Cutting things that you need to do and work well as much as cutting things you don't need to do and are simply a waste. Like duplicative programs in government, is as about as smart as sticking your head in a fan when its on in. To get some fresh air and even if you didn't know that sticking your head in a fan when its on to get fresh air. Is a horrible idea with deadly consequences, chances are if you took a second to think about that before you actually did that. You wouldn't of made that horrible mistake, thats how dumb the sequester across the board budget cuts. So lets all agree that smart government is the solution and then limit the smart government to only doing the things that we need it to do.

So to throw out look at all of these countries that are growing well economically and compare then with countries that aren't. And then try to make the case that the fast countries are growing better with higher living standards and so fourth. Is a waste of time, the countries that are growing well right now, take Brazil which I believe is a better example then China. Because their per capita income is frankly twice that of China but this is not small government versus big government. But Brazil has figured out what they need their public and private sectors to do and only has its Federal Government investing in those. Things rather then trying to do everything which is how they have a limited smart government. Not big or small.

Monday, March 4, 2013

AEI: War on Poverty: Arthur C. Brooks: Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic: How Economic Conservatism Could Appeal to More Americans

Republicans and their faulty moral arithmetic - Society and Culture - AEI

I just wrote a blog on Saturday about how Republicans should save the Republican Party and of course its up to them to save it or not. As a Democrat and as an American I wish they would and coming up with an economic policy that appeals to more then ten percent of the country would be a great start for. Them along with eliminating the Confederate wing of the party as far as running the party and needing them to win elections. But for Republicans to knock the Confederates back, they are simply going to need an economic policy that again appeals to more then just ten percent of Americans and not. Trickle down economics but an economic policy that tells Americans that even if you don't come from wealth. Or aren't doing very well as an adult, the Republican Party is a good place for you because we have an. Economic policy that would empower you to be able to become successful in life. They knock the Confederates down and develop and economic policy that does that and you are once again talking. About the Grand Ole Party a national party that compete across the country with all racial and ethnic groups.

House Leader Eric Cantor and Representative Paul Ryan a potential 2016 Presidential contender last month. Had already started the groundwork of how to make economic Conservatism simply appeal to more Americans. So Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute and others aren't the only people on the right who and believe this. That todays Republican Party is simply not built to last and they need to bring in new voters to survive as a major political party. And an economic policy that appeals to more Americans would be a big start. And I believe its very simple and I'm going to try not to sound like an economic Liberal here which I am but economic Liberalism and economic Conservatism are essentially. Built on the same values but we differ on the role of government.

But Liberal and Conservative common values are essentially this. That all Americans should have a good shot to be successful at life and of course what they do with those opportunities is up to them. But that we should all be able to get a good education and then if we work hard and are productive, should. Be able to keep most of the benefits from our good works. So todays Republicans are right that taxes should be low enough so people are incentivize to work hard and be productive. But the missing link for todays Republicans is how does that benefit people who don't already have the skills to be successful in. Life and thats what they need to complete their economic policy and telling Americans that its not the job of government to take care of you. But what we can do is empower you to be able to take care of yourself and that all Americans are entitled to a good education in life so they never have to live off of. Public assistance as an adult.

What Republicans should be doing is building off of their accomplishments of Welfare reform in 1996. And applying that to the rest of public assistance especially Unemployment Insurance and empowering low income workers. To be able to work better jobs by incentivizing employers to job train their low income employees and for companies to do private job training. Where people on public assistance can go to get the skills that they need to get a good job. And of course education reform so no American is trapped in failing schools that lead to no future that anyone would want to have and they do these. Things then non wealthy Americans would say maybe there's a place in the Republican Party for me.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: George W. Bush From 2012



George W. Bush is a difficult topic for me because even I do consider him to be the worst President in my lifetime. All thirty seven years plus of it, I don't see him as evil or a moron that if I had to guess a lot of other if not the majority of other Democrats do. But if you compare President Bush with the Republican Party of today, President Bush is looking pretty. Damn good who was the last Republican Presidential nominee to get at least forty percent of the Latino vote to use as an example. If you look at where the United States was before George Bush became President in 2001 when it came to terrorism. And where it was when he left office in 2009, the country was in better shape at least domestically as far as being able to stop. Terrorist acts before they happened to use as an example, also President Bush wasn't a radical when it came to social issues. The first national Republican to come out in favor civil unions for Homosexuals couples to use as an example. He didn't really push social issues that much at all as President. So compare George Bush with lest say Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, W is looking pretty good right now.

My problems with President Bush have to do with policy decisions especially as it related to the economy. I believe the worst fiscal policy this country has ever seen, whether you want to call it supply side economics. Or what I believe it is what former Democratic Governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean called it, borrow and spend economics. Since President Bush then were so against tax hikes and bringing in new tax revenue across the board or cutting the Federal. Budget in any significant way, so when he and other Republicans wanted to do something that cost a lot of money. Lets say cut taxes by two trillion dollars in 2001 and 2003, or spend seven hundred billion dollars on prescription drugs for Medicare. As we were already at war in Afghanistan and Iraq and borrowing a trillion dollars for those operations. The Bush Administration simply just borrowed trillions of dollars from other countries to pay for those priorities.

The issues with President Bush wasn't that he was some type of right wing radical for the most part. Except in the areas of torture, Patriot Act, indefinite detention but that he simply made bad. Judgement calls and didn't have the leadership skills to tell Americans that we are simply limited in what government can do for the people. And that if you want us to do more for you, these things come at a cost and wasn't willing to ask Americans to pay for things they wanted.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Commentary: Politics: Peter Wehner & Michael Gerson: How to Save the Republican Party

« How to Save the Republican Party Commentary Magazine

I wrote a blog a couple of weeks ago about how to save the Republican Party and asked a bunch of questions like. Is the GOP worth saving and so fourth and just by the title of this blog, you know where I am on that. So I'm not going to go through that again other then to say the Confederate wing of the GOP is not worth saving. If they stay in the GOP or move onto a Confederate third party, that won't be a problem either way for Republicans. As long as the Confederates are no longer running the GOP, because they've gotten back to their Conservative roots and once again yes. Have become a Conservative Party which they aren't right now. Today they are more of Neoconservative/Christian Theocratic Party, with basically anti-democratic leanings towards people who aren't traditional. Republicans and thats simply not good enough in a country thats becoming more minority and less European and more Liberal and Libertarian. And less Authoritarian and more tolerant of all types of Americans.

What the Republican Party is going through right now is actually not much different then what the Democrats went through. In the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, that is as the country then became more Conservative thanks to Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Democrats became more Progressive or Social-Democratic as the New-Left of antiwar Social-Democrats essentially took over the. Democratic Party in an era where Democrats coming off of the Great Society and civil rights movement. Should've been in position to govern into an indefinite future but the Vietnam War and the mishandling of that. Ruin that for Democrats but now as the country is becoming more Liberal and Libertarian and more minority. The Republican Party has moved further to the right and has become more Neoconservative and Theocratic, Statist even. Towards a population that doesn't want that.

What makes this political situation worse for the Republican Party then it was for Democrats forty years ago. Is simply fundamental demographics that are poised to wipeout todays GOP if it doesn't adjust successfully. Because todays GOP is simply dying off as Bible Belt voters are getting older and not being replaced again as the country is becoming more Liberal and Libertarian. And most of the new voters are voting Democratic which is going to hit the GOP hard in Congress over the next few. Elections again if they don't successfully adjust but the good news for the GOP is that their successful future is already there. If they simply embrace it and get behind it and dump the Confederate wing of the party.

Like I said before the problem with the Republican Party is that its not that its too Conservative. But that its not Conservative enough and over the last 10-20 years it has become a Neoconservative-Theocratic. Statist party instead of a Conservative Party but the good news is that it still has a Conservative and Libertarian wing in the party. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio even and Justin Amash all Republicans serving in Congress right now. In the Senate and Justin Amash's case in the House and these are the people and politics that the GOP has to get behind to bring in the new voters that it needs. To remain a competitive major political party in America.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Red State: Philosophy: Labor Union Report: Agenda: "How Marxists Are Grinding America Down": The Social-Democratic Movement in America

Agenda: How Marxists Are Grinding America Down | RedState

As far as people who believe in what I at least call classical Socialism, which in short is state ownership. Meaning the state or national government owns the means to production in society meaning the economy. People like that in America are a dying breed and don't represent a major faction in either the Democratic or Republican parties. I'm sure they still exist but even the Democratic Socialist Party, the Green Party and Progressive Party all Social-Democratic parties in America. With Democratic-Socialists or Social-Democrats in them representing the overwhelming majority in all of those Social-Democratic. Or New-Left parties in America all believe in a certain level of private enterprise and Capitalism. But what separates them from the Democratic and Republican parties is that they all believe in a much larger. Role for the Federal Government in America as it relates to the economy, roughly twice the size and making our economy look more like Europe. The Democratic Party has a faction of Social-Democrats or Progressives who believe in Social-Democracy or Democratic-Socialism as well but they all believe in a. At least a certain level of private enterprise or Capitalism as well.

There are Progressives or Social-Democrats in America who see our Federal Government as undersized and underfunded and under taxed across the board. To meet the needs of society and there are Americans and would like to see the Federal Government not just have a bigger role in providing. Services to Americans but actually running these things as it relates to things like healthcare, health insurance, education. Private schools and perhaps even private universities would probably be nationalized if Social-Democrats ever came to power in America. With the Executive and Legislative Branches in their control and perhaps even banking as well but a lot of the economy will still be private. So basically we would still have a private enterprise system but corporations would be either less of them, not as large or. Perhaps not even for profit and where the Federal Government would be responsible for managing the services that Progressives don't trust the private sector to be running.

Marxists or Marxism, the so called Communist Manifesto, doesn't really exist as far as a governing document. That Americans looks to as their governing philosophy, the followers of this philosophy simply aren't there. What America does have are Democratic-Socialists or Social-Democrats or Progressives who are anti corporate or for profit even. But aren't looking to turn the entire United States economy over to the Federal Government.