This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Human Events: Politics: Pat Buchanan: Is Barack Obama Shaping a New Majority?: The New Democratic Majority in America

Pat Buchanan: Is Obama shaping a new majority? - Conservative News

I'm not sure what Barack Obama has done is create a new Democratic majority but has built off of the old Bill Clinton majority of the 1990s. People who are no longer in their twenties or teens but who are now thirties, forties and fifties and has added the twenty something generation. Generation Y, the last twenty years or so the Democratic Party has added most of the young adults in this country. They are all Democrats for the most part and without the voters Barack Obama is never elected President. Let alone reelected President of the United States and these are the same voters who almost put John Kerry in the. White House in 2004 but not enough of them voting yet to make that happen for Senator Kerry. And as the country is getting younger, we are getting more Liberal and Libertarian and more tolerant of people who. Aren't exactly like us and the Democratic Party is getting younger and becoming more Liberal as well but Liberal in the classical sense. Not what's called "Modern Liberalism" today these are voters who all love America for the most part. All love freedom but across the board for all Americans and get turned off by people who they see as intolerant. Which is how both Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock both lost US Senate Elections they should've won because they were both seen as intolerant.

Today we are looking at the New Democratic Party, a party that Bill Clinton and other New-Democrats built in the 1980s. And capitalized on in the 1990s that of course had a bit of a setback in the 1994 Congressional elections. But the reason why the first Democrat to be elected President in 1992 since 1976 in Bill Clinton and the first Democratic President. Reelected President since Franklin Roosevelt, because the Democratic Party was no longer seen as a Big Government Socialist Party. But a party that believed in things like national security, defending the nation, law enforcement, fiscal responsibility. But that we also believe in social freedom and civil rights and equality of opportunity. To go along with economic freedom and limited government. But that government could also serve to help people who are down by helping them get on their feet. Which is what Welfare to Work in 1996 was about, its not that the Democratic Party moved to the center but that it moved from the far-left to the center-left.

When President Clinton left office in 2001 and George W. Bush becomes President, the DP like most opposition parties in America. Were left without a Leader until Barack Obama wins the Democratic President nomination in 2008. And what then Senator Obama did was to build off the old Bill Clinton New-Democratic coalition. And bring in new voters to the party that I just described who had never voted before and thats the Democratic Party we see today.

Washington Times: Opinion: J.T. Young: A Lesson For Socialists: What Socialism Actually Is and Not How Its Stereotyped

YOUNG: A lesson for Socialists - Washington Times

This is an interesting debate and even humorous to me because people who tend to talk about Socialism for one thing don't understand it. And they also mislabel it and treat as something as its not and compare Socialism vs Capitalism like they are squaring off. Like you would compare a Jaguar with a Mercedes which are both cars but problem with comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Is that yes they are different but so are lions and giraffes, yes they are both animals and mammals but they aren't the same thing. Socialism and Capitalism are two different things, Socialism is a political philosophy yes with an economic component. But like every other political philosophy but just different, Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism. Go down the line they all have economic components to them otherwise they wouldn't be much of a political philosophy. Whereas Capitalism is an economic system based on private enterprise rather then the government owning the means of production of society. Which is what Classical-Socialists believe in but thats not the whole range of their political philosophy.

So if you want to compare Socialism with other economic philosophies, you should compare it with Liberalism. Conservatism, Libertarianism and so fourth who by the way today all believe in at least a certain level of Capitalism. As we see in America, Canada, Europe, Asia and so fourth where Socialists all over the World have embraced Capitalism at least to a certain extent. Another thing that people should understand about Socialists is that not all Leftists are the same thing. Not all Leftists are Liberals and not all Leftists are Socialists that Leftism represent a diverse group of political factions. That include Liberals as well as Democratic-Socialists or Progressive/Social Democrats people who are to the left of Liberals. And todays Socialists for the most part don't believe in state ownership at least when it comes to business. That we should have nationalize corporations and so fourth but that they should remain private but taxed and. Regulated to fund the things that Socialists see as the commons, education, healthcare, health insurance, retirement, banking even. Things Socialist don't trust the private sector to manage.

So its helpful when you speak about Socialism like anything you might speak about, to know what you are. Talking it about to know what Socialism is and what Socialism is about and what Socialists believe in. Rather then comparing it with things that it isn't, that Socialism is a political philosophy not an economic system. But a political philosophy that covers all areas of current affairs that also has an economic component to it as well.

RedState: Fiscal Policy: Erick Erickson: BRAC The Budget: New Commission To Cut Waste in The Federal Government

BRAC the Budget | RedState

I kinda like this idea from Erick Erickson a right wing blogger who I rarely agree with when it comes to policy. But who I respect for his observations about the Republican Party because he honest and just doesn't defend them because they are Republicans. I would probably go further and set up what I would call a Government Accountability and Reform Commission. Or GARC that would be permanent and set up similar to Simpson-Bowles it would be Bipartisan or even non partisan. And it would cover the entire Federal budget with a full committee, as well as sub committees under it. Similar to how Congressional committees are set up and run and would have subpoena power and have a sub committee. That would focus on one part of the Federal Government, a sub committee for defense, education, social welfare etc. And would cover the entire Federal budget, as well as look at things like tax subsidies, tax loopholes especially corporate welfare. And what are called duplicate programs, two different programs that address the same needs.

The job of GARC would be to examine what works and what doesn't work in the Federal Government. Look and propose to eliminate waste and look to reform areas of the Federal Government where we need the Feds. Doing those things but we need it to work better and be more cost effective, as well as ways to look at where. We can cut costs in the Federal Government by giving the states more authority and passing more power down to them. In a way that would make those programs work better and be more cost effective.