This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Kansas Politics: Video: CBS News: 1980 GOP Convention Ford Bush VP Drama

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

CBS News trying to figure out who Ronald Reagan had nominated for Vice President at the 1980 Republican National Convention. Reagan had narrowed it down to former President of the United States Gerald Ford of all people who had already served briefly as Vice President for Richard Nixon before President Nixon resigned in the summer of 1974. And of course former Ambassador to China George H.W. Bush who had served in other positions as well.
Ronald Reagan 1980 Republican RNC

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

CBS News: Video: President Gerald Ford Talks Ronald Reagan on Face The Nation in 1976

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

President Gerald Ford trying to run as a Centrist in 1976 even though he had a pretty conservative in Congress as a Representative from Grand Rapids, Michigan and as House Minority Leader. And then had a pretty conservative record as President especially when it came to fiscal policy and taxes. But also as it related to foreign policy and national security. But Ronald Reagan saw President Ford as not tough enough when it came to Russia and foreign policy in general and was a basis for running against him in 1976.

CBS News: Video: Governor Ronald Reagan Talks President Gerald Ford on Face The Nation in 1975

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I don't have the exact date on this, but I believe this is early 1975. The year I'm sure of and it was just after Ronald Reagan left the California Governor's Mansion as a two-term Governor of California. 1975 representing a new Congress with the next major national election being the 1976 presidential election. With the speculation in Washington being who was going to run for president. President Gerald Ford who inherited the job from President Richard Nixon in 1974 when President Nixon resigned. And would Ron Reagan run against the President or not in the Republican presidential primaries.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

American Mind: Video: Charles Kessler Interviewing Dennis Prager: "The Religion of the Left"

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Just to sort of point out the obvious. There is no one religion of the Left and Dennis Prager doesn't seem to understand that because his idea of a leftist is essentially a Communist, or other some type of collectivist statist on the Left who sees the role of government to protect and take care of people to look after the general welfare of everyone. Instead of allowing free people the freedom and responsibility to manage their own affairs. That branch of the Left obviously exists and this blog covers that at least once a week now. But that is not the entire Left.

Now where I agree with Dennis Prager and is one example of why I respect the man at least to some degree. Is how he talked about what he calls leftist (again what is that) and differentiating that from liberalism. Instead of saying that "Liberals are collectivists and statists to their core. But who are against the military, law enforcement, religion and private enterprise". He said that people who he calls leftists are that instead.

And the other point that Prager made about John Kennedy saying that he was "a Liberal who believed in lower taxes, strong defense, individual freedom and opportunity" and so forth. Well guess what all Liberals believe in those things, otherwise we wouldn't be Liberals and liberal wouldn't be that beautiful word that Prager describes it as. I'm a Liberal and a Leftist which puts me on the center-left of the American political spectrum. Those collectivists that Prager is always putting down and critiquing are on the far-left in America even though they look mainstream at least in Scandinavia.

Friday, July 25, 2014

The Book Archive: Video: S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe on Conservative Ideas in American Life and Popular Culture From 2008

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

At least to me S.E. Cupp and I'm not familiar with Brett Joshpe, but S.E. to me looks like a real Barry Goldwater get big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, classrooms and boardrooms Conservative. Who doesn't want to outlaw anything that she disapproves of and wouldn't personally be involved with. Like certain times of entertainment, language, homosexuality, gambling and perhaps even marijuana and same-sex-marriage. That she and young Conservatives are the hope for the Republican Party in the future as the country is becoming more tolerant and individualistic. And even liberal and libertarian.
Young Conservative

Thursday, July 24, 2014

The National Interest: Jacob Heilbrunn Interviewing Senator Tim Kaine: Reforming the Relationship of Congress & the President When it Comes to Use of Military Force

U.S. Senator Tim Kaine 

The National Interest: Jacob Heilbrunn Interviewing Senator Tim Kaine 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

This might be or might not be common knowledge at least for Americans who live outside of the Washington Beltway and don't follow American politics and current affairs closely, but the United States hasn't officially declared war since World War II. Which essentially means every military conflict that America has been involved in since where we our using our own military force has been unconstitutional. One of the reasons why the War Powers Act was created I believe in 1973 was that so future American use of force would at the very least be legal. The Vietnam War had a lot to do with that.

I believe part of the problem is that we don't have a real definition of war and war conflict. I think most Americans understand what war is, but we don't have an official definition of war. America was clearly involved in the Libyan Civil War that I supported in 2011 with our non fly zone to protect the Libyan rebels and people from their own government, but officially and perhaps legally we weren't at war. The War in Iraq was obviously a war and the same thing with our involvements in Kosovo in the late 1990s. But the President didn't seek permission from Congress to go to war.

Congress did pass a Congressional resolution that granted President George H.W. Bush permission to go to war with Iraq in the early 1990s to get the Hussein Regime out of Kuwait. And Congress granted President George W. Bush permission to use military force against Iraq in 2002 which led to the War in Iraq. But the President in both cases didn't ask Congress to declare war which is required under the U.S. Constitution and Congress didn't declare war in either case.

The War Powers Act has served it's purpose when it comes to the President of the United States. To give that person the flexibility to respond to military crisis's around the world, or when America is actually attacked either at home or abroad. But it is overdone and is leaving Congress almost powerless to even conduct oversight of these operations and has left Americans who end up having to pay for these military operations out of the loop as far as what is being done with their money. Because the President can essentially declare war and apparently not even have to tell anyone. With Congress left ninety days later with an up and down question of whether or not to support the troops or not.

Senator Tim Kaine makes a good point about why the Congress that he's a member of is so unpopular. And part of that is because the House and Senate duck tough questions so they don't have to take clear stances on the issues that can hurt them in the next election. And foreign affairs and national security is a perfect example of that. So I agree with him at the very least it is time for Congress to reform the War Powers Act if not repeal it.

What I would like to do is create a War Power Act for the 21st Century that would include both the President of the United States and the National Security Council, but Congress as well. And part of that would be a Congressional National Security Council that would include the House Speaker, House Majority Leader, House Minority Leader and their deputy, the Senate Leader and their deputy, the Senate Minority Leader and their deputy. Along with the chairman and ranking member of the Congressional national security committees. House and Senate Armed Services, House Foreign Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations, House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

The President would first have to consult with the Congressional National Security Council before proposing to Congress about using military force. And give them the briefing and intelligence on what they see and what they want to do and how they would go about trying to accomplish it. The CNSC would have access to the same intelligence and briefings that the President, Vice President and National Security Council gets. And once that is done the CNSC would way in on what they think about what the President wants to have permission to use military force for and give the President an idea about how much support they would get in Congress for authorization for use of military force.

After briefing the CNSC the President either way whether the CNSC approves his request for military force or not could ask Congress to approve it or not. And Congress would have a window to approve or disapprove the authorization or not. But no longer would the President just be able to use military force without consulting Congress even the leaders and national security leaders. With Congress weighing in ninety days later. With the exception of when America is actually attacked either at home or abroad then the ninety day exception would still be in place.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

The Washington Post: Opinion: Michael Gerson: The Tea Party Risks Scaring Away Voters

Tea Party Republicans

The Washington Post: Opinion: Michael Gerson: The Tea Party Risks Scaring Away Voters

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

I'm going to take you on a trip back in time to the mid 1960s and we'll work are way up to the early 1980s as well. Imagine had the Barry Goldwater classical conservative movement managed to take over the Republican Party during this time period. And today it becomes what we see with Senator Rand Paul, or they combine with his father former Representative Ron Paul and this kind of conservative libertarian movement took over the Republican Party. With the Dick Nixon's, Gerry Ford's, Ron Reagan, George Bush's who all had things in common with this movement, but who are perhaps not pure conservative libertarians, but able to work with these movement's to lead the party.

Imagine had the Conservative Libertarians taken over the GOP and essentially kicked out the Northeastern Progressives, or those Republicans become more like moderate Conservatives as we see with Mitt Romney and Olympia Snowe to use as examples. The Libertarian Party never gets up and running is ever formed in the early 1970s. Why, because there simply wouldn't any need for it. The Progressives in the Democratic Party would've continued to push the safety net and perhaps even for a welfare state which is even bigger. But the Republican Party wouldn't of helped them and instead would've pushed to reform current federal social insurance programs and decentralize them and send them to the states.

The Christian Right still comes into business, but wouldn't have the power that they do today, or have had the last forty years or so. Because again you have these Conservative Libertarians and moderate Conservatives from the Northeast and Midwest and even Mid-Atlantic running the party. The Christian  Right would've been left with a handful of seats in Congress in the Bible Belt for the most part. And probably treated by their Congressional Leadership the way the Progressive Caucus is treated in the House and Senate. As people you basically only talk to when you need their votes.

Another reason why the Libertarian Party would've never had gotten started is because again the Christian Right and the Neoconservatives aren't running the GOP. So the big government social agenda in the GOP is never put on the table in any big way as either part of the party platform, or into law. Even if this did happen, I'm not saying the Republican Party would be winning a majority of the African-American vote. The civil rights laws and all of those Southern Democrats bolting to the GOP as a result changed that forever. But maybe they get thirty or forty percent of the African-American vote. And the same thing with the Latin-American vote because you wouldn't consistently see Republicans who are tagged with either racial views or racists towards these groups.

Of course the Conservative Libertarians don't run the GOP. But they are certainly a growing and strong faction in the party today and I believe the GOP's best hope of appealing to Latinos and Millennial's in the future. And what you instead of Conservative Libertarians in charge are the Christian Right, Neoconservatives and Neoconfederates who love to talk about how much they love the Constitution. When at the same time they talk about how much they want to change the Constitution. Who take the Ron Paul anti-government views when it comes to the economy and public social insurance and almost anything that the Federal Government does that is not national security related as being unconstitutional. While they want to give the Federal Government more power as it relates to Americans personal lives.

The point I believe Mike Gerson was making in his column about the Tea Party is that they put the Republican Party in jeopardy with their anti-government approach because they have a habit of bashing public services that a majority Americans like and use everyday. And public infrastructure is a perfect example of that and the reason why Congress hasn't passed a highway bill yet this year is because the Tea Party in the House essentially believes the Federal Government has no business in funding infrastructure. Which makes Congress's job when it comes to legislating almost impossible, but infrastructure is just an example of that. The Republican Party pays a price for it because they look like people who can't get meals prepared and cars parked you know doing the basic business of government.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Richard Nixon Foundation: Video: President Nixon Unveils Family Assistance Program in 1969

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

What President Nixon is talking about here in 1969 became what is now known as Welfare to Work. The bipartisan law that Congress passed in 1996 that was signed by President Bill Clinton. The old Welfare system was based on subsidizing low-skilled adults who didn't have the skills needed to get a good job and support themselves and their families. But essentially left them in poverty without much of an ability to move up and get off of Welfare and move to the middle class.

What President Nixon is talking about here is to continue to subsidize people in poverty. But to empower them to be able to move out of poverty with things like education and job training. But also design a system where working regardless of the job pays more than not working. I believe in that as well which is why I support increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 dollars an hour and index it for inflation so it keeps up with cost of living. And then tie today's Welfare cash payments to today's $7.25 an hour minimum wage for a forty hour a week fifty-two weeks a year job.

You want people in poverty to stay in poverty than you encourage people not to work and pay them more not to work than they could make working with their current skills. But if you want people to actually get out of poverty, than you have to empower people on Welfare to get themselves the skills that they need to move up the economic ladder and get off of Welfare all together. Which is my approach and President Nixon covered some of that in this speech.

Monday, July 21, 2014

The Federalist: Opinion: David Corbin & Matt Parks: What Should a Do Something Congress Do: Why Congress is so Dysfunctional

Hope & Change 

The Federalist: Opinion: David Corbin & Matt Parks: What Should a ‘Do Something’ Congress Do?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

In an era where the American people were actually crying out for something different and real that could bring the country together that was facing the most difficult economic and financial challenges since the Great Depression and I'm thinking of 2008/09, President Barack Obama gives us essentially a political slogan which is "Hope and Change". What is that other than what those two words mean even when you put them together, Hope and Change. What are we hoping for and what do we want to change from and what do we want to be instead.

Whatever you think of the New Deal from Franklin Roosevelt, or Fair Deal with Harry Truman, or Camelot with Jack Kennedy, or the Great Society with Lyndon Johnson, or the Reagan Revolution, these were all real agendas. With real policies, policy initiatives and policy goals designed to take the country in a certain direction for the good of the country. And a big problem that I've had with Barack Obama as President is that even though he's had real policy initiatives and goals and has wanted to move the country in a new direction, he's lacked the vision to move the country behind that agenda and support him.

You can make all the complaints about Congressional Republicans that you want especially in the Senate about blocking President Obama's agenda. But they haven't paid much of a political price for their obstructionism because except for President Obama's reelection as President he hasn't been able to bring Independents who may be politically more incline to vote for Democrats behind him. Because the President and other Democrats haven't communicated very effectively reasons to get behind President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Where is and what is President Obama's agenda and policies when it comes to all the challenges that the country faces on a whole range of issues? I could probably give you a pretty good idea issue by issue, but I couldn't tell what that agenda is called because it doesn't have a name. Because even as political slogans might sound cheesy or like political gamesmanship today with how simplistic and even superficial American voters can be when it comes to choosing who to vote for and voting a lot of times for candidates and incumbents based on personality, political slogans can be very helpful in bringing voters behind you.

I don't believe even President Obama even knows what his political agenda is, or can at least tell you in a few words and make it clear for everyone. He instead goes issue by issue which I guess has its own effectiveness when he's successful. But he's gone from Hope and Change to at best Practical Progressivism (my words) which is not exactly and attention grabber for non-hard core political junkies and not something that expires Independents behind you.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

The Book Archive: Video: Brian Lamb Interviewing Cal Thomas: Contemporary America: Condemning Culture, Media and Modern America

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Cal Thomas standing up for traditional Anglo-Saxon America when Anglo-Saxons and to me that is people of British descent were essentially running the country both culturally and politically. People on the religious and cultural right in America who tend to be of Anglo-Saxon descent, but not all of them and Protestant as well essentially believe that America has been going down hill since the Baby Boomers came of age in the 1960s.

Pre-1960s America was a collectivist country culturally as far as how Americans tended to live. Dad worked, Mom stayed at home and essentially raised the kids, but not as a single mom because Dad paid the bills and saw his kids early in the morning, at night and on the weekends. African-Americans were second-class citizens and essentially around to serve Caucasian-Americans. Gays were locked in the closet and boys were raised to be live this way. And girls were raised to serve their men.

That all changed in the 1960s with the Baby Boom Generation and the hippy movement where millions of Americans figured out that they didn't have to live in the social and cultural box that their parents and grandparents created for them. And decided that is not how they wanted to live and rebelled and set out to live their own lives the way they wanted to. And the traditional values coalition paint back to the 1960s as the time when America started going downhill. And elements of the Tea Party has been trying to take America back to the 1950s ever since culturally and even though law.
Traditional Values Believer

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Richard Nixon Foundation: Video: President Richard Nixon's Farewell Address to White House Staff

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This was the one thing that was missing from Richard Nixon's career that I believe could've made his career even better and more successful. And he did by most standards had a very successful career in public service even with the way it ended. Especially considering where he came from and how far he went and how much he accomplished. But I believe the one thing that was missing about his career was candor about himself and letting people into the personal world of Richard Nixon.

I believe he had two great lines from this speech that were lessons and advice that he gave the American people based on his own personal experience. "You'll never know what it is like to be on the highest mountain until you've been in the deepest valley". Meaning you'll never know what it is like on top until you've been at the bottom. Because success isn't given to anyone and before you achieve success there are certain steps you have to take first and even failures so you know how to improve and get to the top.

The other great line I believe from President Nixon's speech is. "Don't ever get discouraged and ever be petty. Because others may hate you, but they only win when you hate them and then you destroy yourself". Meaning people may hate or seriously dislike you, but that shouldn't bother you as long as you are doing your best and are a good person. So what if some schmuck hates you especially if you are a good productive person. What the hell they know and they may hate you for being what they are not which is a decent productive successful person.

The main problem that Dick Nixon had that I believed destroyed what otherwise would've been a great presidency what that he didn't live the advice that he gave at his farewell address. He didn't take his own advice and let people who did hate him and he had perhaps more than his share of haters from his days in Congress to being Vice President of the United States and out of office all together from 1961-69 and he let those haters destroy him by feeling the need and urge to destroy them even by using illegal means. And it cost him his presidency.
What Victory

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Kyungho Dean: Video: Edward R. Murrow vs. Joe McCarthy

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

To quote Edward R. Murrow. "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty", which pretty much sums up the difference between people who believe in free speech and fascists. "We cannot defend freedom abroad when we are making it weaker at home". Going to other countries to defend freedom and American values as we are crushing those values at home for the American people. That is what this debate in the early and mid 1950s was about.

Ed Murrow and his nightly newscast See it Now and their investigation into Senator Joe McCarthy's committee hearings about supposed Communists inside of the U.S. Government put CBS News on the map as far as TV in this country. And probably led to the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite that eventually became a half-hour show. Because Murrow and See it Now took down a movement that was trying to destroy free speech and assembly for the rest of the country. Which is what Joe McCarthy and his supporters were about.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Townhall: Opinion: Cathy Reisenwitz: "Self-Described Liberal Millennial's Are Actually Libertarian": Why Millennial's Are Classical Liberals

Townhall: Opinion: Cathy Reisenwitz: Self-Described Millennial Liberals are Actually Libertarian 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

Forget about Latinos, African-Americans and perhaps every other non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant population in America being the reasons why the Republican Party is in trouble. The Millennial Generation which covers all of these racial and ethnic groups are the big problem for the GOP. Because Millennial's tend to be what they see Republicans as not being. Believer in social tolerance, personal freedom, getting government out of our personal lives and open to new ideas.

I actually saw the Reason-Rupe poll last week about the millennial's and their liberal leanings. And it is true that Millennial's tend to vote Democratic over these issues. Not because they are in love with the Democratic Party. Most Americans are not, but because they don't like the Republican in too many elections for the GOP and believe voting Democratic is better than not voting at all. Or voting for a third-party candidate that doesn't have a blizzards chance in South Florida in July of winning.

But if you look at what is supposed to pass as liberalism today and Liberals, that is not the reason why Millennial's are voting Democratic. If you believe in the liberal stereotypes, Liberals look more like Communists are some other type of far-left collectivist than they do Liberals. Millennial's tend to like the concept of the safety for people who need it. But they are not interested in a welfare state to manage their own economic affairs for them. And are not interested in a nanny state to manage their personal affairs, or manage their physical health for them. Millennial's tend to believe they are more than capable of managing all of these affairs for themselves.

Millennial's are more likely to vote for Ron Paul or someone like him like his son Rand Paul than they are to vote for Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, or some other Social Democrat on the Left. But they would also prefer someone like the Paul's over a Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum on the Right. Because again they believe in both economic and personal freedom. And only the Paul's from this group would give them both.

So as a Democrat I'm saying personal freedom is great and we should continue to push that. But not try to create some superstate in America with taxes so far up our, nose (to keep it clean) to pay for it where economic freedom and personal choice would be very limited. But instead economically say "we believe in economic opportunity to go along with choice and responsibility so as many Americans as possible have the freedom to run their own lives".

Friday, July 11, 2014

Front Page: Opinion: Dennis Prager: "Why America is in Jeopardy": Why People Don't Have to be Religious to be Moral

Treating People With the Respect That They Deserve 

Front Page Magazine: Opinion: Dennis Prager: Why America is in Jeopardy 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

Oh man Dennis Prager, well at least he is provocative and keeps bloggers in business. And I must say that I respect him in the sense that he tells you what he believes and I really believe he means well. Just like he says that "Liberals are good people to and that he just disagrees with them". I believe Conservatives or in Mr. Prager's case Neoconservatives generally speaking are good people to. I just tend to disagree with them, but Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater are two of my favorite people and I'm a Liberal myself.

"America is not in jeopardy" as Dennis put it because we are becoming less religious. The real and I mean real threats in all due respect to Dennis have to do with a sluggish economy that is not growing fast enough and producing enough high quality jobs that keep people off of public assistance. And with the crazy world that we live in all sorts of terrorists that would want to hurt us. And perhaps the rise of Russia in Europe and Eurasia as well. But not because fewer Americans go to church every week, or even believe in God.

But if you look at what are called the moral indicators that give us an idea how the country is behaving so to speak and how we are treating each other we are doing very well. Crime is down which is really the main thing you want to focus on when it comes to morality how people actually treat each other. Instead of how we live our own personal lives. The religious-right may hate hearing this, but we live in a constitutional liberal democracy with basic individual rights that include personal freedom and privacy.

Morality is not how whether you believe in God or not. As both a Liberal an Agnostic I find the notion that you have to be religious and believe in God to be moral, offensive. Morality is not about how you live your own personal life. Whether you live with your boyfriend or girlfriend before you are married or not. Or have sex before marriage. Or date a person of the same gender. Morality is about how we treat each other as people and how we live up to our own personal responsibilities. Especially as it relates to our family and friends, but people we work with and are associated with.

I know for a fact that religion has been a huge factor and benefit for millions of Americans. I respect that and I do even as someone who has spent less than a handful of days in any house of worship period in my life. But you don't need to be religious to be moral. You need to be raised well and educated well, loved by the people you depend on growing up and later in life. As well as healthy sense for yourself and intelligence and conscience that stops you from doing bad things to innocent people. And treating people with the respect that they deserve.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

AEI: Video: Arthur Brooks: A Conservative Vision For Social Justice

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger  
I'm trying to think of a conservative vision for social justice and it's hard. Because it almost sounds like creating an Oxymoron. And what I mean by that is that social justice or economic justice tend to be socialist terms. It's Social Democrats running for office in this country and in other countries who say "I'm fighting for social justice"! Which is something that frankly makes Conservatives or people who are supposed to pass as today's Conservatives (which is different) want to puke. Because when they hear social justice people in the Tea Party and Libertarians talk about social justice they automatically think that is wealth redistribution.

But just to take the conservative vision of social justice seriously for a minute for the purpose of this blog (if nothing else) I guess Newt Gingrich would be the best spokesperson for it because it was something that he was truly interested in at least when he was Speaker of the House and throughout his congressional career. And something he talked a lot about post-Congress and when he ran for President in 20011-12. The 1996 Welfare to Work Act was an example of that where they took the best of liberal and conservative ideas to empower people on Welfare to get off of Welfare into the workforce.

Speaker Gingrich when he ran for President was constantly talking about what government of all things could do to empower people on Welfare and Unemployment Insurance to get themselves the skills so they can get themselves a good job. He was constantly talking about the amount of time that someone on Unemployment Insurance spends that they could use that time to get degree at a community college or a bachelors degree. Instead of trying to look for a job with the current skills that they have.

I mean if you are truly Conservative who believes in social justice that is empowering people at the bottom so they are no longer on the bottom and trapped in poverty, (and I'm trying to say this without laughing at least based on the Tea Party and libertarian-right) then you believe government has some role here unless you are simply only interested in wrecking the safety net in America. And that role from a conservative perspective is about using market values in government to empower people to be able to make it on their own. Getting good skills to pay the bills to use a pop culture analogy.

That instead of saying that "the problem is the rich are too rich, or just rich period and what government should do is take most of their money to take care of everyone else". Which is basically the socialist, or social democratic vision of social justice that "we as Conservatives should instead say wealth and work is a good thing in America and good thing about our system. And that these things should be encouraged not discouraged and that the problem is not that we have rich people or too many. But not enough and what we need to do as a country with government playing a role, but not the only role is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to become successful and even rich on their own."
Arthur Brooks

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Townhall: Opinion: Terry Jeffrey: Pat Buchanan Chronicles the 1960s: The Greatest Comeback

Richard & Pat Nixon & Nelson Rockefeller 

Townhall: Opinion: Terry Jeffrey: Pat Buchanan's Chronicles of the 1960s

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

When it comes to Richard Nixon's political career at least pre-White House I'm mostly interested in his career from 1961 after he just left the Vice Presidency after losing the 1960 presidential election to Senator Jack Kennedy. Up until January of 1969 when he's sworn as the 37th President of the United States. Because during this period Dick Nixon is completely out of public office either as a politician or as a public official in any office for the first time since January, 1947 when he gets sworn in as an elected U.S. Representative in the House of Representatives.

This was a very rough, but very productive time for Dick Nixon post 1962 California governor's race debacle where he lost to California Governor Pat Brown in a major landslide. So Nixon was at a point where he didn't know what to do with the rest of life. He got addicted to politics and public office his six years in Congress both in the House and Senate. And was a very hardworking and productive Vice President for President Dwight Eisenhower. And which Jack Kennedy still President going into 1963 it looked like JFK would get elected with huge Democratic majorities in Congress once again in 1964.

So what was Dick Nixon to do a man who loved political and public affairs and serving in government. What he did seeing that it would be at least a while before he would have another real shot at the presidency 1968 at the earliest. And that might of depended on who the Democratic nominee might be that year, he decided to make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer in New York. Defending and representing companies across the country and become a party man inside of the Republican Party in his spare time.

And when he wasn't doing those things he was studying current affairs inside of the United States and challenges that the country was facing and would be facing. Especially when it came to foreign policy and sort of did what would be called a world tour and meeting foreign leaders all over the world. So when he decided to run for public office again especially for president that he would be completely ready for it.

There was a PBS 1990 film from their American Experience series that chronicles all of these changes in Dick Nixon's life. That I highly suggest and a clip of that is on this post. And it shows exactly how he came back and all of the Congressional Republicans he helped out and backed in the 1966 mid-terms when House and Senate Republicans made big comebacks and the same thing in 1968 when they picked up a lot of seats again with Dick Nixon winning back the White House for the Republicans.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Washington Examiner: Morning Examiner: Mark Tapscott: Is Banning Fringe Views How Leftists Want to Deal With Conservatives?

Washington Examiner: Morning Examiner: Mark Tapscott: Is Banning Fringe Views How Leftists Want to Deal With Conservatives?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger  

It is really Conservatives and the far-right that get's stereotyped and accused of being fascists. And that is true to the extent that there is plenty of right-wing fascism in the world and even in America. We see that with the Tea Party especially in 2011-12 and even today that seem to have this view that you either live their traditional way of life and share their traditional view of what America is, (which is stuck in the 1950s) or you are not a real American.

But fascism is unfortunately bipartisan and not something that the Left can bash the Right over with no real fascist charges on our side. This blog has covered a few posts alone this year about leftist fascists. One dealing with leftists on campus trying to ban rightists from speaking at their schools. Another one even more extreme than that having to do with Fred Jerome's article in Salon back in January or February having to do with nationalizing FOX News because of the success that FNC especially has had as a right-wing voice. And even nationalizing news all together in America. So so-called Progressives could tell the truth.

But my point especially directly to the right-wing America whether they are Conservatives or not is that these leftists fascists aren't Liberals as they tend to be called. But people who are on the far-left in America where fascism not only exists, but Socialists, or even Communists or Anarchists on the far-left who see fascism as a necessary tool to create their vision of a fair and equal America, or however they would put that. And for them to accomplish their goals they feel the need to destroy right-wingers even by forcing them to shut up through government force.

The fact is you can't be a Liberal and a fascist. It is one or the other because there is nothing liberal about fascism. Liberals not only believe in the First Amendment and Free Speech, but we created these things for crying out loud. And wouldn't do anything especially through government to shut up the opposition. Other than by winning the debates, but with both sides having equal opportunity to make their case. And there are some on the Right especially in the Tea Party that are so damn partisan and hate anyone who disagrees with them that they simply can't believe and handle that.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Buchanan Brigade: Opinion: Patrick J. Buchanan: Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy and the Big Liberal Lie": The How Nixon Southern Strategy Reshaped the South Politically

U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond

Buchanan Brigade: Opinion: Patrick J. Buchanan: Nixon's Southern Strategy and the Big Liberal Lie

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I first saw Pat Buchanan's column about Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy over the fourth as I checked my email that day. And because of other things I've been doing the last few days it's just now that I'm replying about it today. But I just read Mr. Buchanan's column about the Southern Strategy today and didn't see much of anything in it about the Southern Strategy. Other than calling a piece in the New York Times about it calling it a "big liberal lie". Most of what Pat Buchanan had in it was about racist policies from previous Democratic presidents from the 1940s, 30s and President Woodrow Wilson.

But let's be real the Nixon Southern Strategy was real. Dick Nixon whatever you think about him was a brilliant man and politician and saw how America was changing politically and how he could breakthrough and complete probably the greatest comeback in American political history. Pre-civil rights movement the Democratic Party was the Southern Party representing the bible belt. And no not with Liberals, Progressives and Socialists as we see today. But with people who are called today Neoconservatives, classical Conservatives, and the Religious-Right today. As well as the far-right especially as it related to civil rights, equal rights and segregation as just flat-out racism when it came to African-Americans. And bigotry when it came to non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans who weren't from the South.

The Republican Party pre-civil rights and into the civil rights movement was both a progressive and a conservative party. But there Conservatives were conservative in the classical sense and probably would be called Conservative Libertarians today. People like Senator Barry Goldwater a perfect example of that and even at the time House Minority Leader Gerry Ford and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. With the progressive wing of the party representing the Northeast and to a certain extent the Midwest. Senator Jacob Javits from New York comes to mind.

The civil rights movement and the civil rights laws of the 1960s changed that with African-Americans now backing President Lyndon Johnson and other Progressive Democrats who had similar politics. With the Southern Democrats and their voters bolting to the Republican Party. Which started to a certain extent in 1964 with Barry Goldwater for President winning a few Southern states. That campaign was a disaster in the 1964 general elections both for president and Congress with Congressional Republicans getting hammered and Senator Goldwater failing to win forty-percent of the national vote. And barely winning his home state of Arizona.

But what we saw in 1964 was Southern right-wing Democrats moving away from Lyndon Johnson and the progressive and liberal wings of the Democratic Party. And moving to the Republican Party and supporting Conservative Libertarians like Barry Goldwater. But what we also saw was what would is called the Neoconservative and religious-right base of the Republican Party today, but back in the 1960s these Democrats were simply called Southern Democrats, or the Southern Caucus in Congress, Democrats like this politicians and their supporters bolting the Democratic Party for the Republican Party.

So what started in 1964 with Barry Goldwater became an opening for Congressional Republicans both House and Senate and for Dick Nixon. A chance for Republicans and Republican leaders to break into the Democratic political monopoly in the country and bring in new Republicans to the party that were primarily from the Bible Belt. But also from the Midwest and the libertarian West. And as a result House Republicans pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Going from a pretty small minority after 1964 to a sizable minority going into 1967. Especially since there were still a bunch of Southern right-wing Democrats in the House that could work with the Republican Leadership to stop legislation that the Democratic majority wrote.

Senate Republicans picked up three seats in 1966 going from 33-36, but it still took sixty-seven votes to prevent bills from being blocked in the Senate back them. But also there were enough Southern Democratic senators that would work with the Senate Republican Leadership to block bills from the Senate Democratic majority as well. But more importantly Dick Nixon saw this as the opening that he needed to win the presidency. Because now he saw what used to be Democratic strongholds as potential Republican pickups by appealing the the religious-right in those states. What I call the Traditional Values Coalition that now dominates the Republican Party today.