Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing David Frum- Issues With Conservatism, Health Care & Donald Trump

Source: The Rubin Report
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The first part of this interview Dave Rubin and David Frum are talking about Canada and Canadian politics and what I'm interested here since David Frum is Conservative ( as he puts it ) is that what it means to be a Canadian Conservative is even different from what it means to even be a British Conservative. And certainly different from what it means to be an American Conservative whether you're talking about Conservative-Libertarians ( the real Conservatives in America ) and extremely different from what it means to a a Religious-Conservative. Whether you're talking about Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever else when it comes to Religious-Conservatives.

Canadian Conservatives are to the right of British Conservatives. British Conservatives operate in a socialist unitarian social democratic state in the United Kingdom, where Conservatives there in many cases are just less socialist than the Labour Party. Especially Jermey Corbyn ( the Leader of the Labour Party ) who represents the Far-Left of the Labour Party. But Canadian Conservatives are to the left of both Conservative-Libertarians on economic policy at least, and to the left of Christian-Conservatives in America are on social policy.

The main differences between Canadian Conservatives from lets say the Goldwater-Reagan Conservative-Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, is that Canadian Conservatives believe limited government, fiscal responsibility, a large private sector where private enterprise and economic freedom are encouraged, but where there is a large generous welfare state for people who truly need it. That taxes and regulations on businesses should be fairly low, but individuals are taxed fairly high to fund their welfare state like their national health insurance system.

When I think of a Conservative and yes of course I'm looking at this from the perspective of an American and maybe if I had duel citizenships I could look at Conservative from multiple national perspectives, but just as an American I look at Conservative from a U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, individual rights, traditionalist, standpoint. That the job of government is to defend the republic and defend our individual rights. Encourage individual freedom instead of using big government to try to manage people's lives for them either from an economic or personal perspective. Sounds very similar to my own liberal politics but we differ on the role of government as it relates to welfare policy. But tend to share very similar if not identical principles.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing David Frum- On Issues With Conservatism, Health Care & Donald Trump

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Brian Domitrovic- Who Was JFK?

Source: The Rubin Report
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

When you're talking about people who are called Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) I believe John F. Kennedy has to at the top of the list. Or at least towards the top of the list. Former Republican presidential nominee businessman Wendell Willkie, Thomas Jefferson, and a few others today. Former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, ( one of my favorite Liberals ) is a JFK Democrat and would be on that list as well. People who believe in both personal freedom and economic freedom. Limited but good government that should be used to protect our individual rights and even be used to help people help themselves.

Not that then Vice President Richard Nixon wasn't a strong anticommunist in 1960, because he was but then Senator John Kennedy was the strongest anticommunist in that presidential election. The Liberals were the anticommunists, as well as FDR Progressives and of course Conservative Republicans. Like Senator Barry Goldwater, to use as an example. Liberals are still anticommunists and antiauthoritarian across the board today, but generally when you think of the Left today there's not much of a center on the Left anymore. The center-left seems to be dying in America and you talk about the Left in America today you're generally talking about Socialists. In some cases Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders, but in a lot of cases you're talking about just pure Socialists and even Communists. Socialism including communism, is very popular with Millennial's today.

But back in the 1950s and even the early 1960s, Liberals were very prominent in America. People who believed in civil rights and equal rights for all Americans. Who believed in free speech and property rights for all Americans. People who believe in personal autonomy for all Americans. Who believed in a strong but limited national defense to be able to defend America from any possible threat, as well as defeat communism and other authoritarian government's around. And a safety net for people who truly need it to help low-income and low-skilled people in the short-term, while they're preparing themselves to not just go to work, but get themselves a good job and become self-sufficient. This is the liberalism that Jack Kennedy represented and had it not have been for his unfortunate assassination in 1963, this is the liberalism that he would've run on for reelection in 1964 and probably had gotten reelected.

Think about what would've happened had President Kennedy not have been assassinated in 1963. He gets reelected in 1964 and we don't enter the Vietnam War in 1965 and as a result the Democratic Party doesn't collapse in the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the socialist New-Left perhaps doesn't emerge as well. At least not to the extent that it became where they could actually get themselves elected to major offices and become a major part of the Democratic Party which nominates Socialist Senator George McGovern for President in 1972.

As far as the JFK tax cut, it was actually President Lyndon Johnson ( Progressive Democrat ) who gets that passed through Congress in 1964. That of course President Kennedy proposed in 1962. And it was also President Johnson who got the JFK 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress as well. And the tax cut wasn't a supply side tax cut. They lowered tax rates across the board which was the right thing to do, but he paid for those tax cuts by eliminating tax loopholes. Which is something that so-called Conservatives ( supply siders, really ) today don't seem to ever mention. They say JFK cut taxes for everyone without cutting spending which lead to all of this great economic growth of the 1960s and the tax cuts paid for themselves. Which is the argument that they used for the Ronald Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Which simply didn't happen. JFK's tax cuts were paid for upfront by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.

I'm a JFK Liberal Democrat personally and unfortunately one of the last of the Liberal Democrats in the Democratic Party. The classical liberal wing of the Democratic Party seems to be dying as the Socialists are taking over to the point that in 2020 the Democratic choice for President might be either Senator Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren. But liberalism is how Democrats win national elections and how they can appeal to blue-collar voters., which is what Jack Kennedy was able to do. By pushing for both personal and economic freedom, equal rights, civil rights, a safety net for people who actually need it. Instead of saying that big government can take care of everyone for everyone and individualism and freedom is too risky. Which is what the Socialists in party seem to represent today.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Brian Domitrovic- Who Was JFK?

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Socialism Isn't Cool

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Dave Rubin makes one mistake about socialism up front which is common for people on the Right especially, but sometimes on the Left as well, which is to lump all Socialists into one political box. As if all Democrats fit into one political box, or all Republicans fit into one political box, or even all Libertarians fit into one political box. There are Socialists and then there are Socialists. The Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, the democratic wing of socialism and then there are Communists, which make up the authoritarian wing of socialism.

Where Dave Rubin is right is that all Socialists have one thing in common. Which is what they view as the greater good and collective, is more important than the individual. That individual freedom is somehow bad and perhaps even racist, if it means that there are people who do very well economically and live well in society, when there are poor people who's struggle just to survive. Perhaps skip meals so their kids can at least have something to eat that day. That is what Socialists believe that what you should do instead is to see that all the recourses in the country are divided up equally so no one is rich and no one is poor. Even if that means putting strict limits on individual economic freedom and even individual personal freedom.

The title of Dave Rubin's video is "Socialism Isn't Cool" and yet he doesn't mention why socialism is not cool, but instead just mentions the negative aspects of socialism and socialist countries like Venezuela. Tell that to the millions if not tens of millions of Millennial's who voted for Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries for President and the perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters who voted for Jill Stein for President during the 2016 general election. To them, socialism is the new awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist to them, must be a racist or a bigot or someone working to protect the man and keep women and minorities down. To them socialism is like totally awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist is not awesome.

My issues with socialism gets to what Dave Rubin laid out which is the collectivist nature of it. That it's somehow unfair and selfish for individuals to get a good education and then take those skills to the private market and imply them and be rewarded handsomely for them. But what they may never understand is that once you discourage wealth, opportunity, success, and individualism, you get a hell of a lot less of it and leave yourself less resources to help people who for whatever reasons aren't doing well in society. And you also leave yourself with a lot less innovation and creativity, because people are left to wonder why they should do well in school and at work, when big government is just going to take most of their resources from then to subsidize people who aren't doing well.

You want a free developed society with as many people as possible doing well in life, then you have to subsidize and promote the things that make freedom and success possible. Which is education, opportunity, equality under law, equal rights, success, and yes wealth. Which is what you don't get in a socialist society whether it's a communist society like Cuba and now Venezuela which essentially functions as a one-party unitarian communist state, or a social democratic society like Britain where even when the Conservatives are in charge individualism and individual freedom, is discouraged and even punished for the sake of the collective.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Socialism Isn't Cool

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- Who Were The Black Panthers? US History Review

Source: Hip Hughes-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The way I look at the 1960s when it came to these political revolutionary movements within the African-American community, was that there were three movements there.

You had the non-violent social democratic Martin L. King civil rights movement.

You had the Malcolm X power movement that wasn't about violence, but self-defense and self-empowerment of the African-American community.

And you also had a militant wing of this community that was was about empowering the African-American community, but was way to the left of Dr. King and Minister Malcolm X. People who were not just Socialists but in some cases self-described Communists.

I don't believe I put the Black Panthers in the same class as the IRA in Britain as well as Ireland, or Hamas in Israel and Palestine, as far as group that was not only a radical political organization, but also a terrorist organization. Or even The Weather Underground and Symbionese Liberation Army in America. But they did have a military wing in it and would use violence if they thought it was appropriate. But they were a Far-Left socialist-communist political organization that wanted a new economic system and perhaps even form of government in America. They weren't as Far-Left as The Weather Underground who were literally trying to overthrow the U.S. Government. That was literally one of their goals, but they did share similar politics as The Weather Underground when it came to economics.
Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- Who Were The Black Panthers? US History Review

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: FDR Created A Social Safety Net, Not Socialism

Source: The Real News-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I actually agree with Paul Jay on something here. ( For a change ) President Franklin Roosevelt, his Administration and Congress, didn't create a socialist economic system in America for good reasons. They left the American capitalist system in place but added regulations to it, as well as creating a public safety net in America which is the New Deal. FDR and the Democratic Congress's back then didn't even create a social democratic system where workers get most if not all their employment benefits like pensions, health care, etc, from the national government but where business is in private hands. But a public social insurance system that people could collect from when they're out-of-work, or don't have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and aren't able to pay their bills. As well as Social Security for people who don't have a pension or a big enough pension.

If you look back at it now and I would argue if you look at this in the 1930s, the New Deal was actually the centrist approach compared with what was also on the table and being offered in response to the New Deal. You have Hoover Conservatives and Libertarians arguing that the Federal Government shouldn't do anything in response to the Great Depression. And you had Socialists in some cases Democratic Socialists, as well as Communists who were arguing that the American capitalist system was the problem. And what should be done instead is to start nationalizing private industries, along with a socialist welfare state to provide workers the benefits that they had been getting from the private sector in the past. What FDR did was save the American capitalist system but make it better and stronger than it was before the Great Depression.

In President Roosevelt's last term he moved further left on economic policy and became more interested in expanding the New Deal to create the Scandinavian social democratic welfare state. When he proposed his economic bill of rights that would've put the Federal Government in charge of guaranteeing workers benefits for all American workers. But what he was able to get passed into law as President was the New Deal which wasn't a welfare system, but and insurance system for people to collect from, but only when they need it. Similar to how Americans use their auto insurance when their car is in an accident. But not to help them pay their everyday bills. FDR was a Progressive because he was very pragmatic in how believed government should respond to problems in the country. But didn't govern in a way that would've put government in charge to solving every problem that every American ever faced.
The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: FDR Created The Social Safety Net, Not Socialism

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Dandelion Salad: Henry Wallace- Undoing The New Deal

Source: Dandelion Salad-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Vice President Henry Wallace, was President Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President from 1941-45. This was the term that President Roosevelt moved left on economic policy while still being a strong anti-Communist and anti-Fascist liberal internationalist on foreign policy. But on economic policy FDR moved left and moved past the New Deal that he got through Congress in the 1930s and instead of talking about the need for a public safety net for people when they needed it, instead started talking about what’s called welfare rights.

FDR’s Four Freedoms agenda was about guaranteeing that every American would have exactly what they need to live well in life and that these human services would be provided by the Federal Government. The Henry Wallace social democratic side of FDR comes out in the 1940s and FDR again came out in favor of moving past the safety net and instead creating a welfare that that is common in Britain and Scandinavia. Where the national government would become responsible for seeing that every America had a good education, a good home, enough food to eat, health care, health insurance, a good pension, and I could probably go on from here, but I’ll spare you.

Henry Wallace was the Bernie Sanders of the 1940s ideologically. A true Democratic Socialist who thought that the American capitalist private enterprise system, left too many people behind with few people who were rich financially, a lot of people in poverty, and a lot of people struggling just to pay their bills. The Great Depression of the 1930s did a lot to change how Americans looked at politics and economics.

Pre-Great Depression America was basically a libertarian utopia economically. With every little if any government involvement in the economy. But when you start to see 1/2 Americans living in poverty with food lines and food banks in every major city in the country and 1/5 Americans who are unemployed, most of the major banks failing in the country, you might start to reexamine your own politics and look at economics as well.

It is after the 1944 presidential election where Henry Wallace is no longer Vice President of the United States and becomes independent of the Roosevelt Administration politically with the ability to speak for himself and express his own politics politically and look at running for President himself in 1948. In 1948 Wallace runs for President himself and wins the Progressive Party nomination which was really a social democratic or democratic socialist party and runs for President against Progressive Democrat President Harry Truman, Republican Tom Dewey and Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. And America has a major Democratic Socialist presidential candidate to consider voting for.
Source: Cinema Insiders: Vice President Henry Wallace- Common Man Speech

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Talking Union: Nathan Newman- Remembering Martin Luther King's Roots in The Labor Socialist Movement

Source: Talking Union-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Imagine if we had more American Socialists who had the character and courage  to be out front about their socialist politics and not feel the need to hide behind other political labels, like Senator Bernie Sanders, Dr. Jill Stein today, but back in the 1960s Dr. Martin L. King. America would be a lot less ignorant politically. Americans with liberal leanings who believe in liberal democratic values ( not necessarily Democratic Party values ) would be a lot more open about being a Liberal and probably be proud Liberals, because they would know that they’re not Socialists or Communists, but instead Liberals who believe in liberal democracy. . In Britain, Europe, and perhaps Canada, you don’t have closeted Socialists which is what we have in America. Socialists there stand up for their socialist politics and are proud to be called Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists and in like in France and Sweden, are proud to be known as Socialists. In America, not so much.

As I argued last week Dr. Martin King, wasn’t just a Socialist, but a proud Socialist and Democratic Socialist at that. Edgar Hoover’s FBI believed that Dr. King was a Communist and working with Communist Party USA to build his movement. There were Communists involved in the civil rights movement, but Dr. King was a Democratic Socialists politically and ideologically and believed in democratic socialism and not communism or other authoritarian ideologies. His labor movement that he was  big part of and advocating for garbage collectors in Memphis and workers in other big America cities was part of his democratic socialist movement and what he was advocating for politically. Arguing for workers rights and that all American workers regardless of race should be allowed to organize.

Dr. King believed that American capitalism, along with forced state segregation for the races in America, especially in the South, was failing to meet the needs of the people. With few people at the top with all the money in the world and a lot of people at the bottom who simply struggled to feed themselves and their families and have adequate housing. And workers who would work very hard and work real long hours and be paid practically nothing and struggle just to pay their bills. Which is why he and his organization marched and worked with Memphis sanitation workers in Memphis so they could form their own labor union. Dr. King believed we needed a new economic system that would meet the needs of the people so we would no longer have hardworking people who struggled just to feed themselves and their families.

Dr. King wanted a democratic socialist model that would essentially collect the economic resources of the country through the Federal Government and then give those resources back through government programs based on what people needed to live well. Take from the wealthy though higher taxes to take care of the poor through government. Which is along with their large wealthy energy industry, is the economic model of Sweden. If you look at what Senator Bernie Sanders pushed for economically when he ran for President in 2016, its very similar to what Dr. King advocated for in the 1960s. High taxes on the wealthy to meet the needs of everyone else. This is not my economic model but this is what Martin King believed in and was proud of it and proud to be a Democratic Socialist, unlike a lot of closeted Socialists today who hide behind other political labels.

Dr. King was a proud man who didn’t hide from anyone and would promote his politics proudly regardless of what people on the Right and generally Far-Right in America people who even saw him as evil and wanted him killed and so what if those right-wingers saw him or labeled him as a Socialist or Communist. Because he wasn’t looking for their support anyway. Dr. King was a proud Socialist and would make the case for why he was a Socialist and then tell people who disagreed with them, “why aren’t you a Socialist as well now that you know what and why I stand for?” Which is very different from left-wingers today who are even proud to support Bernie Sanders and agree with him on everything and perhaps even to the left of Senator Sanders and perhaps even have more communist leanings instead of democratic socialist leanings and still feel the need to hide behind other political labels. And fail to claim the socialist label that fits their politics perfectly.
Source: Caleb Maupin: Martin Luther King Was a Socialist