Thursday, January 17, 2013

Roosevelt Institute: The Next New Deal: Presidential Vision: Robert Woolner: A Liberal-Democratic Vision For America

Leading from Behind is No Way to Lead: What a Second-Term Obama Can Learn from FDR

A I would like to say good friend of mine on Facebook who I won't name in this post but if you are one of the followers. Of http://www.Facebook.com/FRSFreeStates if you are one of my followers, you'll see his name because. I'll mention him when I post this on Facebook, asked me last week after reading one of my blogs and said that he liked what I blog about social insurance. And then basically asked me how do I describe my politics and something to the effect of what Liberalism is to me. Well after you read this post you'll have a pretty good idea of what Liberalism means to me. But he also asked me to recconmend a good book or books about my view of Liberalism and incase you haven't noticed. My view of Liberalism doesn't matchup up with the MSNBC prime time lineup or the Nation Magazine or AlterNet. Or other so called Liberal publications that in a lot of cases aren't Liberal at all but more Socialist instead in a. Democratic sense and I'm embarrassed to say that I couldn't answer his question other then reading a bio of Jack kennedy or Wendell Willkie and other real Liberal Democrats out there.

My vision of Liberalism doesn't come from one book or one author in particular but from a lot of things that I've read. And watched over the years since my early twenties or things that I've watched or read about people being so called Liberals. But then knowing enough about the word Liberal and knowing that these so called Liberals aren't very Liberal at all. And have more Statists and Big Government leanings then they would be Liberal and that the job of government is to make sure that we are as secure. As possible across the board and to do this freedom has to be limited again across the board to make sure we all have as. Much security as possible instead of allowing adults to be able to make these decisions on their own. That yes we'll have people who make better decisions then others, thats what happens in a Liberal Democracy. But at the end of the day thats much better then government preventing us from reaching our full potential. In the name of security for the whole society.

This post is not about what I think President Obama should say Monday at his second inaugural address. I'll write that over the weekend as well as what I thought of the speech hopefully Monday night. But what a Liberal Democracy is and what comes from living in a Liberal society, that Democracy is about. Freedom and a Liberal Democracy is about a Liberal amount of freedom meaning a lot of freedom not government. Which are too different things and that governments job is to handle the things that individuals can't do for themselves. Or do as well and if you saw my post about poverty earlier you know I believe that government has a role there. But not take care of people to keep them down but to empower them so they can get themselves up and be able to take care of themselves. The basic idea of Liberalism is about protecting freedom for those who already have it and still deserve it. And expanding freedom for those who don't have it but need and deserve it.

If you want to know what are the Liberal positions for this issue or that and what the Liberal policy would be. For that issue and those issues, that will take a book probably multiple books that hopefully I'll write myself someday. Or just read this blog everyday and you'll see the Liberal position for this issue or that issue. But the core notion of Liberalism is being about freedom and freedom of choice and having a society and economic system. That promotes those things so we all have the freedom to chart our own course in life as long as we aren't hurting any innocent people. On what John F. Kennedy called Freedom's Road.

The Nation: Individual Freedom: Katha Pollitt: The Message and The Meaning: Is 'Pro-Choice' Passé?: The Meaning of Pro Choice in America

The Message and the Meaning: Is 'Pro-choice' Passé? | The Nation

Yes I'm pro-choice on abortion for the simple fact that I don't want government telling us men or women what we can do with our own bodies. Government does have the right and responsibility to tell us what we can do with other peoples bodies. A difference between freedom and anarchy, the right to live your own life as long as you aren't hurting innocent people. But the problem I have with the term is that it tends to only be about reproductive rights and when someone says. They are pro -choice on marijuana, gambling, prostitution, pornography, healthcare and health insurance, healthcare broadly, speech. How we spend our money broadly again as long as we aren't spending money to hurt those people. Pro-choice supporters look nuts or something, why they are just pro-choice they don't believe in forcing people to. Do these other activities but that it should be their call. And then we can talk about regulating these activities to make them as safe as possible and so they don't avoid taxes.

Roe v Wade I believe was settled correctly even though the decision happened two years before I was born. But why was it settled correctly, not because the Justices who ruled in favor of Roe v Wade were in love with abortion. It was settled on privacy grounds that it was the decision of the individual, in this case women of whether or not. To see their baby through full term and not the decision of government and my argument about the right to privacy. Since it was upheld with Roe v Wade on privacy grounds that if women has the right to make their own healthcare decisions. Shouldn't men as well and shouldn't American adults have the right to make their own decisions again. As long as they aren't deciding to hurt people and then again if you want to make a good government best interest of the public argument. We can talk about what the rules of the road should be as they relate to other activities including abortion. To make sure that its as safe as possible.

A better way to describe my position when it comes to abortion is not pro-choice but that I support freedom of choice. The right for one to able to chart their own course in life as long as they aren't invading the freedom of innocent people. To live their own lives because supporters of abortion tend to look Liberal or Libertarian when it comes to abortion. But look Statist on other issues and argue against freedom and privacy on those issues for the benefit of those people. And thats not where I am but instead I support freedom of choice.

AlterNet: War on Poverty: RoseAnn Demoro: A Program For Combating Poverty: Empower People In Poverty To Move Up

A Program for Combating Poverty -- Stop the Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Expand Medicare to All | Alternet

There is a discussion by commentator and talk show host Tavis Smil
ey that was broadcasted by C-Span tonight. For anyone to see who has C-Span and whose not too busy watching 'reality TV' that was focused on poverty in America. And talking about solutions to how we end poverty in America. Tavis Smilley is a known Progressive and so was most of the panel. People like Dr. Cornel West and Dr. Jonathan Kozol and others but there was at least one right winger in this panel in Newt Gingrich. And it was an interesting discussion because you had at least one Progressive actually admitting that education. Is a key to moving people out of poverty that lack of a quality education is a cause for poverty in America, Progressives don't tend to say that. They like to blame poverty on things like corporations, racism and so fourth, cuts to public assistance and rarely. Acknowledge that education has anything to do with it, except when public education is cut in America so for at least this reason. The program was worth watching tonight to go along with the subject matter.

I've always believed that one of the things thats wrong with the poverty debate in America, that its not divided along political camps. Or even ideological camps and that alone is not the problem but that the fact that its divided between people. Who want to solve the problem, cut back on poverty at least to the point that we are more competitive with our foreign competitors. Instead of having a poverty level twice as high as the rest of the developed World approaching 20% nationally. And a camp not interested in solving the problem but people who want more government spending on poverty in this country. Who know that the more people we have in poverty, the more money from government that would go to. People who live in poverty or the higher our poverty level is, the easier time they would have to argue for more. Public assistance and the interesting thing is that the anti poverty supporters people who want to solve the problem. Are made up people who are generally not on the same team, Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives.

The reason why I say this is not to put people down and the make other side look like Saints. But to make the point that we already know what the causes of poverty in America are and what the typical. Person in poverty is and what their background is and what it takes to move a typical person out of poverty. Which is temporary financial assistance so they can survive in the short term. Education so they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job and become self sufficient. Job training for workers who are working but low skill and low income, so they can get themselves a better job and. Become self sufficient perhaps even with the current company they work for and then job placement. Help finding a good job so they can move off of public assistance and become self sufficient. Thats the blue print for moving people out of poverty in America its not Democratic or Republican, Liberal or. Conservative its what works and basic common sense and yet we don't do these things or have stopped doing them. Because of our broken politics being too divided politically as a country.

There's a consensus of what it takes to move people out of poverty in America and with you want me to sound political or ideological. I would say that one thing Liberalism is about is the people, protecting freedom for people who have it. And expanding it for those who don't have it but need it and deserve it and poverty in America is the perfect place. To use Liberalism to fight poverty expanding freedom for people who don't have it but need and deserve it.