Sargon of Akkad: Interviewing Steve Bannon- Bannonism: The Revolt of The Little Guy

Posted on October 31, 2018 by Ederik Schneider
84987

Source:Sargon of Akkad– The Steve Bannon interview 

Source:The New Democrat

This is a good way to talk about Nationalists and nationalism, because they’re Nationalists and then are Nationalists. Similar to there are Socialists and then are Socialists. Not all Nationalists are Nazis and not all Socialists are Communists. As someone who is not a Socialist or Communist and strongly dislikes both, I would tell you Steve Bannon is a Nationalist, but in the best sense. As someone who loves his country ( in this case America ) and believes his number job is to look out for America and stand up for America regardless of what the rest of the world thinks or does about that.

39127

Source:Sargon of Akkad– Steve Bannon 

Steve Bannon, comes from a small town, blue-collar mindset which is now a solid percentage of the Republican Party now with most big city and big metro Americans either Democrats, Independents, or right of center Republicans especially on economic and foreign policy, but want nothing to do the Nationalists and Christian-Right when it comes to social policy.

38227

Source:Sargon of Akkad– Interviewing Steve Bannon 

And Nationalists in the Bannon sense not the Nazi or right-wing Socialist sense, view people that they see as the elite who went to the top Northeast schools in America and come from money and probably inherited a good deal of money, who’ve worked in and out of government and when they’re not doing that they’re working for think tanks or professors at elite colleges, Bannon Nationalists view people of this background as the problem with America.

Bannon Nationalists, view elitists as people who looked down on people who physically work hard for a living, work hard just to pay their bills and mortgages, who don’t live in or outside of a big city like Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco, etc, people who frankly wanted Hillary Clinton for President who Hillary represents.

The 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, was essentially blue-collar Nationalists represented by Trump. And white-collar elitists represented by Clinton. A big reason why Trump defeated Clinton, is because the Clinton elitist wing of the country was in charge for America for a very long time. And the Trump blue-collar folks felt left behind and believed they were losing their America. Some would argue that part of that had to do with cultural, racial, and ethnic reasons and I would agree with that as well.

To say this is not your father’s Republican Party anymore, would be like saying that if you jumped in a lake there is a high percentage that you’ll get wet in the water. It would be one of the worst cases of stating the obvious since it was announced that water is wet. The country club Republican Party that were Conservatives and in some cases Progressives even that were primarily interested in economic and foreign policy, is still around, but on life support in the Republican Party. Today’s Republican Party is based in the South and small town Midwest and rural America in general. And that’s what the Steve Bannon’s of the world represent in American politics.

Sargon of Akkad: Interviewing Steve Bannon- Bannonism: The Revolt of The Little Guy

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Democratic Socialist: ‘Right-Wing Socialism and The Lies of Friedrich Hayek’

Posted on October 23, 2018 by Derik Schneider
60916

Source: Democratic Socialist– Right-wing socialism is not an Oxymoron

Source:The New Democrat

Just before I get into what I believe right-wing socialism is and actually what I know it to be I just want to make a personal comment here. For all you YouTube fans and even die hards, doesn’t the guy in this video sound a lot like Sargon of Akkad who also has a YouTube channel and is also British? Just thought I throw that out there.

70571

Source: Anti-Imperialism– One of the leading voices for Libertarians

Yes, there is such a thing as right-wing socialism and right-wing Socialists. And that might sound like calling someone a Libertarian-Communist or a Progressive-Conservative, Marxist-Anarchist, or any other two labels that you want to put together that sound as out as place as a tuxedo at a biker bar, heavy metal concert at a library, skunk at a wedding or in a church or whatever example you want to use. But there are two forms of authoritarian socialism with one being left-wing and the other being right-wing. Communism, is left-wing authoritarian socialism and nationalism whether it’s Nazism or anything else is right-wing socialism.

National socialism otherwise known as Nazism is right-wing socialism that came about in Germany in the 1930s under the leadership Adolf Hitler and you don’t need to be a history major or even buff to know about Hitler and what he and his movement represented.

Nazism according to Wikipedia

“National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/),[1] is the ideology and practices associated with the Nazi Party – officially the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) – in Nazi Germany, and of other far-right groups with similar aims.

Nazism is a form of fascism and showed that ideology’s disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent antisemitism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed. Its extreme nationalism came from Pan-Germanism and the Völkisch movement prominent in the German nationalism of the time, and it was strongly influenced by the anti-Communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany’s defeat in World War I, from which came the party’s “cult of violence” which was “at the heart of the movement.”[2]

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[3] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or “inferior” races.

The term “National Socialism” arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as an alternative to both international socialismand free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the “common good”, accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization.”

Nazis ( or right-wing Socialists ) not only believed in a superior country that being Germany, but a superior people including superior race and ethnicity and believed that Germans were superior to Jews and other non-ethnic Germans in Germany and broader Europe. They were literally not just fascists, but fascist terrorists that believed that non-ethnic Germans didn’t have a right to live in Germany. But it wasn’t just that they hated people of other ethnicities and America Nazis hate people of other races as well, but they hated anything that liberalism and liberal democracy stood for including integration, multiculturalism, individualism, individual rights, personal freedom, private property, property rights, free speech and press, etc and unfortunately I could go on.
But we’re still talking about Socialists and socialism here and they were people who hated private property, corporations, multinational corporations, the centralization of wealth, big banks, etc. They were right-wing populists, but right-wing Socialists as well.

To call Adolf Hitler a Liberal or Conservative would not only be an insult to both Liberals and Conservatives since he was neither, but also evil and racist serial genocidal murderer, but it would also be an insult to facts and reality. It would be like calling Ron Paul perhaps the face of American libertarianism in America a Communist or Socialist. It would have no relation to reality, but not all Socialists are democratic and not all of them are left-wing either. Nazis and other Nationalists around the world are right-wing Socialists. Socialism has never been burley left-wing as an ideology.

Democratic Socialists: Right-Wing Socialism and The Lies of Friedrich Hayek

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mao Zedong: Chinese Communism

Posted on October 12, 2018 by kireschneider
30574217875_65d674a963_o

Source: Five Prime– Chinese Communist Leader Mao Zedong on communism

Source:The New Democrat

From Wikipedia

“In its post-revolutionary period, Mao Zedong Thought is defined in the CPC’s Constitution as “Marxism–Leninism applied in a Chinese context”, synthesized by Mao and China’s “first-generation leaders”. It asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself. Maoism provided the CPC’s first comprehensive theoretical guideline with regards to how to continue socialist revolution, the creation of a socialist society, socialist military construction and highlights various contradictions in society to be addressed by what is termed “socialist construction”.

“While it continues to be lauded to be the major force that defeated “imperialism and feudalism” and created a “New China” by the Communist Party of China, the ideology survives only in name on the Communist Party’s Constitution as Deng Xiaoping abolished most Maoist practices in 1978, advancing a guiding ideology called “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

North Korea ( or as I call them the Communist Republic of Korea ) is really the last standing among the pure communist states around the world now. They’re the only communist state where everything and all the power in the country is centralized with the Communist Party and central government. The People’s Republic of China, has had a functioning hybrid capitalist economic for about 40 years now, while still maintaining some state-owned industries and they still qualify as a communist state because of their not just lack of free speech and a free press, but they still don’t have free speech or any free press.

The Chinese Communist State, still owns and operates all the domestic media in the country. And of course opposition parties to the Communist Party are still outlawed. But even personal freedom with people being able to move freely around the country and make their own basic personal and even economic decisions for themselves in the country and being able to travel abroad, is on the rise and has been growing in China since they’ve moved in a capitalist first world direction economically and culturally the last 35-40 years.

Mao Zedong, is one of the last of the pure Communists as someone who believed int total state-control of the society and not just the economy to work on behalf of the people so no one would be rich or poor. This is what Communists and Socialists are talking about when they say they want a classless society where no one is rich or poor. And they believe you achieve that by putting the central state in control of all the economic resources of the country. And that everyone would be taken care of as long as they follow the communist rules of society. Meaning you don’t disobey the communist regime and speak out against it or be politically active against it.

Crash Course: John Green- Communists, Nationalists, and China’s Revolutions

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Bryan Mealer: The Struggle For a New American Gospel

Posted on October 8, 2018 by Erik Schneider
1692

Source: The New Republic– TNR, not very liberal anymore 

Source:The New Democrat

As someone who grew up in an Atheist family where both my father and mother were Atheists at least when I was growing up, I believe Mom is more of an Agnostic now, but Dad if he could would probably outlaw religion and has more of a communist view of it, I’ve never been very religious at all. I grew up with hardcore Atheists during a time when the Christian-Right was becoming very powerful in America politics at least within the Republican Party and with Democrats who represent a lot of fundamentalist Christians, so I grew in Maryland just outside of Washington in the 1980s and early 1990s and got to see both fringes when it comes to religion in America.

But because I come from Atheists and have seen what religion looks like from the other side, I’m not in love with either camp and I’m not religious, but I’m not ready to say God doesn’t exist and religion in itself is a bad thing. As a Liberal if there any religious values I believe in it’s do unto others what you would do to you. Meaning treat people the way you want to be treated. And if that’s not good enough for you there’s always a backup plan which is treat others the way they treat you. If someone is a jerk ( to be kind ) to you, you can be a jerk to them. But don’t be a jerk just because you want to be a jerk, or you are a jerk and if you are a jerk, reform your ways and learn how to treat people properly.

The other religious value and this is I believe probably best liberal value out there along with free speech and racial and color blindness is live and let live. Meaning you make your bed in life and live with the consequences and responsibilities from making your own decisions, but you let others do the same thing and don’t try to micromanage people especially adults. Which gets to the last reason I’m not religious which is you don’t see religions that tend to believe in these things even from the Left. From the Right all you basically get now a days at least from what’s reported is that homosexuality, women’s liberation, personal freedom and individualism in general are ruining America. From the Left, you just get a lot of social democratic propaganda that for a government to be moral it must take care of the poor and that somehow being wealthy is some type of sin.

If there were or is and perhaps someone who is smarter than me when it comes to religion knows this better than me, but if there is a religion that preaches the liberal values that I just mentioned before, even though I don’t believe in God, I could probably get into that religion myself and at least want to check out that house of worship and hear preachers talk about the value of live and let live, do unto others what you would do to you, racial and ethnic tolerance and not just for minorities, but for all people all races and ethnicities, as well as traditional religious values like helping the needy help themselves through charity.

As a Liberal I don’t believe in God because as a Liberal I believe in reason which tends to be out of line with faith. Faith about belief and believing in something even if you can’t see it because the facts and evidence don’t back it up. Reason of course is about evidence and believing in what you can actually see for yourself. But I don’t believe you have to believe in God to be religious, but just believe in a certain set of religious and moral values that others believe in as well.

56312

Source: History: The First Amendment- Freedom of Religion in The United States– Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Liberals 

Posted in The New Democrat, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Irving Kristol: ‘What is Neoconservatism’s Writings On Politics, Economics & Culture’

Posted on October 4, 2018 by Rik Schneider
87013

Source:C-SPAN– Brian Lamb, interviewing Neoconservative Irving Kristol in 1995.

“Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. During the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials at the Department of Defense and Department of State played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq.”

From Give Me Liberty Give Me Freedom

“Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests.”

 

acb5df9c-ff44-4a1c-920b-fad32134e7fa

Source: Amazon– Neoconservative Irving Kristol

I agree with the Wikipedia definition as far as where neoconservatism and Neoconservatives come from which was in the 1960s as a response to the growing New-Left ( Socialists ) inside the Democratic Party, who opposed the Cold War and the United States opposition to the communism and also disagreed with Progressive Democrats on the New Deal and Great Society and believed that those progressive programs didn’t go far enough. And wanted to move the Democratic Party and the American economy in a socialist direction. So back in the 1960s and 70s, Neoconservatives were essentially Progressive Democrats who moved away from the Democratic Party because of the emerging McGovernite Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

But what I would add to this is that Neoconservatives aren’t just hawks on foreign policy who oppose communism and other authoritarian ideologies around the world. They are very hawkish on foreign policy and national security, but tend to be more progressive at least compared with Goldwater Conservative-Libertarians in the Republican Party on economic policy, as well as civil rights and other social issues. Instead of calling for the elimination of the safety net like the New Deal and Great Society, Neoconservatives believes in reforming those programs with private market principles and making those programs better.

Welfare to Work from the 1990s, is a Neoconservative idea and you could also argue that it’s Progressive as well.

Supply side economics where you cut taxes deeply, but don’t pay for them with either budget cuts or raising tax revenue, is another Neoconservative idea.

The George W. Bush Administration was made up of primarily economic and foreign policy Neoconservatives. The 2003 Iraq War, the 2002 No Child Left Behind education reform, Medicare Part D which was an expansion not cut in Medicare that gave is the prescription drug benefit in Medicare, these are all Neoconservative ideas and proposals.

Not arguing that Neoconservatives are Progressive Democrats, they are former Progressive Democrats who are still in sync with Progressives when it comes to foreign policy and national security, but tend to be more hawkish than Progressive Democrats and believe that liberal democracy is such a great thing that it needs to be promoted around the world even though military force. The 2003 Iraq War is a perfect example of that.

But Neoconservatives are not Conservatives at least in the constitutional and Conservative-Libertarian sense as people who want to eliminate the safety net and regulatory state. Neoconservatives believe in a public safety net, but that it should be run with private market principles and used to move people to economic independency and even believe in the regulatory state and having commonsense regulations when it comes to the environment, worker and consumer safety, and tend to support civil rights laws.

Neoconservatives aren’t Conservative-Libertarians on social issues or economic issues, and’t aren’t fiscal Conservatives either. But people who want a strong, functioning, but limited government that is used to just do the basics and help people improve their own lives. And tend to be Federalists when it comes to social and economic government programs. Perhaps Progressive Republicans, would be the best label for Neoconservatives in America.

 

Posted in Neoconservative, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Ron Paul- ‘Republicans Responsibility For Socialism’s Comeback’

Posted on October 3, 2018 by Ederik Schneider
48272

Source: Ron Paul Liberty Report– U.S, Representative Dr. Ron Paul, Libertarian, Texas 

Source:The New Democrat

I think the way I would look at this would be to go back to George W. Bush’s Administration. where Republicans with help from Congressional Democrats expanded the Federal role in public education in 2002. And then instead of reforming Medicare in 2003 a Republican Congress with some help from Senate Democrats and no help from House Democrats, expanded Medicare in 2003 with the prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

I’m not calling President George W. Bush a Socialist, but to argue that he was a Conservative doesn’t sound right either. He expanded the Federal Government almost across the board except when it came to the regulatory state where his administration almost had an hands off approach when it came to government regulations of the economy. And you could argue that Ayn Rand approach to government regulations contributed to the 2008 financial crisis that lead to the Great Recession, with the Bush Administration being asleep at the wheel while American banks and investors were making irresponsible investments on Wall Street that they couldn’t cover the losses for.

I believe the real reasons why socialism is making a comeback in America, has to do with President George W. Bush and his handling of the economy that you could at least argue is at least partially responsible for the Great Recession of 2008-09 and young Americans getting stuck with the bill for that economic collapse and finding themselves either with college diplomas, but are unable to find jobs that makes them financially independent or having to work multiple jobs just to pay their bills. Along with have college loans that they can’t pay back that are eating away at their income.

And then you have people like Senate Bernie Sanders ( the only self-described Socialist member of Congress ) come along and make all sorts of promises of government being able to do this and that for the people and all of these new government services and expansion of current government services are going to be free and young naive people thinking that sounds cool ( or awesome ) to them and they get behind someone like a Senator Sanders and back his message of socialism.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Ron Paul- ‘Responsibility For Socialism’s Comeback’

Posted in Ron Paul, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TruthDig: Scott Tucker: David McReynolds- Pacifist and Socialist, 1929-2018

Posted on September 25, 2018 by Derik Schneider
23476

Source: TruthDig– Democratic Socialist activist David McReynolds, speaking at The Left Forum in 2009 

Source: The New Democrat

People talk about Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, ( still but not for long the only self-described Socialist member of Congress ) as far as where his politics come from and the people and movements that he looked up and how he got his Socialist politics. A lot of that can be from his upbringing being born in 1940s New York City to a Jewish immigrant family where socialism is very popular with Jewish New Yorkers especially, but with New Yorkers in general. Or coming of age in the 1960s and going to college in the early and mid 1960s when a lot of young people especially in the early days of the hippie movement were open to socialism and perhaps becoming a Socialist them self.

The New-Left ( Socialists and Communists ) emerges in the late 1960s with a lot of Baby Boomers who were coming of age getting involved with that new movement and why it was called the New-Left, because pre-1965 or so to be on the Left in America meant you supported things like the New Deal, Great Society, the civil rights movement, free speech and personal freedom, but were somewhat hawkish on foreign policy and national security and not just anti-Communist, but anti-authoritarian in general. Which is what it meant to be a Progressive and Liberal back then and still does, at least factually.

Which changed in the late 1960s with millions of young Americans now open and even supporting of socialism, but even communism as well. And as a result the Democratic Party moves to the Far-Left in 1968 and through 1972 and they get their nominee for President in Senator George McGovern, who was the Democratic Socialist of his time, the Bernie Sanders of the 1960s and 70s.

But if I had to point to one man even though I don’t personally know Senator Sanders myself, I would point to David McReynolds, who was a Democratic Socialist activist from the 1950s when he was in college really till his death this year. Someone who believed in both democracy including a free press, free speech, freedom of religion, civil liberties, and personal freedom.

But to go along with a democratic socialist economic system where the Federal Government would literally be in charge of distributing the financial resources of the country to the people based on what everyone needs to live well. A national welfare state designed to make sure that everyone’s economic needs are met so we don’t have a wealthy people and a lot of poor people or any poor people. That’s what a socialist welfare state is designed to do for the country.

Not saying that David McReynolds and Bernie Sanders are ideological twin brothers. Senator Sanders, is not a pacifist and has voted for and supported he use of force in Congress multiple times both in the House and Senate and even though Senator Sanders is somewhat isolationist and dovish when it comes to foreign policy and national security, he’s certainly not a pacifist. But economically and as it relates to social issues and personal freedom, you can easily argue that David McReynolds and Bernie Sanders have a lot in common politically.

90949

Source: Democracy Now: Friends Remember War Registers League & Socialist David McReynolds – Democratic Socialist activist David McReynolds, on Democracy Now – 1929-2018 

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Ken White: ‘Free Speech Is In Just As Much Danger From Right-Wingers’

Posted on September 19, 2018 by Ederik Schneider
84097

Source: Reason Magazine– Attacks on free speech

Source:The New Democrat 

“Reason’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Ken White, attorney and legal blogger at Popehat.com They talked about Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, the dismissal of director James Gunn from the Guardians of the Galaxy series, what limits should be put on employee speech inside and outside the workplace, and his libertarian views on law and society.”

From Reason Magazine

I guess where I would disagree is with the title of the Reason piece where they say: “Free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives.” Implying that free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives, that it is from Liberals. I argue that free speech is not in danger from either of the center’s of American politics the Center-Right and Center Left, Conservatives and Liberals, but that’s in danger from the fringes of American politics.

Nationalist-Tribalist- Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right, who are offended by American culture and would like to see big government come in and restrict what we can see on TV and in pop culture generally. And anyone who opposes Donald Trump and his supporters are traitors ( from their perspective ) and therefor not serving of the same free speech rights as people who support Donald Trump and come from the Christian-Right Nationalist wing in and outside of the Republican Party.

And Socialists in some cases democratic but when you look at groups like ANTIFA and other self-described Communists in America, people who believe that right-wingers don’t have free speech rights in America because what they say is offensive and they simply don’t like what the Right ( especially Far-Right ) has to say and therefor should be shut down and silenced whenever they speak. Whenever one of these right-wingers especially Far-Rightist’s like Ann Coulter tries to give a speech, you’ll see Far-Left groups show up and protest her or someone else on the Far-Right and try to shut her down and shut her up. When one of these people writes a book, they’ll protest bookstores and try to boycott them so the author can’t sell their book.

As an actual Liberal, not a Libertarian, or Civil Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but as an actual real-life Liberal who doesn’t want big government trying to manage our personal and economic affairs for us including what we say to each other and doesn’t want a national babysitter or nanny state, but a real Liberal in the real sense as someone who believe in liberal values like liberal democracy and the individual rights that Liberals actually support, I believe in free speech, period. Whether it comes to pornography and other forms of adult entertainment that the Christian-Right claims to hate and use to view ( pre-Donald Trump ) as a national threat to our security and morality. Or critical or even offensive speech towards minority groups or anyone else in America that the Far-Right hates.

If you believe in free speech, you believe in free speech. Which is sort of like saying if someone believes in God, they believe in God. But my point is that if you believe in free speech you believe in free speech for everyone and not just people that you tend to agree with. Like that Michael Douglas line from The American President, that America is hard and you have to want it bad because it’s going to come after you. Because it’s a society where you have the right to say and believe whatever you want and those rights will be defended to the hilt. But that people who tend disagree with you have the exact same constitutional First Amendment free speech rights as you do. And free speech is better and America is better when we fight for the free speech rights as others the same way that we fight for our own and the people who we tend to agree with.

Posted in Reason, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Economist: The Literature of Liberalism- Liberal Democracy: The Core of Liberalism

Posted on September 17, 2018 by Erik Schneider
39600

Source: The Economist– Liberal thinkers

Source: The New Democrat

There’s been this ongoing debate about what liberalism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal. If you were ask me as a Liberal what it means to be a Liberal, I would tell you it means someone who believes in the defense of liberty, meaning the protection of individual rights. If you were to ask me what Liberals believe the role of government is I would tell you is to defend and conserve our individual rights. And where they can expand freedom for people who don’t currently have it.

I believe this definition works for anyone who considers them self to be a Liberal and perhaps Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but that doesn’t work for everyone especially people who are further left and even Far-Left, but don’t see themselves as Far-Left and it’s just that everyone else is out of the mainstream, but somehow they’re the sane, rational, mainstream people. And instead of calling themselves Socialists or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, they prefer to be called Liberals, in some cases Progressives, and the more candid members of the Far-Left especially in America might call themselves Modern Liberals.

Even though a lot of what the Far-Left advocates for is actually illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) and not liberal at all. Like censorship when it comes to offensive and critical speech, or hate speech. Protesting against Halloween and Thanksgiving, team nicknames, because they believe those holidays are somehow racist. Using big government to make the dietary decisions for everyone and tell everybody what they can eat and drink and what we can say to each other and in some cases even what we can do with our own bodies. Otherwise known as the nanny state which is just another example of the illiberal-left, not liberal-left.

Along with all of their big centralize government views when it comes to the economy where they believe wealth should essentially outlawed and taxes so high so government can decide how much money and freedom everyone should have, because they don’t want anyone to be rich or poor. As well as the belief that big centralize national government is always the best government and decentralizing governmental power is somehow dangerous, along with personal freedom and free speech being dangerous according to the illiberal-left, which is just another way of saying Far-Left or New-Left.

Even though one of the core liberal values of liberalism is that big centralize power shouldn’t be trusted and always held accountable and than absolute power whether it’s public power or private power corrupts absolutely. But it’s not liberal values that the Far-Left believes in, but instead collectivist values and in some cases social democratic values that they believe in.

According to Wikipedia

“Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.”

According to Merriam Webster

Illiberalism is, “opposition to or lack of liberalism.”

So someone who is against free speech and instead is in favor of censorship when it comes to language they don’t like whether it’s in movies or music, t-shirts, critical speech, offensive speech, hate speech even, someone who believes that speech that’s offensive should be censored and that political correctness should be the policy when it comes to speech, is proposing an illiberal view.

Someone who doesn’t believe in personal autonomy, personal choice, otherwise known as personal freedom even if they’re pro-choice when it comes to women’s reproductive rights and sexuality and romance freedom and that romantic couples shouldn’t be required to get married before they start living together and having kids, even if you’re pro-choice on the issues meaning things that you already agree with, but propose personal freedom in general, because you believe it’s dangerous and that individuals can’t be trusted to make their own decisions, you’re not very pro-choice.

Someone who is pro-choice lets say on abortion, but believes gambling, junk food, soft drinks, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, should be outlawed, is not very pro-choice. The key when it comes to being pro-choice or not is whether you’re pro-choice on abortion and sexuality, or things that you already agree with, but on issues that you might have problems with and wouldn’t make those choice for yourself.

Do you believe that people should have the right to make their own personal decisions even if they may disagree with some of their decisions, or not. And if you tend to believe that people should be able to make their own personal decisions, then I suggest you’re not only pro-choice, but you might be a Liberal as well. If you’re not generally pro-choice, then you’re not only not liberal, but probably illiberal which again is the opposite of what it means to be a Liberal.

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal values. Things like free speech, personal autonomy, decentralization of power, checks and balances, separation of powers, limited government, individual rights, equal rights, equal justice for all, free speech, personal autonomy, and yes property rights and markets. Liberals don’t want the government trying to do everything for everybody. Which is just one thing that separates us from Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left and Nationalists and Theocrats on the Far-Right. And if you believe in the liberal values that I just suggested and not the illiberal values where personal freedom practically doesn’t exist, because big government has so much power, then I suggest that you might be a Liberal.

73177

Source: Central European University: Roger Scruton- Speaks on Liberalism and Liberal Democracy– Advocating fro liberalism and liberal democracy

Posted in The Economist, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Politics & Prose: Rick Wilson: ‘Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies’

Posted on September 14, 2018 by kireschneider
19542

Source: Politics and Prose– Rick Wilson, at Politics and Prose in Washington 

Source: The New Democrat

To make the Donald Trump presidency look less depressing, at least to every insane, intelligent, honest American let’s imagine that Donald Trump is actually not President of the United States. That we never had not even one so-called reality TV star working in the most important political and government headquarters not just in the United States, but in the world. Let’s just imagine that this was just some great story and mini-series put together by HBO or Showtime, maybe FX got into it. And this series was called Amateur Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or Reality Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, maybe the pros in Hollywood could come up with even better titles than that for this fictional mini-series.

3915

Source: Go Fund Me– The Donald Trump 

If the Donald Trump presidency really was just a fictional series and the creators of that had an actor playing Trump or had Trump playing himself, this would be one of the best and funniest political fictional mini-series ever. Make it into a real series and give an entire season or multiple seasons and this show would be better and funnier than The West Wing. And The West Wing was a great funny show and in some cases even realistic. But that’s unfortunately for every person who isn’t a permanent resident at a mental institution, is not the reality. Our long national nightmare is heading into year three even if Democrats win back the House or Senate in a couple months or win back Congress completely, Donald Trump will still be President of the United States.

Politics and Prose: Rick Wilson- ‘Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies”

Posted in Book TV, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment