POLITICO Magazine: Robert Gordon: ‘The Fight That Changed Political TV Forever’

Posted on August 8, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Best of Enemies

Source:POLITICO Magazine– William F. Buckley, debating Gore Vidal, in 1968. 

Source:The New Democrat

“Robert Gordon is the producer and director (with Morgan Neville) of the new documentary Best of Enemies, about this debate and in theaters now. This article has been adapted from an introduction to the forthcoming book, Buckley vs. Vidal: The Historic 1968 ABC News Debates.”

From POLITICO Magazine

'Best of Enemies' - Pete Hammond Review

Source:Deadline Hollywood– William F. Buckley, debating Gore Vidal in 1968. 

“Best of Enemies’ – Pete Hammond Review”

From Deadline Hollywood

What this is about is the debate between Conservative Libertarian writer and publisher of the Center-Right publication The National Review, William Buckley and Socialist, or Social Democratic writer and author Gore Vidal. They were brought on as part of ABC New’s coverage of the 1968 Republican National Convention and also went on to debate each other the Democratic National Convention that year as well. They were brought in by ABC News to offer contrarian views of what was going on at those conventions. Bill Buckley, was supposed to represent the Right, or the Republican point of view. And Gore Vidal, was there to represent the Left, I guess the entire Left and the Democratic point of view.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should if you’re familiar with American politics today. Because that is now how its done, whether the coverage comes from the broadcast networks, or the cable news networks. You have a moderator which back then for ABC News would’ve been Howard Smith and today depending on which network you’ll have that network, or news division’s lead anchor lead their coverage of the conventions. And they would have several reporters there from their team to report what is actually happening. And then have an analyst from each side to tell people what they believe this all means. But that was not how it was done back in the late 1960s. Where you would have two people who are ideologically completely different debating what is going on.

But what happened at ABC News at the 1968 RNC was not CNN Crossfire of today. Howard Smith, was there to moderate and lead the discussion between Buckley and Vidal. But the problem is Buckley and Vidal were in separate rooms as Smith and you could barely hear, or see Smith during this debate. If you’re familiar with Howard K. Smith, you know he wasn’t some who was short on words and opinions. He had an opinion on practically everything. From things that he was very informed about like politics, to things where he wasn’t that informed on like sports. But when you have a debate between two of the sharpest and quick-witted people at least in politics, but the media as well and perhaps in general and they don’t even respect yet like each other, it is very hard to get any word in edgewise.

So what happens in 1968 at the RNC between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal is what we saw with Crossfire in the 1980s and 90s. Essentially a free for all without a moderator. Where the two debaters would make their points, but also listen to the other side. They would debate and moderate the same discussion at the same time. With poor Howard Smith acting not much more as a presiding officer at a U.S. Senate session, or something. Perhaps signing autographs, or catching up on paperwork. And really just serving a ceremonial role. But that debate because of the two men who were involved and what they were talking about and the year that it happened in 1968, made for great TV. And changed how politics would be covered on TV in the future.

Posted in Firing Line, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: James Day Interviewing Ayn Rand: Reason & Atheism (1974)

Posted on August 8, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Objectivist-Libertarian

Objectivist-Libertarian

Source:The New Democrat 

If it wasn’t for so many anti-religious militant Atheists in America and Atheists who tend to get linked with Communists and other statists, I might be an Atheist myself. This is a tough issue for me even as a Liberal who of course believes in reason and evidence which is what liberalism is built around. At least the real and classical versions of liberalism. Because I haven’t personally seen a God and don’t know of anyone who actually has. And if everybody especially religious fundamentalists regardless of religion were honest about this issue, they would say the same thing. And state the obvious and say, “of course I’ve never seen a God before and I don’t anyone who has.”

The main reason I’m not an Atheist and not religious, is because I don’t know that there isn’t a God. All I know is that everyone has never seen one. And if I was forced to take a stand on the issue I would say God doesn’t exist. But what keeps me from being an Atheist is the good that you see from religions and good work that comes from churches. Not saying that non-profit secular groups don’t provide the same services. But with religious people who sometimes are so far-right they might be better suited in Saudi Arabia politically than America, they do these good works like helping out the disadvantage from their religious core. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, treat the sick and so-forth.

There’s a lot of good work that comes from religious communities and religious charities. And to that extent at least there’s a lot of good that comes from religion whether God exists, or he’s some made up figure that people feel the need to turn to every time they’re in trouble. But I don’t believe in God, because again I’m more about reason than faith. Sure I have faith in things and people who I know and trust, but that is different in having faith in someone you’ve never even seen and don’t even know exists. I don’t want to consider myself to be an Atheist, because Atheists at least from what I’ve seen sound and look like the most intolerant people you’ll ever come across. And perhaps aren’t religious, because they don’t believe in live and let live.

Posted in Liberty Pen | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CSPAN: John Birch Society- Anarchy U.S.A. (1966)

Posted on August 8, 2015 by Rik Schneider

CSPAN_ 'John Birch Society- Anarchy USA_ Film Preview'

Source:CSPAN– A John Birch Society film about the 1960s civil rights movement.

Source:The New Democrat

“Anarchy U.S.A. This anti-communism film, produced in 1966 by the John Birch Society, uses narration and news footage to detail the methods of communist revolutionaries in China, Algeria, and Cuba, then argues that U.S. Civil Rights leaders are also Communists using the same methods. The film condemns several U.S. Presidents and the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts.

It contains language and graphic scenes of violence and death that may be disturbing to some viewers.”

From Boogie Finger 

“Purports to demonstrate how Communists are behind the civil rights movement, hearkening back to Algeria, Cuba, and China.”

IMDB_ Anarchy USA Film - Google Search

Source:IMDB– on the John Birch Society film.

From IMDB 

“View the entire 77 minute film Saturday at 10pm & Sunday at 4pm ET on C-SPAN3’s Reel America:CSPAN.”

Anarchy U S A - 1966 John Birch Society Film - Google Search

Source:CSPAN– showing Anarchy U.S.A. a few years ago.

From CSPAN 

This photo is from the 1966 John Birch Society film Anarchy U.S.A. with this African-American man being in the video that this photo is from. But that video is not currently available online right now.

Anarchy U.S.A.

Source:John Birch Society– from Edward Griffin’s film.

Of course there were demonstrations and rioting in America in the 1960s. But that is only part of the story. Why were civil rights marchers marching and why were African-Americans rioting in their ghettos? To get fresh air, no. Maybe some exercise, no. I know, they were bored with nothing else to do. But that would be wrong again.

African-Americans were marching for freedom and to be noticed in the 1960s. This whole right-wing propagandist notion that America was the mountain of freedom up to this point and then it became some anarchist state during the 1960s during the Johnson Administration. Mountain of freedom for who? For some, sure! But if your complexion happened to be black, or brown, or even olive you mostly likely were not a free person in America during this time.

If your complexion was black and brown or olive and you had African hair and other physical features, you might not have been able to even vote back then. Unless you could afford to pay the high poll tax. You could lose your job, or be denied a job simply because of your color and race.

Liberal democracy is not easy and when you write a Constitution that says all men are created equal with all the same rights as everyone else, but then you say: “You know what, we really don’t mean that. What our Founding Fathers meant to say what that all of that freedom and constitutional rights were only intended for Anglo-Saxon men whose ancestors come from Britain.” When you do something like that and simply deny people their rights that they are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution simply based on their race, there’s going to be a backlash against that.

What we saw in the 1960s, were African-Americans and others stand up and demand their rights. The same rights that Anglo-Saxons and other European-Americans are due under the U.S. Constitution. They they were tired of being denied things simply because of their complexion and race. They were tired of being given peanuts and living in projects, while the establishment got the rest of the loaf and pie to themselves and lived in beautiful homes in the suburbs living in a paradise that they created for themselves with help from people who live in the projects. Because they were only getting peanuts for the work that they put in.

The civil rights movement wasn’t about destroying America, or freedom. But expanding those things to more Americans who never had it and were denied freedom in America and even the ability to get themselves an education so they could have the exact same freedom as Americans who already had freedom for themselves.

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

The Onion: Candidate Profile- Donald Trump

Posted on August 8, 2015 by Erik Schneider
The Donald

The Donald

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I’ve actually sort of gone out of my way to not comment on Donald Trump for president for several reasons. One, just about everything I would’ve said about him most of it, actually all of it negative has already been said. Even by Fox News to the point that The Donald has added Megyn Kelly to his women’s enemy list. The fact that the Republican Party would have a joke like The Donald whose only able to run for president, because he’s a billionaire, just shows you how big of a joke the Republican Party is right now. I mean, their frontrunner’s last name is Bush. I’m sure Jeb is a good guy and all and probably would’ve been successful in life if his name was Kowalski and he grew up in Pittsburgh the son of a truck driver. But he’s the frontrunner, because he’s a Republican and his last name is Bush.

Don Trump, is not an idiot and he’s not crazy. A big asshole, no argument here. An egomaniac, I’m still looking for a bigger egomaniac. Actually I stopped looking when I first saw The Donald. He’s a guy who simply wants attention and for whatever he’s involved in to simply be about him. He’s a one man entertainment and comedy show who has no idea what he would do as president and has nothing to run on as far as what he’s in favor of and what he would do. I mean the guy is a Republican, who’s supposedly anti-immigration, even though he’s probably hired thousands of illegal immigrants. And those people not being from Ireland, or Britain, but Mexico and other Latin American countries.

How do you take someone like that seriously for president. He wants to be President of the United States and talks about our eighteen-trillion-dollar national debt and two of his companies have gone bankrupt. So ironically that sort of makes him an expert on our bankruptcy laws. What is The Donald’s message on fiscal policy? Don’t run the United States the way he ran his companies. Because it will fail and instead of filling for bankruptcy and being bailed out by taxpayers, we’ll try to get bailed out by China, or Saudi Arabia?

I did see the Republican debate on FNC on Thursday. And actually I think the FNC panel did a very good job questioning the candidates. I was expecting to see batting practice at a home run derby from the questioners. And see them loft up a lot of hanging curves and softballs at the candidates. For them to well hit out of the ballpark and look good. But as I was watching the debate I was sort of thinking to myself how would Saturday Night Live play this. And looking at The Donald, you don’t need to see SNL doing their version of this debate, because what they would’ve done is what we saw on Thursday.

The panel, asking The Donald very tough questions and trying to put him on the spot. With Trump coming back with some wisecrack to get the audience behind him. This is what running for President of the United States the most important job in the world to the The Donald. His own reality show and all about him and nothing else. With every network that covers politics picking up the series. The reason why The Donald is in first place in a single a baseball league as far as the quality of talent when you’re talking about the quality of candidates that they have, is because the state of the Republican Party right now. Not because of how great a presidential candidate that The Donald is, or his qualifications for being President of the United States.

Posted in The Onion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Atlantic: Peter Beinart- Why Is the Iraq War Never Mentioned in Debates About the Iran Deal?

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Iraq War

Iraq War

Source:The New Democrat 

To answer Peter Beinart’s question. The neoconservative idea of diplomacy is blackmail. “Give us everything we want and we won’t destroy you, or we’ll tell you we won’t destroy you.” As the saying goes, Iran may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. Of course they would expect to get something out of giving up their nuclear weapons program. Just as South Africa did, Libya did and Ukraine did. But lets say Saddam Hussein let the weapons inspectors into Iraq in 2002-03. And of course they would’ve found nothing, because as it turns out that program was eliminated in 1998-99. Would’ve the Bush Administration decided not to invade Iraq after discovering that there were not WMD, or nuclear weapons program to be found? Perhaps they wouldn’t have believed the reports, or bothered to even look at them.

President Obama, simply wants to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran a known terrorist state from obtaining a nuclear weapons program. That is his only goal here. He doesn’t have some idealistic utopian fantasy that he can remake Iran and the broader Middle East from a region of authoritarian states and turn them into liberal democracies. With President George W. Bush unlike his father H.W., G.W. wanted to remake Iraq. And he started with eliminating Saddam and his regime from Iraq. But he also had vision that other countries would follow our lead in Iraq and become democracies as well. Well twelve years later, sure Iraq looks better when it comes to freedom and democracy. But its Arab neighbors and Persian neighbor Iran doesn’t. If anything Iran looks worst today.

When you’re simply trying to get something from someone, or get them to try to behave better and you have economic leverage on them, all you have to do is convince them why it’s in their best interest cooperate. You don’t have to try to destroy them, or even threaten to destroy them to try to accomplish that. You show them why it’s in their best interest to improve their behavior. That is the difference between President Obama when it comes to Iran and President George W. Bush when it comes to Iraq. President Obama, is not looking to remake Iran. President Bush wanted to create a new Iraq and even broader Middle East even by force. And that is the main difference between the two President’s when it comes to the Middle East.

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

VOA News: Video: Mil Arcega: US Economy Adds 215K Jobs in July

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Erik Schneider

American Economy<a href=”http://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2015/08/voa-news-video-mil-arcega-us-economy.html#.VcU5o2LzrmY.wordpress”>VOA News: Video: Mil </aArcega: US Economy Adds 215K Jobs in July

The fact that the Federal Reserve is considering raising interest rates, tells me as a non-economist that the American economy is starting to do well. That people are going back to work, that their incomes are rising and spending money. The Fed, has kept interest rates at practically nothing since 2008 when the Great Recession started, because the economy for most of this period was pretty weak. 2010 and 2014 would be exceptions to this, but by in large economic growth has been fairly weak since the Great Recession even with job growth being steady and solid since 2010. Which tells me we can forget about another recession at least in the short-term.

Congress, has lately has started to become helpful with the economy. They passed another short-term extension to the highway program. The Senate, passed a a six-year highway bill last week that is fully paid for. The House, is going to take up that bill and hopefully pass their own bill when Congress comes back from recess in September. So we’re starting to see some real healthy signs with the economy. That even though the economy actually shrunk in the first quarter this year, the economy by in large is ready to do well and hopefully take off again. And do well for the rest of 2015 and hopefully take off next year.

Kids going back to school in September so there will be a lot of back to school sells for the next couple of months. As well as this being August and Americans still vacationing. And then once we get through September and October we’re into the holiday season. And then you may actually see the Fed raise interest rates. So I believe there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the American economy right now. And with a healthy economy would also mean the budget deficit will continue to fall and we’ll see more investment in America as a result

Posted in U.S. Jobs Report | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Judith Solomon: Medicaid at 50: A Critical and Evolving Pillar to U.S. Health Care

Posted on August 6, 2015 by Derik Schneider
LBJ & HST

LBJ & HST

The New Democrat

Medicaid, is a very important health insurance program for people in poverty including the working poor, but also people who are disabled and senior citizens. The fact that it is also for seniors, I believe shows a problem for Medicare. Since Medicare is supposed to be for our senior citizens. But that might be for a different topic. But Medicaid is critical, but as long as we have it we need for it to be financially sustainable meaning affordable and the best way to do that is to pay for it. And no longer have this system where the Federal Government tells the states that they must have this program and only gives the states less than half of what they need to actually run the program. Without a revenue source to pay for their share and leaving the states to figure out how to pay for the rest.

If you are familiar with this blog, you it is against corporate welfare. And part of that welfare is business’s getting away with not paying for their employees cost of living. The fact is if you’re a cashier at a fast rood restaurant, or a grocery store, you’re an essential employee. Because your employer can’t do business without you and your fellow cashiers. And cashiers would just be one example of that. Good luck running a nice sit down restaurant without waiters and cooks. Or stocking a grocery store without stockers. Running a pizza joint without cashiers, cooks and drivers. And there are plenty of more examples like that.

So what I would do is what I would do with all public assistance programs and make them financially self-sufficient. Instead of having hard-working middle class taxpayers not only have to figure out how to pay for their health care and other life essentials, but have to pick up the tab for low-income workers have employers cover their employees Medicaid, public housing, food assistance, etc. Or give them an option and say you don’t want to pay these payroll taxes on your employees, give your employees the money to pay for these life essentials instead. And I would happy to cut taxes on business’s in exchange. But the idea that big employers who make a lot of money, but don’t share much of that success even the basics like cost of living and instead pass those costs onto hard-working middle class taxpayers, is insulting.

Again, I would do this with all of our public assistance programs, but since this is about Medicaid, this is how I would reform it and make it financially not just affordable, but self-sufficient. Tell employers that they need to cover their low-income workers. Either through Medicaid with a payroll tax, or provide private health insurance that is just as good as Medicaid. Again, instead of allowing big for-profit employers the ability to pass their employees cost of living onto hard-working middle class taxpayers. As well as give low-income workers the option of taking either Medicaid, or private health insurance that their employer would cover part of that is just as high quality.

Posted in LBJ Presidency, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The National Interest: Albert Carnesale: Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress

Posted on August 6, 2015 by Rik Schneider
U.S. Senator Bob Corker

U.S. Senator Bob Corker

Source:The National Interest

Albert Carnesale, in his National Interest piece, makes a good point about Congressional Republicans. And maybe the problem they’re having is that America unlike Europe and a lot of other places, does not have a true opposition leader and opposition leadership. One opposition leader and their leadership who represents the alternative to the administration in power. And when they disagree with the administration they can lay out exactly what they don’t like about administration policy and what they would do differently. What we have in America for the opposition party, is several different leaderships, but not one that can bring the whole party together. Which makes it difficult especially when the opposition party is already divided to begin with to pay out a clear alternative to administration policy.

Senate Marco Rubio and other Congressional Republicans say that there is a clear alternative to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. But they’re essentially advocating for the status quo. Which is common with Conservatives. “Don’t rock the boat, keep things as are” and so-forth. They’re arguing for continuing the economic sanctions and basically preying that the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia and China do the same things. The problem is our partners in this deal which is why it’s called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action have already agreed to the deal and are going forward with it.

And part of that is sanctions relief for a failing Iranian economy. And Republicans, also argue just continue with the economic sanctions on Iran, while everyone else isn’t. The problem with that is the sanctions have already severely hurt the Iranian economy going back to 2005. And now even under all of that economic pressure are now closer to a nuclear weapon then they were ten years ago. Some Republicans say get a better deal. But what would be a better deal. The whole point of a deal and compromise is that you give up something in order to get something in return that you value more.

The definition of a deal, or compromise to Neoconservatives seems to be total surrender. Iran, gives up their nuclear weapons and we won’t invade them. Which is not something that Congressional Republicans are willing to do as far invading Iran right now and perhaps not even trying to hit Iran from the air. And obviously Iran wouldn’t agree to that. I mean if you make that offer to them, they would simply walk away. And to talk to people who know how to negotiate. Iran, will get real economic relief for their economy which they obviously need. But in exchange they’ll give up their nuclear weapons program, if they live up to their end. And if they don’t we’ll catch them if they try to cheat and they’ll pay a price for that as well.

So what Albert Carnesale said in his National Interest piece, “Deal or No Deal”, he’s right on point. Because this is the only deal that is on the table, or has even been offered. House Republicans, haven’t put any alternatives on the table. Senate Republicans, haven’t offered any alternatives either. None of the Republican presidential candidates even the ones with real foreign policy experience like Senator Lindsay Graham, has offered an alternative to the JCPA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. So the JCPA, is the only deal on the table. If America walks, we walk alone while the UK, European Union, Russia and China move forward without us. And if this deal is fully implemented, they would get the credit for it.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ron Paul’s Message to Paul Krugman

Posted on August 5, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Classical Libertarian

Classical Libertarian

Ron Paul: Video: Ron Paul’s Message to Paul Krugman

I can’t really comment on what Paul Krugman supposedly said about Ron Paul, because I haven’t seen that Paul Krugman column. I don’t read him that often. From time to time I see him on TV. But I believe one of the issues that the Krugman crowd and his followers have with Representative Paul, is that Paul represents everything that they are against. At least from an economic perspective and to a certain extent and social perspective as well. Since Paul doesn’t support the welfare state, or the nanny state and people as far as the left as Krugman tend to believe in both. That people need need big government to manage their economic affairs for them, but also tell them what they can eat and drink. And tell them they need to wear bike helmets and that sort of thing.

And because Ron Paul Libertarians represents everything that Paul Krugman Progressive/Socialists lets say hate, they try to make Paul look worst than he is and to make him look like something that he’s not. So they’ll try to tie him to these so-called white racist groups. Or to say that Ron Paul actually supports some big government and isn’t as libertarian as he claims, because he’s pro-life on abortion, or has ties with Far-Right Christian-Conservative groups. Representative Paul, is pro-life on abortion, as well as the death penalty, as his record in Congress in the House of Representatives makes clear. But he’s also pro-life on the death penalty. Something the Far-Left won’t give him credit for. But other than abortion he has no real connections to Religious Conservative groups. Other than protecting freedom of religion.

I’m not a big fan of Ron Paul either, other than we tend to agree on the social issues. Except for abortion, but the reason why Paul has so much support with young voters who tend to be liberal and libertarian and even liberal-libertarians, is because he doesn’t want big government in our wallets and homes. And despite the political support that Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is getting with his presidential campaign, that is where young Americans tend to be today. And the Paul Krugman followers are smart enough to know that. And know to bring some of those Paul people to them they feel they need to make Ron Paul look like something that he’s not. Which is a bigot, who hates minorities and poor people and everything else that they care about.

Posted in Ron Paul | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Life & Liberty Magazine: Opinion- Julie Borowski: Should Pro-Life People be Forced to Subsidize Planned Parenthood?

Posted on August 5, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source: Life & Liberty Magazine: Opinion- Julie Borowski: Should Pro-Life People Be Forced To Fund Planned Parenthood?

With all due respect to Julie Borowski over at Life and Liberty Magazine who I personally don’t know and just saw her name for the first time a couple of days ago, she poses a silly question about Planned Parenthood. If her question about whether pro-life people should be forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood is serious, than so are questions like should anti-death penalty advocates be forced to pay for the death penalty of convicted murderers. Or should anarchists, be forced to pay for law enforcement. Should pacifists be forced to pay for the military. Should isolationists and people who are against foreign aid be forced to pay for foreign aid. And I could go indefinitely. But don’t worry, because in the interest of time I won’t.

When you live in a liberal democracy especially the size of the United States where we pick our leaders by majority vote in most cases and when each of us only have one vote, you’re not always going to get who you voted for. Because sometimes your candidates the people you voted for don’t win. Which means the opposition comes to power and if they have the power to do what they want, or win some political battles perhaps through compromise, they will get to set policy. And that even means establishing policy and laws that others disapprove of. Whether it is continue to fund law foreign enforcement, fund foreign aid, continue the death penalty with taxpayer funds, continue to finance corporate welfare with taxpayer funds and yes continue to fund Planned Parenthood. Which does perform abortions, but without taxpayer funds.

This question about whether the pro-life community should be forced to fund Planned Parenthood with their taxes, sort of reminds me of the question that Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians like to pose about the safety net, or the so-called social contract. And they say why should they be forced to pay for something that they didn’t personally sign and approve of when it was passed. Well, again a country is a community we all have to play by the rules that the leadership who are hired by the people put in place. And if we don’t like the rules that are put in place we can always vote out if we have a majority support the leaders who enforce the rules. But to try to put out this argument that you don’t like the rules so you’re not going to follow them, is quite frankly silly.
Washington Free Beacon: The Morning Joe- Joe Scarborough Rips Elizabeth Warren On Planned Parenthood

Posted in Liberal Democracy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments