American Thinker: Brad Lips: A Populist Libertarian Youth Movement?

Posted on March 26, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

american thinker_ daniel payne - Google SearchSource:The New Democrat 

As a member of Gen-X, I see two growing movements in American politics, both anti-big government. On the right, the young libertarians seem to be anti-government all together.  Both young liberals and young libertarians want the freedom to live their own lives and make their own economic and social  decisions without interference from big brother.

The polling data show that young adults are now voting Democratic overwhelmingly but they aren’t voting in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.  In a lot of cases, they are voting against Republicans whom they see as intolerant.  They vote for Democrats whom they see as tolerant and liberal on social issues and not seeking to expand the Federal government and raise taxes.  This is a huge opportunity for the Democratic Party to advance Jack Kennedy’s vision of an America with economic and personal freedom for all.

The Republican Party also has an opportunity, now, with the young libertarians on the right, if they can ever stop shooting themselves in the foot (or run out of toes) and divorce themselves from the Christian Conservatives and Neoconservatives.   It should be easy for them to convince the electorate that they  hate big government and don’t want to expand it or raise taxes.  It will be much more difficult for them to convince the electorate that they believe that Americans should have the freedom to manage their own lives.

The capture of the GOP by the right-to-life movement indicates a strong tendency toward theocracy in which the religious principles of a few constrain the behavior of all.  The party seems hell-bent on imposing Christian sharia on America.  To be competitive for the youth vote, the GOP will have to move toward a libertarian philosophy and say, “No,” to the Neo-Right.  They could then become a more truly conservative party that would be competitive with the Democrats for young voters.

The future of America is young people who build their own businesses and work for new businesses that look much different from American businesses of the past.  They want the freedom to run their own business and personal affairs.  The Democratic Party and Barack Obama have already figured that out. The Republican Party hasn’t gotten the message yet and is still nominating people who can’t get elected outside of the Bible Belt and rural America.  They need to get this message and bring in the libertarians, if they want to stay in business.  If they don’t, the Democratic Party will end up governing most of the country.

Posted in American Thinker, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: Publius and the Progressives

Posted on March 25, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I see two dominant political factions in the Democratic Party today.  The first is the FDR/LBJ progressives, who are not Socialists but real Democratic progressives in the best sense of the word. They believe that we should have an essentially free market economy that works for everyone and that there should be social insurance for people who fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system.  They believe in a big centralized government and tend not to trust the states but they also believe that there are limits to what government can do well for people.

The second is the JFK/WJC or Bill Clinton Liberals who are called New Democrats.  They believe that the safety net should just be there for the people who really need it.  They like the idea of states being able to run their own social insurance programs  and that these programs should primarily empower people to take care of themselves. These are the economic philosophies of the two factions.  They have been the dominant factions in the Democratic Party for over eighty years and the basis of the party’s dominance over that period of time.

The people who are called Liberals and Progressives in America would probably be Conservatives in Canada or Britain and their center-left parties would look like our far-left parties, which brings me to my next point.  The Democratic Party changed in the mid and late 1960s as more baby boomers came of age and became Democrats.   The New-Left in America, today, is made up a lot of boomers and their kids.  They staffed the Occupy Wall Street movement. This far-left movement combines both socialist and anarchist (when they see certain laws as unjust) leanings.  They want a government large enough to see that no one is rich or poor, that we are all the same even if some of us are more productive and skilled than the rest.

The MSNBC talk lineup (is there anything else on MSNBC these days?) gets labeled as “progressive talk or progressive voices” when they are not ( and they sure as hell ain’t liberal either!).  In actuality, they (except for Ed Schultz and to a certain extent Larry O’Donnell) speak for the Occupy Movement and the New-Left in America.   The rest of them, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hays, and Melissa Harris-Perry are, I’m sure, fine decent people but they are whacked out New-Leftists.  There are no limits to what they believe the government, especially the Federal government, can do for people.  They essentially believe that Americans should want to (and consider it an honor to)  pay Uncle Sam as much in taxes as necessary to take care of all us.

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

The New Republic: Issac Chotner: Ross Douhat Column on Young People: Individualism & Liberalism

Posted on March 20, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

This blog talks a lot about labels, especially what they mean in politics.  Thus, when I read a column in the  New Republic, that no longer looks like that great liberal magazine that once questioned the influence of governmental power in personal and economic lives, but now post columns that support both the welfare state and the nanny state, I feel the need to reply.

Young people love big government?  Do you really see a call for higher taxes, more centralized government  programs, and expansion of the war on drugs from young adults?  Do you hear them saying that legalizing same-sex-marriage would be a horrible mistake that would ruin our national moral fiber, that we not only need to outlaw same-sex-marriage but outlaw homosexuality all together?  Are they saying that privacy is dangerous and we need to prohibit not only currently illegal drugs but also currently legal drugs, e.g., like sugar, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.

The polling data from my Generation, X, and Generation Y show that big government is not popular with these people.  They want the freedom to make their own decisions.  They don’t want a nanny state trying to run their lives for them or a welfare state making most of their economic decisions for them.

Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, help for the needy, public education, etc., such government programs at one level or another have always been popular and I imagine that they always will be.  These are social insurance programs for people who need them.  They intrude into personal space much less than a welfare or nanny state that seeks to manage the life of every citizen.

The future of American politics lies with the Ron Paul Libertarians on the Right, who may save the Republican Party from itself and eventually take conrol of it, and want government almost completely out of our lives, and the Brian Schweitzer (former governor of Montana) liberals on the left who believe in the safety net with equal rights and protections for all Americans, including  personal choice and autonomy over our personal lives.  Neither of these groups wants the government to try to run our lives for us.

However, the Bernie Sanders socialists and the social democrats on the far-left have their supporters and followers.  They, and the real welfare-staters, want to see a big, centralized, social democratic  government in this country. But they aren’t a governing faction and will never be as long as they are putting down private enterprise and capitalism and trying to convince the middle class that they are under-taxed and that government simply needs more of their hard earn money.

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

Mundane Matt: Is Fred Phelps Dying?

Posted on March 20, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The FreeState

I’m not going to say that I hope that Fred Phelps is dying (at least not in public).  That would simply not be the polite thing to do.  It is not consistent with our social mores to wish people to die.   You might think the world would be a better place if a certain person were dead, and Fred Phelps is the perfect example of such a person, but anyone who considers themselves civilized cannot publicly wish such a person to die.

But Fred Phelps dying.  If his organization goes out of business as a result, that would definitely be a great thing, not just for homosexuals or homosexual military personal but for the military in general and for anyone who hates bigots and bigotry.  It is indisputable that without Fred Phelps and his group, the world will be a better place.  Modern Christianity is against hate and hating people for having different lifestyles.  Christ said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

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

The Fiscal Times: Mark Thoma: Inequality in Capitalist Systems is Not Inevitable

Posted on March 12, 2014 by kireschneider

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

I would describe capitalism, or private enterprise, meaning private businesses and wealth controlled by individuals or groups of individuals, not by the state, as the worst type of economic system in the world, except for all the rest.  Actually, as has been pointed out on this blog many times, what I call liberal capitalism is capitalism designed to include everyone, where everyone has economic freedom and is not controlled by the special few or by government.  This is the worst form of capitalism, except for all the rest.

I mention that because there are several forms of capitalism, and all developed countries and rapidly developing countries, large countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, have one form or another of a capitalist economic system. And the beauty of each of these different types of capitalist systems is the idea that your competitors cannot just outclass you but also put you out of business. So in this system, you must deliver the best services possible at the most affordable and competitive prices or be driven out of business.

The disadvantage of capitalism is that some people do very well for whatever reason, for example, starting off very rich along with getting the best education possible, or simply coming from modest roots but working very hard and productively and reaping the benefits so they are more than capable of caring for themselves and their families.

But on the other side, there are people at the bottom who, for whatever reason, either through bad personal choices, such as not finishing their education or having children before they were ready to raise them properly, or coming from a low-income family without access to a decent education, now find themselves living in poverty as adults and perhaps raising children as well.

That is where social insurance, or the safety net, jumps in to help the people at the bottom, where they are ignored by the private market or did not take advantage of the opportunities presented by the private market to make a good life for themselves. The safety net covers temporary financial assistance for people living in poverty and not currently working and provides access to education and job training, which provide the tools needed to achieve economic freedom by finding a good job with a living wage.

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

Hoover Institution: Richard Epstein: Our Property Principle

Posted on March 12, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I guess because of the way I look at the United States Constitution, I would be described as a Liberal Constitutionalist, who looks at the entire Constitution and doesn’t pick out parts that I like and rail against the parts that I do not like, which is common among both the far left and far right in America.  Both the left and the right pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they favor and then claim they are upholding the Constitution, but see things they do not favor and support amending the Constitution for the good of the country, however they would phrase that.

I like the Constitution as a whole and am not interested in eliminating any of the amendments, but I might add an official Right to Vote to it as well as update the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which would throw out most of these so-called Voter ID laws that are really voter prevention laws. But there are parts of the U.S. Constitution that are my favorites, which is the real point of this post.  I’m going to concentrate on these because they protect our individual freedom and make us a liberal democracy.

What I really love most about the U.S. Constitution are the First Amendment, which guarantees our right to speech and assembly; the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees our right to privacy and protects our property rights, because it means that government can’t come into our homes and businesses without what is called “probable cause” and cannot search our properties without a search warrant issued by a judge; and the Fifth Amendment, which again protects our property rights because government cannot take our property without  probable cause.

These rights allow Americans to live their own lives and associate with whom they choose just as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people, and allows government to protect us from criminals and invaders but not to protect us from ourselves. As long as we aren’t declaring war on the government or illegally leaking classified information, these rights give us autonomy over our own lives.  We should always remember this and not take them for granted.

Posted in Hoover Institution, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Slate Magazine: Dave Weigel: Sarah Palin vs. Beltway Republicans: Conservatism in America 2014

Posted on March 12, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

If Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin are the faces of Conservatism in America in 2014, then we might as well start planning its funeral and Liberals can declare victory in this ongoing ideological war of some 50 years now. The only two Conservatives at CPAC last weekend were Senator Rand Paul and former U.S. Senator/actor/talk show host/commercial spokesperson, whatever the hell Fred Thompson is up to now. But the rest of them, including Ann Coulter, who came down from Mars to give a speech about the so-called “browning of America,” are all out to lunch at an all-you-can-eat- for-50-cents buffet and couldn’t give an accurate description of Conservatism and what it means to be a Conservative to save their lives.

The far right of the Republican Party thinks the government is not too big when it comes to our personal lives, actually too small.  This wing of the GOP is alive and well with plenty of spokespeople for it like Senator Santorum and Ann Coulter, the Neoconservatives, which I and others call them. But anytime someone in the GOP seeking national recognition tries to run to the left of the far Right, which is where most of the country is no matter how far to the left of the far Right they are, they are put down by the Neo-Cons and labeled liberal or socialist.

2014 could’ve been the year that Governor Chris Christie took the reigns of the conservative movement and used it to launch his 2016 presidential campaign, but as it looks now, he might have a better shot at watching Election Night 2016 from jail than running for president at this point, let alone being elected President because of his corruption issues in a State, New Jersey, that may have invented political corruption. Actually, right now, New Jersey is competing with Illinois and Louisiana for the title of most corrupt State in America.

If there is a face of Conservatism in America, it would be Rand Paul, but again, the far Right is not going to allow a Conservative Libertarian, who is a Federalist on both economic policy and social policy, to be their GOP nominee for President. As long as the GOP needs a base that still believes it is 1955 and didn’t bother to grow up and modernize like the rest of the country, they won’t have that one national candidate who can bring the party together.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Slate Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AlterNet: David Bromwich: What Became of the Leader Many Wanted Barack Obama to be

Posted on March 11, 2014 by Derik Schneider

AlterNet: Opinion: David Bromwich: What Became of the Leader Many Wanted Obama to be

Source:The New Democrat

Whatever happened to that socialist whom so many Americans on the far left supported and organized for and hoped they were getting when they went to work for then U.S. Senator Barack Obama back in 2007-08.  I’ll give you a clue:  That person never existed; oh wait, did I just give it away.  Here’s where guilt by association and not by practice simply does not work, because I have friends and know people who are socialists as well as libertarians. Does that make me either because I’m friendly with these people?  You could say the same thing about Barack Obama because he definitely had socialist connections before he became President of the United States. Bill Ayers is a perfect example.

The far left in America should have known before they went to work for Barack Obama that what they were getting back in 2007-08 was the furthest left candidate who could actually get elected President of the United States, which is a moderate Progressive or moderate Liberal a bit left of Bill Clinton. But he was certainly no one’s radical, which he makes clear in his books. He loves America and believes that it is still the only country where someone from his background and upbringing can make it.  With respect to his 2008 DNC nomination speech, he gave it as a center-left Democrat, not a radical left or right, which was also true in the general election against Senator John McCain.

Barack Obama is a pragmatist at heart who leans left and has a leftist vision but then goes about accomplishing his goals with what he sees as the most realistic approach, even if that means compromising with Democrats who aren’t as left as he is or compromising with common sense Republicans. But this is not someone who ran for president with the goal of eliminating the Federal republic and transform America into a social democracy, but someone who ran for president to solve the current issues of the day in the most practical way possible, even if that meant compromising.

I believe Jimmy Carter was the president most similar to President Obama when it comes to governing style. They both probably had a grand vision of what they wanted to do as president, but at the same time had a pretty good idea of what was possible or, to quote the former great progressive senator Hubert Humphrey, the art of the possible.  This means understanding the challenges and also the best available options to meet them, such as knowing what Congress is able to pass right now and then returning to address the rest later.  This approach is hardly inspiring but can be effective in the hands of those who know how to govern.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Human Events: David Harsanyi: Why Democracy is a Bad Idea

Posted on March 11, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

To start this, I’ll first quote former U.K. Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who said about democracy that it is the worst form of government except for all the rest. I naturally agree with this, especially living in a country of 310 million people where average Americans might be familiar with their favorite pop culture celebrity’s eating habits but probably couldn’t name their U.S. Representative or U.S. Senators or even mayor and governor if you spotted them a couple clues and even said their names.

The only thing I would add to Churchill’s comment is that liberal democracy, to me at least, is the worst form of government except for all the rest because you are literally trusting individuals with their own lives and having the state back off and both regulate how we interact with each other and protect us from American criminals as well as foreign invaders. Then I take you back to the pop culture celebrity reference to point out that we have many ignorant people in this country who need to know as much as possible about things that frankly aren’t important in general, but are clueless about issues that actually affect their quality of life, for example, the right to privacy.

Liberal democracy only works as well as the people allow it to work.  They need the skills to make intelligent decisions not just about their own lives but also about their choice of who will represent them in government.  You do not have to be a political junky to be a good citizen, but you at least need to know what goes on in government and what our representatives are doing with our money or to our individual freedom.

To paraphrase the great political satirist George Carlin (and I’m not sure a better political satirist is alive or has ever lived), politicians are only as good as the people who hire them and who they work for, so if you have bad politicians and voted for them, you have only yourself to blame. But if you take the time to research those you are considering voting for, from any party, and they have a good record and they represent you well, if you then vote for them, you are an intelligent and engaged citizen and a well-qualified voter.

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

The Hill: Judd Gregg: Dems Now Look Ahead to Hillary

Posted on March 11, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

At risk of sounding like a sexist, even though I’m not, I’m not on the so-called HRC Bandwagon just yet, because the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton president in the third month of 2014 is more than 2.5 years away from the 2016 presidential election and she’s not running as a liberal or a progressive or a centrist but as what I call a safe, electable, “resume” Democrat. In other words, vote for her not only because she can win but also because of what she’s done in the past and what she’s been doing since her husband left the White House 13 years ago.

I have a prediction:  Senator/Secretary Clinton or whatever title she goes by now (I doubt it’s First Lady) will not be elected president unless she’s able to communicate why she wants the job other than being the first female President of the United States.  It is an awesome job in the real sense of the word because of the power and responsibility that comes with it. It is the most important job in the world and even the far left now understands that, as much as they may hate giving America credit for anything positive. Some Democrats, hopefully real center-left liberals, will run to fill the void left by Mrs. Clinton if she decides to run for president without a message and vision for the country.

That Democrat will probably be under 60, or just 60 in Brian Schweitzer’s case, or perhaps in my generation and born in the 1960s or so.  That person will be charming and well-liked, and be able to communicate with young people, raise a lot of money from them, and get them to organize and work for him or her. This sounds familiar because that is how a freshmen U.S. Senator from Illinois got elected president in 2008.  He was from the post-Clinton generation and had a different message than Hillary did in 2008. Actually, he had a message and Hillary had a name and would have represented a milestone had she been elected President.

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