Salon: Omer Aziz: I’m Proud to Say I’m a Liberal

Salon: Opinion: Omer Aziz: I’m Proud to Say I’m a Liberal: How Conservatives Vulgarized the Word Liberal and Why Liberals Should Take it Back

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Omar Aziz that Conservatives have been bashing the words liberalism and liberal for fifty-years. trying to make them  something that they are not.  Liberalism is a great political philosophy to be proud of.  There are people who are to the left of true liberals who claim the name.  They are  responsible, along with rabid conservatives, for portraying liberalism as all about the state and big government bureaucracy.  This bias is a result of their ignorance of liberal philosophy.

Last week I laid out some of the differences between liberals, progressives and Socialists.  Non-liberal leftist magazines were jumping in joy last week when Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress, announced that he was considering running for President of the United States. They were saying that as a liberal would give Hillary Clinton a Democratic challenge from the left.  Senator Sanders describes himself as a socialist.  He doesn’t call himself a Liberal.

The center-left in America needs to stand up and reclaim liberalism and the word liberal for themselves. After all, we  created the liberal democracy that is the federal republic of the United States of America.  We wrote the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not socialists, not conservatives, not pseudo liberals like Salon and others who are really social democrats interested in turning America into a social democracy and taking down the Federal Republic to give the national government more power over our own lives.

Liberalism is about the individual and not the government.  That  separates it from socialism because it wants to put the power in the hands of the people so that  they can govern themselves.  It does not seek to give the power to the state to make decisions for us.  It believes that government’s main role is to protect the freedom of all people, not just the privileged few.

Posted in Classical Liberalism, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks: Cold War Echos & Campaign Financing

I actually agree with Mark Shields on this.  Republicans, especially in the Senate, love to criticize President Obama when it comes to Ukraine.  They blame him for everything from Ukraine to earthquakes thousands of miles away in Asia and perhaps every other problem that has arisen during his presidency. Depending on the day of the week, he is either ineffectual or dictatorial.  However, Republicans never propose alternative solutions and seem bereft of ideas that could have prevented this or that crisis from happening.  Their policy is built on soundbites and talking points and words like tough and decisive, without any real meat on their bones.

Posted in Originals, Shields & Brooks | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sam Seder: Caller: Did Affirmative Action Hurt the Liberal Project?

Source:The New Democrat 

Affirmative action didn’t hurt the cause of actual Liberals because Liberals believe in equal opportunity for all regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and so forth.  The key word is “opportunity,” that people are not judged by these classifications but by their personal and professional qualifications. Affirmative action, however, has hurt the cause of collectivists on the Left, who believe in equality at all cost as well as equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity, even if that means denying people opportunity simply because other members of their community have succeeded.

Posted in Sam Seder, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBS Sports: NFL 1982-NFL Today-First Round Playoff Preview

The 1982 NFL Playoffs were pretty interesting, since because of the NFL strike, it was really more like a tournament than a playoff.  Eight teams from both the NFC and AFC made the playoffs in each conference instead of the five from each conference, which was normal then up until 1990, when six teams from each conference made the playoffs. The NFL expanded from five to eight in 1982, probably to win back some of the fans they lost because of the strike.

Posted in NFC Classic, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason: Video: Kennedy: CPAC: CPAC Members on Federalism at the CPAC Conference

Ederik Schneider on Google+

The New Democrat on Facebook

The New Democrat on Twitter

There seem to have been some real Federalists at the CPAC conference today, at least the people who were interviewed in this video. Or perhaps Kennedy only interviewed Federalists for this video. But as Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, said, the States are laboratories of democracy and the advantage of having a Federal system of government, unlike in a unitary system, where most of the power rests with the national government, is that you get to see what works in other places and what doesn’t work instead of one government trying to figure out what works for the entire country, especially a huge country like the United States.

Posted in Reason | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

National Review: Jim Geraghty Interviews Ralph Reed at CPAC 2014

Source:The New Democrat 

The face of the GOP is really the religious right, the “get big government into our personal lives wing of the Republican Party.” I wonder what the Conservative Libertarian wing of the GOP led by Rand Paul, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Ron Johnson, Representative Justin Amash, and others think about that.  They have been working on getting big government out of our lives completely and not making the case that some big government is good.

Posted in National Review, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AP: Raw Video: Sen. Rand Paul Fires Up ‘Liberty Lovers’

Erik Schneider on Google+

The New Democrat on Facebook

The New Democrat on Twitter

Rand Paul might have been the only actual Conservative at CPAC today, someone who is actually interested in conserving freedom, including privacy, as he mentioned in this short clip, and keeping the state out of the personal as well as economic affairs of Americans. And if the Republican Party were truly a conservative party, and not a religious party or a theocratic party or a Neoconservative fascist party, than Senator Paul would be the strongest frontrunner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Piers Morgan Tonight: Abby Martin Standing up Against Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Someone is finally stepping up to the fascist neoconservative Putin in and saying he is wrong to invade Ukraine. As far as Abby Martin taking on corporate media, guess what Russia Today is.  It is owned by the Russian Government, which could at any time pull people for disagreeing with them or, in Russia, arrest them for disagreeing with them.  Very little independent media in the Russian Federation!

Posted in Originals, Russia Today | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adolph Reed: ‘What Nihilism? A Response to Michelle Goldberg’

What Nihilism_ A Response to Michelle Goldberg

Source:The Nation– “A polling site in Oklahoma City (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)” Also from The Nation.

Source:The New Democrat

“The focus of left politics must be to change the terms of a debate that leaves us with impoverished choices. It’s only in the context of a shriveled political imagination that that looks like nihilism.

Editor’s Note: In a recent blog post, Michelle Goldberg criticized Adolph Reed’s recent essay in Harper’s, “Nothing Left: The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals,” for its “electoral nihilism.” “A left that absented itself from the dirty work of electing a president,” Goldberg writes, “would be indulging in the very reflex Reed decries: trying to send a message to those in power rather than contending for power itself.” Reed responded in the comment thread, clarifying his position on elections and Democratic party politics. We reprint his reply here.”

From The Nation

“Professor Adolph Reed Jr., explains how the Democratic Party embraced the neo-liberal agenda, how the shock of the Reagan Presidency shaped the modern Democratic Party, the role of the Democratic Leadership Council in moving Democrats to the right, the rightward legacy of Bill Clinton, the decoupling of class and social politics, why we have one neo-liberal party that is multicultural and another that is reactionary, why the left is in retreat, why acknowledging the problem can allow for a strengthening of leftist politics, how progressive politics is cheapened, how the left can rebuild itself and why we need to stop searching for progressive savors.”

Nothing Left_ The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals (w_ Adolph Reed Jr_) - Google Search

Source:The Majority Report– I’m thinking this is a pro-Barack Obama rally. Just don’t quote me on that.

From The Majority Report 

“In a Web-exclusive interview, political scientist Adolph Reed Jr. talks with Bill Moyers about his new article in the March issue of Harper’s Magazine – a challenge to America’s progressives provocatively titled, “Nothing Left: The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals.”

In the piece, Reed writes that Democrats and liberals have become too fixated on election results rather than aiming for long term goals that address the issues of economic inequality, and that the administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama too often acquiesced to the demands of Wall Street and the right.

As a result, Reed tells Moyers, the left is no longer a significant force in American politics. “If we understand the left to be anchored to our convictions that society can be made better than it actually is, and a commitment to combating economic inequality as a primary one, the left is just gone.”

Nothing Left_ The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals (w_ Adolph Reed Jr_) - Google Search (1)

Source:Bill Moyers Journal– talking to Adolph Reed.

From Bill Moyers Journal

In last night’s blog post about the far-left flank of the Democratic Party I wrote a line something to the effect of: “If you don’t like the menu at the restaurant, complain to the management to get different choices on the menu or find another place to eat.”

I use this analogy because Social Democrats or Socialists in the Democratic Party should think about this when it comes to their politics, that if you think current Democrats aren’t left-wing enough (meaning socialist) then work at recruiting and encouraging the people you do want to run for office or find another party that is more to your ideological liking.

The Democratic Party is run, as I’ve said many times, by FDR/LBJ and JFK/Clinton Progressives, with a social democratic left-wing, that a lot more ideologically comfortable with the Green Party or Democratic Socialists USA, then they are with the Center-Left Democratic Party.

Center-Left Democrats and leftist Democrats tend to agree on some things, but leftists tend to want a more centralized government and a bigger government than Progressives, who believe in progress through government action. But aren’t always looking to expand the Federal Government and centralize government in America.

Progressives tend to want social insurance programs designed to help people get themselves out of poverty and become self-sufficient. Whereas leftists tend to be more interested in subsidizing people while they are in poverty. Both sides tend to agree on things like privacy, personal freedom to a large extent, but leftists tend to be more paternalistic or prohibitionist in areas they see as dangerous, such as gambling, alcohol, from the past at least, soft drinks, junk food, just to use these as examples.

But Progressives and leftists tend to agree when it comes to infrastructure, immigration, workers rights, Right to Organize, civil rights, and foreign policy. Both sides tend to be internationalist, from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, with every other Democratic president from that era as well.

The Democratic Party also have these left-wing outsiders in the Democratic Party who didn’t emerge until the late 1960s or so who are real Socialists or Social Democrats and not just anti-corporate but anti-business in many cases and even anti-for profit as well and have been looking for an alternative to capitalism. Even that doesn’t go quite as far as a Marxist state ownership of the economy, but to more power for workers.

The main reason why the Democratic Party is so big in America, is because you have multiple competing factions in it that if we were in Europe, you would be talking about multiple different political parties, instead of political factions being part of one huge political party.

So, to go back to my analogy about the restaurant menu: it is time for Social Democrats to understand that and either stop complaining about their party not being far enough to the Left for their taste and recruit more of their people into the DP to run for office or create a united social democratic party with the far-left fringe of the Democratic Party. And combine them with the Greens and Democratic Socialists and Socialist Workers. And have their own party that would be able to compete against Democrats and Republicans.

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

American Thinker: Matthew Ernst: The U.S. Love Affair With Addiction

american thinker_ daniel payne - Google SearchSource:The New Democrat 

I just read an article in the far-right blog called the American Thinker, by Matthew Ernst, who says he is a law enforcement officer or retired law enforcement officer, who tried to make the case for not legalizing marijuana.  In what he wrote, you could replace the word “marijuana” with alcohol and try to make the similar case for why we should outlaw alcohol, talking about crimes related to alcohol and the emergency room visits related to alcohol or going from pot to other drugs. Of course he didn’t say “harder drugs” because that would weaken his argument, so he just said other drugs instead.

You could make a very good argument that alcohol leads to other drugs. As a perfect example, look at the boomer generation with former Doors frontman Jim Morrison, who was an alcoholic as well as being addicted to cocaine and probably heroin and died at the age of 27 in 1970. He was not the only alcoholic, famous or otherwise dying early, in his generation. Some boomers who are recovering alcoholics as well as recovering from harder drugs have managed to turn their lives around, and I could mention both the Rolling Stones and a personal favorite of mine, Aerosmith.

But then the smart drug warriors will acknowledge these facts and suggest that we already have enough dangerous legal drugs.  You could add prescription drugs that are addictive to this list, so why legalize another dangerous drug. Well, again you are saying with that message that it’s okay if you screw up your life with these drugs because they are legal, but this other drug that has side effects similar to those of alcohol, meaning marijuana, we cannot allow and must protect you from yourself. Why?  Because marijuana is illegal and alcohol is legal.  I mean, seriously, is that the best argument you can come up with.

If you are going to use a real prohibitionist argument against drugs (and good luck with that by the way) because you believe these drugs are either dangerous or too dangerous, then wouldn’t you go after all drugs legal and otherwise that are dangerous for the good of society, and be the big brother or sister looking out for everyone at our expense because you believe we are too dumb to do that for ourselves?

This is why the drug warriors are losing the War on Drugs (the title of this piece) because Americans know better, or at least 55 percent of us according to Gallup, that marijuana isn’t as bad as the drug warriors say.  The same argument from drug warriors against marijuana can be made against alcohol as well because they’ve tried it and are familiar with the resulting hangovers and feeling like hell the next morning.  In a many cases, they have tried marijuana as well and know that it doesn’t kill them right away or sicken them.

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