Forbes Magazine: ‘BREAKING NEWS: Jim Jordan Quotes Jen Psaki’s Own Words To Make Case Government Was Censoring Speech’

BREAKING NEWS_ Jim Jordan Quotes Jen Psaki's Own Words To Make Case Government Was Censoring SpeechSource:Forbes Magazine– U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (Republican, Ohio) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and former White House press secretary Jen Psaki. Hopefully you don’t need help telling which one is which. If you do, please seek help and get a brain and eye examination as soon as possible.

Source:The New Democrat

“At today’s House Weaponization of the Federal Government Committee hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) accused the government of censoring speech.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more…

From Forbes Magazine

First of all, at risk of stating the obvious: the U.S. Government can’t legally and probably not constitutionally, prevent private media companies from reporting on things and issues that are not classified. Hopefully Representative Jim Jordan (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) already knows that. But he doesn’t always come off as a sharp knife in the drawer, except perhaps when he’s stabbing someone in the back with a knife.

Jen Paski or any other Biden White House official can talk all they want about preventing this media company or that media company from reporting on anything. But legally and constitutionally they can’t.

All the evidence you need to know this (assuming you are not familiar with the 1st Amendment) is to go back to March, 2017 when NBC News had a negative report about Donald Trump’s White House and President Trump threatened to pull NBC News’s license for their airways. But no one at the Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security, or the Federal Communications Commission, even took then President Trump seriously on that. And Representative Jordan said nothing about President Trump’s empty threat against a private news company back then.

As far as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee; I know he’s a Democrat and he’s officially running against Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries for President, but seriously, was this the best Democrat that Chairman Jordan could get? I guess Marianne Williamson (the hippie spiritualist from California) and Professor Cornel West from Princeton, weren’t available. But listening to Bob Kennedy trying to even put two words together, sounds like he lost his voice giving an all-week Senate filibuster. Not an impressive performance.

Posted in Forbes Magazine, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Lead With Jake Tapper: Joe Biden Trolls Marjorie Taylor Greene in New Campaign Ad

Biden trolls Marjorie Taylor Greene in new campaign adSource:CNN– Marjorie T. Greene is President Biden’s new spokeswoman. No, not really. But that’s what she sounds like in this commercial.

Source:The New Democrat

“President Joe Biden posted a campaign ad promoting his legislative wins by using clips from a recent speech GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene gave at the Turning Point Action Conference, where she compared Biden to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. The Lead panel discusses.”

From CNN

I guess just to play devil’s advocate here (perhaps just because I’m not a very partisan Democrat) I could say that if President Biden needs MAGA spokeswoman and leader Marjorie Taylor Greene, (who technically doesn’t serve in the nuthouse, just lives there mentally, but serves in the U.S. House) then the President is in a lot of trouble.

Imagine being buried in debt: you just just lost your job, you’ve been living paycheck to paycheck because you’ve been overspending, even when you were working and now you are about to lose your house and car, no one is even talking to you about giving you a job interview. Sounds pretty desperate, doesn’t it. But wait.

Joe Loanshark (a made up character) says he has a great deal for you. He’ll pay off all your debt for you and even give you a job, but you have to pay 100% interest on all your debt for the next 20 years. Otherwise he’ll take your house, car, fire you from your new job, as well as your arm and leg, literally. Again, I’m playing devil’s advocate here as a nonpartisan Democrat, I could see President Biden using Representative Marjorie T. Greene supposed support here, as an act of desperation.

But what this commercial here really is, is catching a hyper-partisan, far-right, firebrand, from rural Georgia, who can only get elected to even the U.S. House, in a very far-right, Republican, gerrymandered district, essentially on a hot mic. Or to put in legal terms: catching the defendant on tape, using her own words against her and then presenting it to the jury to convict her. And it’s brilliant, because the Biden Campaign can say: “See, if even the Marjorie T. Greene’s of the world approve of what we’re doing, then we must be doing something right.”

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

The McLaughlin Group: January 22, 1993

The New Democrat_ The McLaughlin Group_ January 22, 1993Source:The McLaughlin Group– perhaps no further explanation needed here. I sure hope so.

Source:The New Democrat

“This episode of The McLaughlin Group (which is incomplete, by the way) originally aired on Friday, January 22, 1993 — two days after Bill Clinton was inaugurated President. Panelists are Fred Barnes, Eleanor Clift, Chris Matthews (filling in for Jack Germond) and Mort Kondrake.”

From The McLaughlin Group

As far as Bill Clinton’s 1993, inaugural, I think there are great reasons why William Jefferson Clinton gets compared with John Fitzgerald Kennedy: tall, handsome, youthful looking, very funny, optimistic, etc, but there’s an even better reason than that.

If you watch and listen to President Clinton’s speech here, he’s not promising the world to everyone and telling them that it’s not going to cost anyone anything, expect for perhaps maybe the wealthy. He talks about the challenges that the country is facing and then talks about how the country can address them and how we’ll be better off in the long run together. Instead of we can solve all our problems right now with this program, that program, and another program, and it’s not going to cost anyone anything, expect for perhaps the wealthy.

Another reason why WJC gets compared with each other has to do with rhetoric.

In JFK’s 1961 inaugural, he says: “Ask not what you can do for your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

In 1993, WJC says: “There’s nothing wrong with America, that can’t be fixed with what’s right with America.” And then he gets into things like if you commit yourself to public service and the country, you can go to college for free. He was talking about empowering Americans, especially young Americans, who are struggling and need a break to get started in America and make it in America on their own.

As far as Bill Clinton’s early struggles early on and not just his first two years, but first month, if you think about it: imagine waking up and finding yourself on another planet for the first time in your life and having know idea even where you are, expect that you know that you are in charge of this huge organization known as the executive branch of the United States Government. That’s what the Clinton Administration looked like in early 1993.

The Clinton White House looked like Amateur Days At The White House, seeming to have no idea where they were and what they were supposed to be doing. And it cost them, as well as the Democratic Party in those first two years, especially 1993. 1994, expect for the Congressional elections where the Democratic Party lost both the House and Senate, was much better for them politically and operationally, with real accomplishments under their belt, including 2 popular Supreme Court justices at that point.

Posted in Classic McLaughlin Group, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Frank DiStefano: ‘The Left-Right Political Spectrum is a Myth!’

Frank DiStefano_ 'The Left-Right Political Spectrum is a Myth!'Source:Frank DiStefano talking about the American political spectrum.

Source:The New Democrat

“The left-right political spectrum that many of us were taught is a myth. It doesn’t actually exist. There is no accepted way to line up every idea of the human imagine into one neat line. No one has ever figured out any one value we can use to define something as left or right in the first place. Political ideals don’t actually line up into a “left,” a “right,” or a “center” in between them.

In this episode, we demonstrate why the left right spectrum doesn’t really exist. It in the French Revolution as a metaphor from the to describe the historical political debate of that time and place, the fight between republicanism and monarchy. Yet no one in politics today is still arguing for hereditary kings and queens. Over time, left and right became convenient shorthand for the two political coalitions that inevitably emerge in democratic systems based on majority rule. That’s all they now mean. We have two coalitions in society. We call one left and the other rights. Whatever those coalitions happen to support at any moment of history then becomes a “left” or “right” issue.

Scholars and thinkers have tried over time to distil some other consistent reason to call things left or right. Nobody has really succeeded. From ideas about comfort with change, to the big five personality traits, to the moral reasoning theories of thinkers like Jonathan Haidt, no theory fully accounts for the actual parties of modern politics as they actually exist. If we have no acceptable way to define the “left” or “right” then the entire framework naturally falls apart.

And of course. It was silly to ever think that all the countless ideas and policies of societies could ever be reduced to one simply line in the first place, much less one that works for all times and places. The left-right spectrum is the unfortunate result of a centuries-old metaphor about seating arrangements run wild.”

From Frank DiStefano

Instead of wasting your time and more importantly mine (at least to me) talking about the French Revolution, (something I know as much about as your average auto mechanic knows about astronomy) I’m just going to talk about the American political spectrum and try to give you an idea who is on the right ideologically, whose on the left ideologically and how far right or left certain political factions are.

According to the mainstream media, as well as people are who are closeted political factions and not politically comfortable admitting who they are ideologically, (sort of like escaped prison inmates who are worried about being recaptured) the more conservative someone is, the more right-wing (lets say) and the more left-wing someone is (lets say) the more liberal they are.

So according to this most ridiculous political theory, the most conservative people in the world, or at least in America, are racist, nationalistic terrorists, who murder people that they don’t like ethnically, racially, religiously, and culturally.

And according to the so-called mainstream political theory, the most liberal people in the world, or at least in America, would be Communists, because Communists believe in the most government and least amount of freedom of all the political factions, including nationalist-religious-theocrats. Because Communists want a huge national state, that clamps down on both personal and economic freedom.

I could give political cultural stereotypes about who the most conservative and liberal people in the world, or at least in America are as well.

The most conservative person in the world, or at least in America, (according to the so-called mainstream media) are basically right-wing, fundamentalist rednecks, who come from and live in smallest towns possible, that are dominated by one particular ethnic and racial, as well as religious group, whose families have been in America since before the American Revolution. (A revolution I know a little more about than the French Revolution) And the only time that they’re ever in a big city, or even a midsize city, is when they’re serving in public office. Because you really couldn’t operate a state capital or the Federal capital in a town of 10,000 people or less, because it wouldn’t have the infrastructure for that.

And the most liberal person in the world, or at least in America, (according to the so-called mainstream media:

is basically an urban, antiestablishment, hipster, revolutionary.

This really liberal person, (according to the mainstream media) who if he’s a man, rarely if ever shaves or gets a haircut, but if the person is a man or woman, they wear military fatigues, (while claiming to be antimilitary)

who claims capitalist is a racist economic system, (while taking advantage of everything that American capitalism and liberal democracy has to offer and not just the coffee house coffee and new technology, high-end fashions and food, etc)

who says that free speech is bigoted, (while taking advantage of everything that the First Amendment has to offer and not just on social media and political rallies and attacking people that they disagree with)

who says that personal freedom is dangerous and just leads to bad choices that the rest of society has to pay for, (supporters of the nanny state) while taking advantage of all the personal freedom that they can get their hands on and making on the personal choices for themselves that they can

who claims to be a pacifist, but willing to use violence to achieve their political objectives

who claim eating meat is animal cruelty or murder, while wearing leather jackets and boots and other leather clothing

who claim to be spiritual but not religious (trying wrapping your brain around that)

who says that America a racist, evil empire, and the real terrorist state in the world. (Yet there is no other country in the world that they rather live in)

My larger point here, is that you have left and right, liberal and conservative. But left doesn’t equal liberal and right doesn’t equal conservative. If political definitions still mean anything, (and I mean anything in the world) if you are actually a Liberal, you believe in liberty. Two words that actually come from liberal, are liberty and liberate. That doesn’t sound communist or socialist. Now does it?

If you are actually a Conservative, even in a political sense, you believe in conserving, you believe in tradition, you believe in conserving what works and protecting what works in the economy and country at large. Where do you see blowing up the system and establishment and locking people up who disagree with you, or whose lifestyle that you don’t approve of, in the word conservative?

If you want to go left and right to talk about political factions, I’m fine with that in order to try to distinguish all the political factions, not just in America, but in the world as well.

Just don’t use liberal as another way of saying left or left-wing, because liberal in actuality, is on the opposite side of communist and socialist, on most issues. Socialists and Communists are always looking to expand the size of the national state, to do more good for the people. (At least that’s what they say) Liberals are always looking to expand freedom for more people and that generally doesn’t involve expanding government to do that.

And don’t use conservative as another way of saying right or right-wing, because again conservatism is about conserving, pure and simple. It’s not about blowing up the establishment and reforming the way society, the country, and the way the government is supposed to work. But instead conserving what already works.

If you think about it, Donald Trump and his followers, are probably the least conservative people in America, because they’re always looking to blow up the establishment and centralize more authority for themselves, even as it relates to the U.S. Government.

And Socialists and Communists are the most illiberal (meaning not liberal) people in the world because of all their crackdowns on property rights, personal freedom and free speech.

But according to the so-called mainstream media, the most anti-conservative people, are the most conservative. And the most illiberal (meaning not liberal) people, are the most liberal. Th perfect examples of how left doesn’t equal liberal and right doesn’t equal conservative.

Posted in Frank DiStefano, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Movie Clips: Goldfinger (1964) ‘I Expect You to Die’

The New Democrat_ Movie Clips_ Goldfinger (1964) 'I Expect You to Die'Source:Movie Clips– Gurt Frobe as Mr. Goldfinger.

Source:The New Democrat

“CLIP DESCRIPTION:
Bond (Sean Connery) wakes up to find himself tied to a table in the direct path of a large industrial laser, while Goldfinger (Gert Frobe) watches from the side.”

From Movie Clips

As I talked about yesterday on The New Democrat  about Goldfinger (played by Gurt Frobe) sending James Bond (played by Sean Connery) the message this is what happens when you try to screw with him, well in this scene, Goldfinger is sending Bond a different message.

In this scene, Goldfinger is telling Bond, this is what happens when you’ve already screwed with him, you get fried like an egg, in the desert, on a sunny day, by a laser. With Captain Smartass (or whatever James Bond ran in the Secret Intelligence Service is) literally having to talk his way out of this, or he’ll be fried like an egg, by a laser.

A couple other things that stand out in this scene:

Gurt Frobe’s thick German accent. Of course most, if not all Germans speak English, even in Germany, at least as a 2nd language and most if not all of them speak it very well, same thing in Scandinavia and Holland. But Gurt’s accent is very distinguish with the way he says: “No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die” and when he tells Bond, as Bond is literally trying to talk his way out of death: “You know nothing, Mr. Bond” that really gets my attention as well, because of how well-delivered those lines are with his German accent.

Posted in Classic Movies, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Frank DiStefano: ‘Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Campaign, Why Wilson Wasn’t Really a Progressive!’

The New Democrat_ Frank DiStefano_ 'Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Campaign, Why Wilson Wasn't Really a Progressive!'Source:Frank DiStefano– talking about Theodore Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson.

“In this episode, we talk about Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 “Bull Moose” Progressive Party campaign and the three-way presidential contest over progressivism.

The 1912 election involved three candidates, Republican William Howard Taft, Progressive Party candidate Teddy Roosevelt, Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Taft was a former close adviser of Roosevelt who Roosevelt had handpicked as his successor in 1908 because he believed Taft a solid progressive who would continue his progressive legacy. Roosevelt was a progressive champion as president who was now running on an even stronger progressive agenda as the head of a new Progressive Party. Wilson, a Democrat with a Southern small-government Jeffersonian background who had only entered politics two year before, now also claimed to be a progressive too.

America had a three-way presidential race. All three candidates had a solid claim on progressivism.

This epic race brought the great debate William Jennings Bryan launched in 1896 to its conclusion. America had struggled over how to reform its institutions to adapt to a new industrial economy. The Republican Party’s progressive agenda to address that problem was now so popular every candidate in a three-way race wanted to identify as a progressive. The great debate of America’s Fourth Party System was essentially resolved.

We talk in this episode about how Roosevelt, facing forced retirement after finishing two presidential terms, picked his good friend Taft to carry on his legacy. How he became disappointed with Taft while sitting on the sidelines, as he desperately wanted to get back into the ring and win his old job back. And how we decided to launch a comeback seeking a third term—at the time only prohibited by tradition and not yet law—splitting the Republican Party and leading to him launching a new Progressive Party as a vehicle for his agenda.

We also talk about how Woodrow Wilson, despite embracing the progressive movement and enacting progressive reforms, wasn’t really philosophically progressive.

Roosevelt run in 1912 on his philosophically progressive New Nationalism program, which demanded a stronger government to supervise a more complex industrial economy with big national businesses. Wilson countered with a program he called the New Freedom, rejecting bigness in both government and industry. Wilson invented a new small-government version of progressivism. Instead of federal regulation and supervision, Wilson would have a small government selectively intervene to break up private power, allowing the market to do the rest. Roosevelt’s program involved a powerful active government supervising large businesses. Wilson’s involved a small government intervening to maintain small businesses—a program that philosophically sounds a lot more like Jeffersonian Bourbon Democrats than progressivism.

Through Wilson’s presidency, America tumbled into the First World War. Then came the Roaring Twenties. America was prosperous, people were happy, and the Populist and Progressive Era of national reform came to its end. Setting America up for another realignment and the start of its next political party system, our Fifth Party System of New Deal liberals and modern conservatives that still rules today.”

From Frank DiStefano

“The term “Progressive” was broadly defined, encompassing a wide array of policies and ideologies – often in contradiction with one another – which sought to mitigate social and economic inequalities at the turn-of-the-20th century. The era witnessed the rapid expansion and overcrowding of cities, inadequate housing, unregulated labor, poor public health, farmer indebtedness and sharecropping – especially for southern Blacks, child labor, and the emergence of a wealth gap in which 1% of Americans owned nearly 90% of the nation’s wealth. While their solutions differed and often conflicted, Progressives shared the view that a proactive, expanded government was necessary to fix society’s ills.

Progressives in both the Republican and Democratic Parties (including, but not limited to, socialists, populists, and anarchists) sought solutions in the form of child labor laws, women’s suffrage, unionization, public health services, Black civil rights, and economic regulation and taxes AS WELL AS immigration restriction, segregation, and the prohibition of alcohol. All of these ideologies could fall within the “Progressive” umbrella.

Woodrow Wilson claimed his place within the Progressive movement with his economic reform package, “the New Freedom.” This agenda, which passed congress at the end of 1913, included tariff, banking, and labor reforms and introduced the income tax. Wilson also expanded the executive branch with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service. His emphasis on efficiency and bureaucracy fit him squarely within the Progressive movement.

During Wilson’s terms, Congress passed two constitutional amendments: prohibition (18th); and women’s suffrage (19th)—both Progressive agendas. Another amendment was ratified while Wilson was President: direct election of Senators (17th) on April 8th 1913. (The 16th amendment, which concerns income tax, was ratified in February 1913, after Wilson was elected but before he took office. The ratification was proclaimed by Taft’s Secretary of State, Philander Knox).

Wilson’s Progressive legacy was also solidified through the appointment of his close friend Justice Louis Brandies to the Supreme Court as the first Jewish American to sit on the nation’s highest court. Justice Brandeis was a staunch proponent of the right to free speech and the right to privacy while he supported the regulation of business and anti-monopoly legislation championed by Wilson’s economic plan.

Wilson also embraced and encouraged new technology. He opened the Panama Canal, started airmail service, endorsed the creation of an interstate highway system, appeared in one of the first filmed campaign advertisements, used a microphone for the amplification of his voice, and witnessed the birth of radio.

These accomplishments, however, were all too often achieved at the expense of African Americans, women, immigrants, and Native Americans. Legal scholars have revealed the ways in which the income tax codes and banking policies often disadvantaged African American families. What is more, Wilson couched his embrace of segregation as part of his Progressive commitment to efficiency, arguing (insincerely) that segregation reduced friction among federal workers and increased productivity. And though Wilson vetoed the 1917 Immigration Law which established the Asiatic Barred Zone and a Literacy Test for entry, along with other restrictive measures, he nonetheless voices support for much of the law and his veto was ultimately overridden.”

From the Wood Wilson House

As I mentioned yesterday on The New Democrat , Theodore Roosevelt was a true Progressive. Which means means he wasn’t a Socialist or some other type of leftist (democratic or otherwise) who just calls himself a Progressive, because Socialist and even Democratic Socialist, and especially Communist, is simply not viable for them politically, for all sorts of reasons. The Woodrow Wilson House has an excellent definition of Progressive:

“The term “Progressive” was broadly defined, encompassing a wide array of policies and ideologies – often in contradiction with one another – which sought to mitigate social and economic inequalities at the turn-of-the-20th century.”

I call myself a Liberal (or Classical Liberal if you prefer) because even though I believe in limited government, property rights, (both economic and personal) personal and economic freedom, I’m not a Libertarian because I’m not antigovernment. Which is basically what Libertarians are today. And because I believe in moving forward, like a true Progressive. That’s what I like and respect most about the progressive ideology (if you want to call it an ideology) because it’s about moving forward and making things better and using a limited government to help create that progress.

Today’s definition of Progressive, is basically about how mush one believes in government, especially the national government. The more government, especially national government that you believe in, the more Progressive you’re supposed to be, even if all that government and spending doesn’t actually lead to progress and actually leads to regression. Like clamp downs on property rights, prohibiting language or personal activities that might be offensive to others, or comes with real risks.

As far as Woodrow Wilson, I don’t think you can define either as a Progressive, Liberal, or Conservative, even though he had things in common with all 3 of those political factions.

Woodrow was progressive on economic policy like with new regulations to help workers and calls for Unemployment Insurance for workers when they lose their jobs, the women’s right to vote happened on his watch.

Woodrow was liberal when it came foreign policy when it came to his push for the League of Nations, which was 30 years before its time and push for America to work with its allies to prevent dictators from coming to power in Europe.

But Woodrow Wilson is basically the father of Jim Crow, at least at the Federal level, with his push to segregate by race the Federal agencies and those policies got pushed to the state level as well.

I hate to say this as a Democrat, but Woodrow Wilson’s allies today, if he was a politician a 100 years later, would be part of the MAGA Nationalist movement, at least the alt-right, militant wing of that movement. That movement would rip up the civil rights laws, if they got the chance and seriously weaken the Equal Protection Clause and our Right to Privacy, probably weaken the free press in this country, and try to consolidate the American presidency and make our Federal departments and agencies a lot of independent of The White House.

But Teddy Roosevelt, was a true Progressive and a great Progressive and represented perhaps half of the Republican Party when it was the Grand Ole Party, that had two, strong, center-right factions in it: the TR Progressive wing and a conservative wing, that was led by people like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater and later Ronald Reagan.

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

Movie Clips: Goldfinger (1964) Oddjob

Movie Clips_ Goldfinger (1964) OddjobSource:Movie Clips– Goldfinger’s (played by Gert Frobe) henchman (played by Harold Sakata)

Source:The New Democrat

“CLIP DESCRIPTION:
Frustrated with the outcome of his two encounters with Bond (Sean Connery), Goldfinger (Gert Frbe) has his henchman, Oddjob (Harold Sakata), show the spy what happens to people who meddle in his affairs.”

From Movie Clips

Goldfinger (played by Gert Frobe) is essentially telling James Bond (played. by Sean Connery) that Bond doesn’t want to screw with him, or this is what will happen to him. Goldfinger’s henchman (played by Harold Sakata) will crush Bond.

You don’t become the top field agent at the Secret Intelligence Service (which is the British version of the CIA) by being intimidated by the yes-men (which is being nice) of the international terrorists and criminals that you are going after.

Oddjob (played by Harold Sakata) was Goldfinger’s musclebound dog, who if Goldfinger asked him to swim from London, from Washington, Oddjob would probably say something like: “I could use a long swim” and wouldn’t think twice about how impossible that is and then would try to complete that swim from London to Washington. Oddjob was in Bond’s way as far as putting Goldfinger out-of-business, but he wasn’t going to stop him.

Posted in Classic Movies, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Frank DiStefano: ‘The Historical Progressive Movement & The Republicans: The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt’

The Historical Progressive Movement and The Republicans _ The Rise of Teddy RooseveltSource:Frank DiStefano talking about Theodore Roosevelt & The Progressive Era.

Source:The New Democrat

“In this episode, we talk about how the Republican Party came to embrace the historical Progressive Movement during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.

The Progressive Movement was less a single movement than a new reformist spirit that swept across America, particularly among the urban middle class and well to do. It believed we could use the novel tools of social science to plan American society to yield more efficient, just, and moral results.

Progressives included political activists, journalists, politicians, preachers and muckraking journalists. They took on an ambitious agenda of reforms reaching nearly every aspect of society from stopping child labor, limiting abusive work hours, creating public schools, purifying food and medicine, enacting women’s suffrage, creating public green spaces, prohibiting alcohol, ending public corruption, and instilling efficiency in both public institutions and private business.

Overall, it was a movement uniting morality and social science to address the new problems of industrialization then transforming America. And under the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, progressives became the most powerful faction within the Republican Party. They worked within the party with its pro-business faction, made up of the Yankee aristocracy and represented by figures like Calvin Coolidge, who believed in the work ethic and the Republican ideal of the sanctity of labor.

These historical progressives, moreover, weren’t exactly the same as modern progressives. They weren’t interested in empowered the poor, workers, or immigrants like Bryan’s populists. There were committed interested in uplifting and “improving” them into version of American protestant middle class morality.

America had begun a new national debate. On one side stood Bryan’s populist Democrats, representing the interests of the farmers and workers the new industrial economy had left behind. On the other stood Roosevelt’s progressive Republicans, representing the urban middle class and professionals concerned about industrial abuses in the cities. America left behind the Third Party System’s Gilded Age debate over the resentments of the Civil War for its Fourth Party System, launching into a new era of reform under the Populist and Progressive Era.”

From Frank DiStefano

“The period of US history from the 1890s to the 1920s is usually referred to as the Progressive Era, an era of intense social and political reform aimed at making progress toward a better society.

Progressive Era reformers sought to harness the power of the federal government to eliminate unethical and unfair business practices, reduce corruption, and counteract the negative social effects of industrialization.

During the Progressive Era, protections for workers and consumers were strengthened, and women finally achieved the right to vote.”

From Khan Academy

The Khan Academy definition of progressive and progressivism is very close to what I believe are the real definitions of that faction and political philosophy. My official definition of Progressive is someone who believe in progress (which is where progressive comes from) but also someone who believes in progress through government action.

Real Progressives (or Classical Progressives, if you prefer) do not believe in total equality at all costs, including at the expense of individual freedom and individual rights and incentivizing government dependence over individualism and independence. Which is what today’s Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists tend to believe, that somehow individual independence is not a good thing and leads to things like materialism and inequality. And what you need to do instead is to discourage economic independence through high taxes, high regulations, and a big national government.

If you look at the word progress, it means to move forward, make things better than they were better, at least in a political and governmental sense. Again, I’m not talking about total equality or perfection, but very practical way of governing and being able to bring people together and make the society freer for more people.

Contrary to what a lot of hyper-partisan right-winers, including Libertarians, but let’s say populist Republicans today say, Progressives actually do believe in the concept of a free society and most if not not all the liberal values that America was founded on. Like the right for individuals to be left alone and be able to live their own life and not be harassed by government because they believe big government knows what’s best for everyone.

The difference between the Progressive (Republican or Democrat) and a Conservative and Libertarian, is the Progressive believes that individual freedom should be for everyone. Not just for people who are born to wealth and have great parents. And that government has a role to see to it that every American has the opportunity to live in a free society as well.

This is why Progressives believe in public education, public infrastructure, a regulatory state to protect consumers and workers, but not to run businesses, and a public safety net for people who truly need it and fall through the cracks of the capitalist economy, to help people get back on their feet or on their feet for the first time, but not to try to run their lives for them.

If Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican in the 1940s, he would’ve been a Tom Dewey Republican or Tom Dewey would’ve been a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

If Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican in the 1950s, he would’ve been a Dwight Eisenhower Republican, or Ike would’ve been a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

If Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican in the 1960s, he would’ve been a Nelson Rockefeller Republican, or Nellie would’ve been a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

If Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican in the 1970s, Teddy would’ve been a Richard Nixon Republican, at least in an economic and foreign policy sense, nothing to do with Watergate or the other abuses of power from the Nixon Administration. Or, Dick Nixon would’ve been with Teddy in the Republican Party on economic and foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt was actually a political hero or both Richard Nixon and John McCain. Something for political junkies and partisans to think about.

It’s hard to come up with many if any solid Roosevelt/Eisenhower national Republicans of the 1980s and 90s, because the Conservative Libertarians and Christian-Right started taking over the Republican Party by then. But Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush, at least when Herbert Walker was not Vice President of the United States and when Bob Dole wasn’t running for President in 1996, they were both Progressive Republicans. People who could work very well with Conservative Republicans and Progressive Democrats to accomplish great things.

I guess my broader point here is, Progressive, Socialist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Communist, and Neo-Communist, don’t all mean the same thing. They’re not all part of the same political philosophy, with multiple labels. Real Progressives, like Teddy Roosevelt, but his cousin Franklin, Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, actually look pretty liberal, (at least in the classical sense) meaning they are to the right (not to the left) of the Bernie Sanders of the world and his left-wing colleagues in Congress today.

Progressives aren’t looking for utopia, but simply create a society where as many Americans as possible can have the same freedom and be able to live their lives freely and not be dependent on public assistance. Not to be completely taken care of and never have to worry about having to do anything for themselves. Which again, which is what Socialists tend to believe that real progress is not good enough and you need a government big enough to create that utopia for everyone.

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

Forbes Magazine: ‘Sparks Fly Between Jim Jordan, Adam Schiff’

'Yes Or No_!'_ Sparks Fly Between Jim Jordan, Adam Schiff, And More In Epic Supreme Court DebateSource:Forbes Magazine– left to right: U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (Democrat, California) & U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (Republican, Ohio) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Source:The New Democrat

“At a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) proposed an amendment for a code of ethics on federal courts to a bill that led to debate among other lawmakers.”

From Forbes Magazine

Representative Adam Schiff makes a couple good points about the U.S. Supreme Court:

The only position in the U.S. Government that’s not accountable to anyone, is the U.S. Justice, including the U.S. Chief Justice, as well as every other Federal judge in this country. They’re appointed for life, which means they can’t be fired and only can be impeached and convicted in Congress. Which almost never happens and only happens when one judge is so unpopular in both parties and obviously completely corrupt.

The other good point that Representative Schiff makes, has to do with U.S. Justice corruption issues. They need an enforceable code of ethics. Not just because of Justice Clarence Thomas, but for the entire court.

My answer about packing the U.S. Supreme Court: elections have consequences. Hypocrisy in Congress is about as common as heat and humidity, as well as traffic jams in Washington, especially in the summer. Had left-wing Democrats bothered to vote in 2014 and 16, Democrats hold the Senate and Mitch McConnell never becomes Senate Majority Leader, a position that he had from 2015-21, when the Republicans got 3 Supreme Court justices.

Posted in Forbes Magazine, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Basketball Time Machine: ‘NBA Legends Explain Why Larry Bird Was Better Than Everybody’

NBA Legends Explain Why Larry Bird Was Better Than EverybodySource:Basketball Time Machine– Sir Charles Barkley talking about Larry Legend Bird.

Source:The New Democrat

“In this Video NBA Legends explain why Larry Bird was Better than everybody
Larry Bird, larry Bird highlights, larry Bird Boston Celtics, Larry Bird Trash Talk,
Larry Bird funny Moments,
Larry Bird 2022, nba legends on larry Bird, Larry Bird open court, michael jordan Larry Bird, Larry Bird Clutch Moments, NBA Legends explain Larry Bird, Larry Bird Full Game, Larry Bird documentary, Larry Bird dennis rodman…

From the Basketball Time Machine

I’ll put it this way, Larry Bird was better than everyone in this video. I didn’t see Earvn Johnson or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Michael Jordan in it. I got Kareem down as the NBA GOAT and then I would let Larry, Earvin, Michael, and Wilt Chamberlain, battle it out for 2nd place.

As I explained on The New Democrat  on Monday, what made Larry Bird better than practically everyone else, including Michael Jordan, is he dominated the game mentally and through preparation. He was always a step ahead of everyone else, including his own freakin head coach K.C. Jones, whose in the Hall of Fame, the best coach that Larry ever played for, one of the best head coaches ever, probably a top 10.

I didn’t see the Charles Barkley comment on Larry Bird that matches up with anything in the caption in this photo, but he did have this to say to sports talk show host Dan Patrick about Larry Bird:

“Am I better than Bird? Man, that’s a great question. I’m a better rebounder. I’m probably a better defender. He’s a better shooter, obviously…It’s a team game…I do things better than him. If you give me Parish, McHale, and DJ imma be alright.”

From the Basketball Network

With all due respect to Charles Barkley, Sir Charles knows a helluva lot better. Of course Larry played for better teams, but that’s not the point. It’s what you do with the team that you play for and how you make them better and what you personally accomplish yourself.

Barkley is one of the best offensive players in NBA history, but probably not even one of the 50 greatest NBA players ever because he wasn’t a great NBA defender and was a liability defensively as a forward because he couldn’t guard the 3 or 4 very well.

Posted in NBA Greatest, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment