CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen- 'The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in (1967)'

Source:CP Harding- interviewing Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, in 1967.

“Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of Civil Rights legislation. Dirksen served in the Senate from 1951 to 1969 and was seen quite often on the evening television news shows. His banter with newsmen Walter Cronkite and Roger Mudd and his unmistakable “raspy” voice made him famous throughout the country and the world.

This video was shot in Southern Illinois in 1967 or 1968 and features a young reporter (CP Harding) from WSIU Television (Southern Illinois University) asking Senator Dirksen just one question for a proposed children’s news program. Toward the end of the interview the reporter becomes concerned because he was getting a signal that they were almost out of film….and Senator Dirksen just kept talking.” 

From CP Harding

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (1959-69) explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is (or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video) when he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values.

Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

Conservatism when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism.

Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn’t become law, because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation.

Minority Leader Dirksen, didn’t believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually, more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s, because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield (1961-77) and President Lyndon Johnson. (1963-69) They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress that would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neo-Confederate or Tea Party Republicans today, like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s, because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration, conservatism, on foreign policy is about, yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can’t defend themselves against large aggressors, but only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today: Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s.

But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn’t able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they’ve been a pretty powerful party ever since. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- William F. Buckley: 'Drug Legalization'

Source:Liberty Pen- William F. Buckley Jr, on The Open Mind With Richard Heffner, in 1996.

"Buckley makes a compelling case for legalizing drugs to Richard Heffner (Open Mind, 1996). Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

How has the War on Drugs in America has failed, well where should I start because people could write books answering that question and there have been books written answering that question. 

The answer to why the so-called War on Dugs has failed is fairly simple to me: because we've treated narcotic addicts like criminals instead of patients that they they are. Drug addicts who have just broken narcotic laws, like possessing or using narcotics, heroin, cocaine, etc, and I'm not talking about narcotic dealers are treated like criminals and sent to jail and prison for only hurting themselves and not other people. 

When someone can go to a bar and get wasted on alcohol and get a ride home because they are drunk out of their mind, but wake up with a hangover the next day and go about their lives. Even though they've committed the same action as someone who smoked one joint, but are actually worst off by getting drunk and losing brain cells, felt a little different, but didn't lose their senses at all. But the pot smoker could end up in jail and perhaps doing 3-5 in prison just for smoking and possessing a joint or perhaps both crimes. And let's say the drunk makes a bad call and decides to drive home instead, they would be arrested for drunk driving obviously, but not getting drunk. 

Part of my point here is that the whole so-called War on Drugs is nonsense because of how hypocritical it is. Sending drug addicts to prison, first of all for just hurting themselves, sends the message that Uncle Sam knows best and has to protect the people from themselves. Instead of treating adults like adults and letting us live our own lives and making these decisions for ourselves. 

Drug addicts end up in prison where they get no help for their addiction and if anything are more addictive from the time they spent in prison. And have access to other narcotics in prison and get out more addictive and end up back in the prison with the same addiction. You want to know why we have 2M people in prison in America, just look at the population: a lot of them are in there for narcotics related crimes and a lot of them are in there for using and possessing. 

So this is what I would do: first decriminalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol, with the same regulations and taxes. This alone would save our Federal, state, and local budgets on law enforcement because they would stop having to throw people in jail for doing something to themselves and not to others. And would free up valuable resources for law enforcement to go after actual dangerous criminals who hurt innocent people. 

I wouldn't decriminalize heroin, cocaine, meth, etc because of the damage it would bring to our health care system and economy. With all the damage it would bring and the health care costs that would come from it. And people who don't use these narcotics would end up paying for the health care costs of the people who do use these narcotics. And a lot of them wouldn't be able to cover their own health care costs. 

We shouldn't throw these narcotics addicts in prison either, they would be forced into drug rehab and be able to keep themselves out of prison, if they complete rehab successfully. And not have it on their criminal but medical record. And they would pay for their rehab one way or the other not tax payers. This would save our corrections system a lot of time, money and resources that they could concentrate on inmates who need to be in prison. 

Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman once gave a speech about what he called Bad Laws and Bad Laws are laws that are written to protect people from themselves and not protecting innocent people from the harm of others. The War on Drugs in America and in other countries are the perfect example of Bad Laws, because these are laws designed to protect people from themselves and why they don't work.