John Kass: ‘Will Tolerance For The Faithful Be Tolerated?’

Source:Chicago Tribune- columnist John Kass.

“With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.” 

From Real Clear Politics 

I already talked about this in my piece about what Jack Hunter wrote on so-called social conservatives, that you can see here:The FreeState. 

As I pointed out in that piece when it comes to Conservatives and conservatism, I guess it depends on what you mean by Conservative and conservatism. Conservative to me is about conserving. And when you’re talking about politics and government, a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution for everyone. Not just Anglo-Saxons and perhaps other European-Americans, or just for Protestants, or just for straights, but everyone, including gays.

If you really are a Conservative, I don’t think the question shouldn’t be: “What’s the conservative position on same-sex-marriage?” The question should be: “What’s the Federal Government’s role if any here?”

Marriage has traditionally a state issue. I don’t think you change that because we now have states that recognize gays as Americans and human beings who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else and therefor it’s now time for Uncle Sam to step and just regulate marriage for the entire country, but perhaps other social issues that have traditionally been handled by the states. For the simple reason that we’re a Federal Republic that has sovereign states that get to regulate social policy within their own state.

Of course you can be a Conservative and say that same-sex-marriage is wrong and homosexuality is bad as a whole. But you can’t make a constitutional conservative case for the Federal Government stepping in and taking over functions that have always been left to the states. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jack Hunter: ‘Libertarianism For Social Conservatives’

Source:The American Conservative- talk about your political odd couples: Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

“At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

Part of the beauty of libertarianism is that you can be socially liberal or socially conservative and subscribe to the label. For the millions of social conservatives who constitute a significant base of the Republicans Party, embracing libertarianism is not an all-or-nothing question of accepting or rejecting deep convictions about life, traditional marriage, or drug regulation. It simply means rethinking the approach to these issues.

The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?

The protection of innocent life is the number one concern of millions of Americans in both parties. Most pro-lifers believe that Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound, and indeed, some pro-choice advocates even admit that the legal reasoning was flawed. Given the gravity of what’s at stake, it is understandable that many would demand federal protection of the unborn.” 

From The American Conservative 

I guess I’m just old fashion here, but when I think of the term conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving. And when I think of conservative in a political and governmental sense, I think of someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution. Not someone who wants to blow up the U.S. Constitution and our Federal Republic to advance some fundamentalist, religious and cultural agenda and try to stuff their fundamentalism on the rest of the country, with the force of Uncle Sam.

Jack Hunter’s best line in his column was: “The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?” I mean this is what this is about really, which is the role of the Federal Government.

If you really are an American Conservative, do you really believe it’s the role of Uncle Sam to decide social and cultural policy for the rest of the country, as if America is now the United Theocratic or Unitarian States of America and we’re no longer a Federal Republic with sovereign states?

Or do you believe in American traditionalism and are a traditionalist when it comes to culture and religion, but you also understand that America is a Federal Republic with a strong Constitution and there’s only so much for the Federal Government to do constitutionally. And therefor the states are better left to deal with social and cultural policy both constitutionally, but also in practicality, since they’re the folks who are closest to the people.

I don’t think this is a question of whether Conservatives should be opposed to same-sex-marriage, pornography, adultery, gambling, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, dancing, rock culture, hip hop culture, women working and managing and owning businesses, all issues that Rick Santorum and his supporters made part of his 2012 presidential campaign. I think the real question here is whose best to deal with these issues; the states and localities or Uncle Sam? If you are a Federalist and a Constitutionalist, I think the answer is obvious. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Mark Levin: ‘The Republican Party Is Going To Split, And There’s Going To Be Two Parties’

Source:Real Clear Politics- right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin.

“MARK LEVIN: The autopsy report. They don’t even know how to name a report. The autopsy report. Here’s the deal, folks: Reince Priebus was ahead of the Republican National Committee when Romney lost. Why hasn’t he been fired? Why hasn’t he been fired? Karl Rove ran the biggest independent PAC in America, or one of them. He won 1.3% of his races. Why do people keep promoting him? On TV, donors, and so forth. These losers are not going to save the Republican party.

LEVIN: A year ago, a poll was done, it’s not every year, except this year so far, and I believe it’s Gallup, the political ideology of the American people. ‘While 47% of Americans continue to describe their views as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. For the third straight year, conservatives outnumber moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives. I’m giving you this information for a reason.

February, 1, 2013, Gallup did another poll of the individual states. Which ideology outnumbers which ideology in the states? Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 out of the 50 states. So what’s the problem here? Well, the word conservative can be a little ambiguous. But what’s the real problem here? If you’re going into elections and your political party, where every survey and poll shows that Americans identify themselves more as conservatives than liberals, and you can’t beat Barack Obama, what’s the problem here?

The problem is execution. The problem is your being outworked, you’re being outsmarted. The problem is you’re not standing on “conservative principles.” You’re not believable. You’re not an alternative to Obama. You’re not an alternative to Pelosi and Reid. Less and less people view you that way. I mean, I’m amazed by this. When we look at the last thirty years, who was the most successful Republican president electorally? Ronald Reagan. Of course the times have changed, but the principles haven’t. Just apply them, wisely.

That’s like saying, ‘the times have changed, so our Constitution needs to be living and breathing.’ No it doesn’t! These principles are invaluable. These rights are inalienable. The fact that the modern politician in the Republican party is incapable of articulating them and applying them to modern society is the problem with that politician. The fact that the chairman of the Republican National Committee can’t do it and the Speaker can’t do is a problem with the Republican party and it’s leadership. And damn it, if it’s not changed, if these people aren’t thrown out, we’re going to lose. And the Republican party is going to split, and there’s going to be two parties. (Mark Levin Show, March 18, 2013)”

From Real Clear Politics 

I would argue that in actuality there is already two Republican Party’s in America or at least two political parties that call themselves the Republican Party. It’s just officially there’s just one Republican Party, but in all intense purposes it functions as two political parties but with two names. If you are dizzy now, I understand and I’m not insulted by that.

You have the Grand Ole Party which in my view is the conservative Republican Party made up of a very elite group of Americans that believes in old fashion values like intelligence, hard work, economic freedom, personal freedom, a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility. That’s what the Republican Party was up until the early 1990s when you saw the party split into two political parties ideologically: a Center-Right conservative and a right-wing populist party. And thanks to the Tea Party, the right-wing populists have a bigger role in the Republican Party, the dominant role in the party now.

What Mark Levin and others call Conservatives, are right-wing, religious and cultural populists, who interested in one’s and the country’s religious and cultural values, as well as lifestyle, and even to a certain extent their race and ethnicity, then what someone’s positions on economic and fiscal policy, national security, and the Constitution. You don’t have to be a believer in free trade, pluralism, economic freedom even, to be a member of the Republican Populists. You just have to share their religious and cultural values.

The Democratic Party is going through a similar split with their Center-Left led by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others, versus their left-wing led by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other left-wing Democrats in Congress. This can happen in a country of 320 million people that has in effect a two-party system where there are no other options for the hardcore political partisans, other than the two major political parties. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

AEI: Politics: How Should The Conservative Movement Evolve?: What The Battle of The GOP Should be Between

How should the conservative movement evolve?

If you are talking in cultural sense then I guess Conservatism would be about protecting tradition. This is how things have been done, its got us to this point which is why we shouldn't change and so fourth. Which is how religious and Neoconservatives tend to look at Conservatism. But even though culture and lifestyle are part of politics, its not the only part and when I talk about Conservatism I'm talking about it. In a political sense and what Conservatism means in that sense and thats coming from someone whose not even a Conservative. But someone who loves politics, philosophy, current affairs and history and when I think of Conservatism. I think of people like Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, Ron Reagan, Gerry Ford, Bob Dole, Bill Buckley and others. Men who believed that big government should be out of the boardroom, bedrooms and classrooms. And that individuals should be free to live their own lives and be able to make out of them what they can. Rather then government telling them how to live and what it means to be an American.

Todays GOP debate about the so called future of the GOP tends to be Conservative versus Moderate. And framed in terms of people who always hold to their principles and never compromise. Against people who will compromise for the good of the country and government so it can function and so. Fourth and well if thats the case, the Tea Party and Christian-Right in the Republican Party are the Conservatives. And establishment Republicans are the Moderates because they look Moderate compared with the Christian-Right and Tea Party. But who in America doesn't look Moderate compared with those groups. I have a hard time buying that John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives or. Senator John McCain is a Moderate, just look at their Congressional voting records but they look Moderate compared with the Tea Party. And do work with Democrats in oder to get things done when their party doesn't have all of the power.

To me the debate in the GOP should be between Conservatives who believe in individual freedom. And Neoconservatives and Christian-Theocrats who have this 1950s view of what America is and that we. Should've never evolved from that and the country has gone downhill ever since and we need to move back to that to save the soul of America. The Conservative coalition of today are the Conservative-Libertarians the Rand Paul's of the world and the Northeast-Republicans or what's left of that coalition. Versus the Bible Belt Republicans who would like to return the country back to the 1950s. And if the Conservatives win, the GOP will be back in good shape and stay there for decades to come.

Heritage Foundation: War on Poverty: Robert Rector: Examining the Means-Tested Welfare State: The Role of Social Insurance in America

Examining the Means-tested Welfare State

The public safety net or social insurance is exactly that insurance that we all pay into through taxes and then only collect from it when we need it. Similar to people who buy disaster insurance or something like that for their home and then they can collect from that when their home is hit by a storm. And social insurance does a couple of thing. One it gives money to people so they can survive and pay their bills who otherwise wouldn't be able to do that. But also a role of social insurance is to buy people who are on it time to be able to put their lives together. Look for work, go back to school to get additional schools or be in job training and job fairs and so fourth. And social insurance also provides financial assistance for people to be able to do that and the better it is at helping people move off of public assistance and into or back to the. Workforce the less expensive it is because the fewer people who'll be on it collecting from it and the better it would be for the economy. More people working and paying their own bills with money to spend and so fourth which creates more jobs.

U.S. Representative John Kline: Education and the Workforce: Making Public Assistance Work in America

Education and the Workforce 

As I've blogged before House Leader Eric Cantor has introduced an agenda thats targeted to Americans who don't traditionally vote Republican. As a way to bring new voters into the Republican Party by going after middle class voters and people who aren't doing as well. By showing them how economic Conservatism could work for them and part of that has to do with legislation that was introduced by. Representative John Kline Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee. I haven't read this legislation yet but what I've seen so far is that it builds of what House Republicans did and tried to do in. The mid 1990s with the so called Contract with America where Welfare to Work was a big part of that. Where Welfare would be there to put people back to work and make public assistance in America work for people who are on it. But also for the tax payers as well and what Education and Workforce Republicans are doing here. Is looking to reform the job-training programs in the Federal Government, by consolidating them and expanding the types of training people can get while they are unemployed.

President Obama has already said he's for a similar approach and wants to reform job-training in America. And make Unemployment Insurance pay not just for people to collect money while they are unemployed. But for them to be preparing to go back to work, not just looking for work but getting skills and new skills so they can get themselves a good job. Which to me as a Liberal-Democrat is language I like and what I want to be hearing from people in Congress. That its not the job of government to take care of people but to empower those who need it to be able to take care of themselves. And that part of that assistance is to help them pay their bills while they are not working and are not making enough. Money to be independent but also so they can get themselves the skills that they need so they can get a good job and be independent. Working and taking care of themselves.

There's that old saying that the devil is in the details and if this legislation is a cut and run approach. Meaning you cut peoples assistance or kick them off of public assistance because they've been on it for a certain amount of time. Even if they don't have the skills to be successful in life, then this legislation is dead but if this is real assistance that empowers people to be independent in life. Then this is an area where House Republicans will be able to work with President Obama on.

Washington Times: Opinion: Charles Hurt: "Barack Obama, The Spending Jihadist": The Whole Story of the Budget Mess in Washington

HURT: Barack Obama, the spending jihadist - Washington Times

Not saying that President Obama is innocent in this whole budget showdown and the sequester and so fourth or the debt and deficit. It was President Obama who proposed the sequester probably thinking that House Republicans would do what it took. To prevent the automatic defense cuts from happening and its a gamble that he's losing. Not realizing what House Republicans are really about right now is cutting the size of the Federal Government at all costs. Not wanting to take it out on defense, poor people who have to have the public assistance they get to survive. Sure because they are poor people and where are they going to go to complain to but as long at the end of the say when the budget cuts happen, even if they are across. The board thats what House Republicans run by the Tea Party are about and the economic Libertarian wing of that coalition seems to be in charge. So when Speaker John Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted in the debt ceiling battle in 2011. I bet this was part of what he was talking about.

The main problem that I have with this to go along with the sequester, is that listening to people who were part of. The seven trillion dollars in increase debt spending from 2001-09 under President Bush talk about the debt and deficit. And the need to get these things under control, is like hearing an obese person talk about the need for good diet and exercise. What do they know about that other then what not to do, they don't have much experience if any what it comes to fiscal responsibility or balancing budgets. At least at the Federal level because they've never done it before and were in dead silence when President Bush. Was racking up debt in his eight years but now that there's a Democratic President, they see their opening to. Make the debt and deficit, as well as Great Recession all things that Barack Obama inherited when he became President. As if these things are his fault.

AEI: War on Poverty: Arthur C. Brooks: Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic: How Economic Conservatism Could Appeal to More Americans

Republicans and their faulty moral arithmetic - Society and Culture - AEI

I just wrote a blog on Saturday about how Republicans should save the Republican Party and of course its up to them to save it or not. As a Democrat and as an American I wish they would and coming up with an economic policy that appeals to more then ten percent of the country would be a great start for. Them along with eliminating the Confederate wing of the party as far as running the party and needing them to win elections. But for Republicans to knock the Confederates back, they are simply going to need an economic policy that again appeals to more then just ten percent of Americans and not. Trickle down economics but an economic policy that tells Americans that even if you don't come from wealth. Or aren't doing very well as an adult, the Republican Party is a good place for you because we have an. Economic policy that would empower you to be able to become successful in life. They knock the Confederates down and develop and economic policy that does that and you are once again talking. About the Grand Ole Party a national party that compete across the country with all racial and ethnic groups.

House Leader Eric Cantor and Representative Paul Ryan a potential 2016 Presidential contender last month. Had already started the groundwork of how to make economic Conservatism simply appeal to more Americans. So Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute and others aren't the only people on the right who and believe this. That todays Republican Party is simply not built to last and they need to bring in new voters to survive as a major political party. And an economic policy that appeals to more Americans would be a big start. And I believe its very simple and I'm going to try not to sound like an economic Liberal here which I am but economic Liberalism and economic Conservatism are essentially. Built on the same values but we differ on the role of government.

But Liberal and Conservative common values are essentially this. That all Americans should have a good shot to be successful at life and of course what they do with those opportunities is up to them. But that we should all be able to get a good education and then if we work hard and are productive, should. Be able to keep most of the benefits from our good works. So todays Republicans are right that taxes should be low enough so people are incentivize to work hard and be productive. But the missing link for todays Republicans is how does that benefit people who don't already have the skills to be successful in. Life and thats what they need to complete their economic policy and telling Americans that its not the job of government to take care of you. But what we can do is empower you to be able to take care of yourself and that all Americans are entitled to a good education in life so they never have to live off of. Public assistance as an adult.

What Republicans should be doing is building off of their accomplishments of Welfare reform in 1996. And applying that to the rest of public assistance especially Unemployment Insurance and empowering low income workers. To be able to work better jobs by incentivizing employers to job train their low income employees and for companies to do private job training. Where people on public assistance can go to get the skills that they need to get a good job. And of course education reform so no American is trapped in failing schools that lead to no future that anyone would want to have and they do these. Things then non wealthy Americans would say maybe there's a place in the Republican Party for me.

Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: George W. Bush From 2012

George W. Bush is a difficult topic for me because even I do consider him to be the worst President in my lifetime. All thirty seven years plus of it, I don't see him as evil or a moron that if I had to guess a lot of other if not the majority of other Democrats do. But if you compare President Bush with the Republican Party of today, President Bush is looking pretty. Damn good who was the last Republican Presidential nominee to get at least forty percent of the Latino vote to use as an example. If you look at where the United States was before George Bush became President in 2001 when it came to terrorism. And where it was when he left office in 2009, the country was in better shape at least domestically as far as being able to stop. Terrorist acts before they happened to use as an example, also President Bush wasn't a radical when it came to social issues. The first national Republican to come out in favor civil unions for Homosexuals couples to use as an example. He didn't really push social issues that much at all as President. So compare George Bush with lest say Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, W is looking pretty good right now.

My problems with President Bush have to do with policy decisions especially as it related to the economy. I believe the worst fiscal policy this country has ever seen, whether you want to call it supply side economics. Or what I believe it is what former Democratic Governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean called it, borrow and spend economics. Since President Bush then were so against tax hikes and bringing in new tax revenue across the board or cutting the Federal. Budget in any significant way, so when he and other Republicans wanted to do something that cost a lot of money. Lets say cut taxes by two trillion dollars in 2001 and 2003, or spend seven hundred billion dollars on prescription drugs for Medicare. As we were already at war in Afghanistan and Iraq and borrowing a trillion dollars for those operations. The Bush Administration simply just borrowed trillions of dollars from other countries to pay for those priorities.

The issues with President Bush wasn't that he was some type of right wing radical for the most part. Except in the areas of torture, Patriot Act, indefinite detention but that he simply made bad. Judgement calls and didn't have the leadership skills to tell Americans that we are simply limited in what government can do for the people. And that if you want us to do more for you, these things come at a cost and wasn't willing to ask Americans to pay for things they wanted.

Commentary: Politics: Peter Wehner & Michael Gerson: How to Save the Republican Party

« How to Save the Republican Party Commentary Magazine

I wrote a blog a couple of weeks ago about how to save the Republican Party and asked a bunch of questions like. Is the GOP worth saving and so fourth and just by the title of this blog, you know where I am on that. So I'm not going to go through that again other then to say the Confederate wing of the GOP is not worth saving. If they stay in the GOP or move onto a Confederate third party, that won't be a problem either way for Republicans. As long as the Confederates are no longer running the GOP, because they've gotten back to their Conservative roots and once again yes. Have become a Conservative Party which they aren't right now. Today they are more of Neoconservative/Christian Theocratic Party, with basically anti-democratic leanings towards people who aren't traditional. Republicans and thats simply not good enough in a country thats becoming more minority and less European and more Liberal and Libertarian. And less Authoritarian and more tolerant of all types of Americans.

What the Republican Party is going through right now is actually not much different then what the Democrats went through. In the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, that is as the country then became more Conservative thanks to Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Democrats became more Progressive or Social-Democratic as the New-Left of antiwar Social-Democrats essentially took over the. Democratic Party in an era where Democrats coming off of the Great Society and civil rights movement. Should've been in position to govern into an indefinite future but the Vietnam War and the mishandling of that. Ruin that for Democrats but now as the country is becoming more Liberal and Libertarian and more minority. The Republican Party has moved further to the right and has become more Neoconservative and Theocratic, Statist even. Towards a population that doesn't want that.

What makes this political situation worse for the Republican Party then it was for Democrats forty years ago. Is simply fundamental demographics that are poised to wipeout todays GOP if it doesn't adjust successfully. Because todays GOP is simply dying off as Bible Belt voters are getting older and not being replaced again as the country is becoming more Liberal and Libertarian. And most of the new voters are voting Democratic which is going to hit the GOP hard in Congress over the next few. Elections again if they don't successfully adjust but the good news for the GOP is that their successful future is already there. If they simply embrace it and get behind it and dump the Confederate wing of the party.

Like I said before the problem with the Republican Party is that its not that its too Conservative. But that its not Conservative enough and over the last 10-20 years it has become a Neoconservative-Theocratic. Statist party instead of a Conservative Party but the good news is that it still has a Conservative and Libertarian wing in the party. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio even and Justin Amash all Republicans serving in Congress right now. In the Senate and Justin Amash's case in the House and these are the people and politics that the GOP has to get behind to bring in the new voters that it needs. To remain a competitive major political party in America.

Red State: Philosophy: Labor Union Report: Agenda: "How Marxists Are Grinding America Down": The Social-Democratic Movement in America

Agenda: How Marxists Are Grinding America Down | RedState

As far as people who believe in what I at least call classical Socialism, which in short is state ownership. Meaning the state or national government owns the means to production in society meaning the economy. People like that in America are a dying breed and don't represent a major faction in either the Democratic or Republican parties. I'm sure they still exist but even the Democratic Socialist Party, the Green Party and Progressive Party all Social-Democratic parties in America. With Democratic-Socialists or Social-Democrats in them representing the overwhelming majority in all of those Social-Democratic. Or New-Left parties in America all believe in a certain level of private enterprise and Capitalism. But what separates them from the Democratic and Republican parties is that they all believe in a much larger. Role for the Federal Government in America as it relates to the economy, roughly twice the size and making our economy look more like Europe. The Democratic Party has a faction of Social-Democrats or Progressives who believe in Social-Democracy or Democratic-Socialism as well but they all believe in a. At least a certain level of private enterprise or Capitalism as well.

There are Progressives or Social-Democrats in America who see our Federal Government as undersized and underfunded and under taxed across the board. To meet the needs of society and there are Americans and would like to see the Federal Government not just have a bigger role in providing. Services to Americans but actually running these things as it relates to things like healthcare, health insurance, education. Private schools and perhaps even private universities would probably be nationalized if Social-Democrats ever came to power in America. With the Executive and Legislative Branches in their control and perhaps even banking as well but a lot of the economy will still be private. So basically we would still have a private enterprise system but corporations would be either less of them, not as large or. Perhaps not even for profit and where the Federal Government would be responsible for managing the services that Progressives don't trust the private sector to be running.

Marxists or Marxism, the so called Communist Manifesto, doesn't really exist as far as a governing document. That Americans looks to as their governing philosophy, the followers of this philosophy simply aren't there. What America does have are Democratic-Socialists or Social-Democrats or Progressives who are anti corporate or for profit even. But aren't looking to turn the entire United States economy over to the Federal Government.