Commentary Magazine: Abe Greenwald: 'Our Socialist Socialites'

Source:Commentary Magazine- The Democratic Socialists, as well as Hipsters of America, LOL!

Source:The New Democrat

"If there’s confusion about what socialism means in today’s America it should be cleared up by Simon van Zuylen-Wood’s recent article on the hip socialists of New York City. Socialism is mostly a scene—a loosely organized assemblage of youngish people who are connected by a shared aesthetic. That’s pretty much it."

Source:Commentary Magazine

"Provided to YouTube by The Orchard Enterprises

Socialist Socialite · Tricks & Sleeves

Locked out of Space"

Source:Tricks & Sleeves- Hum, I'm seeing a tiger on The Moon: now I know I'm high. LOL

From Tricks & Sleeves

It's not everyday that I agree with anything that is written by Commentary Magazine, except when they're critiquing both the Far-Left and Far-Right in America which is what they do along with National Review as two of the last of the great Center-Right publications in America, along with The Wall Street Journal and a few others. The reason why I'm on the Commentary email list is to see articles like this where Abe Greenwald compares the modern socialist movement in America with a social movement, I want to thank God ( even though I'm Agnostic ) for Commentary.

Source:Real Clear Politics- Yeah, right!!! LOL 

Comparing Socialists with Socialites especially younger Socialists is brilliant, because socialism ( however you define it ) is not just a political movement, but it's a social movement. And I mean social in the sense about people socializing with each other. not socializing businesses ( necessarily ) but people getting together for not just a common purpose, but getting together because they have a lot of things in common.

Source:Science Matters- Welcome to the modern New-Left 

And I'll give a great example of that: I'm paraphrasing and even rephrasing here, but it's the old expression that you're socialist when you're younger and somewhat naive, but as you get older and enter the real world in your career and you settle down, you get married, you have kids you become much more conservative ( in the classic and real sense ) especially with your own money and realize that those high tax rates that you were advocating for and even demonstrating for in your 20s, might not seem so groovy or awesome anymore ( depending on your era but now seem far out or far-left, pun intended ) and seem like they're too much.

And you realize that capitalism, is pretty damn good and is the reason why you have the good job that you have today, are able to own your own home, don't have to rely on the government for your news and information, are able to socialize and assemble with whoever you want, whenever you want, without fear of being locked up simply because of who you're socializing with, can afford to have and raise kids now, etc.

That we all grow up as a country as we enter our mid 30s and get even older and realize we all have bills to pay and if we don't want to be dependent on government or pay high tax rates for our economic survival, we not only have to work hard, but need to be very productive and good at our jobs. And the way to do these things is through the capitalist, private enterprise, liberal democratic order and world. Not by trying to overthrow the current government either through democratic or revolutionary means.

Whether it was the Hippies from the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s or what was Occupy Wall Street from 2011-12, to the Bernie Sanders Movement of today, or the Beatniks from the Silent Generation from the 1950s we've always had at least since the 50s a movement of young hipster radicals who are the coolest and hippest people around, as well as the most politically radical as well, at least coming from the Left.

Hipsters who are not only devoted to their political causes ( until they grow up and enter the real world ) but who are dedicated to their social movement and culture and being the coolest person around who is always part of the current hipster wave if not on top of it. Who look down at people who hard for a living and are successful in life and just view them as part of the imperial, fascist capitalist regime. ( I'm a little rusty with my 1960s and 1970s New-Left vocabulary )

Socialism, has never just been a political movement and it's never just been a political movement in America either. The hippest people in America and outside of America are either Socialists or people who pretend to be Socialists, but in real-life are very wealthy and have made a lot of money for themselves who go out-of-their-way to avoid paying high taxes. And I'm thinking of the Jane Fonda's of the world and other so-called Hollywood Leftists who has been independently wealthy at least since the early 70s if not longer from her great career in Hollywood.

So-called Hollywood Leftists and other hipster Socialists have been around forever and just goes to my point that the coolest people around tend to be Socialists, not that they're aren't on hipsters on the Right: Libertarians, are a great example of that, but the coolest people around tend to at least officially view themselves as one type of Socialist or another. But along with Hollywood Leftists I tend to not take them very seriously and have much respect for them with Bernie Sanders and few others being exceptions to that.

Because again for a lot of these people being a Socialist tends to be a phase for them, but also the most left amongst us in America also tend to be the hippest and are in on all the latest trends  and in on all the latest fashion statements and if anything author those statements themselves whether it's clothing, new technology, coffee, marijuana, whatever it might be. All these great things that come from our capitalist, private enterprise system.

So-called hipster leftists are like the environmentalists who drives a SUV, or the animal rights activist who wears leather jackets and other leather clothing: I mean, who do they think there're fooling or even bullshitting. But Socialists have always represented more than just a political movement in America and outside of America and always will.

Commentary Magazine: Yuval Levin: 'Congress is Weak Because Its Members Want it To Be'

Source:Commentary Magazine- Our do nothing U.S. Congress. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Congress is weak because its member want it to be": I completely agree with Yuval Levin on this, but I would put it and phrase it differently.

The last 10-20 years perhaps longer Congress's ( both House and Senate ) approval rating has been somewhere around 10-20%. ( Depending on what poll you look at )

And the people who tend to approve of the job of Congress tend to either be Anarchists who don't want government do to anything.

Alcoholics who don't know what they want and believe and perhaps aren't even sober enough to understand the question do you approve or disapprove of Congress.

Or mental patients who believe they're being chased by flying Martians.

The rest of the country tends to be sane, sober, and in some cases even somewhat intelligent so of course they don't approve of the job of Congress, because Congress doesn't do a damn thing every year.

I mean, if Congress avoids a government shutdowns, that's considered an incredible accomplishment.

If Congress passes a budget even though according to the U.S. Constitution that both Democrats and Republicans now just view as an advisory documental and suggestions for how Congress should behave and what they should do, Congress passing a budget now is considered extraordinary.

Passing all 12 appropriations are now considered to be a miracle if Congress ever does that. Even though again under law and under the Constitution, Congress is required to pass an annual budget and all 12 appropriations bills.

Imagine being a public school teacher and your department head or principal told you that if your students do their work and learn the subject matter and pass your course, that would be considered a positive thing, but it's optional and you don't have to teach them anything, just give it your best shot. Wait, bad example because public school teachers in many cases aren't expected to teach their students and their students aren't expect to learn, but give it their best effort and show up.

But imagine running a grocery store or some other business that you don't own and your boss tells you that you're not expected to sell the products there and make a profit, but those things would be great if you did. What kind of business manager would that person be if they knew they would have a job in the future regardless of the job that they're doing and the success of their business. Well, that's how Congress operates and is judged. Americans are so fed up ( to be too kind ) with Congress now and politicians in general that they don't expect Congress to do their jobs. They just want their Representative and two Senators to repent their values and what they believe in and tell them what they want to hear. They do those things and stay out of legal trouble and avoid scandal, they'll probably get reelected over and over again.

What other job and profession in the world outside of politics and in Congress can you get paid and be guaranteed a job just for showing up. Again, public school teachers unfortunately and there are some good public school teachers, but too many bad ones and of course the largest verbal and physical punching bag in the world our U.S. Congress that houses the House of Representatives and Senate. Where a non-leadership member and not even a committee leader makes 150,000 dollars a year plus a generous benefits and retirement package. Which would be a good compensation package for an associate at a good law firm where people there are expected to actually work and represent clients well and win cases or at the very least give their clients the best legal representation possible.

Congress is weak, because there members are weak. They're in Washington about half a year on a good year, they're not expected to actually pass bills and in many cases are just there working to get reelected. And working to get reelected and governing are too different things. Working to get reelected now is about raising a lot of money and having your base behind you so you don't have to worry about getting primaried. Governing is about working with your colleagues in both parties at least when the margins are tight in both chambers ( especially in the Senate ) to pass needed legislation. And members of Congress are weak because that's what their voters want or expect and are tired of complaining about it and campaigning and voting for people who'll actually go to Washington to represent their state or district and work to pass good legislation.

Commentary Magazine: Noah Rothman: The New Left is Coming For You'

Source:Commentary Magazine- Socialists coming for you.

Source:The New Democrat

"The New Left is coming you:" when I read that I'm thinking they're coming for Republicans ( especially in the House ) and everyone who supports Donald Trump. This election cycle reminds me a lot of what happened in 2006 for Democrats and 2010 for Republicans. Even though in 2006 I don't believe activist Democrats hated President Bush and Republicans, as much as Tea Party Republicans hate Democrats and President Obama in 2009 and 2010 or Democrats hate President Trump and Republicans in 2017-18. That might be debatable, but I believe Democrats and Republicans are more divided now than they were 12 years ago.

Source: Left Forum via Twitter- The New Left Forum?

The last two years of the Bush Administration when President Bush had a Democratic Congress, they actually managed to pass some major legislation together. Including the bank bailouts and even a minimum wage increase. Whatever biparrtisnsahhip that we saw in the late 2000s is basically gone now. If a Democrat or Republican, is even caught by an activist in their party, being friendly to someone from the other side especially in Congress, they risk getting primaried in their next election. That wasn't the case in 2007-08.

And what I'm getting to is what happened in 2009-10 for the Republican Party, is now happening to the Democratic Party. The parents left the house to go on vacation basically to escape their 10 kids and left no one in charge at home and now you have the kids running the house. Using the couch as their trampoline, eating cake and cookies for dinner, skipping school, because their parents aren't home.

There is a vacuum of leadership in the Democratic Party now that was in the Republican Party 8-9 years ago and every Democrat that thinks highly of them self whether they're currently in office or not, believes they can be the leader of their party or at least a major player in the Democratic Party and is now making their play. Even if they have no government experience previously or don't even have much of a professional background at all. We saw activist lawyers, radio talk show hosts, bloggers, getting elected to the House of Representatives in 2010 and now we're seeing the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's of the world who was bartending in order to help herself pay her bills just a year ago, who'll probably be representing New York City in the House next year.

In 2010, you saw a whole wave of in some cases Conservative-Libertarian Tea Party Republicans. The Rand Paul's, Ron Johnson's, Mike Lee's of the world who got elected to the Senate and Justin Amash in the House. But you also saw some Far-Right Nationalist populist Republicans who make up a lot of the House so-called Freedom Caucus and represent the Donald Trump base, who oppose things like birthright citizenship, or voters being able to elect their own Senators instead of state legislatures, the Steve King's of the world in the House.

In 2018, what were going to see in the House of Representatives, assuming Democrats not just ran back the majority but do it in a big way and have 15-20 or more seat majority in the next Congress, is fringe base of the Democratic Party looking less fringe and more like mainstream Democrats. Not mainstream to the American electorate as a whole, but more normal inside the Democratic Party. With Socialists getting elected to the House especially in the Northeast, but in California as well, and perhaps in big Midwestern cities like Detroit, Chicago, perhaps in other cities.

And that the House Democratic Leadership will need these members to not just keep their majority, but to pass anything in the House. We already have a so-called Progressive Caucus in the House, who are actually Democratic Socialists ideologically like Maxine Waters and next year you might see this group actually use the label Democratic Socialist and be proud of it and not hide from it especially with all these Socialist Democrats getting elected to the House this year, assuming House Democrats win back the majority in 2018.

If you want to know why American voters be enlarge aren't fans of either the Democratic Party or Republican and why their approval ratings are so low and why 4-10 or more Americans voters now view themselves as Independents regardless of their political ideology, is because the parents aren't home in either party and have escaped from their children and are perhaps living it up in the Caribbean and perhaps living in hotels that don't allow children, while their children are left home by themselves. American voters, tend not to like the fringes of either side. The Nationalists on the Far-Right in the Republican Party and the Socialists on the Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

Commentary Magazine: Noah Rothman: 'The Party of Religious Freedom?'

Source:Commentary Magazine-  The Donald J. Trump: thank God there is only one of them. America is not big and strong enough for another one.

Source:The Daily Review

"Marco Rubio missed an opportunity last night to do something that might have been politically stupid but nevertheless righteous. There is a malignancy eating away at the Republican Party, and Rubio passed on an opportunity to begin the work of excising it."

From Commentary Magazine

"The First Amendment- Prohibits making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. That is just covers Freedom of Religion in the United States under the First Amendment."

I don't like blogging about Donald Trump, because he's not a real presidential candidate. He's simply looking to further his own one-man reality TV career and perhaps get another book and documentary that of course is all about The Donald. As if there's nothing else going on in the world and no one else to write about. And if you watch CNN on the regular basis, you might get that impression from them anyway. 

But The Donald is pandering to a group of Americans on the Far-Right inside the Republican Party who believes only they have Freedom of Religion in America. And everyone else is subjected to what big government will allow them. Karl Marx would be proud.

The Republican Party and I think the establishment has already figured this out, but the party as a whole needs to decide are they going to be a party of Freedom of Religion, or are they going to be a fascist party that only tolerates religion and speech that they agree with. In other words is Freedom of Religion real for all believers and non-believers, or just for fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. 

Freedom of Speech covers all speech including offensive and critical speech of minorities, but speech that could come off as even anti-American to Democrats. Or just speech that Republicans agree with. Do Republicans want to be a party of freedom, or a fascist party that only supports the rights of people that Neo-Confederates and the Far-Right already agree with.

With The Donald, again a one-man reality TV star that is keeping CNN and MSNBC in business all by himself, but shouldn't be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. But the Far-Right, the Ann Coulter's, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan's, etc, of the world actually believe in this, garbage (to be kind) and would have no problem with either shutting down Mosques and rounding up all Muslims and perhaps Arabs in general. Either through executive force, or passing a couple constitutional amendments to do that, because neither one is constitutional right now. 

And this is what makes a pander and demagogue like Donald Trump dangerous. Because he will never come within a thousand delegates or more of winning the GOP nomination for president, or 270 votes of winning the Electoral College of winning the presidency as an Independent. But there plenty of people out there on the Far-Right who take him seriously and are using him for their own means.

Commentary Magazine: Noah Rothman: 'Donald Trump Goes Full Democrat'

Source:Commentary Magazine- The Donald, somewhere on Planet Earth, at least physically.

Source:The New Democrat 

"For Republicans with even a passing attachment to the principles of conservatism, as opposed to merely the personalities who count themselves among the movement’s members, the fatalistic refrain so often repeated over the course of 2015 has been that “nothing matters.”

The latest Republican of dubious loyalty to be thrown into the stockades by the movement’s purity police is soon-to-be Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. The Wisconsin representative and former GOP vice presidential nominee has done more to advance conservative principles and a Republican agenda in the age of Obama (and has taken innumerable arrows for it) than virtually any other elected official. For the alleged heresies of preventing a financial meltdown in 2008 with his TARP vote and for supporting comprehensive immigration reform, Ryan has been branded a “RINO.” This is unhinged in the most literal sense. It is an opinion divorced from reality and lent legitimacy only by the critical mass of angry Republicans who have also succumbed to this mania."  

From Commentary Magazine

Donald Trump reminds me of a used car salesman who tells a potential customer that he has a great deal on a 1978 Ford Pinto, of Chevy Chevette, as if there’s such a thing as a great deal on a Pinto, or Chevette. Maybe the salesman is drunk, or high, or something, but anyway he says he has this great deal on this car and as he’s showing the car the doors falls off as he tries to open the door. And tries to explain by saying that: “Oh yeah, this car has flexible doors. So you can take them off if you want more air in the car when you’re driving.” He sees this customer isn’t as smart as a pile of bricks and that they’ll buy anything he tries to sell them. 

Well, Donald Trump sees average Americans voters as used car customers who can't afford anything else to drive and are desperate for a pair of wheels (even if they fall off as soon as they start rolling)  at least Republican voters and that is only assuming he actually cares, that he’s not running for president simply because ego and publicity is drug to him that he if he doesn’t get his body goes into shock.

Trump looks at Republicans voters as marketing opportunity. As a market to sell himself and he’ll anyone anything they want to hear to get their support. The man makes Mitt Romney look like a man of hard rock never bending principles. Mitt Romney, was the king of flip-flops at least in 2011-12 and I personally called him Flip Flopper and changed his name for him with consulting him about it. But compared to The Donald, Mitt looks like Barry Goldwater. A man who was rock solid when it came to his conservatives principles. 

The Donald, truly isn’t a politician simply, because he unelectable. He’s suffering from the worst form of political whiplash, because how many times he’s officially changed his mind when its come to abortion and other key issues in the country.

Donald Trump, will never be President of the United States. I don’t believe any intelligent person about American politics believes he has a snowflake’s chance in Los Angeles of ever winning the presidency even if Republican voters are taking him seriously. Because of what he’s said about immigrants, especially Latinos, women, that new political maps have been made to cover all of his changing positions on the issues. But I think he actually knows that and is essentially running for president for the fun of it. Perhaps trying out for a new movie where he plays himself running for president, or something. Donald Trump For President, makes the GOP presidential debates look like the worst prim-time TV programs since reality TV was officially created in the late 1990s. And until the GOP wakes up the country will stuck having to see him.

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: 'The Greek Crisis Echoed in Democrat’s Entitlement Stance'

Source:Commentary Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

To state the obvious, America is not Greece. Greece, a country of eleven-million people, with an economy somewhere around two-hundred-fifty-million people and yet their central government spends about half of its GDP. Most of that having something to do with the economy, mostly having to do with social welfare programs. Greece, is not a Marxist state, but certainly a social democratic, or even a socialist state, that expects its government to do a lot for them. And people who actually do have jobs there, they are happy to pay for those services and even subsidize people who won’t work. So this idea that they would willing to give up all of their social welfare subsidies, even to save their economy and get bailed out, is foreign to Greeks.

America, is a much different country than Greece. Which shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone, even to Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and his bid for the White House. We don’t expect government to do practically everything for us, or at least most of us don’t. And when our government goes through tough economic and financial times, most of us are willing to do our fair share to deal with that crisis. The Greeks, tend to see as government services and welfare subsidies as free money from government. And wonder why they should have to cut back on the welfare services that they receive. And perhaps don’t even believe that they are paying for those services.

Had America, not of taken the steps to deal with our Great Recession and debt issues back in 2009 and 2011 when we did, perhaps we are Greece right now, or having similar economic issues. But again, America steps up when we have problems and Americans expect their leaders to make those tough decisions. Because we know that all of those public services that receive come with costs. And they have to be affordable and sustainable and effective, so the people who receive those services get the services that they paid for. Unlike Greece, who sees those services as free and the idea that they should cut back in what they receive from their socialist government as somehow unfair and perhaps even mean-spirited.

Commentary Magazine: Ben Cohen: Venezuela on The Brink

Source:The New Democrat 

I guess Venezuela at its best would be like Scandinavia where you would have a mid-size country or so of twenty-five million people who is not only energy independent, but a net-exporter of oil, gas, food and other resources that we all use. Social democracy is not my preferred system as a Liberal, but that type of government and economy could work very well in a country like Venezuela. Because of its natural resources and that with an educated society they would be able to afford a large welfare state for the country. Now I guess that would be Venezuela’s utopia as a developed country.

But the Venezuela of today is Hugo Chavez’s Neo-Communist Cuba inside of Venezuela. But not as bad, because Venezuela still has multi-party elections both for their National Assembly and presidency. And this is not 1959 Cuba where the central government nationalizes all sorts of different industries in the country. They’ve nationalized a few, but there is still a good deal of private enterprise in Venezuela. Which was essentially gone in Cuba by the early 1960s or so as the Marxists took over there. What you have in Venezuela is a country that is trying to develop socialist system through the welfare state financed by their energy sector, as well as private enterprise. But where political and personal freedom is very limited.

A country like that with that type of system that is heavily dependent on their energy sector and then treats its political opposition as the enemy even though they are peaceful and not armed rebels, doesn’t tend to succeed. Because the economy will only do well when the energy sector is doing well. When oil and gas prices are high and there’s a big need for that energy especially in other countries. And then add in economic sanctions coming from developed countries because of your bad human rights records just makes your economic problems even worst. What Venezuela should be doing is developing their entire country and not be so dependent on one sector. Regardless of type of political system and human rights record that they have.

Again I guess the dream for Venezuela would be Scandinavia. A social democracy with a social democratic economic system and political system. Where they use the energy sector not to power the entire economy, but resources from it to develop the rest of the country economically. Infrastructure, education, health care, the business sector, technology, things that all developed countries have. Not to try to just finance the current regime and eliminate the opposition so you can stay in power indefinitely even if the rest of the country suffers as a result.

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: In Defense of the Vice Presidency

That is really the main and perhaps only function of the Vice President. And whatever responsibilities is given by the President and how well the Vice President carries out those duties determines how well the function of being ready to be President is carried out. Which is critical for any presidential nominee to select someone who is not only qualified to be Vice President of the United States, but President of the United States as well. Just in case the Vice President has to step into the Presidency even in a short-term basis during the President’s term.

With a Vice President the American people know who they are getting if anything were to happen to the President. Because the Vice President is from the same party and in a lot of cases has similar political beliefs. And a good and active Vice President which is what we’ve had for the most part since Walter Mondale in the Carter Administration. And I would even add Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney to that list whatever you think of them personally and politically. Who both had major roles in their President’s administration and were ready to step into the Presidency if needed.

For me at least it is not a question if whether or not we should have a Vice President or not. But what exactly should be the Vice President’s duties besides representing the administration oversees and keeping a close eye on Congress to step in and be able to negotiate deals with them for the President. And because of the possibility that the Vice President may at some point become President before the President’s term is over you want the Vice President to have a major role in the administration.

For me that means having the Vice President as the 1st Officer of the Administration or Executive Branch. In on all and able to weigh in on all decisions that the President makes and having all of the access to information and reports that the President gets. And being in on all of the major presidential meetings. Being a member of all the key presidential councils so the Vice President has the intelligence, knowledge, and experience needed if and where they become President at some point during the President’s term.

Long are the days where the Vice President for the most part is a ceremonial role and just attending funerals and other functions outside of the Executive Branch. And presiding over the U.S. Senate even when a tie vote doesn’t occur as President of the U.S. Senate. Which is a good thing because for the Vice President to be useful to the country that person needs to know what is going on and able to help the President govern the country.

Commentary Magazine: Tom Wilson: Leftist Fascism On The March

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone who thinks that fascism is only a thing of the right, or even just the far-right, is not familiar with the communist republics around the world today or back in the day in Eastern Europe, especially in the slavic states. There are big government fascist states on the left in Latin America such as Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, and some in Central America.  Of course there are rightist fascist states in Arabia and the broader Middle East such as Syria, and Iran, as well as developing democracies such as Libya and Iraq.

Fascists deny the right of political opposition to exist.  They deny the right of people to speak out  against their government.  We see this in the Republican Party today with the Tea Party and their less than brilliant notion that you are either with them one hundred percent or you are a RINO (Republican in Name Only).  You either believe in our notion of a traditional American family or you are Un-American.

I don't agree with Commentary's Tom Wilson's original title of his piece, "Liberalism Ends at Home." He suggests that Liberals are fascists and against free speech with which they disagree and believe it should be outlawed.  The whole notion of freedom of speech and thought is the core of liberalism.  The founders of America were liberals rebelling against the thought and speech control policies of the British monarchy.  If you support governmental activity to block free speech you are not a liberal.  The idea that government, or your political faction,  always knows best and cannot permit political opposition is an anti-liberal idea.

There's nothing liberal about fascism or statism, the idea that people are generally stupid and need government to protect them, even from themselves. These far-left and far-right big government  politics have nothing to do with either liberalism or conservatism, in its classical sense.  The modern Republican Party has perverted the idea of conservatism.  The English Conservative Party offers an enlightening contrast which current Republicans are probably too stupid to perceive.

Free speech and freedom of thought are exactly that and don't imply agreement with any particular political position. We live in a liberal democracy with the right to speak and believe as we please, even if we offend other people.  That also means having to hear speech with which we disagree.

Statists on the far-left are against free speech and hate speech with which they disagree if it offends groups that they care about. They have a major lack of consistency, as Bill Maher has said on his show (hardly a conservative by the way).  They condone making fun of fundamentalist Christians, especially if they are Anglo-Saxon, southern and rural but condemn making fun of Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims.

I'm a proud liberal, always have been and always will be.  I take it as a compliment when someone calls me a liberal, even if they don't mean it as such.  I have a problem when partisan rightists throw out the word, "liberal" to put people down, as if it is a bad word.  It is clear that they are ignorant of the fact that the U.S.A. was founded by liberals as a liberal nation.

They are either liars or don't have a damn clue about what the hell they are talking about.  Free speech, even hate speech, is a perfect example of that.  Liberals believe that all people have inalienable rights to their own opinions and expressions. 

Commentary Magazine: Peter Wehner: 'A Conservative Vision of Government'

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m going to write what a conservative government should look like at least in mind and go to the Barry Goldwater school of conservatism to do this. Because this is the most accurate way to explain what conservatism is and what conservative government looks like. And no, this won’t be a libertarian government or a theocratic government. Christian or otherwise. But how Classical Conservatives would govern if they had all the power. Keep in mind, I’m a Liberal so this is not what my form of government would look like. Even though I agree and respect a lot of the conservative principles of limited government. But this is how a Barry Goldwater conservative government would look like.

I’ve always said that Conservatives shouldn’t be so much anti-government, but anti-big government. And what is big government, well that is the story for another piece, but the idea of big government is government especially the Federal Government trying to do too much. And interfering into the personal and economic affairs of the individual. The whole Barry Goldwater line of I don’t want big government in my boardroom, bedroom or classroom. So what should government be doing, be limited to only the things that we need government to do.

And of course you may say can I be less specific, well I can. But it means you want government doing the things for the people who people can’t do for themselves, or do as well. To give you examples. You want government doing things like law enforcement, national security, foreign policy, handling interstate crimes, regulating interstate commerce and these things would apply to the Federal Government. What you want the states to do is law enforcement within their state, regulating business’s in their state, education and applying private market principles to all of these governmental affairs. And goes to things like accountability.

Part of the problem with right-wing rhetoric whether it is conservative or libertarian today, is even though they make it very clear what they do not want government to do anything. Especially the Federal Government, they don’t seem to be able to communicate what they want government to do. Especially the Federal Government so when they talk about cutting taxes and government spending, they don’t seem to know what they want to cut and how much revenue they need government to raised to perform the public services that they want government to do. But with a conservative vision of government and now you know exactly what Conservatives want from government, then you’ll know what taxes you need to have and what levels to raise the revenue for the government you need and nothing more.

Source:Harvard University