Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr: The Equal Rights Amendment- Phyllis Schlafly Debates Ann Scott (1973)

Source:Firing Line With William F Buckley- Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Episode S0089, Recorded on March 30, 1973. Guests: Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Scott, Judith Areen, Father Edmund G. Ryan, Brenda Eddy. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution. " 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as WFB puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn."

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men, what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had." 

Source:Hoover Institution- William F. Buckley, Ann Scott, & Phyllis Schlafly.

From Hoover Institution

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists (who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men) what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. 

Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had.

My issues with radical feminism which is just a form of socialism and part of the broader socialist movement in America and outside of America, is that they believe that women are superior to men and therefor should be treated better than men. That it's not equal rights for women that they are seeking, since they already had those under the U.S. Constitution and under our civil rights  laws. But they want women to be treated better than men not just in the culture, but under law. 

Radial feminists want women to be the boss in general instead of women or men just becoming the boss based on their education, skills, and production, but just be treated better than men and having more power than men simply because they're women. Not because they earned that right simply because of their intelligence, qualifications, and productivity.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Barry Goldwater- The Future of Conservatism (1966)

Source: Firing Line With William F Buckley- Mr. Conservative, U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, R. Arizona.

Source:The New Democrat

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Future of Conservatism. Episode 016, Recorded on June 9, 1966. Guest: Barry M. (Barry Morris) Goldwater.

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Under Arizona law, Mr. Goldwater had had to give up his Senate seat to run for the Presidency, and so at the moment he was a private citizen-though still, even after his disastrous defeat, the acknowledged leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. This rich conversation ranges from the specific and immediate (Medicare, the prospects for the 1968 election) to the general (Has too much power accrued to the Presidency? How can it be curbed?). BG: "I think the country has become pretty much a two-term country. So I think it's pretty much up to the President. If he decides to run again, the chances of the Republicans beating him are not excellent. However, if he keeps on with his lack of success in Vietnam, the downfall of NATO, ... the growing cost of living in our country, the chances get better. But we don't like to win on those kinds of chances." 

From the Hoover Institution

Source:National Review- Firing Line With William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater (1966)

When you have a discussion with someone like Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, who admittedly was the most conservative member of Congress, when he was in the Senate from 1953-65 and then later from 1969-87, you are talking about what some would call conservative libertarianism today or constitutional conservatism. Which is someone who bases their politics around the U.S. Constitution and conserving that document and all of the individual rights that come with the Constitution, including the protections that we get from government. And William F. Buckley was from that same branch on the Right in America, the Center-Right in the Republican Party. 

What Buckley and Goldwater were talking about here was how Conservatives could succeed not just in the Republican Party, but in American politics. And were talking about a movement where Republicans would run as Republicans, as Center-Right Conservative Republicans. Not as light-Democrats and as Progressive Republicans, but as Center-Right, Constitutional Conservative Republicans. And this political movement led to people like Ronald Reagan and other Conservatives in America getting elected in the future past 1966, as Conservative Republicans. Not as light-Democrats or Progressive Republicans. 

University of California Television: An Evening with Christopher Buckley (2009)

Source:University of California Television- talking to Christopher Buckley.

Source:The Daily Review

"Political satirist (”Thank You For Smoking”) Christopher Buckley brings down the house in this raucous interview with host Dean Nelson as part of the 2009 Writer’s Symposium by the Sea, sponsored by Point Loma Nazarene University... 

From the University of California Television

I like Chris Buckley’s line saying that it is unfair for satirists, because they are now in competition with USA Today. Applying that a lot of jokes come true, or as I would put it, get elected. We now have a Congress that represents America. Not exactly the best of America, I hope now anyway. Or maybe I’ll join Alec Baldwin the next time he threatens, or is generous enough to leave America. 

USA Today is supposed to be in the business of news and report serious issues. Satirists, are in the business to make fun of what’s going on and life in general. The problem for satirists is that USA Today and other news organizations now report on a lot of things that look like comedy. Like the government shutting down, because the House of Representatives can’t get the President to repeal his own signature legislation.

Sarah Palin, who I actually have a lot of respect for as a satirist, comedian and a beautiful woman, (even if someone who has just graduated from high school is more qualified to be either President, or Vice President of the United States) is the perfect example of satire, or a real-life comedy story. 

In Supreme Courtship, Chris Buckley, writes about a fictional character from Texas, a very attractive female judge who loves firearms and the Southwestern Texas lifestyle. Sarah Palin, who other than being from Alaska instead of Texas, has a lot in common with the fictional Texas judge. A very attractive woman with a keen sense of humor, from rural Alaska, who loves the country lifestyle and is a big fan of guns, who has a great personality. But who is more qualified to be a fictional TV character than Vice President of the United States. And yet she’s nominated for Vice President by the candidate who comes within a few large states of winning the presidency.

As I’ve blogged before, you can’t follow Washington politics and that is national politics and I’m sure Washington city politics as well, without a sense of humor. Unless you have a lot of money that you don’t know what to do with and decide to spend all that money on shrinks and vacations at mental institutions as a patient. Because you’re suffering from a severe case of depression. Because there’s so much nonsense (to be nice, bullshit to be accurate) that happens here that we all pay for.

U.S. Senators, who rather be president to the point that they their main job becomes running for president, instead of serving their people in Congress that the taxpayers have to pay for. 

A taxpayer-funded Defense Department that is so big that it can’t be audited. One f the funniest true stories of all-time. 

Taxpayer Congressional investigations that purely designed to hurt the leading presidential candidate from the other party. 

The largest entitlement programs in the world that are going broke if they’re not fixed. That no one in Congress has the balls to actually fixed, because that might mean that they have to go home and find a real job, that they’re a lot less qualified for.

But again the problem with satirists and people who write satiric books for a living about current affairs, is that it becomes harder to find new stories to write about even if you think you have something that is really funny. Because chances are that story is actually true, or something very similar to that has already happened. Tobacco companies have said under oath that tobacco is not addictive. Which was the story in Chris Buckley’s Thank You For Smoking.

We actually do have a Congress that makes con man, used car salesman, personal injury attorney’s, gold diggers, look popular. As well as the nerd in class whose hand is always up to not only answer every question, but answers the questions that the teacher puts to other students and then wonders why they never have any money for lunch, or are always getting kicked in the butt. Because their lunch money is always stolen and they’re wearing a kick men sign on their butt.

The thing about Washington and American government is that jokes are not just funny, but they get elected and a lot funny made for Hollywood stories actually come true. You would go nuts and became Michelle Bachmann’s roommate at a mental institution if you couldn’t laugh about it. But that is democracy for you. 

As the great political satirist George Carlin said, “politicians are a reflection of the people.” They’re not God, or aliens from another planet, or even robots. (Even if they look and act like them for their lobbyists) And they represent the best and worst of us.

Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Ronald Reagan On State's Rights (1967)

Source:Liberty Pen- Governor Ronald W. Reagan W. California.

Source:The New Democrat

What Bill Buckley and then Governor Ronald Reagan of California were talking about here in 1967 was the growth of the Federal Government from the Great Society and other programs and how that growth impacts the state’s. Bill Buckley and Governor Reagan, making the argument that if government does more and taxes more it would leave fewer resources and less things for the state’s to do. Since the Federal Government gets a piece out of every tax base in every state and each state has to operate out of available funds in their own state that the Feds also has access to. Which I believe is fair argument about the Great Society and goes to who should be running all of these social welfare programs. The Feds’s, or the state’s.

I don’t think anyone would design the New Deal and Great Society today the way they were designed back in the 1930s and 1960s. Today’s so-called Progressives, would have expanded those programs. Today’s Conservatives, Conservative Libertarians really, would have decentralized those programs have the state’s be responsible for running them in their own state’s. Today’s Liberals, such as myself would have designed those programs to empower people in need to get on their own feet. Things like education, job training, even encouraging disabled people to work as much as they can, encouraging economic development in low-income communities. And I even like the idea as a Liberal Federalist myself of having the state’s run these social welfare programs. Provided that the money for those programs is used the way its intended.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The Hippie Generation (1968)

Source:The New Democrat

I find this whole show very interesting if for no other reason and there might not be any other reason why I find this episode of Firing Line interesting, but the contrast on it. You have Bill Buckley who was as Anglo-Saxon and preppie and perhaps even square as an American can get, interviewing hippies and an expert I guess on Hippies. Why Buckley would let Jack Kerouac go out on his show drunk, I have no idea other than maybe to make fun of the man and make him look like a joke.

The hippie movement was a reaction to the 1950s and every other conservative establishment decades before it. What the Hippies said was that there were multiple ways for Americans to live their lives and be productive people and good Americans. That they didn’t have to live the lives of the parents and grandparents. The Baby Boomers who probably made up most of the Hippies were giving this message and living their life differently. That they didn’t have to live the lives of their parents and could live the way that they wanted to and still be good productive people.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Newt Gingrich, Where is the GOP Headed?

Source:The FreeState

Not really Newt Gingrich himself, but his movement and followers represented where the Republican Party was headed post Ronald Reagan. Not George H.W. Bush who succeeded President Reagan as President, but didn’t offer a vision other than maybe on foreign policy. Of where he would take the GOP with him. President Bush was more of an operator or pragmatist as President. 

George H.W. Bush took  issues and problems as they came up, but not having a set of ideas and policies, or direction where he wanted to take the Republican Party. Whereas Newt Gingrich and his Conservative Opportunity Society group had a vision where they wanted to take the Republican Party. That later became known as the Contract with America in 1995. Shortly after being elected to the House in 1978, December, 1978, Rep. Elect Newt Gingrich when House Republicans were still in the minority. 

The House GOP had around 160 or so seats during the Carter Administration. They put together working groups that would work on bringing a House majority for the GOP. Raising money recruiting like-minded candidates, putting together and agenda. That they would try to pass, that later became the CWA of 1995-96. But it took them sixteen years to get there. But only he and his group believed they had any shot of taking back the majority. This was back in the day when the House Republicans had for the most part had around 160-180 seats, the late 1970s and 1980s. 

And House Democrats controlled the House since 1955. I don’t agree with Newt on much and he has personal characteristics that I don’t like, but I respect him a lot as a political strategist. Probably the best we’ve had since Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. He could see things happening that no one else could. Because he knew how to get there and deserves a lot of credit for that. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Margaret Thatcher: Capitalism & a Free Society

Source:Liberty Pen- U.K. Opposition Leader Margaret Thatcher in 1975.

Source:The New Democrat 

This is what a so-called smart Conservative sounds like in Margaret Thatcher and again conservative by British standards, which means lest socialist than Social Democrats. Lady Thatcher wasn't arguing against the safety net, actually she believed in it strongly her whole career at least as Prime Minister. What her point was is that a safety net is exactly that. Think about it like an insurance system that you collect from when you are in financial trouble. Like being out of work and having kids to raise and not having the professional skills needed to be able to support your self and your kids well on your own. What Lady Thatcher was arguing against however was the socialist welfare state. Where government becomes responsible for taking care of everyone and collects most of the revenue from the country to do that. To insure that no one is poor, no one is rich that everyone is the same. And her point about that was that when you incentivize people not to be productive and successful because government is in charge of taking care of everyone, then that is exactly what happens. And you are left with a country where a lot of people are poor with not a lot of people producing and making money.
Source:Liberty Pen

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Ron Paul (1988)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley talking to Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul, in 1988.

Source:The New Democrat

“Ron Paul and William F. Buckley discussing a Constitutional Republic and the necessary evils of government. In 1988, Ron Paul was running as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate…

From Yaluc SD

Where Ron Paul loses me is when he comes out in favor of abolishing the CIA, an organization without which we would never have won the Cold War, because of all the information it provided about the Soviet Union.

The CIA was critical to America in winning the Cold War because it could give us information about the Russians and their allies that we weren’t able to get before.

As far as the income tax goes, it is now in the United States Constitution, thanks to the constitutional amendment process, and government has the constitutional and legal right to tax people in the because of it.

Firing Line With Willam F. Buckley: Ron Paul (1988)

Source:The New Democrat

What I respect most about Ron Paul, former U.S. Representative from Texas and presidential candidate for both the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party, is his honesty.  He's truly against big government from both an economic and a personal standpoint, like all classic libertarians or classic conservatives. In this video, he explains why he's running for president for the Libertarian Party in 1988, to grow the size of the Libertarian Party and not to actually win the election but to bring publicity and new members to the LP.

ABC News: Gore Vidal vs William F. Buckley: 1968 Republican National Convention

Source:ABC News- political commentator and author Gore Vidal in 1968.

Source:The New Democrat

"Gore Vidal vs William Buckley Republican Convention 1968 Debate" 

From Thomas G

The ultimate debate, when it comes to wit, humor, and intelligence was between Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley. You don't need a moderator in a debate like this and there really wasn't one, with Howard Smith letting Vidal and Buckley basically just go at it because the two men could carry the conversation by themselves and knew where to go and what they wanted to say. They also both listened to each other and knew how to respond to their opponent's legitimate points in an intelligent way.

It would be nice to see more debates like this, with two people literally just going at it and no one asking questions but just giving them topics to talk about.  They already knew what to say because they knew what they thought. That should go without saying, but a lot of politicians and candidates either don't know what they think or do not know how to express it in a way that doesn't hurt them politically, so they are afraid to say what they think.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The State of The Democratic Party (1985)

Source:The New Democrat

What happened to the Democratic Party in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 in those presidential defeats and in the case of 1980 when the not only lost the White House in a landslide, but lost the U.S. Senate and eleven seats at that, was that their Far-Left rose up in the late 1960s in response to the Vietnam War and to against American capitalism. As well and made the Democratic Party look way out of the mainstream than they actually were.

The Democratic Party lost five out of six presidential elections from 1968-88. They won in 1976, but Jimmy Carter ran against the Democratic establishment and to a certain extent the Far-Left. And went out-of-the-way to convince people who was a New Democrat and mainstream and someone who shared a lot of American values. Like hard work, honesty and so-forth who ran against Washington. But lost in 1980 partly because he wasn’t able to solve a lot of problems that he inherited. But also because the Far-Left didn’t like him and took their support somewhere else.

And because of the Far-Left rising in the Democratic Party, partisan right-wingers and Republicans were successfully able to paint all major Democrats especially national Democrats, as out of the American mainstream and somehow Un-American and big believers in big government. And anti-capitalist, anti-success, anti-military and other things and even though only a small faction of Democrats believe in these things. Republicans were able to paint most major Democrats as supporting these things

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The 1988 Republican Presidential Candidates

Source:The New Democrat   

The Bob Dole intro was the most impressive to me because of how real it was and how real he is. Talking about his parents and family and his background and where he came from. Coming from such modest roots and serving in World War II and being able to go to college on the GI Bill. And having the opportunity he needed to be successful in life and taking full advantage of those opportunities. To the point where he became Leader of the U.S. Senate. The rest of the group other than maybe Jack Kemp and Pat Robertson, were essentially country club Republicans, who were born with essentially all the opportunities needed to be successful in life. Not having to work their way through school, or having to serve their country before they were given the opportunity to be successful in life.

Reason Party: James Baldwin vs William F. Buckley (1965)

Source:Reason Party- Conservative columnist William F. Buckley, debating author James Buckley, at Oxford, England in 1965.

Source:The Daily Post

“James Baldwin vs. William F. Buckley (Part 6)”

Bill Buckley seems to be trying to making the case that racial-discrimination isn’t the only problem in the African-American community. That they also face issues of personal responsibility like having kids out-of-wedlock, fathers leaving their kids and ending up in prison, not finishing school and so-forth. Which I actually agree with Buckley on, just as long as he’s saying that racial discrimination like being forced to go to inadequate schools, being denied loans, housing, employment, etc, simply because of your race, are also contributing factors the plight (lets say) of the African-American community. A community that was kidnapped, that was kidnapped from the very beginning and forced to live in America. 

You could have a community of Americans by race, or ethnicity, or whatever, that plays by all the rules, lives up to all of their responsibilities, that could still fail, if they’re not allowed to attend quality schools, have access to banking, loans, quality housing, employment, not because of their personal and professional qualifications, but because of their race and ethnicity. Things that have nothing to do with what kind of businessperson they would be, what kind of student they would be, what kind of employee they would be, what kind of resident they would be, etc. And that is the real crime of legal racial discrimination in America and Jim Crow. Whether it comes from the private, or public sectors.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Barry Goldwater- The Role of Conservatism in (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- former U.S. Senator (Republican, Arizona) and 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1966.

“A clip from William F. Buckley’s 1966 interview with Barry Goldwater on “Firing Line.” 

From Moog Rogue 

What Barry Goldwater was doing in this clip was arguing for the two-party system and saying that Republicans don’t have to be Progressive Democrats or Democratic-light in order to win elections and gain power in America.

In early 1966 after the Republican Party took back-to-back-to-back political beatings in Washington from 1960-64, what Senator Goldwater was saying her sounds rather foolish:

But in 1965, House Republicans elect Representative Gerald Ford to be their leader in the House

1966 House Republicans win 45 seats in the House, with a whole lot of Conservative Republicans in Congress, especially in the House getting elected

Thanks to Richard Nixon, Republicans win The White House back in 1968. not because they sound and talked like Democrats, but because they were Republicans, with even Progressive Republicans sounding and thinking different politically then Progressive Democrats.

So I believe Senator Goldwater was onto something in 1966, even if he was the only Republican who knew what Republicans needed to do to get back into power. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

CNBC: Dick Cavett Show- William F. Buckley (1995)

Source:CNBC- Dick Cavett interviewing one of the founding father's of the American classical conservative movement in 1995, William F. Buckley.

Dick Cavett after his ABC show went off the air in the 1970s, came back in the 1990s with a new talk show, but this time on CNBC, which is owned by NBC News. And he interviewed someone who I believe is one of the founding father’s of the American classical conservative movement in William F. Buckley, who was still the publisher and contributor for the conservative Firing Line Magazine in 1995. Unfortunately there are no links or videos for that interview online right now. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: ‘That if You Want More Jobs, the Government Should Get Out of the Way’

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Leon Botstein moderated this debate.

 

“As Mr. Botstein frames the question, “We are in a recession. Some people consider it a contained depression, perhaps the worst economic period since the Great Depression. And we don’t really know what to do about it.” Mr. Buckley thinks he does: “Bring back full employment by getting government out of the way.” After all, “A lot of people say they can’t build houses; they can’t afford the interest. Why is interest so high? Because of inflation. Who causes inflation? Only the government can cause inflation. The private sector has never discovered how to do it.” Mr. McGovern is equally sure that, say, the savings-and-loan crisis “is not the result of too much government intervention … Rather it is the opposite: the result of too little regulation and monitoring that permitted irresponsible S&L managers to rob that industry and the American public.” Mrs. Schlafly takes up the cudgels against overreaching legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the latest Clean Air Act, and we’re off on a vigorous exploration of what government can and can’t reasonably do.” 

From the Hoover Institution 

“Episode FLS112, Recorded on March 26, 1992

Guests: Richard K. Armey, Phyllis Schlafly, Herbert Stein, George S. (George Stanley) McGovern, Robert Eisner, Michael E. Kinsley, Hyman P. Minsky

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

This looks like a debate between economic libertarians and people who would be called Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists everywhere else in the developed world, but since America is so special, they are called Liberals here. Because Americans leftists tend to be scared to death of the s-word. 

On the Right, you get government is already doing too much and what we need to do now is cut government, regulations, and taxes, and expand free trade in America. 

On the Left and actual Left (not liberal) you get government isn’t doing or taxing nearly enough and should be doing a lot more of that to meet the needs of the people and expand the economy. 

This is sort of a traditional left-wing vs right-wing debate in America about the role of government, that was brought to you by Firing Line With William F. Buckley.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: George Roche & Friedrich Hayek- 'Is There a Case for Private Property?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- economist Friedrich Hayek, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1977.

"Episode S0300, Recorded on November 7, 1977. Guests: Friedrich A. von (Friedrich August) Hayek, George Roche, Jeff Greenfield. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"A splendid hour, spent more on political philosophy than on technical economics, with the author of The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty. FAH: "Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction to the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." ... "It is important not to confuse opposition against [centralized] planning with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude.... In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing." ... "If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty. And, in turn, liberty of the individual would, of course, make complete foresight impossible. Liberty is essential in order to leave room for the unforeseeable and unpredictable.... Humiliating to human pride as it may be, we must recognize that the advance and even the preservation of civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to happen." 

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know why property rights in any free society are so important, you should first think of what a country or world would look like without property rights. (That would mean the State owns everything) 

I mean think about it, without property rights, the State would control everything. You would live in an apartment or house, probably an apartment, I mean think about life in the Soviet Union of Russia, where the State would own the place you live at, you're basically just a renter. The State owns the apartment building so they could come in at will. Sort of how corrections officers can enter inmates cells at will. The State wouldn't need search warrants because they own the property. 

The car or truck you drive, if you're lucky enough to have one, would be own by the State. You couldn't run your own business, because the State would own that and the only new business's that would pop up, would be new business's set up by the State, even if you're more qualified to run a business than the State. 

No such thing as private property means no such thing as individual liberty, because the State would own everything. No such thing as political liberty, because again the State would own the political parties. And you could only vote for political candidates approved by the State. 

Thats why property rights are so important, you can't have a liberal democracy without them. The ability of people to control how they move and where, where they live, how they get around, who they work for if anyone or do they run and own their own business. Without property rights, the State can come in and take things from us at will. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Are Medical Costs Controllable (1994)?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Dr. Charles Sanders, participating in this Firing Line debate.

"Episode S0999, Recorded on January 26, 1994. Guests: Richard Janeway, J. Ward Kurad, Charles A. Sanders. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Yes!, is our guests' resounding answer to the title question--and without

unmaking what is generally agreed to be the world's finest health-care system (CS: "One

of the best things about the Canadian system is the proximity to the U.S."). Drs. Sanders

and Janeway emphasize portability (the ability to retain your medical insurance if you

change jobs) and insurance for catastrophic illness--which, says Dr. Janeway, could be

taken care of for "not a huge amount of cost to the American public per year." Dr.

Kurad--who was driven out of active practice of his specialty by "the paperwork mill

and the hassles with insurance and Medicare"--tells persuasively what business can do to

cut the red tape." 

From the Hoover Institution 

In 1994, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress (House and Senate) pushed for health care reform and seeing that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance. And two of the areas that they focused on where quality, affordable coverage and controlling medical costs. 

Congressional Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and House Minority Leader Bob Michael, strongly opposed the so-called Clinton Care approach to health care reform which would mean more government involvement in the health care system. And this is what the Firing Line debate is essentially about.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich- 'Where is The GOP Headed (1984)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

"Episode S0627, Recorded on December 6, 1984

Guests: Newt Gingrich, Bill Green. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Gingrich was already a leader of the conservative wing of the GOP, and Mr. Green was prominent among the remnant of "Rockefeller Republicans." Ronald Reagan having just become, barring the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, a lame duck, Mr. Buckley asks his guests to focus on "the future of the Republican Party post Reagan." They do so more in terms of programs and philosophy than of personalities, in a crisp exchange. Mr. Green, for example, defends the Federal Government's public-housing program: when it was begun "fully half of the housing in this country either lacked indoor plumbing or was so run down it was a real threat to the life and health of the people... Now, as we've gotten to the point where the housing in this country is much better, a much better case can be made for something like the housing voucher ..." Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand, sees modern liberalism as still "find[ing] it very hard to believe that average people can do anything for themselves, and so they have a tendency to provide more and more professional help, which somehow doesn't help you." 

From the Hoover Institution 

This photo is from another video of Representative Newt Gingrich’s 1984 appearance on Firing Line With William F. Buckley. But that video where this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

By 1985 the Republican Party was doing as well as it ever had perhaps in the entire 20th Century. With President Reagan just being reelected in a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. And Senate Republicans retaining control of the Senate and electing Bob Dole as their Leader. 

And House Republicans while still in the House minority, but with 190 or so seats, giving them a chance to win control of the House in 1986 and make Bob Michael who was the Minority Leader, the next Speaker of the House. 

The Republican Party had Ron Reagan as President, Bob Dole as Senate Leader and Bob Michael as their Leader in the House. With a popular President the Republican Party was probably at their height of power in 1985. 

What this interview with Representative Newt Gingrich in 1984 was about, was where was the Republican Party headed in the next 2-4 years and perhaps after President Ronald Reagan. With Newt Gingrich being one of the Republican visionaries in Congress and the broader Republican Party.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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

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

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: 'The Role of Liberals in the Republican Party'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R, Maryland) in 1978.

"Episode S0313, Recorded on March 16, 1978

Guest: Charles McC. (Charles McCurdy) Mathias

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (Republican, Maryland) appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in March of 1978. But the video from where this photo came from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line- U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: Republican, Maryland: on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1977.

"The role of Liberals in the GOP." Originally from Firing Line With William F. Buckley.

Sen. Charles Mathias who was a Republican Senator from the great State of Maryland from 1969-87. And before that a Representative from the great State of Maryland from 1963-69. For a total of twenty-four years in Congress (and yes, I’m familiar Maryland political history) probably should’ve been a Democrat all along.

Which is why Senate Leader Bob Byrd or his deputies in 1978, tried to recruit Senator Mathias to run for reelection as a Democrat in 1980. Because Sen. Mathias supported things like the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978, civil rights in the 1960s and I’m sure several other things and probably voted with President Jimmy Carter as much or more.

Then Senator Mathias voted against President Carter and may have voted against President Reagan as much as he voted with him. Jimmy Carter and Ron Reagan being extremely different politically and both fit in well with their parties.

Senator Mathias was a Liberal Republican (if there is such a thing) from again the great State of Maryland. A very liberal Democratic state where the voter registration is something like 70% Democratic. To get elected as a Republican in the State of Maryland, especially statewide. Senator Mathias had to vote Democratic. Or at least vote with Senate Democrats enough to seem liberal enough to Marylanders to get reelected.

Moderate Republicans or people who I would call classical Conservative Republicans can get elected and reelected in the Republican Party. Because they vote republican on economic policy. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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