Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'Anything Goes With Chris Buckley'

Source:Hoover Institution- The great political humorist Christopher Buckley, talking to Peter Robinson.

Source:The Daily Review

"In this wide-ranging interview, bouncing from the comic to the serious and back again, Christopher Buckley comments on the new media, politics, Republicans, the war, spending, McCain, Obama, and American life. After rating the speechifying of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, he concludes with reflections on life with William F. Buckley."

From the Hoover Institution

Chris Buckley, (and I call him Chris because we’ve never met before) is one of my favorite political satirists along with P.J. O’Rourke, Dennis Miller and now Bill Maher. Since he’s ditched the Far-Left when it comes to free speech and other big government social issues and is still one of the best critics of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. I like Buckley, because like George Carlin who makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. He’s not John Fugelsang, who only makes fun of right-wingers when it comes to politics. Buckley makes fun of politicians and Washington in general. I mean it’s a city that doesn’t need any heat and humidity, even though we get a lot of it every year, because of all the hot air that comes out of our 535 member Congress. That has both a House and a Senate.

American politics is very easy to be make fun of. You can literally make a career of doing it and a lot of people like Chris Buckley have. And even if you come to politics with a strong ideological bent and you have a good sense of humor, you’re denying yourself a lot of great material and perhaps employment and financial opportunities if you just concentrate on one side of the aisle. I mean how you only make fun of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump and never take a shot at Dennis Kucinich. Whose the president of the Republic of Dreamland and sees a world that only exist in make-believe. Where there’s no violence, or ignorance, or poor people. Who believes the old hippie saying of Give Peace a Chance should be the our national foreign policy. And that the use of force is never an option even when we’re under attack. “If we don’t hit them back, maybe they’ll get bored and go away.”

Again, something I love about Chris Buckley who I see as a non-partisan political humorist, he’s someone who at least leans right if he’s not a Conservative and yet he looks at politics and politicians for what they are. The George W. Bush Administration, comes into office as what they called compassionate conservatives (as if Conservatives aren’t compassionate) and lives up to that as best as possible. And spends more money than a convention of Irish drunken sailors could spend at their favorite Irish bar. With the two unpaid for wars and the seven-hundred-billion-dollar Medicare expansion, all of this borrowed. And he didn’t like that about President Bush, as well as going to war on bogus evidence (to be real nice) and the mismanagement of that war even after it was found there were no WMD in that country. And those weapons were probably destroyed by the United Nations, or our own people in the late 1990s. Again, how you not make fun of a President like that?

If you live in Washington and are involved in it politically in some way nationally whether you work, or write about it, it is really the last place you should try to take yourself, or people around you especially your allies too seriously. I’m a Liberal Democrat and I could write something negative and funny about Hillary Clinton everyday. As well as her husband, not that I don’t like Hillary and that I still don’t love President Clinton. But lets face it, they’re both great political characters. Hillary, doesn’t know who she it until she sees the latest poll. Bill, still hasn’t gotten the memo that he’s no longer President and that he’s still ineligible to run for President again still tries to run everything. And I could write something negative and funny everyday about the United States Circus, better known as the Republican Party. And I think that is where Chris Buckley goes. He makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. Regardless of political affiliation.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge- Professor Milton Friedman: 'The High & The Mighty'

Source:Uncommon Knowledge- Professor Milton Friedman, talking to Perter Robison about the War On Drugs.

Source:The New Democrat

"This interview was filmed on December 21, 2000. America has spent three decades and hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a national war on drugs. Has the war on drugs been an effective way of dealing with America's drug problem or does it cause more harm than good? How should we weigh the moral and utilitarian arguments for and against the war on drugs; in other words, do we need to intensify the war on drugs or is it time to declare a cease fire?"

From Uncommon Knowledge

I’ve made this point more times than I can count now and generally I’m pretty good with numbers, but when you try to prevent someone from doing something dangerous, or try to prevent someone from doing anything and say, “don’t do this, or else” and the, or else is something awful like jail, that person, especially if they think they can get away with it, or are addicted and don’t care and think the risk is worth it, is going to do what they want with themselves anyway. You don’t correct improper behavior, or dangerous behavior when just one person is involved, by saying don’t do this, or we’ll make things even worst for you then what you’re doing now and send you to jail.

Jail and prison, is worst for people than illegal narcotics. Because of the stress, the risks to people’s personal safety and even their lives. The slop that they have to eat, that is supposed to be food. All the down time and solitary that leads to human waste. I mean, I rather be a cocaine addict and be far gone from reality, then experience jail, or prison completely sober. What you want to do instead, is instead of making people’s lives even worst than they currently are, you encourage people to improve their behavior. Show them why they shouldn’t be taking any cocaine, meth, or heroin. Don’t criminalize things that have the same, or similar side-effects as alcohol. Which means legalizing marijuana.

One of the tragedies of the so-called War on Drugs, which again isn’t a real war, but its made criminals of people, who are only guilty for what they’ve done to themselves. We spend billions of dollars every year as taxpayers punishing people for what they’ve done to themselves. When what we could’ve been doing is actually helping people get off of those drugs and build their life into something that is positive and productive. Where they don’t want anything to do with cocaine, heroin, or meth. Imagine if we were doing this 45 years ago, instead of locking people up, because they like cocaine. So we can say we’re “tough on crime”, whatever the hell that means. How many lives would we of saved from the War on Drugs as a result?

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'Senator Rand Paul Discusses Individualism, Freedom, and National Security'

Source:Hoover Institution- U.S. Senator Rand Paul: Republican, Kentucky.

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t agree with Senator Rand Paul on everything, obviously, but he represents exactly what the Republican Party needs more of. Republicans, who can speak beyond the current Republican base. Anglo-Southern Protestant men, generally speaking, who look at America from a 1950s perspective.

Rand Paul is someone who can speak to young Americans, who don’t want big government into their homes, but don’t want, or certainly not a fan of having big government in their wallets as well. Americans, who aren’t anti-government, but don’t want a big government trying to manage their personal, or economic affairs for them.

Senator Paul, can even speak to Independents, who do believe in the American safety net. Our economic social insurance system for people who fall on hard times and have that economic security in their senior years as well. Because what Senator Paul says, is that he’s not interested in abolishing Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other programs. But Paul says, is that those programs should truly be for people who need them.

Senator Paul believes that all Americans should try to do as much for themselves as they possibly can, including working and finishing their education. And that these programs should be run close to home. Instead of the Federal Government trying to run everything.

Rand Paul, can get classical Libertarians behind him when it comes to issues like personal and economic freedom and keeping big government out of people’s lives.

He can speak to Conservative Libertarians on all issues in and outside of the Tea Party.

And he can speak to Independents and young voters and even young Democrats who again don’t want a big government trying to do everything for them. But don’t want government to go away either. Do for us what we can’t do for ourselves. Help people in need help themselves. And protect the country predators who would hurt us. And he might be the only national Republican who can speak to all of these groups right now.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Dennis Prager: The New Left in America

Source:Hoover Institution- Right-wing talk show host & columnist Dennis Prager.

Source:The New Democrat

I’m going to actually explain why I actually not just respect, but like Dennis Prager and if I actually met him I would shake his hand enthusiastically even if we spent an hour talking and disagree with ninety-percent of the points that we just made. Because he gets it unlike a lot of people on the Right. He understands the difference between Liberals who defend liberty like Jack Kennedy to use as an example and people on the New Left in America who are interested in equality at all costs through a collectivist state.

Liberals vs. Illiberal’s in America at least and perhaps the rest of the world. Liberals who believe in liberty and the individual. Socialists or collectivists who believe in equality and that the job of the central state is to provide equality for all of its people. The Liberal wants to see that everyone has the opportunity to live as free as they allow for themselves to base on their skills and production, character and everything else. The Socialist lets say says, “liberty is risky and if we allow individual freedom, some people will do very well and others won’t. So why don’t we just move forward together to see that everyone does well, even if that means subtracting freedom.”

Liberals built and created America and built liberal democracy the liberal free state that we all live in as Americans. And created things like Equal Justice Under Law, our Bill of Rights which all of its individual rights, Equal Opportunity Under Law. Created things like the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says no American can be discriminated against based on race, ethnicity or gender. That is the state that Socialists and other collectivists want to tear down or at the very least transform and create their collectivist state and perhaps a social democracy that looks like Scandinavia.

This is not just a battle between the Center-Left and the Far-Left. But a battle between Americans who believe in individual liberty in general and those who see individualism as dangerous and risky. I don’t say this to be insulting or to put people down. But to actually layout what a lot of our American political battles are. People who believe in freedom, between people who don’t essentially other than basic human rights relating to torture, cruel and unusual punishment, voting and anti-discrimination laws. What the New-Left believes in is what Rick Perlstein and others call welfare rights. The right for people to live well and be taken care. And is by the central government even if that means subtracting freedom.
Source:Hoover Institution

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: P.J. O'Rourke Reflects on Life in The Sixties to Today

Source:The New Democrat

The Baby Boom is sort of tough for me to blog about as someone who was born in the mid-1970s the tail end of Generation X. And also as someone whose parents were born in the 1930s and are part of he Silent Generation. So I don’t really have much to go on other than my two of my uncles who were both born in 1944 who I didn’t see very often growing up and who I’m not close with today. Other than Boomers that I’ve talked to, but mostly as an adult. So what I have to go on for the most part is history. Which is generally a great reference to go on even if that is all you have.

Boomer stereotypes are people who were Hippies and looking to escape the 1950s and when that finally happened in college in the 1960s they just sort of exploded and freaked out on marijuana trips. Wait, that’s not so much a stereotype, but is actually true. But there’s more to that because this is a generation that is one of the most productive that America has ever produced whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right or somewhere in between. If you looked at what they produced for this country in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s and even today. They are a healthy generation and they are living working longer than any generation we’ve ever produced. Because they want to and are still very good at what they do.

There’s an old American saying that when you are young you are more open to alternative views and lifestyles that they establishment sees as immoral and weird. But as you get older and mature you get more educated and realize that you have responsibilities for yourself and your family and people you work with or for and people who work for you. And there’s a limit to how much of a rebel that you can be. The Boomers were Hippies in the 1960s and 70s, but they also grew up and have become perhaps the most educated, productive, tolerant and open-minded generation that we’ve ever produced. And I give them a lot of credit for that.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Richard Epstein: 'Crisis & The Law'

Source:Hoover Institution- fellow Richard Epstein, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, in 2009.

Source:The New Democrat

"Considered one if the most influential legal thinkers of modern times, Richard Epstein brings his libertarian views to bear on the current financial crisis --government incentives were perverse, so the actions of the private parties were perverse-- and rates the performances of George Bush and Barack Obama in their responses to the crisis.  He speaks to the importance of contracts and the constitutionality of the expo facto taxation on AIG executives and the Employee Free Choice Act embraced by President Obama.  Finally he speaks of his personal and professional dealings with Barack Obama when they were law school faculty mates at the University of Chicago."

From the Hoover Institution

I guess because of the way I look at the United States Constitution, I would be described as a Liberal Constitutionalist, who looks at the entire Constitution and doesn't pick out parts that I like and rail against the parts that I do not like, which is common among both the Far-Left and far right in America.  Both the left and the right pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they favor and then claim they are upholding the Constitution, but see things they do not favor and support amending the Constitution for the good of the country, however they would phrase that.

I like the Constitution as a whole and am not interested in eliminating any of the amendments, but I might add an official Right to Vote to it as well as update the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which would throw out most of these so-called Voter ID laws that are really voter prevention laws. 

But there are parts of the U.S. Constitution that are my favorites, which is the real point of this post.  I'm going to concentrate on these because they protect our individual freedom and make us a liberal democracy.

What I really love most about the U.S. Constitution are the First Amendment, which guarantees our right to speech and assembly; the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees our right to privacy and protects our property rights, because it means that government can't come into our homes and businesses without what is called "probable cause" and cannot search our properties without a search warrant issued by a judge; and the Fifth Amendment, which again protects our property rights because government cannot take our property without  probable cause.

These rights allow Americans to live their own lives and associate with whom they choose just as long as they aren't hurting innocent people, and allows government to protect us from criminals and invaders but not to protect us from ourselves. As long as we aren't declaring war on the government or illegally leaking classified information, these rights give us autonomy over our own lives.  We should always remember this and not take them for granted. 

Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: John Micheltwait & Clark Judge: ‘The Conservative Ascendancy’

Source:Hoover Institution- author John Micheltwait.

Source:The FreeState 

“A half-century ago, the ideology of the American political establishment was liberal—the New Deal was still new and big government was getting bigger. Today, after a political revolution that began with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, it may be argued that conservativism has become the dominant ideological force in American politics. But what does conservativism mean today? And if it is ascendant, how long can it remain so? Peter Robinson speaks with Clark S. Judge and John Micklethwait.” 

From Hoover Institution 

If you are going to use political labels, you need to use them correctly. I know I'm stubborn on this, but I hate hearing about how conservative someone is who bases if not their entire political ideology, on their fundamentalists views on religion and culture, as well as race and ethnicity and women's place in the world. 

I hate hearing about how liberal someone is, who believes there's no such thing as high taxes, regardless of how high they are and that there's basically nothing that government can't do for people and that masculinity is dangerous, European-Americans are essentially bad people, etc. 

What you get in this debate from the so-called Conservatives here, is that conservative is right and that liberal is left. That conservative represents America in America and liberal represents Britain and Europe in America ideologically. When the fact is, Conservatives and Liberals (at least in the classical, if not real sense) have a lot in common ideologically. They are both considered center-right in Europe and probably the rest of the developed world, at least outside of America. 

I agree with Perter Robinson, John Micheltwait, and Clark Judge, that America is essentially a center-right country. But you need to know what center-right is: 

Americans tend to believe in both personal and economic freedom, meaning property rights. 

Americans tend to love the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all the individual rights that come with it, al those values being liberal values, like free speech, the right to self-defense, right to privacy, checks and balances, free press, property rights, federalism, equal rights, equal justice, etc. 

The reason why I say that Liberals and Conservatives aren't left and right, but both center-right, because they believe in the same constitutional and ideological values, at least when you look at what liberal and conservative is in the classical sense, which is the real sense with me. Liberal vs Conservative, is not hippie versus redneck, but instead Liberals tend to believe in progress and Conservatives tend to be a lot more methodical, before they decide to move forward.

Hoover Institution: George P. Schultz: 'Drugs, The War With No Winner'

Source:Hoover Institution- with a look at the so-called War On Drugs.

Source:The FreeState

"Former Nixon and Reagan cabinet member George Shultz offers compelling analyses on the topics of governance, the economy, energy, drugs, diplomacy, and nuclear security. In this how-to guide, Shultz charts a path to a better future for the United States and the rest of the world.

In Part 6 of an 8 part series, George Shultz points out that forty years of the failed war on drugs should be enough to stimulate debate on alternate approaches to this serious problem.

For more information visit:Hoover Institution." 

From the Hoover Institution

It’s good to hear a Republican and a Conservative, who worked for both President Richard Nixon, when the War on Drugs was declared and President Ronald Reagan, when the Drug War was escalated in the 1980s, like George Schultz, talk about the failures of the so-called War On Drugs. 

Listen to what Secretary Schultz says here. “We have forty years of experience and we know that the War on Drugs doesn’t work. That it’s a failure, that we have more people who use illegal narcotics than other developed countries and have higher rates of illegal drugs use than our competitors.” 

Now, George Schultz, was Secretary of Treasury for President Nixon and then Secretary of State for President Reagan. And even though he might be the best Secretary of State the United States has ever had, he’s not directly responsible for the War On Drugs.

But Schultz, was a very trusted member of both President Nixon’s and President Reagan’s cabinet and knew about the War on Drugs and saw reports about them. And is someone who is very interested in current affairs, especially as they relate to America. And has thought and researched a lot about issues other than economic and foreign policy. He knows about our high incarceration rate and how many of those people in prison are there for something relating t the War On Drugs. And that a lot of those people are there for simple usage, or possession. He knows what our narcotics issue was pre-War on Drugs and where we are forty years later.

So to hear someone with the depth of knowledge, intelligence, and experience as a George Schultz, who was a cabinet officer in both Richard Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s administration’s, who also happens to be a Conservative Republican, say the War On Drugs has failed and he was part of two administration’s where the War on Drugs was pushed real hard, is very refreshing. 

It is also very refreshing to hear someone of the background of a George Schultz, say we can do better. There are better ways and policies in how we deal with narcotics in America. That we shouldn’t be promoting narcotics usage, but at the same time we shouldn’t be holding people criminally responsible and sending them to prison as convicted felons, simply for using narcotics.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'The Sixties With Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley (1998)'

Source:Hoover Institution- Uncommon Knowledge With William F. Buckley.

Source:The Free State

“In this rereleased interview from 1998, Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor of Vanity Fair magazine, is a self-proclaimed radical. William F. Buckley, Jr., editor-at-large of National Review magazine, is one of the most noted conservatives in the country. During the 1960’s, Hitchens enjoyed the counter-culture, whereas Buckley was one of the founders of the politically conservative counter counter-culture. Thirty years later (1998), and Hitchens and Buckley are still wrangling over the Revolution.”

From the Hoover Institution

Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson- Interviewing Milton Friedman: President Bill Clinton (1999)

Source:Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- with Professor Milton Friedman in 1999.

“Milton Friedman vs Bill Clinton (1999) Debunking Climate Policy, The FDA & More!” 

From Basic Economics 

I disagree with Professor Friedman’s comments about the Reagan economy versus the Clinton economy. The reason for the economic boom of the mid and late 1990s wasn’t because Ronald Reagan. Reaganomics gave us the high inflation, high interest rates, the deficits, and recession of the early 1990s. The Reagan boom was from 1983-89 and then the economy slowed down dramatically starting in 1990 and then we’re in recession by 1991.

The economic boom of the 1990s happened because of the new tech boom, the free trade agreements that were passed and negotiated by President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton of the early 1990s, as well as the deficit reduction acts of that period from both President’s and two Congress’s in 1990 and 93. Not because President Reagan and Congress cut taxes and regulations in the early 80s. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, 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)

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Moore: 'The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher'

Source:Uncommon Knowledge- with Peter Robinson.

"One of Britain's most distinguished journalists, Charles Moore is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and of the Spectator magazine. Moore is also the authorized biographer of the Right Honorable Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, better known as Margaret Thatcher...

From the Hoover Institution

The situation that Margaret Thatcher inherited from Socialist Labor Party in Britain in 1979, is not much different from the situation that Ronald Reagan inherited from the Democratic Party in America economically in 1981. There were some differences politically, but both economies were in bad shape. High unemployment, low economic and job growth, both Thatcher and Reagan inheriting economic messes in 1979 and 81 respectively.

There were political differences, back in the 1970s. The UK Labor Party, was more of a Marxist Socialist Party, that believed in state ownership of the economy. At least to certain extents and there were British industries, that were owned by the U.K. Government. The U.S. Democratic Party, is made up of Liberal and Progressives and have Democratic Socialists. Progressive Democrats in the Party that believe in democratic socialism. Which is different from Marxism, but both parties have their big government supporters as it relates to economics and they were both in charge back then. But both countries were down and weren’t doing very well and were both looking for a change politically and both got it, with Thatcher and Reagan.

So in Britain, what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did and what the new Labor Party under Tony Blair continued in the late 1990s, but added their own touch to it, was bring more economic freedom to Britain. Privatized more British industries, cut taxes and cut spending and freed a lot of Brits to live their own lives. One thing I respect about the British Conservative Party, that unlike the Republican Party, is that they are a real Conservative Party. Not a Neoconservative Party. They truly believe in conserving individual freedom, not subtracting from it, or trying to tell people how to live their lives. The British Conservatives, didn’t bring in conservative economics, with authoritarian policies on Social Issues. They wanted to expand British freedom and give more Brits the ability to chart their own course in life, and not being dependent on the state for their lively hood.

That Thatcher Revolution, worked so well in Britain, that when Tony Blair was running and eventually elected Prime Minster in 1997 with the Labor Party, he did not run on Marxism. He didn’t try to convince Brits that capitalism doesn’t work and they need to go back to nationalizing British industries and return to the 1970s. What he did was to run on a different type of capitalism, that would expect Brits who were physically and mentally capable of working full-time, would be expected to be self-sufficient in life. And that even if you were unemployed and uneducated, that you would still be expected to work and be self-sufficient. And that the state will help you get the skills you need to be self-sufficient if you need it. Thats the legacy of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 

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)

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley: The Sixties

Source:Hoover Institution- Conservative writer William F. Buckley, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, in 1998.

"In this rereleased interview from 1998, Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor of Vanity Fair magazine, is a self-proclaimed radical.  William F. Buckley, Jr., editor-at-large of National Review magazine, is one of the most noted conservatives in the country.  During the 1960’s, Hitchens enjoyed the counter-culture, whereas Buckley was one of the founders of the politically conservative counter counter-culture.  Thirty years later (1998), and Hitchens and Buckley are still wrangling over the Revolution."

From the Hoover Institution

This might sound warped or insane or something but I'm going to argue that two of the most divisive decades America has ever had are the 1960s and 1980s had more in common, then they were different.

The 1960s a decade that Liberals generally speak in positive terms. (and I'm one of them) And the 1980s a decade that Conservatives tend to speak in positive terms. I'm a Liberal but I generally look at the 1980s in positive terms, except for the music. I say this because both decades were about freedom but to a certain extent in different forms.

The 1960s was about freedom, thats what Hippies and the civil rights movement we're fighting for. And this was also one of the reasons why so many Americans were killed as a result in a big way because of what they were fighting for. Jack Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin King, Bobby Kennedy and others, were killed because of they stood for, which was freedom.

The 1980s was also a decade about freedom, economic freedom but also social freedom, with the Reagan Revolution as well as the ending of the Cold War with Russia.

The Hippie Generation was an anti-establishment generation: people who were bored by the 1950s. And how culturally conservative the country was and didn't want to live that type of life themselves. And wanted to be themselves, not be part of the establishment. Even if the Establishment saw them as weird, freakish or even Un-American, all charges that were thrown at them.

In the mid and late 1970s, we had a tax revolt in America, especially in California. People who were tired of big government and high taxes, people who believed that for what they were being taxed. They weren't getting much in return. The strange thing is that even though there was this movement going on against big government, there was another movement going on that started about the same time that pushed for another form of big government, which is where Religious-Right came to prominence and power in America.

Democrats tend to love the 1960s and dislike the 1980s just as much politically. Whereas Republicans tend to hate the 1960s and love the 1980s. But what both sides tend not to be aware of, is that both decades both had one big thing in common, they were both about freedom, not just for some people but the entire country. They just went about trying to accomplish these things in different ways.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- ‘Pat Buchanan on Suicide of a Superpower’

Source:Hoover Institution- right-wing columnist and author Patrick J. Buchanan, talking to Peter Robinson.

Source:The FreeState 

“This week on Uncommon Knowledge, author and commentator Pat Buchanan discusses the disintegration of the United States as a superpower and a united nation.”

From Uncommon Knowledge 

What Pat Buchanan is essentially doing here and doing in his book is making the same argument that his fellow right-wing columnist and author Ann Coulter makes, which is immigration, especially from Latin America and Asia , and the third world, is ruining America. That non-European immigration and even non-Northern European immigration is changing the culture and complexion of America.

Not calling Pat Buchanan a racist (necessarily) but he is a Nationalist and even a European-American-Nationalist (if you want to put it in ethnic and racial terms) who represents a faction of the country that believes that the Anglo-Saxons (English Americans) and other Northern European-Americans are the real Americans. Arguing that they built America and made it great and these outsiders (meaning Latin-Americans and Asians) are coming to America to escape from the third-world and living off and even stealing what the Anglo-Saxons and other Northern-Europeans created in America.

What the Pat Buchanan’s and Ann Coulter’s of the world want to do is take America back to pre-1965 when most of the immigrants in America were Northern-Europeans of British, Nordic, and Germanic ancestry and where even Jews, Slavs, Italians, and Spanish-Europeans, had a hard time emigrating to America. If you want to know why Pat Buchanan is known as a cultural warrior, its because he makes these arguments and pits cultural’s versus other cultural’s.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Larry P. Arnn: 'On the Declaration and Constitution'

Source:Hoover Institution- Larry P. Arn: President of Hillsdale College.

"Larry Arnn, who earned his graduate and doctorate in government from the Claremont Graduate School, is the president of Hillsdale College. He discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, what the founders gave us and how the Declaration of Independence mattered at the time." 

From the Hoover Institution

The United States has a Constitution so Americans and government know exactly their liberties and powers are. So new authority isn't drawn up as we go along and so that government can't take people's liberties away from them. That there are laws and procedures that government has to follow before it takes people's liberty away. And even once people have been arrested, they still have certain basic fundamental constitutional rights that have to be respected. 

The main reason why it's so difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution, two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, as well as two-thirds of each of the states having to approve the propose amendment to the Constitution, is so people who perhaps don't respect our constitutional rights as much as they should be respected, aren't able to mess with the Constitution. That there needs to be more of a consensus to change our Constitution and restrict our constitutional rights. 

The main reason for our Constitution (which I consider the most liberal document ever written) is became it was written by Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians, our Founding Fathers. And when you get people like that in the same room together, you should expect a Constitution that looks like what they wrote, a very individualist document. 

The United States was created to get away from the United Kingdom which was dictatorship in the form of a monarchy. That heavily taxed people in the American colonies, without representing them in Parliament. That restricted what religion they could practice if any and basically their ability to live their own lives. 

And these eventual Americans wanted to get away from this authoritarianism so they can have individual freedom. Thats why they wrote the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights listed with a lot of individual liberties. A lot of liberty for people to live their own lives. 

The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document, obviously. Thats why it has a bunch of amendments to it, but still they did a hell of a job. And gave us a lot more freedom then we were getting from the United Kingdom and it really was a Declaration of Independence. Because we were declaring our independence from the United Kingdom and wanted our freedom with the United States. 

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) created the foundation for creating the greatest country in the world, because it was based on individual freedom. I just wish they declared individual liberty for all people in America including the African slaves, but again they were not perfect. 

Without the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the United States is not a liberal democracy. Because then our liberties could be taken away from us probably my majority vote and we would become more of a majoritarian democracy. Which is a different form of government than a republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Which thanks to the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives us that. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Charles Moore: On Margaret Thatcher

Source:Hoover Institution- Charles Moore, talking about U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,

“Charles Moore, a former editor at the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, and Spectator Magazine, discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher.”

From the Hoover Institution 

"One of Britain’s most distinguished journalists, Charles Moore is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and of the Spectator magazine. Moore is also the authorized biographer of the Right Honorable Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, better known as Margaret Thatcher."  

Source:Hoover Institution- British journalist Charles Moore, on Margaret Thatcher.

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward religious conservatism.

Christian-Conservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Christian-Conservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, 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)

Hoover Institution: Eric Hanushek- 'Schools Fiscal Crisis Unclear'

 

Source:Hoover Institution- Eric Hanushek, talking about American schools.

"Hoover senior fellows and members of the Koret Task Force on K--12 Education Eric Hanushek and Paul Peterson dissect the fiscal problems in US education. Short-run revenue problems are hard to solve just by wishful thinking, but the long-run problems caused by health care demands and unfunded retirement liabilities are real." 

From the Hoover Institution

When it comes to eduction funding especially for our public schools, we should judge our spending not just by the amount we spend on our public schools, but also by what we spend that money on and what we get in return. 

Our public schools are generally funded through state and local property taxes: this is tax revenue so we should be making sure we spend this money on things that work. And make sure we get the best bang for our bucks as possible. Instead of judging success by the amount of money we spend, instead of what we get. 

If we judged our public schools by the amount we spend on them and nothing else, Washington would have the best public school system in America of any big city certainly, but any city in general. Because they spend the most per-capita on public education then anyone else or one of the highest levels in the country. And they have instead one of the worst public education systems in America. When it comes to other big cities but public education systems in America as well. 

So what we should be doing is figure out what works in public education and each public school system should figure this out for themselves. With the FEDS and states helping out research and funding and figure out what doesn't work. Fund better the things that do work and either cut back, eliminate or reform what doesn't work. It's pretty much that simple. 

One thing doesn't work is paying teachers based on their time of service, instead of quality of service. Because that puts in a built in incentive for educators not to do a good job or the best job as possible. Because they know they'll get an automatic pay raise based on the time that they serve. So that would be one reform I'm in favor of, eliminate teacher tenure and pay the good teachers well and eliminate or retrain the low-performing teachers. 

Pay teachers based on the job that they do and reward the good ones and pay teachers more money up front, so people well educated who could make a lot of money doing other things. Would have more incentive to go into the education profession. This would be one reform that I would like to see and then I would fund it well. 

Funding our public schools should be about what works and what doesn't and go from there. Funding what does work at a good amount and cutting, eliminating or reforming what doesn't. And figure out how to fund what works in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible, so you also have money to fund other priorities. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Nelson Polsby & Newt Gingrich: 'The Grand Ole Party: The Future of The Republican Party'

Source:Hoover Institution- California Berkeley Political Science Professor Nelson Polsby.

"The presidential election of 2000 highlighted the significant demographic divisions between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The strength of the Republicans lies in the South and in the middle of the country. But the voters that carried those regions for George W. Bush, mostly white and Protestant, are shrinking as a proportion of the overall United States population. Are these demographic changes a serious problem for the Republicans? If so, what can they do to bring groups that have traditionally been Democratic—Hispanics, blacks, and Catholics, for example—into the Republican Party?" 

From the Hoover Institution

The Republican Party was as its height of power from 1953-93, when they won 7-11 presidential elections and were competitive in Congress. And even Congress for two years from 1953-55 and held the Senate a total of eight years from 1953-55 and 1981- 87. Some might say the height of the Republican Party was from 1953-2007, 9-15 presidential elections and held Congress for fourteen years and the Senate for eighteen years. 

But I believe the Republican Party started to decline post-Reagan in 1989 and I'll explain that later. Even though they controlled the House from 1995-2007, the Senate from 1995-2001 and 2003 to 2007 and the White House from 2001-2009. Because the base of the Republican Party are Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, rural, male voters. And the Democratic Party essentially owns most of the racial minority groups and the non-Protestant-Christian ethnic groups. 

Also the three largest or 3-4 largest European ethnic Groups in America (German, Irish and Italian) tend to be Democratic as well. The Democratic Party tends to believe in the big tent theory, that if you include as many groups as possible in your party. But you share a common political ideology or political goals and you believe in progress, that gives Democrats the best chance to be competitive across the country. 

And with the current Republican base actually shrinking, for them to be competitive in the future they are going to have to reach out to ethnic and racial minorities, two groups that currently vote overwhelmingly Democratic right now. And they can do that I believe if they go back to the future so to speak, because Asian, African, and Latin-Americans tend to be pro-business and free enterprise which has been Republicans dominant message since the 1930s and 40s. 

This can be done if they were to drop this Christian-Conservative message that they've been on for the past twenty years or so. And trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives. And actually start welcoming new people to their party instead of telling them they are Un-American.

The Republican Party used to be a party that was about classical conservatism, protecting constitutional rights, and individual liberty. Instead of trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives and trying to criminalize things that they don't like just because they don't personally don't like them. And a real free enterprise party that was against things like corporate welfare and cowboy economics. 

This is the politics that brought them back into power in the 1950s and where they stayed in power from 1953-93, except for 61-69 and 77-81. This was when the Republican Party was the Grand Ole Party but the track they are headed down now is becoming the Grand Old Party . With a base that is dying off if they don't expand it.