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. 

Eric Cantor: Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace- 'Majority Leader Eric Cantor Discusses the GOP's Plan for Jobs & Economic Growth'

Source:Eric Cantor- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

"Majority Leader Eric Cantor Discusses the GOP's Plan for Jobs & Economic Growth on FNS" 

From Eric Cantor

Looks to me that the House Republican plan to get the economy going again is centered around cutting regulations. Hopefully not around Wall Street, because we've seen what happens in the last ten years what happens when you don't regulate Wall Street. The Wall Street scandals of 2001-02 and 2008 that led to the Great Recession that we are still three years later struggling to recover from. 

Congress just passed three trade deals last week and where's the rest of their plan. The tax cut plans have come not from their House Leadership, but from. Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) as well as some of their presidential candidates like Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry. 

The only plans that relate to the economy that House Republicans have drafted or pass relate to the Federal debt and deficit, meaning cutting them. But those are long-term plans to get our debt and deficit under control over the next ten years. They don't have much if anything to do with creating jobs in the next year or so for 2012. 

The only economic plan thats come out of the Federal Government, that has tax cuts in it has come from President Obama. Someone the Far-Right likes to call a Socialist. Tax cuts are supposed to be a Republican issue. 

I'm not saying that tax cuts are the magic bullet for economic and job growth in America. But tax cuts have always been the magic bullet for economic and job growth for Conservatives. For more than thirty- years now, going back to the mid and late 70s.

President Obama's economic plan is built around infrastructure investment, middle class tax cuts, small business tax relief, and free trade. He's been successful so far in one area, free trade with the deals that were passed last week. 

The President wants to create a National Infrastructure Bank that would take care of the financing of our infrastructure investment. That would be self-financed and be independent of the Federal Government. As well as extend the Payroll Tax Holiday for workers and extend it to employers as well. 

I wish President Obama would go farther by maybe cutting the 10% tax bracket to 5% to encourage consumer spending, as well as Debt Relief for the middle class. Let them deduct their debt from their taxes. As well as reforming our Unemployment Insurance system, making it proactive by turning them into employment centers. That would help unemployed workers find jobs, giving them assistance to go back to schools and get retrained. I believe the House Republican Leadership would be open to that idea as is the President.

House Speaker Boehner has already expressed interest in infrastructure investment as part of an economic plan. And is interested in creating a six-year highway bill and President Obama has expressed interest in regulatory reform. So maybe there's a deal that can be reached between the House and White House. As well as between Senate Democrats and Republicans.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'The Implications of Watergate (1973)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking about Watergate in 1973.

"Episode S0092, Recorded on May 16, 1973. Guests: James O. Powell, Reg Murphy, Robert P. Clark. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From  Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"The semi-annual occasion on which the guests put their host on the firing line-in this case, mostly on the subject of Watergate, which had been simmering since just a few days after the break-in the previous June but had only become the daily staple of our front pages when Gordon Liddy, Howard Hunt, and five others were put on trial in January. WFB and his guests mostly remand the details of what happened at the Watergate and who ordered it to a time when more evidence is in; instead, the crackling discussion ranges from the possibility of changing the presidential tenure to a single, six-year term, to how Congresses have historically dealt with a President who has been repudiated but is still in office (e.g., Herbert Hoover in 1931), to the continuing war in Vietnam. WFB: "If you live in a society in which lawlessness becomes intellectually fashionable, as it was in this country during the last ten years, you beget, I think, a counter-countercultural lawlessness of which Watergate is an example."

From the Hoover Institution

The Watergate scandal from the summer of 1972 to the summer of 1974, was a horrible political scandal, that not only lasted two years, brought down a presidency, a president that was reelected by a landslide, distracted the country from many other problems that we were facing with a weakening economy, rising unemployment, rising health care costs, more people being without health insurance, an energy shortage, trying to get out of Vietnam, etc. It happened at about the worst time that any political scandal could hit us, where we had other issues that needed to be addressed.

And perhaps the worst part of the Watergate scandal, is that it never had to happen or become a scandal, it was completely unnecessary. President Nixon would’ve been reelected by a landslide in 1972 anyway. Had he announced what he knew about Watergate as he knew it and had come clean his administration probably would’ve got some heat from it at least in the short-term. With Congressional investigations. 

President Nixon would’ve done himself and the country a lot of good in the long-term by admitting what he knew about Watergate from the beginning, because he would’ve been able to put Watergate behind us, because he would’ve been able to end his part of the scandal early on. Because the country would’ve known that he wasn’t guilty of anything. And he would’ve been able to move on with his presidency and attempt to address some of these issues.

Without the Watergate scandal as far as President Nixon covering it up, he would’ve gone down as a very successful President. Perhaps one of the best president’s America has ever had, with all of his foreign policy success’s. And this would’ve given him an opportunity. to address some other issues. As they relate to economic policy and getting the economy going again, creating a national energy policy, which President Nixon actually did make an attempt at, as well as health care and Welfare reform. 

Instead what happened the Republican Party dropping back to where they were in the 1960s as far as seats in Congress. In the House and Senate with Democrats having large majority’s in both chambers. As a result of the 1974 mid-term elections.

But because of the Watergate coverup, that’s the main if not only political issue that not only the Federal Government was dealing with, but what the country was paying attention to. Including even watching the Watergate hearings on TV. 

As a result of the Watergate scandal and coverup, the Republican Party got hammered in the 1974 mid-term elections. Democrats picked up something like thirty seats in the House and six in the Senate to add to their majority’s. 

And of course Democrats won the White House in 1976 while retaining their large majority’s in Congress. But thanks to President Carter, Republicans got a lot of those seats back plus some new ones in 1978 and 1980. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Representative Paul McCloskey & Allard Lowenstein- Dump Richard Nixon?

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley U.S. Representative Paul McCloskey (Republican, California) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1971.

"Episode S0001, Recorded on May 26, 1971. Guests: Paul N. McCloskey, Allard K. Lowenstein. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"For this first installment of Firing Line broadcast on public television, we have as our guests two men actively seeking to dump President Nixon. Mr. Lowenstein's organization had voted in favor of impeaching him for high crimes and misdemeanors-no, not Watergate, which was still more than a year away, but rather his conduct of the war in Vietnam. For the same reason, Mr. McCloskey had announced that he would challenge the President for the 1972 Republican nomination. (As it happens, by the time of the New Hampshire primary Mr. Buckley was backing John Ashbrook for the Republican nomination-not because of Vietnam but because of President Nixon's trip to China.) A certain amount of fun & games, but then serious and deeply informed analysis of the Vietnam War itself and the history of American intervention abroad." 

From the Hoover Institution

Richard Nixon, wasn't a very popular President his first couple years as President, with the Vietnam War that he inherited and with the anti-war movement that was going on as well. 

President Nixon inherited a lot from President Johnson when he became President. And made a lot of tough decisions, like expanding the Vietnam War in an attempt to bring North Vietnam to the negotiating table. Which in the end worked. But he paid a heavy price for it politically and wasn't really a lock to get reelected until the spring or summer of 1972. After the Nixon Administration reached and agreement to end the Vietnam War with North Vietnam.

President Nixon, also had two successful foreign policy trips to Russia and China and opening up relations with both countries. The first American President to arrive in either country. 

Dick Nixon was about twenty years ahead of him time on foreign policy. Whether you like him or not or are in between, you have to give him credit for that. He's one of the most intelligent politicians and President's we've ever had. And for that reason he could see how things were developing and how they were going to look in the future. And this "Dump Nixon" movement in the Republican Party must of been a reaction from I guess the libertarian wing of the party.

Republicans who believed the Vietnam War was a mistake and one of the reasons why they elected Dick Nixon was to end the Vietnam War. But he expanded that war before he ended it. They must been the people behind the "Dump Nixon" movement. And thats not what they were looking for, but a complete end to the war. 

It's a huge risk to take on your own President the leader of your party, when he's in his first term. Which is exactly what President Nixon was by 1971. Because again President Nixon was no lock to get reelected in 1971, he wasn't very popular at this point.

Also the Democratic Party still has solid majorities in Congress (both in the House and Senate) and losing the presidency in 1972, which of course didn't happen, but had that happen, the Republican Party would once again find themselves out-of-power in the Federal Government. Just like in the 1960s when Congressional Democrats added to their majorities. Republicans had to retain the White House in 1972 to further their momentum that they made in the South in the mid and late 1960s. 

I wasn't aware there was a "Dump Nixon" movement. I didn't believe Republicans ever did things like this. The only other time I'm aware of this happening was in 1992 when Pat Buchanan and his supporters took on President George H.W. Bush and ran against him in the Republican primary's and had some success. This kinda thing generally happens in the Democratic Party, when the Far Left believes the President is not what they call progressive enough, like today.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The New Frontier & The Great Society (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking about The New Frontier and The Great Society, in 1966.

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The New Frontier: The Great Society. 

Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Jr. 46.9K subscribers. Episode 008, Recorded on May 6, 1966 Guest: Richard N. Goodwin." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Goodwin was present at the creation-as WFB reminds us, he is credited with supplying "that ominous phrase, 'The Great Society' "-and he defends the Johnson program ably in this good-tempered session. RG: "Well, I think the Great Society ...represents a change or a breaking point from the ideas of the New Deal. I think the essential idea behind the New Deal was that rising prosperity, more equitably distributed among the people, would solve most of the problems of the country. . . . Now, having succeeded-not completely, but to quite a degree-in that effort ... we find it doesn't solve the major problems, the kinds of problems you talked about in your campaign [for Mayor of New York] ...and that now we have to turn our attention, not only ... to relief of the poor or dispossessed, but to the quality of life of every American." 

From the Hoover Institution 

This photo is from an interview that William F. Buckley did with U.S. Representative Wilbur Mills (Democrat, Arkansas) who was Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, when President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda was passed in the mid 1960s. But the video is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking about The Great Society in 1967.

One of the things if not the main thing that united the Republican Party in the mid and late 1960s, was President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda and all the social insurance programs that came with it. Similar to President Clinton in 1993-94 with his deficit reduction plan, crime bill, and failed health care reform attempt. 

Conservatives in America saw the growth of the Federal Government in the 1960s as a threat to individual freedom. Which is why they united behind Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and conservative candidates for Congress in 1966 and 68. And why they united behind Richard Nixon for President in 1968.

The GOP saw the Johnson Administration wanting to make America like Europe with a large welfare state. With things like Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Public Housing, increasing public education funding from the Federal Government, etc. 

And conservatives in America like Bill Buckley and others saw all of these programs as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. And didn’t like the new tax hikes that came from Medicare, especially since America was a fairly low tax country. Pre-FDR New Deal, LBJ Great Society and still a low tax country today compared with Europe. But Classical Conservatives and Libertarians, still believe that America is still overtaxed as a country.

American Conservatives wanted to get behind candidates and politicians who would work to downsize or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society. And they saw the Johnson Administration and Secretary Wilbur Cohen (of the Department of Health, Welfare and Education) as people who wanted to make America more like Europe from the Federal Government. At the expense of individual freedom and state and local government's and try to centralize the power with the Federal Government.

This is how Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and other Conservatives got into to power. And how Dick Nixon got back into power in 1968 and how more Conservative Republicans got elected to Congress in the late 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. 

This is how the Republican Party became relevant again in the Federal Government and across America by running against the New Deal and Great Society and saying that they want to change it and still try to solve the same problems. But do it in a way that gives the people more individual freedom in how they solve their own problems.

In some ways the Goldwater defeat in 1964 and the LBJ Great Society was great for the Republican Party, because it brought them together and united them behind the same agenda. And why you saw more Conservatives run for Congress and get elected especially in the 70s, 80s and 90s. People like Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Orrin Hatch, Al Simpson, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and may others. Because the Republican Party came together behind the same agenda. And how the Rockefeller faction of the party almost faded away.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Firing Line with William F. Buckley: U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield- 'Was Barry Goldwater a Mistake?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) in 1967.

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Was Goldwater a Mistake? Episode 081, Recorded on December 14, 1967 Guest: Mark O. Hatfield." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"William F. Buckley: "Description: Senator Hatfield, from the liberal side of the Republican Party, positions himself perfectly in his opening answer: Goldwater wasn't a mistake in a parliamentary sense, because "the Republican Party deliberately nominated [him] in open convention," after primaries and state conventions made it clear he was grass-roots Republicans' choice. However, "I don't think Senator Goldwater as a person was rejected so much as was Senator Goldwater's basic approach to problems. He tended to evoke fear." Much is discussed--from the leadership qualities a President needs, to the different factions within the Republican Party--but Senator Hatfield, who attributes much of Goldwater's fear-evoking to his "off-the-cuff types of responses," never says anything that could disqualify him as the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1968." 

From the Hoover Institution 

This photo is also from the interview that William F. Buckley did with U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) in 1967, but the video from which the photo came from is not currently available online.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) in 1967.

By the time the 1964 presidential campaign came around, the Republican Party was already in bad shape. They lost the presidency in 1960, Democrats controlled Congress with huge majorities. And even added to those majorities in 1962. 

After 1962 the classical conservative base of the Republican Party, felt the needed to fight back and take control of the party as they did in 1964. After what they saw as moderate leadership from the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s. And they saw Vice President Richard Nixon as a moderate presidential candidate.

This is how Senator Barry Goldwater became the 1964 Republican presidential nominee and one reason why Dick Nixon didn't run for president in 1964 and why Governor Nelson Rockefeller was treated so badly at the 1964 Republican Convention, was because a new political faction was in charge of the GOP. 

The Conservative-Right in the GOP believed the Kennedy-Johnson Administration was moving the Federal Government too far away from federalism. And growing the Federal Government too rapidly with the Great Society and they felt the need to step up and nominate someone who they saw as a Classical Conservative and a Constitutional Conservative. Who would bring the Federal Government back in line with the U.S. Constitution.

This is how exactly Senator Goldwater ran his presidential campaign and even had some success in the South. And won some Southern states that the Democratic Party use to own. 

1964 was the start of a movement in American politics, that started to move the South from being a purely Democratic region and made it more competitive for Republican candidates. Which is one reason how Dick Nixon was elected President in 1968. And got reelected in a landslide in 1972 and how the Republican Party won 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88. Four of those elections that they won were by landslides.

The Republican Party paid a heavy price for Senator Goldwater's landslide lost in 1964, but for only two years. From 1965-67 where the Democratic Party had the presidency and huge majority's in Congress, but it was a short two years, because by 1966, President Johnson was starting to become unpopular. And Congressional Republicans picked up 47 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Republicans were still in the minority in both chambers of Congress, but back in the ballpark, with a shot at making Congress competitive.

Because in 1968 Republicans picked up five more seats in the House to give them 192 and seven in the Senate to give them 43. So the Democrats no longer had such huge majorities in Congress and be able to over run the minority party. Because the Republican Party now had new states and districts that were put in play for them. In some ways the 1964 general elections was a great defeat for the Republican Party. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: House Minority Leader Gerald Ford- 'Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer? (1968)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

“Gerald Ford had been in the unenviable position of becoming the House Republicans’ leader following the 1964 debacle, in which his troops were reduced to a minority of 140, as against 295 Democrats. Then again, as Mr. Buckley suggests, there was nowhere to go but up, and the GOP had rebounded nicely in 1966. Mr. Ford-as the nation would learn more extensively a few years later on-is not the liveliest speaker, but he does a good job of explaining what he and his colleagues mean by “constructive alternatives” to the Democrats’ initiatives, and there are some good exchanges-e.g., on the minimum wage, and on Hubert Humphrey. WFB: “And [Humphrey] may have an interesting future.” GF: “Well, not as interesting as he would like, but it is going to be interesting.”

From the Hoover Institution

In 1964 the Republican Party was at its lowest point since the FDR New Deal era as far as their power in America. Especially in the Federal Government, where they were the opposition minority party. 

After 1964, Democrats had the presidency with President Johnson, they had huge majority's in the Congress with 289 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. The Senate Republican minority couldn't even block anything on their own. And this was back when it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. And yet the Republican Party had one of the most effective Senate leaders in Senate history, in Everett Dirksen.

After 1964 House Republicans, a very small minority party, only had 140 seats but they did have a very effective Minority Leader in Gerald Ford, who went on to become Vice President of the United States and then of course later President of the United States, who was pretty effective at keeping his conference united against what the President wanted to do. The Great Society being a pretty good example of this. 

Minority Leader Ford was also very effective at coming up with alternatives to what President Johnson and House Speaker John McCormack brought to the House floor, but the Republican Party was going through a very rough period.

After 1960 the Republican Party had been thrown out-of-power, when Vice President Richard Nixon lost the Presidency to Senator Jack Kennedy and Democrats retained large majority's in both the House and Senate. And to make it worse, House and Senate Republicans both lost seats in the 1962 mid-term elections. 

Generally the opposition party picks up seats in Congress in the mid-term Elections, but Congressional Republicans lost seats in the House and Senate in 1962, when they were a small minority party to begin with. The Republican Party was in pretty bad shape. And then of course in 1964 when Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson and Democrats again picked up seats in the House and Senate as well.

After 1964 House Republicans felt they needed a new voice and new Leader and Gerry Ford was a very effective Minority Leader. And he helped his conference rebuild itself. And this is where Senator Goldwater's presidential campaign was very successful, because he got the party back to classical conservatism and won some states in the South. And Minority Leader Ford was able to take that message to the House and his conference. And effectively communicated their message on TV and radio and in print.

House Republicans under the leadership of Minority Leader Gerald Ford, were able to offer and alternative agenda to President Johnson and House Democrats. And House Republicans picked up 47 seats in 1966 and Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. And in some ways 1964 and the aftermath was the start of the Republican Party rebuilding. And building their party in the South. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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