The Federalist: Donald J. Boudreaux: In Defense of Liberal Learning

Source:The New Democrat

Liberalism is at its best regardless of its source and education is a perfect example. It's about giving people the tools they need to be successful in their own lives.  Education is a liberal concept because it is about empowering people and liberating them so they have what they need to live in freedom. That is exactly what a liberal education is, not teaching people what to think, but teaching them how to think and to be able to distinguish fact from opinion.

Forget about the welfare state and government dependency and other forms of big government that tend to be perceived as liberalism because that is not what liberalism is about. Without liberalism none of us would have the ability to achieve success in life because none of us would ever have the tools needed to be liberated and free from the welfare state and government dependence.  Liberalism is about liberating people and that starts with education, a liberal education at that.

Liberalism built America and a lot of what we've achieved has come from liberal values that derive from education, leading to liberation of the individual and liberal values like equal opportunity and justice for all so that every American can have that freedom and benefit from liberal democracy. These are the real liberal values and what made America great. It all begins with education so we can develop the tools and then take advantage of them. 

Revolutionary Workers Party: Malcolm X vs. James Baldwin

Source:The New Democrat

I have a problem with Malcolm X having a problem with the civil rights sit-ins of, I believe, from 1963, and perhaps earlier than that. Because what these young Americans were doing was saying that they were people too and that they could not be denied service simply because of their race or color. And all they were doing by going to these restaurants and diners and what Rosa Parks did on the bus by refusing to give up her seat to a Caucasian man was saying “we are here too and you can’t force us to leave.” Perhaps what Malcolm X would’ve preferred was that the demonstrators had bats or guns or something. And when a racist would tell them to move or try to physically move then that they would get hit the demonstrator

The American Conservative: James Antle- 'Five Ways Reagan Nostalgia Misleads Right-Wingers'

Source: The American Conservative- President Ronald Reagan. Don't know about the date and where the photo was taken.

Source:The New Democrat 

"This week marks Ronald Reagan’s 103rd birthday. Non-conservatives often mock the right’s nostalgia for the fortieth president, but the enthusiasm is as well placed as the FDR portraits that hung above many a New Deal Democrat’s mantle." 

From The American Conservative 

"This is really American big "C" Conservativism in a nutshell... they just know better than you, facts and logic be damned!  Oh yeah, you think you might have an insight about what your father thought?  Wrong you are Mr., because I read a book written by a guy who read another book about another guy, so that makes me an expert!  Okay, so I had someone tell me about both books and both guys, but I trust and believe them and therefore don't need to think critically for myself." 

From Craig Ipedia

I saw a book event last week on C-SPAN that featured Ron Reagan the son of Ronald Reagan. Now I know that politically the two Ron’s in the Reagan Family are different politically. But it is clear that Ron Jr. respects and loves his father dearly and his father loved and respected him dearly. As well and the more Ron Jr. talks about his father, the more you could see that he respected his father’s politics as well. And considers his father to be a successful president. They just didn’t agree on all the issues like as they related to the environment, aids research, and homelessness.

I bring this up because Ron Reagan wrote a book about his father’s life a few years ago. 2010 or 2011 and wrote about his father’s life a biography about his father and that is what this book event was about. And it was held about the time of President Reagan’s 100th Birthday late January, 2011. And after he was done speaking he was asked by one of the people at the book event at Politics and Prose, a Washington bookstore not very far from where I live in Maryland: “What do you think your father would feel about today’s Republicans talking about your father and comparing themselves to him?”

I’m paraphrasing here, but Ron Reagan said something to the effect that today’s right-wingers liked the political success of his father and the fact that he was a Conservative Republican or called that. But they wouldn’t of liked his politics that the party is much further to the Right today than it was when President Reagan left office back in 1989, some twenty-five years ago. 

You gotta know that Ron Reagan Sr. considered himself a Libertarian up until 1975 or so when he was first considering a strong run for President of the United States. Well, the word Libertarian and libertarianism is considered as bad as Communist or Communism by today’s Religious-Right and the broader Far-Right in the GOP.

Just read a column in the so-called American Conservative, even though it doesn’t sound that conservative to me at least in the Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan tradition. That said that and I’m paraphrasing here and the link of that column is on this blog, that said even though President Reagan did a lot for the conservative movement, he didn’t do much for advancing what is called social conservatism. Well, again Ron Reagan was a Classical Conservative, again think of Barry Goldwater. Not a Religious Conservative or a Neo-Conservative, which is very different.

Not arguing that Ron Reagan Sr. was a pure Libertarian because he wasn’t. The way he built up the military that by the way started under President Ford and President Carter, is a perfect example of that. But he did believe that people should have the freedom to live their own lives. And was more interested in how people interacted with each other, than what they did in their privacy. He ran on decreasing the role of government in Americans lives, not expanding it. Which makes him very different from the Religious-Right who believe Americans have too much personal freedom.

The Federalist: Fred Cole- 'Can We Fight About This Later?: The Case For Libertarians Working Together'

Source:The Federalist- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) and I'm guessing his wife.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Richard Epstein recently wrote in his Defining Ideas column about where he parts company with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and what he terms as “hard-line libertarians.”

Richard drew a fair distinction between himself — a classical liberal who uses the term “libertarian” as shorthand — and the whole taxation-as-theft branch of libertarianism, of which I’ll happily count myself as a member. From Epstein’s “My Rand Paul Problem“:

Libertarians fall into two distinct groups: strict libertarians like Rand Paul and classical liberals such as myself. “Classical liberal” is not a term that rolls off of the tongue. Consequently, “libertarian” is the choice term in popular discourse when discussing policies that favor limited government. Libertarians of all stripes oppose President Obama’s endless attacks on market institutions and the rich. The umbrella term comfortably embraces both strands of libertarian theory vis-à-vis a common intellectual foe.

The renewed attention to Paul exposes the critical tension between hard-line libertarians and classical liberals. The latter are comfortable with a larger government than hard-core libertarians because they take into account three issues that libertarians like Paul tend to downplay: (1) coordination problems; (2) uncertainty; (3) and matters of institutional design." 

From The Federalist 

"Are you a conservative?  If so, Dr. Stephen Davies suggests that it may be worth considering the ideas of libertarianism. For instance, conservatives tend to prefer institutions that have been tried and trusted, and want to maintain and uphold a traditionally established way of life. They also typically believe in an established or correct moral code. However, it does not logically follow that government should enforce all of these things. In fact, government enforcement of morals and traditions is often detrimental to both." 

Source:Learn Liberty- Dr. Stephen Davies.

From Learn Liberty

This is the debate that the Republican Party should be having right now between Libertarians (the Ron Paul’s of the world) and the Conservative libertarian branch the old Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan wing of the party that seems to be led by Senator Rand Paul. And I would add Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Jeff Flake to that list as well. Because these are the real Conservatives in the Republican Party. Not the Far-Right faction of the Tea Party. But the Conservative Libertarians in the party.

The Republican Party will not be a governing party again at the national level which means controlling the White House unless they bring in new voters. And as big government is more unpopular both from an economic and personal point of view, Republicans need to drop big government and their Far-Right and get back to their conservative roots, if they expect to be able to compete with Democrats for the new voters that they need: Latinos, Asians, Jews, economically conservative African-Americans.

Right now the competing factions in the Republican Party that could actually move it forward and beyond their Bible Belt Christian-Nationalist base, it’s the Ron Paul classical libertarian branch. The Rand Paul conservative libertarian branch and the establishment the leadership in the Republican Party. That is supposed to look out for the best interest of the GOP that tends to be economically and foreign policy oriented. And not so much interested in the social issues.

The conservative libertarian branches of the GOP is how they move forward and become a governing party again. That would even win back the U.S. Senate as well. Because they could tell Americans especially younger Americans that they have an economic message that young people could like. And they’re not trying to run their personal lives for them. Because the Religious-Right and Far-Right in general no longer runs the Republican Party.

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

Piers Morgan Tonight: Ann Coulter vs Piers Morgan- 10/26/2012

Source:RCP Video- Former CNN host Piers Morgan.

Source:The New Democrat

Ann Coulter actually make a good point about the mentally ill in America and their access to guns. Which is why we need to fully fund mental health care in America both in and out of institutions. And no longer release mental patients because of costs because now we are putting the resources in to fund mental health care in this country. And there are a variety of ways that we can do this. Requiring health insurers both private and public to cover mental health care would be one of them. And there will be a future post on this blog about how exactly could we fund mental health care in this country.

The mental health care may the only issue I agree with Ann Coulter on. And since I have so much disrespect for her and basically see here a hate-monger for the far-right, I may have to rethink my position on this. But where Ann goes back to Crazyland and visits her good friend Michelle Bachmann is that she’s not willing to do anything that would actually keep the mentally disabled for whatever reasons from getting access to firearms in the United States.

There are big government policies to cutting gun violence. Basically trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment that democratic socialist talk show how and writer Thom Hartmann suggested a few weeks ago. Or make it so weak that it is basically worth nothing. There are no government policies on this issue which is to do nothing. And there are limited government solutions to this problem which is to prevent criminals and the mentally disabled from getting firearms. While responsible adults would still be able to get firearms as long as they are responsible with them.

What we need is a twenty-four hour background check on anyone inside of the United States purchasing a firearm. And that check would be to make sure that no one with a violent felony criminal record, someone convicted of a violent crime or violent crimes could get access to firearms. Or the mentally ill someone with a record of metal illness could get access to firearms. As well as seeing that no one who still needs to be in a mental institution is able to leave until they are ready to.

The approach I’m talking about is supported by some sixty-percent of the American public. Even people who are on the far-left who want to outlaw firearms period for private use, would take this approach over doing nothing. And only the libertarian-right and the far-right see this approach as unconstitutional, because they are absolutists on the Second Amendment. And see any gun regulations are unconstitutional even though none of our constitutional rights are absolute.
Source:RCP Video

National Review: Lou Dobbs Tonight- John Fund: GOP Realizes Opposing ObamaCare Not Enough

Source:The Huffington Post- Senate GOP Leadership.

Source:The New Democrat 

The whole problem with the Republican Party especially the Tea Party’s critique of the Affordable Care Act that they call ObamaCare is that they’ve never had a plan of their own at least as a party. One plan that brings the whole party together. They never tried to pass a broad health care reform plan when they controlled both the White House and Congress from 2003-07. They just passed a very expensive Medicare prescription drug plan in 2003. That they borrowed seven-hundred billion dollars to pay for.

House Republicans when they were still in the minority led by John Boehner, had a substitute to the House passed health care reform plan in late 2009. But you don’t see many Republicans or anyone else speaking very highly of it now. Senate Republicans didn’t offer anything in 2009-10 as an alternative to the ACA. Either thinking they could block the ACA with just forty-one votes or hoping it would pass so they would have a campaign issue.

Right now the only plan on the table is the Affordable Care Act, because no one else has a plan. At least something that could even pass the Republican House of Representatives. Which means the only alternative would be going back to pre-2010 and back to the old system. That most of the country didn’t like because so many Americans either couldn’t afford health insurance. Or would be denied it because of a pre-existing-condition, or would lose their health insurance because they would actually need it.

If you repeal without replacing the ACA, you go back to the old system. And right now Americans who still do not like the ACA are saying that ObamaCare is still better than the old system. Which is why the politics of trying to repeal ObamaCare just doesn’t work and won’t work at least until they come up with an alternative to ObamaCare. And say, “we know you don’t like the old system or the current system. And this is what we would do instead and why it would be better.
Source:National Review