NBC News: Evan McMullin: 'Donald Trump's Rise To Power Proves How Dangerous Populism is For Democracy'

Source:NBC News-

Source:The New Democrat

If I look at Donald Trump’s rise to power completely honestly and objectively and not as a partisan Democratic hack, which I’m not anyway, but if I look at his rise as simply as an objective political analyst, I don’t see him personally as a threat to democracy, even liberal democracy. So that would be one area where I believe I disagree with Evan McMullin. (2016 Conservative Independent presidential candidate and founder of Standup Republic)

Now, if I were to look at his Trump’s rise as a partisan Democratic hack I might be saying things like, “Donald Trump’s rise is a threat to everything we hold dear as Americans. Civil rights laws, checks and balances, equal rights, equal opportunity, social safety net, etc,!” But thats not my job as someone who is only registered as a Democrat, but doesn’t officially work for the Democratic Party and doesn’t have to go on cable TV news and everyday and night saying things I simply don’t believe, or leaving out important facts, simply to help Democrats and hurt Republicans. Something that is way too common on cable news today from the big three cable news networks from both Democratic and Republican political analysts.

I don’t even see Donald Trump’s movement as a threat to liberal democracy which is more important to me than just democracy. Even though the National-Right in America which is essentially the blue-collar Christian-Right wing of the Tea Party from 2011-12, have very illiberal and fascists tendencies and don’t believe people who disagree with them have the same constitutional rights as they do. Who believe the Trump Administration should be regulating news organizations that write and produce critical pieces and stories about Donald Trump and his allies. Don’t get me wrong, these people are scary and should be opposed at every opportunity.

But again, where I separate from the Even McMullin’s of the world is how much power the Nationalist-Right actually has in America. As we’re seeing with even a Republican Congress and a Trump appointed Justice Department, is how our form of government that was created by our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) is supposed to work.

Probably even a majority of Congressional Republicans both in the House and Senate, especially in the Senate, believe the Russia story is a big deal. Which is why there are now three Congressional committee investigations into it which includes the 2016 Trump Campaign. House Intelligence, Senate Intelligence, and Senate Judiciary, looking at any possible involvement that they may have had wth Russia and the Putin Administration last year. As well as a Deputy Attorney (Rod Rosenstein) appointed by President Trump, overseeing a Justice Department investigation into Russia and 2016. The Deputy Attorney General appointing a special counsel (Robert Mueller) to conduct an independent investigation.

Our system is destined so even if you have a populist with nationalistic and even authoritarian learnings, come into power in the White House who believes the job of his Administration is simply to serve and protect him, that there’s a system in place simply designed to serve the people. Even if that means looking into things and people that could hurt the President and his Administration. Our Federal Government which includes not just the Administration, but Congress and the judiciary, are functioning the way they’re supposed to which is why someone even like Donald Trump, can’t become a dictator because he has to many layers of checks and people to say no to him and that you can’t do this or that, to prevent him from becoming a dictator.

Again, I’m not a fan of the Nationalist-Right and I’m offended as an American every time that our President tries to appease them and try to keep them with him, because he actually believes he needs their political support to stay in power. Something that President George W. Bush, his father and President Reagan, would have never even had considered .

Whether its the Steve Bannon folks who probably aren’t racists and ethno-Nationalists, but just ideological Nationalists, or the Neo-Nazis who are racial and ethno-Nationalists. But even if these people command as much as 30% of the Republican Party base, you’re only talking about 20-25 of the American electorate and that includes the racist terrorists, as well as the blue-collar Nationalists who aren’t racists, but believe their form of America is disappearing which is why they don’t like immigration. And even if these people do come to power in America we again have this beautifully designed system of checks and balances that prevents them from turning America into some type of authoritarian fascist state.

John F. McManus: 'Hugh Hefner & Moral Decline'

Source:John Birch Society-

Source:The Daily Review

Similar to Hugh Hefner like Ayn Rand, is an example of why the Far-Left and Far-Right in America are like an arguing fighting married couple who you would think are bitter enemies out the door headed for divorce when you see them, but who actually love each other. Similar to Al and Peggy Bundy, from the great sitcom Married With Children. Or Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, from the great movie Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. The Far-Right and Far-Left have both Ayn Rand and Hugh Hefner in common, as far as people they both not just oppose, but hate.

Hugh Hefner represents what the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and the Socialist-Left and in some cases now Communist-Left, hate about about America which is individualism and personal freedom. The ability for one to pick their own lot in life and live with their own decisions. Chart their own course in life and live the way they choose, not how Big Government decides for them, because they believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions. And that free adults are essentially children and mental patients, without the knowledge and judgment to make their own decisions in life.

I mean, H\ugh Hefner created Playboy Magazine. He didn’t create the lifestyle, but he made it mainstream, along with the Baby Boom Generation and the 1960s. Pre-Hefner and Playboy, America was still the 1950s Father Knows Best, honey, I’m home! America! Where Dad of course worked and where Mom stayed home. Women of course were allowed to work in America, but could be denied employment simply because of their gender, or lose their husband if they choose to enter the outside workforce.

Thanks to Hefner and others, in the 196os Americans finally saw the memo that America is about freedom and the individual. That Americans can actually make their own decisions in life and not have to live in Big Bother’s basement anymore and go out in the world and decide for themselves how to live and what the American Dream means for them.

That men didn’t necessarily have to get married, nor did women. That men and women didn’t even have to get married in order to have kids. That they could actually do those things together without getting married. Even if the Christian-Right labeled their kids as bastards. That women could build careers for them and then perhaps later on if they met the right man and wanted to, they could settle down and have kids. Instead of setting out to get married and have kids and soon as they’re out of college.

Not saying I approve of Hugh Hefner’s lifestyle and that lifestyle isn’t for men. But what’s great about America along with our diversity and equal rights and what actually makes America exceptional is our individualism. The right for free adults to be themselves. That even porn freaks and men who can’t get it up in a traditional way and fine just one beautiful sexy woman boring, have a place in America.

And of course the Far-Left hates Hefner not just because of his individualism and the personal freedom that millions of men and women in America finally felt that they had, but they believed Hefner was an exploiter of women because of the pornography that his magazine represented and even produced. Apparently unaware that American women actually have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to get involved, or in bed even with someone like Hefner and pose for playboy and other pornographic publications, or decide not to. I guess the Far-Left as much as they claim to be champions of feminism, apparently see American women actually as stupid and not able to make these decisions for themselves.

Hugh Hefner and Playboy, represent choice in America. The freedom for people to choose their own course and life and make their own choices. You don’t like pornography, don’t associate with it and keep your kids away from it. Freedom and responsibility, instead of Big Government making these very personal decisions for everyone else. Similar to guns in America, you don’t prosecute people for having guns, but shooting innocent people with those guns. Well similar to pornography and the playboy lifestyle, you don’t prosecute people simply for living a non-traditional lifestyle. You prosecute people when they hurt innocent people with what they’re doing. Rape being and sexual assault, being excellent examples.

And of course the Christian-Right would argue that Americans have a right to self-defense under the 2nd Amendment. And I agree with that . And they would also argue we don’t have a right to pornography and to live our own lifestyles as we choose. Well, we do have the First Amendment which covers free speech and expression, free press. And we also have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, as well as property rights under the Fifth Amendments. All three of these amendments cover a lot of ground and give Americans a lot of freedom to make their own personal decisions in life. And with that freedom also comes a lot of responsibility. Individualism, personal freedom, and responsibility, is what I believe Hugh Hefner represents.

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles: Meet The Press (1977) Phyllis Schlafly Debating The ERA

Source:CNN- Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. 

Source:The New Democrat

This is one issue that I actually agree with Phyllis Schlafly and others on the Right from the Center-Right, to the lets say further if not Far-Right where Phyllis Schlafly and her movement in the 1970s and 1980s were. As well as the Center-Left where I am.

Phyllis Schlafly represented the Tea Party of the late 20th Century. But the Michele Bachmann wing of it that was a combination of Christian-Conservatives and economic Libertarians. People who didn't want a welfare state and even safety net, that at least came from the Federal Government. But who had very fundamentalist Christian views on social policy and believed in those views so strongly that they believed the rest of the country should follow and live by.

The way I would describe her movement was unlike Barry Goldwater who believed big government shouldn't be in our wallets or bedrooms, not in our economic or personal lives, Phyllis Schlafly and the Christian New-Right believed that big government should be out of our wallets and into our bedrooms. That homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and adultery, to use as examples, should be illegal. But taxes should be very low and regulations of the economy should be minimal.

The reasons why I oppose the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) I believe are different from Phyllis Schlafly. American women already have the same constitutional rights as men in the Constitution. The Federal courts have already ruled that the word man covers both men and women. And then you have the 1965 Civil Rights Act where women and men can't be discriminated against based on their gender, the ERA is simply not necessary.

Phyllis Schlafly argued that women are better off serving their men. Which comes from her fundamentalist Christian beliefs. That men should work and women should stay home and raise their kids. That women shouldn't have the same opportunities and freedom in society as men. As I argued before Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum mixed economic libertarianism, with Christian authoritarianism with their politics. A mixture of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee today. Michele Bachmann would probably be the best spokesperson for this movement today.

If you're a true Feminist that you believe men and women should be treated equally under law and not rewarded or punished simply because of their gender, than you oppose the ERA. Because men and women are already supposed to be treated equally under law and under the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act already guarantees equal treatment under law and in the private sector. That no race, ethnicity, or gender, should be treated better or worse  simply because of their physical heritage. But if you're a true Feminist you should also oppose the Phyllis Shclafly Eagles, because she believed that women should be subservient of men. That its the job of men to take care of women.
Source:Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

The Hollywood Reporter: Beverly Hills 90210- The Teen Drama That Brought Back Sideburns Turns 27

Source: The Hollywood Reporter - Jennie Garth & Shannen Doherty. 

Source:The Daily Review

At risk of giving out my age, Beverly Hills 90210 takes me back 27 years to my first year in high school. I started high school during the late summer of 1990 in Bethesda, Maryland. Beverly Hills comes out almost two months later in late October that year. The kids on 90201 at least the main stars characters were a year ahead of me in high school. I was the class of 1994 in high school and they were the class of 93. So I got to see their last three years of high school and their first year of college my whole time in high school. And thats exactly what I did, because Beverly Hills and the original Law & Order, were my favorite two shows in the 1990s, (not including Monday Night Football) at least the early and mid 1990s. Actually, add LA Law to that list, so I saw a lot of Beverly Hills and know the show very well.

Beverly Hills wasn't the first show about my Generation X. The Facts of Life from the 1980s was that show. Beverly Hills wasn't even the second show about my generation. Saved by The Bell from the late 1980s and early 90s was that. And both of those shows deserve their own articles and pieces written about them as well, because they're both very successful and important to this generation. But Beverly Hills was an original at least in the sense that it was the first soap opera about Generation X. People who grew up and came of age during the 1980s and 1990s. Who were born in the 1960s and 1970s. Whether you want to use the official Census Bureau definition of Gen-X as 1965-79, or use a more believable figure like 1962 or even 1961, till 1979, we are the generation was that was born in the 1960s and 1970s and came of age during the 1980s and 1990s. So if you went to high school and graduated high school in the 1990s, you're probably a Gen-Xer, unless you graduated in the late 90s.

So that is what Beverly Hills was about how Gen-X kids grew up and what we went through and experienced as a generation. For all the good and bad and Beverly Hills had a lot of both. From parents of Gen-X kids falling in love again and getting remarried, to dealing with teen pregnancy and teen suicide. It has two twins literally from Minneapolis, (ha, ha, the Minnesota Twins, get it) yes it was corny, but the Walsh Family moves from Minneapolis to the Los Angeles area settling in Beverly Hills into a new beautiful home. Jim Walsh (the husband and father) is a successful accountant and lands a new and good job in Beverly Hills and moves his family 2000 miles or so from Minneapolis to Los Angeles.

The Walsh's have two kids who are yes twins Brandon and Brenda (played by Jason Priestly and Shannen Doherty) and they are uplifted from the down to earth 1950s lifestyle of the Upper Midwest in Minnesota, where they get 6 months or more of winter every year, out to Los Angeles where they've never even heard of winter, let alone seen it and get 6 months of summer instead. So the kids especially get a real cultural shock during the first season of this show.

It gets much better and more interesting, not that the Walsh Family aren't that interesting, because the Brenda Walsh character might be the most fascinating character on the show. Either her of Dylan McKay (played by Luke Perry) but the people they meet and befriend in Beverly Hills and Beverly Hills High School, are all sons and daughters of LA big shots. Entertainer moguls and people who at least do business and have clients in the Hollywood industry. And they meet most if not all the stereotypes Los Angeles kids.

Kelly Taylor (played by (Jennie Garth) is the daughter of an aging actress who is an alcoholic and addicted to illegal narcotics as well. Kelly's parents of course are divorced and she rarely sees her father.

Steve Sanders (played by Ian Ziering) is the son of an actress and a Hollywood businessman. Who you think with that background would do very well at least starting out as far as never having to worry about money and where he might live. But the guy is a bit of a rebel and a constant screw up who is essentially always in trouble and looking to get into trouble. Thinking he will get away with it and always has one scheme or another, but always gets caught. We probably all grew up with guys like that.

Donna Martin (played by Tori Spelling) on the surface at least comes off as a typical Southern California blonde bimbo. But she's very cute both personally and physically and very kindhearted always looking to help others. Who is a good girl always looking to please her parents, especially her Phyllis Schlafly lookalike over-paternalistic mother who lives in and is very happy in Los Angeles, but like Phyllis Schalfly believes Hollywood is destroying her 1950s traditional America. And strongly looks down upon individualism.

Dylan McKay (played by Luke Perry) is my favorite character on the show. Luke Perry plays the son of the Hollywood investor as well as it can be played. He's essentially a good guy (at least when he's sober) but is the constant rebel who grows up until his parents literally let him ago and buy him his own house, in a hotel. Because his parents get divorced and his mother skips out on them and moves to Hawaii. Leaving her son with his father who doesn't seem to have the time to raise his son. And has him put up in a hotel and gives his son Dylan money to take care of himself. Dylan is basically a young guy with no parental guidance other than maybe Jim Walsh (the twins father) who manages his trust fund for him. Jim Walsh really is the closest thing that Dylan has to a father, or even parent on the show.

I guess I should say something about David Silver ( played by Brian Austin Green) who I guess was okay on this show, but what has he done lately? I believe Beverly Hills is really Brian Green's only real shot at making it big in Hollywood and when that dried up so did his career. David Silver is one of those guys who is actually hipper than he seems at first, who knows how to be cool, but struggles in executing it. He is one of those guys who wants to be in with what we at least called back then  the in crowd. I guess its called clicke today, but doesn't really fit in at least during the first season.

I would mention the twins but they get so much attention anyway and the fact that they moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles in the middle of high school to start their sophomore years, plus with everything that has been written about them before, gives you a pretty good idea about them. They both probably deserve their own articles about them anyway.

Beverly Hills is a good example of what life was like as teenagers (at least LA teenagers) in the early 1990s and what life was like when cell phones weren't mainstream yet and the internet was a baby. The internet comes out in the summer of 91 during the 2nd season of Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills is also an example of what life was like for teens and young adults before coffee houses were everywhere and before social media was online. Where people actually got together physically to hang out and socialize. Because our lives weren't dominated by our iPhones and laptops. And is a great show especially for people who are interested in what life was like in the 1990s especially the early 90s and what growing was like for Generation X.
Source:The Hollywood Reporter

Patrick J. Buchanan: Judge Roy Moore & God's Law

Source: Patrick J. Buchanan-

Source:The New Democrat 

As much as so-called Conservatives like to claim that they believe in the rule of law, this is where the term so-called comes in when talking about some people who call themselves Conservatives. Former Judge Roy Moore now U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore from Alabama, has said that he doesn't believe he has to follow laws that violate what he calls God's Law. To put it simply, if a law is passed or has been on the books for years that violates his fundamentalist religious beliefs like same-sex marriage, the right to privacy which even covers pornography and homosexuality, that Judge Moore believes he has the right under his religious beliefs to violate those laws.

Judge Moore is not a strict-constructionist when it comes to the U.S. Constitution or a Constitutional Conservative. He's Christian-Theocrat who believes separation of church and state violates the U.S. Constitution, even though its in the Constitution. Which is like one of these radical New-Left ANTIFA Neo-Communist activists saying that Americans don't have a right to free speech, even though we have this little annoying document that annoys the hell out of the Far-Left and Far-Right that guarantees our free speech rights in America.

No one on the far Christian-Right in America and far Christian-Right is about as Far-Right as you can get in America, Christian-Right is pretty far, but no one on the far Christian-Right who are Christian-Theocrats like Roy More, should ever complain about Middle Eastern and Muslim theocracy. Because Christian-Theocrats the Roy Moore's, Pat Robertson's of the world, believe in theocracy as well. Just replace fundamentalist Islam with fundamentalist Christianity. Replace Arabs and other Middle Easterners, with English-Protestant Americans.

Roy Moore believes homosexuality should be illegal because it violates his religious beliefs. The Far-Left believes that criticism of Islam should be illegal because it offends some Muslims. Or even hate speech from Neo-Nazis who express their hate towards African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities, should be illegal because it offends those groups as well as most good Americans.

The problem that these fringes have again is that little annoying document called the U.S. Constitution that big governmentalist's on the Christian-Right and radical Socialist-Left, actually most if not all Socialists in America are radical at least in America, but you get the idea, seem to hate.

The Christian-Right doesn't use the U.S. Constitution as their guiding document and principles. What they do is take advantage of those rights and principles to advance their political agendas. Their interpretation of the Bible is what guides their politics. The Socialist-Left doesn't believe laws and rights that were given to us over two-hundred years ago should apply to us today. Like the First Amendment, 2nd Amendment, federalism which is part of the 10th Amendment, and that the will of the people at the time should be what guides and govern us. And not a Constitution with all of these amendments that are almost impossible to overturn.

The problem that the Christian-Right has in America and I'm talking about their radicals since a lot of religious fundamentalist have radical religious views, but don't necessarily believe their religious and cultural values should be forced on the rest of the country or want to see America become a religious theocracy, but the Roy Moore Christian-Theocratic wing of this movement's problem is that they don't live in a Christian-Theocracy or any other type of theocracy. They live in a constitutional federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy.

And just because the Christian-Right believe some laws and rights, and protections,  are immoral like the right to privacy and free speech that they find offensive like homosexuality and certain forms of entertainment, or athletes protesting during the national anthem, doesn't mean they have the right to violate laws just because they believe those laws, rights, and protections violate their interpretation of God's Law. We have rule of law in America and if you don't like one law or certain laws, you have the constitutional right to peacefully protest those laws and work to overturn them. As well as the obligation to obey those laws as long as there're on the books. Which is apparently is something that Roy Moore either didn't learn in law school, or ignored.
Source:Michael Jacques

A&E Biography: Yvonne De Carlo

Source:Movie Documentary- Clark Gable & Yvonne De Carlo.

Source:The Daily Review

Yvonne De Carlo at least to me represents the total package when it comes to actresses and entertainers. After you get through her mesmerizing first impression of this beautiful baby-faced adorable Italian brunette, with a great shape, you also see a very intelligent woman with a great sense of humor and great dramatic ability as well. Her most famous role is probably as the mother on Adams Family, but she did so much before that.

Similar to Susan Hayward she's a women who didn't come from much with her father not in the picture and with a mother who didn't seem have much interest in raising her. Susan Hayward's issues with her parents were that they were poor and had to raise their kids in poverty. With Yvonne's family it was being born to father who wasn't around and a mother who wasn't ready to raise her. And yet by 1943 Yvonne gets her first break as an actress in the movie The Deerslayer starting a great career as a movie as well as TV actress and doing comedy, drama and dramatic comedy.

 I believe I would put Yvonne De Carlo on the dramatic/comedy side when it comes to great actors and actresses. Similar to Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Collins, Yvonne De Carlo, and many others. An actress who was very good at both comedy and drama, but even better when those genres were combined, When you would have a great drama with a lot of funny people in it with a lot of lets say sarcasm and flipped lines. And perhaps having funny actors and entertainers who would add their own material and improvise with their own expressions making their characters even more entertaining and funny.

Cary Grant perhaps is the master of dramatic comedy which is why he worked so well with Alfred Hitchcock because he loved dramatic comedy and had a real knack for it. Yvonne was an actress who would have been a great soap actress both on TV and in the movies because she was so good at delivering clever lines, putting people down, but doing it in a funny, honest, entertaining way, that didn't make her seem mean.

I haven't seen all of Yvonne De Carlo's movies and have only gotten more familiar with her career in the last two years or so, but if you are interested in see some good Yvonne movies, I would suggest Death of a Scoundrel where she plays the executive investment of a business investor played George Sanders who really was a scoundrel, but speaking of dramatic comedy you almost have to like at least parts of the Clementi Sabourin character (played by George Sanders) with Yvonne's character there to keep the man honest and in check. They work really well in the movie and it almost seems like the Yvonne character hates Clementi in the movie and yet is never able to leave him until the end because there's something about him that she loves and not just the money he pays her.

Yvonne to me represents a actress that again was simply the total package as an actress. Great to look, great to listen to, but she was also a great actress and incredibly entertaining. Someone with style and substance who didn't have low self-esteem issues because she knew who she was and how good she was. Who didn't get picked up off the street by some agent or director because she had a great face or figure and then they make a project out of her and try to make her into at an acceptable actress. But someone who came from nothing and did the work to make herself a great actress. Who also happened to be beautiful, adorable, with a beautiful body as well. And represents Old Hollywood when substance was rated higher in style and where you had to be able to do the work and do it well to succeed in Hollywood and where physical looks weren't simply good enough.
Source:Movie Documentary

Daniel J. Mitchell: 'Disagreeing With Socialism, Despising Marxism'

Source:AIM- Marxist Socialist Karl Marx and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders.

Source:The New Democrat 

"I wrote last week about evil of totalitarian ideologies such as communism and fascism and pointed out that both antifa and Nazis should be treated with complete disdain and ostracism.

And that led me to find common ground with my left-of-center friends, even though I don’t like many of their policies.

I don’t like redistribution…programs are financed with taxes and that the internal revenue code is enforced by coercion…if you catch me in a cranky mood, I’ll be like the stereotypical libertarian at Thanksgiving dinner and wax poetic about what’s wrong with the system. That being said, I much prefer the coercion found in western democracies compared to the totalitarian versions of coercion found in many other parts of the world. At least we have the rule of law, which limits (however imperfectly) capricious abuse by government officials. …our Constitution still protects many personal liberties, things that can’t be taken for granted in some places. Moreover, there is only a trivially small risk of getting abused by the state in western nations because you have unpopular views. And there’s little danger of persecution by government (at least nowadays) based on factors such as race and religion. This is what makes liberal democracy a good form of government (with “liberal” in this case being a reference to classical liberalism rather than the modern version). Unfortunately, there are some people in America that don’t believe in these principles." 

From Daniel J. Mitchell

I agree with Dan Mitchell about one thing in his piece on his blog that the point that I believe as well that John Judis argued in his column at The New Republic (now The Socialist Republic) is that what Judis called “liberal socialism” is really liberalism. (In his view) And that is what he and his political allies want. That Marxism and having complete national government control over everything in society, is at least a bridge too far. 

So instead of Marxism and complete socialist control over society that we should instead have a liberal society (in their view) where personal freedom is still maintained (at least to some extent) and even have a private sector with private enterprise, but where the central government would gain control over basic personal and human services that people have to have to live well in life.

In this democratic socialist socialist state, things like education, health care, health insurance, pensions, child care, employment insurance, paid leave, etc, would be under government control. But leave in the private sector in charge of things that people need less and in charge of luxury items things that people need to enjoy life and to get around: transportation, travel, hotels, entertainment, restaurants, basic products that we buy at stores. Where you would want some private competition at least to see that these products are made as well as possible and to keep prices down.

One problem with the Judis argument about both liberalism and socialism and then trying to combine them both into ideology, is that one reason they don't fit together, they don’t go together. Sort of like trying to fit a horse into a Ford Escort, or pairing a country girl up with a gangsta rapper and expecting them to hit it off. When they probably can barely understand what they other one is saying because they use such different slang and speak in very different dialects. 

Socialism (democratic or not) is still a very collectivist ideology where the people are expected to trust the central government (in this case Uncle Sam) to manage their lives for them and to even see they are seeing the right doctors and going to the right hospitals and deciding where their kids go to school.

American liberalism is based off of liberal democracy where you have a federal republic with three layers of government and sometimes four if you live inside of a city that is part of a county. For example, people in Chicago live in Cook County as well, because Chicago is also part of Cook County, as well as the State of Illinois and of course the United States. But then you also have the individual themselves with the freedom to regulate themselves and be able to decide where they live, where their kids go to school, where they get their health care and who they pay to provide their health care for them. A more complicated way of saying health insurance.

You also get a good deal of personal freedom in a liberal democracy. Like how we spend our money, who we live with, who we are romantically involved with, what we eat, drink, and smoke. How we communicate with each other and how we express ourselves individually. A complicated way of saying free speech and expression. With a government at each level not to make our decisions for us, but to regulate how we interact with each other. Stopping and punishing predators when they attempt or abuse the innocent.

Liberal democracy unlike democratic socialism is so decentralized, because America was created through a revolutionary war, were soon to be American citizens who were living under a dictatorial monarchy from Britain wanted to break away from that and be able to live in freedom and make their own decisions for themselves. Which is something that so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) simply don’t understand about America. And Americans when they argue that America should be like a centralized social democracy like Europe. Plus, that facts that they hate individualism and tend to view Americans as stupid and needing a big centralized government to babysit them. So their kids aren’t sent to the wrong school in their view. (To use as one example)

The last and perhaps not least reason and problem, with the John Judis argument of what he calls liberal socialism, is that everywhere else in the world what they call liberalism in America, is called socialism everywhere else in the democratic world, at least. 

The democratic world views socialism as democratic socialism or social democracy, the less democratic or authoritarian world views socialism as socialism. Whether it’s practiced through democratic means like in Brazil, or through centralized authoritarian means like in Cuba and Venezuela. 

Again so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) are always arguing that America should be more like Europe. Well, they could start with words and calling their view or form of liberalism for what is actually is in the real world which is socialism. Democratic socialism, if you prefer.

Socialists argue that if government-run health care works in Britain, then it would also work in America. Well, if the words socialist and socialism are okay in Britain, then they shouldn’t they be okay in America as well? If you practice socialist ideology in Britain and believe in it and aren’t just called a Socialist but damn proud of that, then why wouldn’t Americans who believe in the same politics and policies, have a problem with the Socialist label in America? 

Own up to your own politics and what they actually are and then make the case for them and why not only you support them, but why others should support them as well and you’ll gain credibility and power in America. When you try to hide your politics behind other labels is where you lose credibility and respect in American politics.