Heritage Foundation: David Horowitz: 'The Black Book of the American Left'

Source:Heritage Foundation.

Source:The New Democrat

Not the most disciplined presentation that I’ve seen from David Horowitz. He sort of went off in several different directions and talked about several different things. If you watch his TV interviews, he’s much more disciplined and stays on topic. I agree with Horowitz about the Far-Left and as far as what they’re essentially trying to accomplish.

That individualism, is essentially dangerous and individual freedom, should only be tolerated up to the point that the state isn’t literally making all of our decisions for us. Just the key economic and even personal decisions as well. Like what we can eat and drink, what’s good for us, what media is acceptable and how we can even communicate with each other.

That the U.S. Constitution, is outdated and is a big reason why America isn’t as progressive, as the New-Left would put it. Because it puts so many limits on what the Federal Government can do for its people. That federalism is even a bad thing. Because it means one state will be different from another and people might be able to live better than others simply because of the state that we live in. And the best way to achieve equality is to have one big unitarian central state. With most of the power in the country. There two countries that are roughly our size with governmental systems like that. China and Russia and the New-Left points to Sweden as their model for America.

But where I disagree with David Horowitz, has to do with New-Left versus the so-called Left whatever that is. We do have a New-Left in America and that is our Far-Left. And pre-1963 or so, the Far-Left in America was about as invisible as a Conservative Libertarian in San Francisco. Speaking of San Francisco, perhaps the capital of the New-Left in America and where a lot of their movement got started. Pre-1963 or so and up until Jack Kennedy was assassinated, the Left in America was JFK Liberal Democrats. People who would be called New Democrats today. Who loved the U.S. Constitution and our federalist government. But after JFK, America then got a Center-Left. Liberals, who believe in personal and economic freedom. And a New-Left, Socialists, who believe in equality over freedom.

C-SPAN: ‘Jeb Bush Presidential Campaign Announcement’

Source:C-SPAN- Jeb Bush, 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement. 

Source:The New Democrat

I doubt I’m the first one to have said this, but I’m still having a hard time seeing the differences between Jeb Bush and George W. Bush. Sure, Jeb is taller and has his father’s height. And he’s younger than George W. and has a Florida accent instead of a Texas accent. But once you get past the physical and characteristics, how are the two Bush brothers different at all. Its one thing to resemble a successful popular President, either physically, or when it comes to policy. That can probably help you and what you have to do is show people where you separate and become your own man, or women. But it’s another thing to resemble a President that isn’t very unpopular and not considered successful at all. And Jeb, is in the latter category.

The other thing that I picked up from this speech, which is something The Daily Beast covered yesterday, was Jeb talking about if we can get to four-percent economic growth, we can create nineteen-million jobs. Well, guess what Jeb, we did that four for four years in the 1990s as far as economic growth and under President Bill Clinton we created twenty-two-million jobs in the 1990s. So is Jeb going to talk like George W, but govern like Bill Clinton politically when it comes to economic policy? And the rest of this speech is really just for his audience and his followers. “Barack Obama, is taking American downhill and I’m the guy to get America moving again.” And everything he doesn’t like about President Obama.

I don’t know what Jeb accomplished in this speech. He already has the establishment business friendly wing of the Republican Party with him. Being a Bush and everything, he’ll probably get the national security Neoconservatives as well. Especially if he keeps talking like G.W. when it comes to foreign policy and national security. But talking like G.W., won’t win Jeb the Tea Party, or bring the Rand Paul Libertarians with him. And sure as hell won’t win him the general election, if he gets that far in the fall. America, is not looking for another George W. Bush to govern them. And for a Republican to win the next presidential election, they’re going to have to be able to speak and communicate with voters who want something different. Who’ll continue to keep America strong.
Source:C-SPAN

Patricia Arquette: ‘It’s Time To Have Wage Equality Once And For All and Equal Right For Women’

Source:The New Democrat- Hollywood actress Patricia Arquette with a political statement at the Oscars.

Source:The New Democrat

“Boyhood” supporting actress winner Patricia Arquette catapulted gender equality and the wage gap between men and women to the forefront of the media landscape while accepting her award at the Oscars on Sunday.

“To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights,” Arquette said in her speech. “It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” 

From Variety 

Those remarks touched off a debate that advocacy groups hope will rally the public to their cause and will put pressure on legislators, particularly at the federal level, to pass laws designed to end income discrimination. They note that women on average make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, and the gap widens with age and extends to nearly every industry.

Seems like every time there’s some big awards show, like the Academy Awards, or some other big celebrity culture event, one of the big celebrities there takes the time to weigh in on one of the big issues today. And because of the internet, social networking, blogging and how dominant celebrity culture is today, these events and speeches just get played up that much more today. So what actress Patricia Arquette did while receiving her 2015 Academy Award, is nothing new. Publicly coming out in favor of what is known as pay equity and closing what is called the gender pay gap.

I at least believe if you’re a true feminist, you believe in equality of opportunity for men and women. And what men and women do with those opportunities is up to them. But if you’re more of a Socialist, or a radical feminist, you somehow believe that men making more money than women is somehow unfair. Sexist even, even if the reasons why the men are making more money had nothing to do with gender. But what they do for a living, or how they prioritize their lives. How they raise their kids and the relationship that they have with their wives and the roles that they plays in their kids lives.

If the question is should men, or women make more money than their counterparts simply because of their gender. I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans would say definitely no. Some at least on the Far-Right, might say that the woman’s place is in the home raising her kids and taking care of the household and being obedient to their husbands. While some on the Far-Left, like radical feminists will say that women are superior than men. And should make more than men anyway just because they’re women.

Men making more money than women and vice-versa, is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s only a bad thing if they are making more money than the other simply because of their gender. Radical feminists, somehow view men making more money than women as somehow discriminatory, sexist even. Even if men are making more money because of how they prioritized their lives. And kept working throughout, without taking paternity leave to raise their kids. Which some men actually have done, taken time off to take care of their babies. What we should do is make sure that both American men and women are getting the opportunities to do well in life. And what they do with those opportunities is up to them.

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.

The Young Turks: John Iadarola- 'Welfare Fraud in Maine? Investigation by Gov. Paul LePage (R)'

Source:Eagle Forum- Governor Paul LePage (Republican, Maine)

Source:The New Democrat 

"On Tuesday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) released data on purchases made with state welfare benefits that he claimed exposed abuse, but they only add up to less than a percent of all benefit transactions.

The data show that there were more than 3,000 transactions at bars, sports bars, and strip clubs made with EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards loaded with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or welfare) and food stamp benefits between January 1, 2011 and November 15, 2013. The state doesn't track what was actually purchased, and some transactions can be withdrawals from ATMs at those locations. Given that there are about 50,000 of these transactions every month, or nearly 1.8 million in that time frame, as the state's Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) spokesman told the Bangor Daily News, they only make up "about two-tenths of 1 percent of total purchases and ATM withdrawals," the paper calculates."  

Source:The Young Turks- Governor Paul LePage (Republican, Maine)

From The Young Turks

I have no problem with requiring anyone who receives public assistance to have to look for work, take jobs they’re qualified for and even finish and further their education while they’re receiving taxpayer assistance to pay their bills. 

America is not Sweden, obviously. We’re a much more diverse country: politically, culturally, ethnically, racially, national character. A much larger country and everything else. Sweden, does a lot of things well, but America is a country where you’re supposed to do as much for yourself as possible. And then government can help you out when and if you come up short.

But America is not a country where you can be expected to not only not work, but not even look for work. Even if you didn’t finish high school and decided to have kids before you were ready to raise them. Now, we’ll help you when you need it in order to get by and won’t force you to go without. 

But you can’t just take that assistance and sit at home and say:“I don’t have an education and I can’t get a good job. I have this public assistance coming in for me and my family. Plus private charity, so I don’t need to look for work.” Public assistance should instead be seen as a public investment in human capital.

Public assistance should used to help people who are down help themselves get themselves up and living in some type of freedom. Where they’re able to take care of themselves and their kids on their own. Which does several positive things and helps the economy in several ways. People in need get the assistance that they need and spend that money which goes right into the economy. But they’re also finishing their education, they’re getting themselves a good job, a good home and now have the freedom to take care of themselves and their families. Which means fewer people on public assistance and more Americans in the middle class and even doing better.

US News: Peter Roff: Bob Woodward: George W. Bush Didn’t Lie to Start Iraq War

Source:U.S. News.

Source:The New Democrat

Do I think President George W. Bush lied to get America to go to war with Iraq? No, but I’m not a mind-reader either. And besides, unlike the Far-Left, I don’t see George W. as a liar, or war criminal. But a good decent man who was way over his head. To go from being Governor of Texas, which is a weak job to begin with, where the State Legislature only meets every other year, to President of the United States, with no other public service position on your résumé and a fairly thin private sector record, is a gigantic leap. Sure, I rather have George W. as President, than Sarah Palin, but that is not really saying anything.

What I believe President Bush and his National Security Council did, was by the summer of 2002, they decided that they were going to go to war with Iraq. And take Saddam Hussein out of power if not kill him. And then try to make the case to the country and especially a divided Congress, with a Republican House and Democratic Senate, during an election year, that Saddam is still dangerous. And that he has weapons and they either need to be eliminated, or he needs to be eliminated. With all the so-called evidence of Saddam’s weapons programs and his ambition to have nuclear weapons. And as it turns out the Bush Administration had paper-thin evidence to go with.

What the Bush Administration did, was they decided to go to war. And then make the case for going to war afterwords. The original reason for going to war was to eliminate Iraq’s WMD and nuclear program. Well as it turns out, Saddam’s WMD were gone and he didn’t have a nuclear program. Probably because the United Nations weapons inspectors took out those weapons and programs in the late 1990s. So after we learned that there was no longer WMD in Iraq, the Bush Administration kept changing the justification for going to war in Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy, a potential link and supplier to other terrorists. Well, they were only right about one thing. Saddam, was an evil man and brutal dictator.

There people who are liars and people who are bad and even evil. And then there people who are simply just wrong about whatever policies they are pushing and trying to accomplish. George W. was simply wrong and didn’t have the information and knowledge needed to make the decisions that he did to make those decisions. Someone with better judgement, experience and knowledge and even a better national security team around him, doesn’t take America to war in Iraq. Especially without any real reason to do it other than Saddam is a an evil guy and brutal dictator. Which can be said about a lot of other countries in the world. Where America hasn’t threatened to even attack.

Alvin Rabushka: 'Whatever Happened to The Third Way of Bill Clinton & Tony Blair?'

Source:Thoughtful Ideas Blog- The Third Way.

Source:The New Democrat

"The Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by synthesizing conservative economic and social welfare policies.  It was exemplified by a group of political leaders in the 1990s that included President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, and leaders of Brazil, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Israel." 

From the Hoover Institution

"The Third Way is a centrist political position that attempts to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of centre-right economic policies with centre-left social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was born from a re-evaluation of political policies within various centre to centre-left progressive movements in the 1980s in response to doubt regarding the economic viability of the state and the perceived overuse of economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularised by Keynesianism, but which at that time contrasted with the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right starting in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s.[3]

The Third Way has been promoted by social liberal[4] and social-democratic parties.[5] In the United States, a leading proponent of the Third Way was Bill Clinton, who served as the country's president from 1993 to 2001.[6] In the United Kingdom, Third Way social-democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism and said: "My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice. ... Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly."[7] Blair referred to it as a "social-ism" involving politics that recognised individuals as socially interdependent and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen and equal opportunity.[8]

Third Way social-democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the state socialist conception of socialism and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxist claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism as a mode of production.[9] In 2009, Blair publicly declared support for a "new capitalism".[10]

The Third Way supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.[11] It emphasises commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity which is combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, the decentralisation of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement and promotion of public–private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, preservation of social capital, and protection of the environment.[12]

Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and the United States. The Third Way has been criticised by other social democrats, as well as anarchists, communists, and in particular democratic socialists as a betrayal of left-wing values,[13][14][15] with some analysts characterising the Third Way as an effectively neoliberal movement.[16] It has also been criticised by certain conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians who advocate for laissez-faire capitalism." 

From Wikipedia

Alvin Rabushka, is essentially right about what the Third Way is. That it’s a new approach born in the mid 1980s or so. But you could go back to Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s and Jack Kennedy in the early 1960s. That it’s a different approach and a center, between anti-government conservative libertarianism on the Right, that Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan put on the national scene in the 1960s and 70s and New-Left democratic socialism on the left, that became dominate in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and 1970s, that seek to create a superstate, a European welfare state in America. And make the central government responsible for looking after and taking care of the personal and economic welfare of the people.

The Third Way, is essentially a bridge between Barry Goldwater on the conservative libertarian-right and Bernie Sanders on the Socialist Far-Left. That says government has a role in seeing that everyone can succeed and do well and live in freedom. Just not try to do everything for them and run their economic and personal affairs for them.

Classical Liberals (meaning the real Liberals) believe that it's the job of government, not to try to run people's lives for them and take away personal responsibility, accountability, and freedom of choice away from them. But instead empower people, especially people who are struggling, to get the tools that they need to be successful and independent on their own. Classical Liberals also don't believe that government should just get out-of-way, and essentially let corporations and wealthy individuals run the country. But instead use government to empower people to take control of their own lives. As well as protect individuals from predators. 

People on the left (or far-left) would say this looks like neoliberalism or it looks centrist. People who are closeted Socialists especially say that. But the Third Way is between conservative libertarianism on the Right and democratic socialism on the left, but it's not centrist. Liberals believe in liberal democracy, not centrism and splitting the difference. Liberalism (or classical liberalism, if you prefer) is it's own political philosophy, not a combination of two other philosophies.

If you think about it, the Third Way has been the dominant political philosophy in the Democratic Party, really since the mid 1980s after they lost another presidential election in a landslide to President Ronald Reagan. Governor Michael Dukakis, even though he lost to George H.W. Bush in a landslide in 1988, is also a New Democrat, not a Social Democrat. 

The Democratic Party has always had a left-wing in it and probably will always have that, unless the Democratic Socialists move to the Green Party. But at best, they've been more than a 3rd of the Democratic Party. 

It's almost impossible to win a statewide election or win the presidential nomination, as a Democrat, as a left-wing Democratic Socialist. You have to be a Classical Liberal (meaning real Liberal) or a Progressive (meaning not Socialist) to win a statewide election, at least outside of Vermont and Massachusetts, to win the Democratic nomination. And unless that changes, I don't see classical liberalism (meaning the real liberalism) ever leaving the Democratic Party.