Real Time With Bill Maher: Center-Left Democrats vs. Occupy Wall Street

Posted on October 12, 2014 by Erik Schneider


Source:The Daily Press

Bill Maher has this idea that since there’s a Democrat in the White House, that President Obama should govern like Dennis Kucinich. What he doesn’t seem to understand, is that President Obama and Representative Kucinich come from two different factions of the party. Barack Obama comes from the adult realist faction of the party. Progressives and Liberals that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, with what’s available to do so.

Dennis Kucinich comes from the dreamer utopian faction of the party, Socialist Hippies from the 1960s, and early 70s and today that haven’t grown up. And see the World that they want to create apparently not realizing what’s possible, but believe everything that they want is possible. And its possible now to turn America into Europe to create their Socialist Utopia. And you got these two competing factions, the adults with the power in the party that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, against the Hippies that want to see the world that they want now.

And if you support any policy that’s different from what the Hippies want, you’re some type of corporate sellout to the Republican Party or something. President Obama is like a father with his only real life family, as well as his kids in the Democratic Party. That help him run the party, plus with millions of adopted children that complain about not being able to have cake for dinner. And throw temper tantrums when they can’t have cake for dinner or have to eat salad with their meat. And tell their parents they hate them when they can’t stay up all night on a school night.

The Socialist Hippies (the Democratic children) in the party that doesn’t have a great grasp on reality, that want everything now and doesn’t understand what Hubert Humphrey called the “Art of the Possible”. So the state of the Democratic Party right now a political party that I’m proud to be a member of is basically two parties and I believe within ten years could become officially two political parties. Which I believe would be good for both American liberalism and progressivism, as well as socialism giving each political movement their own voice.

You have the Liberal Democrats led by the President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership and the DNC. And then you have the Hippie Socialists again from the 1960s and early 70s. And want to bring that movement about today and create their own Socialist Utopia a perfect world. Where there’s no wealthy or poor people, no violence, no war, give peace a chance. Everybody is equal, sounds like a decent Hollywood film or Hollywood fantasy. No bigotry, but the only problem that they have, is that they don’t have a damn clue how to bring those things about. They tell the Leadership “this is what we want now go out there and accomplish that”. Without having any idea of how to bring that about.

Hippy Democrats are like a head coach who wants to have the best team in the league. But doesn’t know what type of system he wants on offense and defense, or what type of players he wants. Or how to write a game plan or run a practice, that these things are just details, right. Sounds more like a great fan than a successful head coach. And then leave it up to the Liberal Democrats the adults in the room to get the job done.

And when the Hippies accomplish some of those goals that the whole party supports, what’s the thanks for the Democratic Leadership, they get called sellouts by their kids the Hippies. Who weren’t even invited to the party because they probably would’ve thrown food or gotten into a fight. Its like giving your kid a corvette as their graduation present. But then getting called as asshole because you didn’t give your son a Porsche. Thats why the Liberal Democrats run the Democratic Party because they are the adults in the room.

Posted in Real Time, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Politico Magazine: Will Marshall: ‘How to Save the Democratic Party From Itself’

Posted on October 12, 2014 by Erik Schneider
Democratic Party

Source:FRS FreeState– The Democratic Party of diversity.



Source:The New Democrat

“For all the roller coaster drama of the battle to control the Senate, the midterm elections won’t really change much. No matter which party ends up with a majority, Americans will still wake up on Nov. 5 to a seemingly immutable stalemate in Washington. But pragmatic progressives should take heart. Over the next two years they have an historic opportunity: to build a broad center-left majority that can break the paralyzing grip of polarization and get America moving forward again.”

From Politico Magazine

Not so long ago, U.S. politicians who robotically toed the party line were considered shameless hacks. And ideologues were seen as wingnuts—self-righteous cranks unable to cope with life’s complexities. Today, such people dominate our national politics. How are they doing? If the measure is simplifying and sharpening dueling political narratives, they are doing a fine job. If it is governing, they are failing miserably.

Will Marshall seems to be arguing that since the Republican Party now operates the anti-government Tea Party Right, to go along with the Christian-Right when it comes to social issues, that the Democratic Party should operate the middle. That it would be dangerous for the Democratic Party to operate the pro-big government Left, because most of the country is not there on the Left or with the Tea Party on the Right. I agree with Marshall that most of the country is not that far Left or Right.

Americans tend to be between the 40s, to use a football field analogy. They don’t tend to be on the 20’s the two wings of the American political spectrum. But there’s a difference between center-left and dead-center where you don’t have any real political core. And everything is about negotiation and give and take because you don’t have any real political core. Any real ideas and values that you truly believe in other than the basics of the Constitution.

The fifty yard line would be the dead-center. It’s called dead-center for a reason because not any Americans are so moderate without any real political core. They tend to be somewhere between liberal and conservative. With the wings occupying the fringes of both parties. the center-left would be one of the forty yard lines. Liberals and Progressives, mainstream pragmatic leftists who have their own policies and views, but can and will work with pragmatists on the Right when they don’t have all the power and have to work with the other side in order to govern.

The Democratic Party doesn’t and shouldn’t be the dead-center moderate party with no clear convictions and nothing they’ll fight for and stand for party. And tell voters, “vote for me because I’ll do what I believe is best and work with the other side to govern”. No, it doesn’t work like that in American politics. Americans like to know who they are voting for and what that person is about and where they are on the issues before they decide to hire that person or not. And that is not just the wings, but mainstream Liberals and Conservatives who are between the 40s politically.

The Democratic Party doesn’t need to be the dead-center party, nor should it. But be what it has traditionally been at least the last fifty years or so. Which is the center-left party in America that is about growth, opportunity for all that comes with both freedom and responsibility. The party that champions personal freedom and civil liberties. And economic opportunity and freedom for all, so how you do in life is not about who you were born to and how wealthy your parents are. But how you did in school and with the quality opportunities you were given there. And how productive and successful you are as an adult.

The Democratic Party should be the Liberal Party. Not a a social democratic or socialist party or the Green Party. But a center-left liberal party that is about both personal and economic freedom, but personal and economic freedom for everyone and not just people born to wealth. Not a pro-big government, or an anti-government party, but a party that is about the individual and using government to help people who need it get the tools that they need to live in freedom. And then allowing for everyone to live in freedom and manage their own personal and economic affairs. Not using government to try to run their lives for them from an economic or personal perspective.

Posted in Democratic Party, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ESPN: Outside The Lines- Robert Lipsyte-Howard Cosell Interview (1991)

Posted on October 11, 2014 by Erik Schneider

_ - 2021-11-03T144547.637

Source:ESPN– former ABC Sportscaster Howard Cosell, talking to New York Times columnist Robert Lipsyte, on Outside The Lines in 1991.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Howard Cosell: His Life and Times” aired on August 29, 1991 on ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” series. This episode on Cosell was hosted by Robert Lipsyte, a New York Times sports columnist. The title is sometimes incorrectly cited as ‘The Life and Times of Howard Cosell.”

Lipsyte examines Howard Cosell’s impact on sports television in a way that hasn’t been done previously, and in a way that clarifies Cosell’s primary target, i.e. the listener. It was with the listeners that Cosell managed to transform sports. He coupled an attorney’s gift for debate with a cutting-edge voice that made listeners believe there was nothing more important than the sporting event they were watching.

Former ABC News chairman Roone Arledge said of Howard Cosell “He’s the garlic that makes the stew work.” Includes a brief boxing clip of “Down goes Frasier…down goes Frasier…down goes Frasier.” Note on the fair video quality. This was transferred from an old VHS copy.”

From Howard Cosell Fan

“When Howard Cosell dies he should leave his ego to science, but they don’t make glass jars the size of Montana.

As we’re reminded in “The Life and Times of Howard Cosell” (8 p.m. tonight, ESPN), the Cosellian ego is a wondrous, many splendored thing that is to the normal human ego what the Hanging Gardens of Babylon are to a K mart Garden Center.

“I knew that I was the right one to tell America that John Lennon had been assassinated. I had a very special relationship with him,” Cosell says in a one-hour monologue interrupted by questions by New York Times columnist Robert Lipsyte.

Howard is right. Given the alternatives in the booth that night — Faultless Frank Gifford or Dandy Don Meredith — clearly he was the right one to break into “Monday Night Football” on Dec. 8, 1980, with the news that Lennon had been gunned down.”

From the Baltimore Sun

Howard Cosell was more than a great sportscaster, and he was at least to a certain extent, which I will get into later, but he was a great entertainer and a very intelligent and funny man as well. And those things tend to go together. He had a great ability to see things immediately for what they were and quickly give an intelligent insight about them in a way that everyone could understand and even do it in a humorous way as well.

Howard was sort of the fan’s voice when it came to sportscasting. Not a pure play by play man or a true expert analyst, someone who would not only watch the game, but give you an expert analysis of what happened and what it means and what to look for. But what he would give you is a voice for the fans and what fans are seeing and what they may be thinking about it. But could put it in ways that most people couldn’t and put in a way where people would think.: “Wow, that is what I was thinking, I just wish I could’ve said it like that”.

Those old ABC’s Monday Night Football games from the 1970s when you had Frank Gifford as the play by play man and I think he did a great job of that, but again he was also a former NFL player who was a Hall of Fame player who wasn’t just a play by play man, but someone who knew exactly what it meant and what he was seeing because he use to play the game professionally. And Don Meredith as the expert analyst who of course use to be the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys in the 1960s.

ABC’s MNF also had Howard Cosell, who gave the viewers and fans an expert fans perspective of what was going on in the game. What fans may of been thinking and a lot of times we’re thinking, but couldn’t phrase those things in a way that only he could, because they didn’t have Howard’s intelligence and sense of humor. Howard Cosell is the genuine article of sportscasting. There wasn’t a Howard Cosell before Howard Cosell and there hasn’t been someone like him since.

Posted in Life, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leathered Life: Laura- in Miss Sixty Leather Jeans

Posted on October 9, 2014 by Erik Schneider
Laura

Source:Leathered Life– Laura from Leathered Life, in Miss Sixty leather jeans.

Source:The New Democrat

“Many Girls in Leather Pants – new clips this week!!!”

From Leathered Life

There are two models over at Leathered Life that I love, let me amend that. Two models over at Leathered Life that I physically love. It would be tough to love someone you don’t personally know, despite all the people who have tried to do so.

I don’t know Laura or Lena personally, but I love them physically because they are both yes very cute and pretty if not beautiful. But they both have great bodies and both wear and look great in leather jeans and wear them on a regular basis.

Checking out Laura in her Miss Sixty leather jeans, is like checking out Rachael Ray in her skin-tight denim jeans. And watching her move around in her kitchen in those jeans and hoping she turns around to get something out of the cabinet. Or steps back to open a cabinet with the camera man focusing on her mid-section and waste in her jeans.

Leather jeans like denim jeans especially tight leather and denim jeans are made for well-built women with curves and meat on their bones. Not rail-thin or obese women which is why the strong women look good in them. Laura, perfect example of that.

Posted in Leathered Life, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leathered Life: Sandra B- Wearing a Leather Coat, Leather Jeans & Boots

Posted on October 8, 2014 by Erik Schneider

 

Attachment-1-1792

Source: Leathered Life– Sandra B, for Leathered Life.

Source:The Daily Press

“SandraB Leather Model”

From Fred Fiorino

Short, but sweet video of Sandra one of the leather models at the website Leathered Life. Which I’m not sure is even still in business or not. I haven’t seen many videos or anything from them lately. But they were pretty hot in early 2009 when I got on YouTube and I checked out a lot of their videos when I got on YouTube. And a few of them are already on this blog and this will be another one. Lena is probably the only model that I really like there.

Sandra seems pretty sweet with a nice body, but Lena has everything including beauty and baby-face adorable looks. And a body that seems to be built for skinny jeans. Both denim and leather jeans with great curves. The woman in the video looks good with the leather jeans and boots and certainly worth checking out. Which is why I’m posting this and her outfit is certainly sexy. But I’ve rather of seen a leather jacket like a biker jacket to go with the jeans and boots. Instead of a long coat.

Posted in Leathered Life, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Real Time With Bill Maher: Talking About the U.S. Constitution

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Attachment-1-1916

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher– Republican political strategist Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Bill and his roundtable guests (Matt Taibbi, Kevin Smith, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, John Heilemann & Tavis Smiley), answer fan questions.”

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Unless you’re a real Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian or perhaps even Independent, chances are you generally like the U.S. Constitution. If you’re a so-called Progressive ( Socialist, really ) today Neoconservative or Christian-Theocrat, chances are you don’t like the U.S. Constitution. Because it constricts you from doing what you want the Federal Government to do and make it bigger.

Today’s Progressives ( Socialists in actuality ) would like to see the Federal Government get so big to the point, that it would provide a lot of the services that the private sector and state and local government’s currently provide. The 10th Amendment and property rights, makes that a lot more difficult for them to do that. As FDR found out during the New Deal back in the 1930s.

So today’s Progressives who are really European Social Democrats, they would like to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to give the Federal Government more power. Including taking out some Constitutional Amendments, like the 2nd Amendment the Right to Self-Defense. And perhaps even amend the First Amendment when it comes to the media. They would like to see a public media, not a corporate Media ( as they would call it ) . And even be able to regulate hate speech in America.

As the Bush Administration found out, the U.S .Constitution got in their way when it came to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. Christian-Nationalists would also like to amend the First Amendment so that it would only cover Freedom of Religion for Christians and political speech. Well, that it is political speech, as long as the people are saying things they agree with. And would like to eliminate the Right of Privacy, the Fourth Amendment and perhaps a few others.

The Christian-Right people I call Theocrats or better yet a religious cult, people who see marijuana as immoral, but have religious and political views that seem so out of space like they are on Fantasy Island and seem high on something illegal. Basically view people who don’t live their lives as they do, they are immoral and should be in jail or something and would love to amend the First Amendment to outlaw adult entertainment.

So the Christian-Right can censor certain forms of entertainment they don’t like. Ban non-Christian religions and turn America into a Christian theocracy. Where life especially for women would become very restrictive with dress codes and that sort of thing. No more Right to Privacy, because now adultery and pre-marital sex, kids out-of-wedlock would be illegal. Pornography obviously illegal, alcohol and perhaps certain forms of dancing would be illegal.

It would be like living in Iran but a Theocracy like this, would make Iran look like a liberal democracy. That only 1960s Hippies could dream up in one of their pipe dreams. So converted so-called Progressives and ex-Libertarians like Bill Maher, should think twice about calling for a new U.S. Constitution, because he probably wouldn’t like the results of it. If Socialists want America to become like Scandinavia or Canada, then they need a new U.S. Constitution to achieve that.

Today’s Progressives would need a new Constitution to establish all the democratic socialism. And to give the Federal Government all the power over us that they want to establish. If Christian-Nationalists want to make America like Russia, then they should move there or get into power and establish Martial Law, which is what happened in Egypt fifty years ago.

If Theocrats want to make America like Iran, well they should move to Iran, because they aren’t getting to the White House in America. No presidential candidate in America runs as a Theocrat and gets elected President. But for Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, we just need to defend, promote and speak up for the U.S. Constitution. To bring even more individual liberty than we already have.

Posted in Real Time, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leathered Life: Topmodel Larissa- In Miss Sixty Leather Jeans

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Erik Schneider
Scrione Andre_ Topmodel Larissa- in Miss Sixty Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life– Leatherd Life model Larissa, in Miss Sixty leather jeans.

Source:The New Democrat

“Larissa – Topmodel in Miss Sixty Leather Pants”

From Scrione Andre 

Larissa is one of the beautiful brunettes over at Leathered Life who models Miss Sixty leather jeans for them. I don’t like her as much as Laura and Lena, but she’s very sexy in black leather.

Leathered Life

Source:Leathered Life– Leathered Life model Larissa, in Miss Sixty leather jeans.

Now here’s a woman whose not ashamed of at least one of her assets. I guess you sort of have to approve of your assets to be a fashion model, especially a leather model who wears skin-tight leather jeans on a regular basis, which is what Larissa does for Leathered Life.

Leathered Life_ Topmodel Larissa- in Miss Sixty Leather Jeans _ The New Democrat

Source:Leathered Life– model in Miss Sixty leather jeans.

Beautiful sexy woman in a leather jacket, boots and yes Miss Sixty leather jeans. And showing herself off in this outfit.

I’m an Agnostic because I obviously don’t know if there is a God or multiple Gods or not, otherwise I wouldn’t be an Agnostic. But if there is a God, thank God for women like this and I hope he just continues to produce women like this so guys such as myself can continue to check them out and blog about them and get the word out about them.

Videos like this would what the Christian Right and so-called Moral Majority would say are “immoral and should be banned and taken down by government”. Radical feminists would say “these videos are an example of women being abused and forced into pleasing the man and another example of male sexist power”, or something.

The rest of us would say whether we like the video or not, here’s a professional model doing her job and the more people who see her, the better she does and the more power to her. That is where I am not only as a man, but as a Liberal who believes in free choice and expression.

Posted in Leathered Life, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wendell Willkie: The Classical Liberal

Posted on October 1, 2014 by Erik Schneider
54923

Source: History Comes To Life– Wendell Willkie For President, in 1940.

“Willkie about to board plane in 1940 campaign, Willkie waves and boards, Mrs. Willkie boards plane, Willkie working on plane, plane in flight, Willkie looks out window. 1940: FDR campaigning, Mrs. Roosevelt and Herbert Lehman in car with him, long shot same, FDR car passes by. (sound) Willkie campaigning in New Jersey, man marks vote board. 1942: Plane just landed in Cairo, Wendell Willkie, FDR representatives in Cairo out of plane, various shots of Willkie in conversation at the airport, Willkie enters car and drives away. CU Willkie as he receives award for Real Understanding of Americanism (sound). CU Willkie removing hat, CU Willkie.”

From History Comes To Life

When you hear the term classical liberal, it’s generally used to talk about Libertarians today. Even though Libertarians are right-wing, center-right. (Depending on what type of Libertarian they are) And Liberals are center-left in America (compared with Conservatives) on the American political spectrum.

And then there are people who are called modern liberals and these people are supposed to be the Liberals of today. Even though in Canada or Europe they would be described as Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists or just plain Socialists. In Europe, Liberals are considered center-right, with Socialists and Social Democrats, considered center-left or left-wing. (I hope the political spectrum doesn’t make you dizzy)

People who are called modern liberals, are actually Social Democrats, who have built their philosophy around the state. And what the state can do for the people and tend to be skeptical about what the people can do for themselves. And want a big state to be there to take care of everyone so no one get’s left behind.

But these people in America tend to be called Modern Liberals, or even Liberals when they actually have more of a socialist mindset than a liberal mindset. Liberalism or classical liberalism is not about the state and is not against the state.

Liberalism is in favor of the individual and empowering people to be able to do everything that they can for themselves and is against big government. Big government being government that tries to do too much for the individual. Or trying to run their life and even protecting people from themselves.

Which is why Liberals tend to be against prohibition whether it comes from the Right or Left. Prohibition is a statist idea, a paternalist idea that “the people aren’t smart enough to make some decisions for themselves and we need government to do that for them even if that means locking people up”.Statists even believe in criminally punishing people when they make unhealthy decisions with their own lives.

Liberals and I’m one of them believe that the individual should be able to live their own life as they see fit. As long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Because we know ourselves and our own lives better than government. And have to do deal with the consequences of our own decisions. Liberals believe in both economic and personal freedom that one is not worth much without the other.

Today we now have so-called Progressives who are paternalists who not only believe in the welfare state, but prohibition as well. As we see with these bans on soft drinks. (To use as examples) To go along with tobacco and other products. These people aren’t Liberals even in a modern sense and not even Progressives. But paternalists who believe they know better how individuals should live their own lives and they have a right to believe that, but they aren’t Liberals.

Wendell Willkie was a true Liberal Democrat before the New Deal and left to become a Republican. Because he believed that President Roosevelt was moving the Democratic Party and the country in a more socialist direction.

But Willkie wasn’t against government, but believed that government should be there to serve us not run our lives. Do for us what we can’t do for ourselves, that government get’s its power from us, not that it decides what we can do with our own lives.

When I think of Liberals, I think of Wendell Willkie, John Kennedy and today people like John Kerry. People who believe in both economic and personal freedom and that these things should be for everyone. That we are all entitled to have a shot at living a successful life and living in freedom.

Liberals believe where government comes in, not by creating a government to take care of everyone and show us how to live, but empowering people to be able to take care of themselves. Which is what separates liberalism from today’s so-called progressivism and libertarianism. One philosophy being all about government and the other philosophy being almost completely against government.

Posted in Classical Liberalism, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Leathered Life: Sexy Women in Leather Jeans

Posted on September 30, 2014 by Erik Schneider
Attachment-1-171

Source:Leathered Life– Leathered Life model Lena, in Miss Sixty black leather jeans.

Source:The New Democrat

“Man girls in leather pants.” Originally from Leathered Life, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Love Lena, the beautiful baby-face adorable curvy brunette in this video. To me at least she’s the top model at this website, I guess called Leathered Life. Sarah, very beautiful and cute, but sort of has an average body and none of the other models in this video got much of my attention. But Lena is pretty special and a goddess in black leather jeans and looks great in those jeans with boots as well. And I just wish this was more footage of her and that she did other projects.

Leather jeans at least on women, are a lot more popular in Europe than in America. American women love skinny denim jeans and even skin-tight skinny denim jeans. But if they wear leather pants at all, they tend to be like dress slacks or leggings. Leather jeans outside of biker and hard rock culture, are not that popular in America. Leathered Life and the company Miss Sixty that makes leather and denim jeans are the exception to that. But leather jeans for men and women are pretty popular in Europe.

Posted in Leathered Life, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Heritage Foundation: Evan Sayet- ‘How Modern Liberals Think’

Posted on September 30, 2014 by Erik Schneider
47145

Source:Heritage Foundation– Author Evan Sayet, speaking to The Heritage Foundation in 2007, about the New-Left in America.

“HERITAGE FOUNDATION: “How Modern Liberals Think.” Originally from The Heritage Foundation, but that video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

As an actual Liberal myself and not someone who just calls myself a Liberal, but someone who actually understands liberalism and not someone whose called a Liberal by people who couldn’t tell the difference between liberalism and communism, which a lot of partisan right-wingers aren’t able to do today, as if they couldn’t tell the difference a whale and an ant, I go out of my when I can to explain the differences between liberalism classical or modern and socialism or anarchism.

Because todays so-called ‘Modern-Liberals’ which is a term that I do not like, is mixed in socialism as it relates to the economy, with anarchism as it relates to law enforcement, national security crime and punishment, terrorism, etc. And paternalism when it comes to personal choice issues like how we can communicate with each other, political correctness, what we can eat and so-forth. But only tend to be actually Liberals when it comes to civil liberties, but that “government has a protective role, prohibition even”. And they’ve added tobacco, junk food, soft drinks to their list of things that they would like to be outlawed, or seriously regulated and taxed in the United States.

The people who I described as ‘Modern-Liberals’, are not actually Liberals. But perhaps European Social Democrats would probably the be most correct way to describe them. Even though they tend to like to be called Progressives. But they are way to the Left of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. Harry Truman, perhaps even Henry Wallace and certainly Lyndon Johnson. All of these men all had a healthy skepticism about the role of government in our lives and understood the limits of what government could do for us.

Today’s so-called Progressives ( I call them that for now until I find a better term ) do not seem to have a healthy skepticism about what government can do for people. Except as it relates to civil liberties and perhaps the War on Drugs. And the men I described believe in the role of authority, not to run our lives, but to protect us from people who would do us harm. Criminals, foreign invaders, terrorists to use as examples. This seems to be the only area that todays so-called Progressives seem to be skeptical about governmental power in our lives and that it should be limited.

The easiest way to probably label me politically would probably be to call me a Classical-Liberal. But unless that means you are talking about someone like a Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Democrat up until the New Deal came around in the 1930s and then saw the Democratic Party moving in more of a socialist direction and then left the Democratic Party to run for President as a Republican in 1940. Or Jack Kennedy, I do not like the term Classical Liberal to describe my politics. Because the term Classical-Liberal tends to be used to describe Libertarians.

And I’m not a Libertarian, I’m not anti-government, just anti-big government both as it relates to economic policy, but also personal issues. And I do not want government trying to run our lives for us. So I just prefer the term Liberal or Liberal Democrat even, which I certainly am to describe my politics. Not in the classical or modern sense, but in the real sense. As someone who believes in liberal democracy, individual freedom both economic and personal. To go with individual responsibility.

The basic difference between Liberals and todays so-called Progressives has to do with the role of government . Todays so-called Progressives simply want a lot more of it especially at the Federal level and want less personal choice. Because they tend to see it as dangerous and that “people with a lot of freedom will make more mistakes”. Where Liberals again believe in individual freedom both economic and personal to go with a quality education and opportunity for all. To be successful in life and then be held personally responsible for what we do with our own lives.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment