History Collection: Dwight D. Eisenhower- ‘Quotes On Politics, War, and Freedom’

Source:History Collections– President Dwight Eisenhower, on extremism

Source:The New Democrat 

“Dwight D. Eisenhower (”Ike”) was one of the most prominent American presidents and US Army Generals. In this video, you can find his thoughts about warfare, American politics and goverment.”

From History Collection

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “If you want total security go to prison, where you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.” President Eisenhower, talking about the value of freedom, freedom of choice, personal autonomy, etc, the tools that every person every free society uses to manage their own affairs.

Source:Words On Images– President Dwight Eisenhower, on the value of freedom

The only thing that is free about a free society is the freedom for individuals to make their own decisions. Everything else about a free society comes with choices, investments, even costs. To be able to do things and make your own decisions, you have to earn that by doing other things. Like getting and education, and good job that allows you to able to take care of yourself.

And those really aren’t costs either, but more like investments because you get a lot of education and a good job that you’re good at other than money and a good job which is knowledge that you can use in your future which either helps you at work or in other places, but with everything that you do in life.

And in any society wether it’s a free society or an authoritarian society or even let’s say a social democratic society where the national government attempts to eliminate as much economic risk as possible, but falls short of nationalizing the economy there’s going to be some risk there.

A good education is so important so the people have as much knowledge and quality information as possible to be able to make their own good decisions and investments. But even life in prison ( not that I know from personal experience ) comes with real risks and those risks generally having to do with one’s physical security. Even non-violent offenders have to deal with the risk that one of their fellow inmates might actually hurt them or worst at some point.

And in any authoritarian society where both economic and personal risk is eliminated or that’s what the government tries to create, there is a risk that the state might pick you up, because they see you as some threat to the regime. Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia are great examples of that. So in no society and no form of life comes without personal risk. The question is how do you manage it and what decisions you make with your own life.

For me is the best form of life is a free life where people are able to make their own personal and economic decisions themselves, but are then held accountable for their own decision making for good and bad. And allow for everyone to get themselves the best education that they can so they can make the best lives for themselves as possible. As well as encourage people to get a good education, good job, earn a good living. So you have as many free people as possible in society.

Read Full Post »

Politics & Prose: John Leland- ‘Happiness Is A Choice You Make’

Source: Politics & Prose

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I believe in the cliche life is a highway and then add Tom Cochrane’s line, I want to ride it all night long. On the highway of life ( to use a another cliche ) you make a lot of turns, stops, you accelerate, you stop for gas and just to get a bite to eat and get some rest.

Imagine driving from Washington to Los Angeles in a cross-country trip. Ordinary if you don’t run into bad weather, car trouble, have any major accidents, decide to go for a joy ride after getting loaded one night on one of your stops in St. Louis let’s say, and you’re a good driver, this cross-country trip should take you about 7-10 days. Well, imagine your life being a a cross-country trip or a trip around the world but it takes you about 80 years ( give or take ) instead and not because of car trouble or any of the other factors that I just mentioned.

That is what life is which is a very long journey if you live a normal life in years. And on that journey you’re going to have a lot of ups and downs. Richard Nixon once said that he wanted to die with at least one more victory than defeat. Well, hopefully life for you will be a lot better than that and the best thing about this is that you have complete control over your own life once you move out from your parents and start driving on your own highway of life with the ability and freedom to make your own decisions. But even before you move out from your parents as a young adult you still have a lot of freedom to make your own highway and ability to decide what that journey will be for you.

Do you finish high school, to use as an example. Do you do well in high school which allows for you do be able to go to college. If you go to college, do you do well in college. Do you stay out of trouble as a youth or get into trouble on a regular basis. These are all choices that we make as children, adolescents, young adults, full adults, and moving forward. It’s up to us to make either good decisions or bad decisions with our own lives and then we have to live with the consequences of our own decisions for good and bad, or for in-between.

In a free society like a liberal democracy like America, we all have choices that we make in life. The question is what kind of choices do we make. If you have not just a habit of making good choices like you just happen to be very lucky and perhaps you should take that luck to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, but you tend to make good choices and decisions because you’ve decided to based on good information and facts instead of flipping a coin, drawing straws, you’re going to be happy in life. At least compared with a screwup who acts on impulse, or doesn’t care about anyone other than them self, perhaps lost their brain somewhere and never went back to look for it.

To achieve happiness in life you have to figure out what makes you happy. What you’re good at and what you want out of life. And then make the right decisions to accomplish those things. Instead of sitting on your ass and expecting happiness to pick you up off your couch or getting lucky. The ultimate investment in life is your own life. The more you put into it, the more you’ll get back and the happier you’ll be. You only get out if your investments what you put in them.

Politics & Prose: John Leland- ‘Happiness Is A Choice You Make’

Read Full Post »

Foreign Policy: Opinion- Daren Acemoglu & Simon Johnson- It’s Time To Found a New Republic

Source: Foreign Policy Magazine  

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I read this article called It’s Time To Found a New Republic from Daren Acemoglu and Simon Johnson over at Foreign Policy Magazine. And it wasn’t just the title of the article that caught my attention. It’s Time To Found a New Republic, if they spent more time on the title maybe they would’ve called It’s Time For a New Republic, Time To Create a New Republic, The New American Republic. When something is found you don’t need to fine it, because it’s already there.

But getting pass the wording of the title of their piece most of their article was about American history and the progressive movement. Starting with the Progressive Era of the early 1900s and going up to the New Deal of the 1930s and the creation of the our national infrastructure system of the 1950s. And then towards the end they were had some policy proposals.

Ranging from a national basic income, which I disagree with, to ending partisan, racial, and ethnic gerrymandering which I’m in favor of. When I saw the title of their piece I’m, thinking maybe they were talking about creating a new form of American government. That the problem with American society (as they might see it) is the structure of our government all together. Perhaps they don’t like our Federal system based on limited government and would propose replacing that with a unitarian style of government that you see a lot of in Europe. Where most of the governmental power in the country is based with the national government. Instead of spread out between the national, state, and local government’s.

Just to comment on Daren Acemoglu’s and Simon Johnson’s economic proposals. I don’t believe the problem of income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with our government structure and how power and responsibility is spread out. Not that they were arguing that either necessarily. But it has to do with the skills gap and opportunity gaps in the American economy.

If you live in rural America and grow there, or you’re raised in a rough part of an inner city your chances of doing well in America are far lesser than if you come from a middle class neighborhood in a city or from the suburbs. Also if you have parents or even one parent who are doing well in life, not necessarily rich but doing well enough for you to be raised right and have you what you need to do well growing up, your chances of doing well in America are much better if you come from a low-income family in a low-income neighborhood, where your parent or parents are just struggling to survive.

So you want to reduce income inequality (again, if you want to call it that) you have to reduce the inequality that’s part of our education system and have an education system where more Americans can simply get a good education. Regardless of where they live and where they grow up and who their parents are. And of course regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Which should go without saying anyway.

As well as having an adult educational system in this country where low-income adults whether they’re currently working or not, can advance in the American economy by finishing and furthering their education and getting themselves a good job that leads them to economic independence.

As well as having that system available for workers who already have a solid education. High school diploma plus some vocational training and perhaps a college degree, but now find themselves working in a field where those jobs are disappearing or where they’re no longer able to make the money that allows for them to live comfortably. And allow for them to further their education perhaps even in a new field for them.

The problem with the American economy has nothing to do with our form of government. Or our Federal Government is too small, our state and local government’s, have too much responsibility, or middle class Americans are undertaxed and have to much personal and economic freedom and have to make too many decisions on their own.

The problem with the American economy and why we have income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with education and skills. We need to move pass the idea that schools should be funded based on the property values of the people who live in those communities . Which has to do with property taxes. And sending kids to school based on where they live, instead of what’s the best school for them.

And get pass the idea that if you start at a low-wage low-skilled job because you’re low-skilled, that you’re stuck working jobs like that indefinitely. Because you can’t afford to go back to school or simply don’t have the time for it, because you’re working multiple low-wage jobs just to try to survive.

You close the skills and education gaps in America, you reduce poverty, because you’ll not just have more Americans working as long as you have pro-growth economic policies in place that promote economic development and growth, but you’ll also have more Americans working good jobs. Which will also improve your long-term economic and financial outlook of the country. Because you’ll have fewer Americans on public assistance.

Source: RCO 64

RCO 64: The American Form of Government

Read Full Post »

Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

Source: The Independent Institute 

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

According to Wikipedia the definition of social justice is, “justice in terms of distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society.”

People let’s say on the farther left (Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists) take the definition to mean that there should be distribution of wealth in society. That wealth should be distributed based on what people need to live well. Not based on what people earn. And of course the central government usually a unitarian government in most social democracies (one large government for the entire country) will collect most of the wealth in the country and dish it back out in the form of welfare state payments to the people based on what the government believes people need to live well in society.

So the people not just living above poverty, but living somewhat comfortably, but short of being wealthy and perhaps even upper middle class. Socialists (democratic and otherwise) don’t believe in rich or poor. They want equality of outcomes where no one is wealthy or poor, but able to live well. This type of economic system is how Scandinavia operates and the states there and to a certain extent even in Britain. (Even when the Conservatives are in charge)

The libertarian notion of social justice is to put it in plain terms is that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours, is yours. To paraphrase Libertarian Economist Walter Williams. Meaning what the people make for themselves is exactly that. And shouldn’t be subjected to taxation especially to help pay for the people who don’t have much to live on and are in living in poverty as a result.

To go back to the Wikipedia definition of social justice. Liberals (in the real and classical sense) concentrate on the opportunities portion of social justice. Liberals believe in an opportunity society. Where everyone has the ability to make a good life for themselves. Where everyone has access to a quality education even if they live in poverty. And if they live in poverty that their parents or parent, has the ability to finish and further their education so they can get themselves a good job and make a good living.

Get off of public assistance, buy a nice home and live in a nice community where they don’t have to worry about being physically harmed when they go to the grocery store, or are coming back or going to school. Where they have a basic fundamental sense and reality when it comes to their own economic and physical security. And then what the people make for themselves financially, they’re able to keep most of that and pay back in taxes what it takes for the government to function effectively and to do only what we need for government to do well for us, that is also consistent with strong economic and job growth so people are encouraged to be productive and make a good living for themselves and their families.

And yes you need an effective government to invest in what makes economies strong so as many people can benefit from capitalism and private enterprise as possible. Not to run the economy or to run business’s, or tax and regulate private business so much that the government essentially owns and runs those companies.

But to see that everyone can get a good education. Where kids aren’t sent to school simply because of where they live, but what’s the best school for them even if that might mean a charter school or private school all together.

Where economic development is encouraged so you don’t have ghost towns essentially where the only people who live there are people who can’t afford to live anywhere else. Where gangs and organize criminals run the communities.

Where you have an modern infrastructure system so companies can get their products to market (to use an old phrase) and also to encourage more private economic development.

A responsible regulatory state to protect consumers from predators and worker from abusive employers.

And a limited effective safety net (not welfare state) that serves an economic insurance system for people who are out-of-work, or lack basic skills to get themselves a good job. But also empowers low-skilled individuals to get themselves on their feet by finishing and furthering their education and learning a trade so they can get themselves a good job.

Where Liberals separate from Socialists has to do with government’s involvement in the economy. Socialists want government to take most of the national income and dish it back out based on what they believe people need to do well. Where Liberals differ with Libertarians is that Liberals believe that the people should be able to to keep most of what they earn. But that Liberals believe there is a real role for government even in a free society and that being part of a free society is like being part of a club. Where you end up paying for the services that you consume and even some of the services that don’t personally benefit you.

Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

Read Full Post »

Ryan Minor: George Carlin On Individuality

Source:Ryan Minor– comedian George Carlin.

“I little excerpt from a George Carlin audio book that I wanted to share.
Enjoi!”

Source:Ryan Minor

I’m not religious and I don’t want to sound religious or speak in the name of God, even to make a great point, because that would be fake. But the universe created individuals not to be clones of each other or to be just like one superior individual, but for people to be individuals, to be themselves.

In a world that’s dominated by pop culture and celebrity culture, people who talk, think, who dress, who eat as themself, rather than what the so-called hot celebrity is currently doing, that person who acts for themself, is going to stand out and look unique and generally get looked down upon as well. Because they’re not eating or drinking the exact same things as the so-called in-crowd are eating or drinking. Or they use their own words, or they’re the one person in the crowd who doesn’t have the latest smartphone, not aware of who was the latest person to get kicked off the latest so-called reality show, they can get through an entire day without coffee or coffee house coffee, whatever the thing is.

But, if the universe wanted clones, it wouldn’t have created billions of different people, with their own individual brains and personalities. Just because we have billions of people who apparently can’t think, talk, and act for themselves, doesn’t mean we don’t have individuals. It just means we have billions of people who choose not to be themself for fear of standing out in the crowd and being just a little different from the so-called in-crowd. I think that’s essentially what George Carlin is saying here and I completely agree with him.

Read Full Post »

Chicago Tribune: ‘How to Combat Inequality’

Source:Chicago Tribune– money, money, money.

Source:The New Democrat 

“If you’re a low-income African-American with a talent for braiding hair, you might have the idea of making money that way. You could start out doing it for relatives and friends and gradually build a clientele that could provide a decent income without a lot of capital. It could offer a way out of poverty and into the middle class.

But in many states, including Illinois, it’s not so simple. If you want to braid hair professionally, you must be a licensed cosmetologist. And to get that license, you have to get 1,500 hours of training. A poor woman who wants to pick up a little cash off the books can usually get away with it. But if she hopes to earn a living and can’t afford the training, she’s out of luck.

That’s one of the ways in which the American economic system hinders those at the bottom of the income scale. Many of them grew up with bad schools, crime-ridden neighborhoods and boarded-up shopping centers. Lots of the auto and steel plants that used to provide a middle-class lifestyle on a high school education (or less) have closed. So even as America has grown wealthier, many Americans have not.”

From the Chicago Tribune

“Income inequality has been on the rise for decades. In the last 30 years, the wages of the top 1% have grown by 154%, while the bottom 90% has seen growth of only 17%. As the rungs of the economic ladder move further and further apart, conventional wisdom says that it will become much more difficult to climb them. Opportunities for upward mobility-the American dream-will disappear as the deck becomes stacked against the middle class and the poor. But others see inequality as a positive, a sign of a dynamic and robust economy that, in the end, helps everyone. And contrary to public opinion, mobility has remained stable over the past few decades. If the American dream is dying, is it the result of income inequality? Or is disparity in income a red herring where more complex issues are at play?”

Source:IS Debates– debating what’s called income inequality in America.

From IS Debates 

I agree with a lot of what was said in this Chicago Tribune editorial about the problems of why people at the bottom of the American income scale are at the bottom and why the people at the top are at the top. And as much as so-called Progressives (or Social Democrats) in America like to try to make the so-called income inequality argument in America about the rich stealing from the poor, it is not true at least in most cases.

The wealthy in America tend to be wealthy, because they have a wealth of education and marketable skills that they have used to create their success. And have either gotten those skills by having wealthy parents who were able to send them to good schools including college, or came from strong middle class families. And went to good middle class schools and ended up going to and graduating from a good college by either getting a scholarship, student loans or working really hard and going to school at the same time. Or a combination of all of those, or some of those factors.

But there are also very successful people in America who didn’t come from wealth or even a middle class family. But had strong enough parents to make sure they not only stayed in and finished school, but got themselves a good education. Even if that meant one or both parents working multiple jobs to make that happen. So if you come from a good foundation even one with not a lot of money, but a lot of love and parents who’ll do whatever they can to see that you have a good shot at succeeding in life and you take advantage of those opportunities, you’ll do well in America.

The poor in America whether they are working or not, tend to have gotten off to a bad start in life. Dad walks out, mom left to raise their kid or kids by herself. Or dad in prison and mom not prepared to raise her kids in a proper way without the skills to do so. And then these kids make it worst for themselves by not finishing school and getting whatever education that they can. Having kids before finishing high school and essentially leaving their mother to raise her grandchildren for them.

And of course kids from both poor and rough neighborhoods falling into the wrong crowd as adolescents. Getting in trouble, not finishing high school and now looking at having a juvenile record and doing time. To go along with not having a high school diploma, having kids to take care of too early in life. Without much hope of giving their kids what their parents couldn’t give them. Which is a good start at life coming with a good education and a good shot at doing well in life.

So these are the main reasons for what I call the income gap in America as opposed to income inequality. So then it is about what should be done about these issues. And for me as a Liberal it always gets to opportunity and empowerment coming from education and job training. Having a public education system in this country that is not run by the Federal Government, but where everyone in the country can go to a school that is best for them.

Instead of being forced to going to a school based on where they live. Which is a big reason for the income gap in America with students not getting the skills that they need in life because they live in a low-income neighborhood. And the Federal Government can help with additional resources to our public schools so all of our public school students would be able to go to a good school.

And then with our low-income workforce whether they are currently working or not for our non-employed low-income workforce, it shouldn’t be about just getting them to work, but getting them good work experience as well as the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. Instead of just putting them to work in low-skilled low-income jobs without the ability that they need to get themselves a good job.

This is why job creation with our low-skilled workforce needs to also be about job training as well so this population can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. And that means at least getting a degree at a junior college or a vocational school. So they have the skills they need to do well in life. And the Federal Government and private sector with private job training programs can help provide the resources for this.

If you want to do well in America it takes marketable skills and education to make that happen. Without that you are looking at a life of poverty and living in rough neighborhoods dependent on public assistance for your economic survival. And even if you are working dead-end low-skilled low-income jobs with not much if any hope for advancement and making a good living. But with a good education and job skills, you can do as well in life as your talents and you applying your talents will allow which will benefit the country as a whole.

Read Full Post »

The Founding Fathers & Classical Liberalism

Source:Red State Eclectic– our Founding American Liberals. Sorry Leftists, get over it.

“Tomorrow (15 minutes left not to be lying), I expect delivery of Richard Epstein’s magisterial “The Classical Liberal Constitution” which will be one of the tomes that I shall engross myself in over the next half year to gain a deeper understanding of the nexus of law and liberty.

Writes CATO:

In his latest book, a wide-ranging tome covering vast areas of our law, Richard Epstein mounts a principled attack on modern Supreme Court jurisprudence and much of the legal scholarship that has grown up around it. The major disarray that infects every area of modern American life, he argues, from deficits and debt to health care, financial services, declining standards of living and more, could not have happened under the original constitutional structure, faithfully interpreted in light of changed circumstances. It arose from a profound progressive break with the classical liberal tradition that guided the drafting and interpretation of the Constitution.”

From Red State Eclectic

“Speech about Classical Liberalism and how it influenced the founding fathers. Also explains what the difference is between classical and modern liberalism.”

Source:D Kendel– talking about classical liberalism.

From D Kendel

I’m not interested in classical liberalism versus what’s called modern liberalism. So that’s where I differ here between the Red State Eclectic and D Kendel. I’m interested in actual liberalism and Liberals (whether you want to call it classical liberalism and Classical Liberals or not) versus people who are called Liberals today, but in many cases are actually very illiberal (not liberal) with the defense of Communists and other authoritarian leftists, as well as supports of crackdowns on free speech and personal freedom and claims that American capitalism is somehow racist.

If American leftists weren’t scared to death of what’s called the s-words, (socialist and socialism) as well as the c-words (communist and communism) or even Social Democrat and social democracy, or what Senator Bernie Sanders (the only self-described Socialist member of the U.S. Congress) democratic socialist and democratic socialism, the American Center-Right would be made up of people who are called Liberals and Conservatives everywhere else in the developed world. And the American Center-Left would be made up of true Progressives in the TR, FDR, HST, LBJ, and Progressive Republicans from the past like Nelson Rockefeller.

But since being called a Socialist, even a Democratic Socialist, or even leftist, is like coming down with the flu or getting hit with the plagued, or being accused of being a rapist or murderer, terrorist, or some other type of violent criminal, American leftists hide behind liberal and conservative like they’re wanted by the FBI and scared to death for their own lives.

The main difference between liberal and socialist, like social democrat or democratic socialist, has to do with individual rights, like the rights that come from liberal democracy, versus what are called collective or welfare rights, that you would get in a social democracy.

Liberals trust an educated public and individuals to make their own decisions with their own lives and then be held responsible for their own individual decisions. Socialists trust government to make people’s economic decisions for them and in some cases personal decisions as well.

This is not about classical versus modern when you are talking about Liberals. But Liberals versus leftists (democratic and otherwise) instead.

Read Full Post »

Noam Chomsky: Why Free Speech is Important

Source:Awakened Citizen 89– Professor Noam Chomsky making the case for free speech.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

From Good Reads

Something the Far-Right and Far-Left in America may never understand. Free speech means nothing in America or anywhere else in the world. Actually, it doesn’t even exist, if people aren’t free to express themselves and say exactly what they think.

I’m not talking about threatening violence against innocent people, or committing, which is what the censors and fascists both on the Far-Left and Far-Right always point to and say: “Well, we don’t have the right to threaten to kill someone. So free speech isn’t guarantee.” I’m talking about the right for free people to express themselves and say exactly what’s on their mind, short of inciting violence, lying under oath or on official documents, committing fraud, etc. But that we all have the right to express ourselves and make our views known about whatever we’re thinking about, even if the other side hates what we have to say.

Read Full Post »

The Film Archives: Paul Krugman vs. George Soros- ‘Debate on Capitalism, Globalization of the Economy (1997)’

 

 

Source: The Film Archives– Holy smokes, Batman! LOL

“Economic globalization is the increasing economic interdependence of national economies across the world through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, service, technology, and capital… 

From The Film Archives

One thing that leftists (democratic and otherwise) will never understand or admit about America, is what they claim to not like or even hate about America, they benefit from everyday: the ability for free people to think for themselves, make their own decisions and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. That’s what individual freedom (personal and economic) has always been about: the ability for free people to act and think for themselves, short of hurting innocent people with what they’re doing. 

Every developed nation in the free world has some type of private enterprise, capitalist system and open society. And the developing countries even in the authoritarian world like the People’s Republic of China or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, have made the economic progress that they have in the last 20 years, because they’ve opened up their economies and societies. Not because the central government has clamped down more on their own people.

It’s not a matter if you have a private, capitalist economy or not, if you are going to have a developed country or not. The question is what type of private economic system that you are going to have.

Europe prefers social democracy, which is a combination of a capitalist economy, combined with a large, national welfare state. America has always preferred a more individualist system where we get to decide for ourselves where and how we get our economic benefits from.

But both America and Europe are free and developed today because they’re both private, capitalist, free societies.

Read Full Post »

The Fiscal Times: Bruce Bartlett- ‘The Coming Revival of Liberalism’

Source:The Fiscal Times– now here’s a symbol of American liberalism. Not the left-wing, pop culture stereotype, of what liberalism is supposed to be.

“A new poll from Public Religion Research Institute shows growing support for a more liberal approach to policy that I think will gather steam in years to come.

For example, 63 percent of people support higher taxes on those making more than $250,000, with only 34 percent opposed. There is now majority support for allowing gays to marry versus 41 percent opposed.
Raising the minimum wage is supported by 73 percent of people, with just 25 percent opposed. And 54 percent of people favor legal abortion, with 42 percent wanting it to be illegal.

The poll also makes clear that people are becoming increasingly concerned about a lack of jobs, the growing gap between rich and poor, and the declining standard of living. They are becoming more receptive to government activism to deal with national problems and less confident that the private sector can fix them.

These are all issues on which the liberal approach to policy is more popular and the conservative position is weak. I think it is only a matter of time before liberal intellectuals begin articulating specific ideas that will find favor with the electorate–conservatives will be left with little to say except, “no.”

Source:The Fiscal Times 

“Bruce Bartlett Steps Into TYT” 

Source:The Young Turks– Bruce Bartlett on TYT.

From The Young Turks 

I guess my response to Bruce Bartlett’s piece would be: it depends on what you mean by liberal and liberalism. Apparently Mr. Bartlett’s idea of Liberals and liberalism falls into the mainstream media, left-wing, pop culture stereotype of what it means to be a Liberal, what Liberals believe in, and what liberalism, is that they’re just left-wing, Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, who want to transform America into Scandinavia, or perhaps Cuba economically and politically. 

Socialism might be on the rise in America as far as it’s popularity, with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and perhaps Senator Elizabeth Warren being the unofficial leaders for American Socialists. But apparently that’s who Mr. Bartlett is talking about when he’s talking about so-called Liberals. 

Perhaps this silly (no, I don’t believe that) but when I think of Liberals, I think of people who believe in liberal democracy, which is what Liberals actually believe in and what liberalism is actually based off. Liberals believe that the people should have the right to self-determination, which means personal autonomy, the freedom to act for ourselves and think for ourselves, to make our own decisions in life, instead of some big government (socialist, or otherwise) trying to run our lives for us. That’s my idea of liberalism, because that’s what liberalism actually is, the belief in liberal democracy.

If you polled Americans about whether they believed in the right to self-determination, both personal and economic freedom, limited responsible, government, and fiscal responsibility, liberalism would actually poll very well in America. And we would have lot of Liberals in this country, even though those folks probably wouldn’t be aware that they’re Liberals, thanks to our vast ignorance when it comes to political philosophy in this country. 

 

Read Full Post »