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 »

George Washington Forum: Thomas C. Leonard- ‘Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era’

Source:George Washington Forum– Professor Thomas Leonard, giving a lecture about race in the Progressive Era.

“Thomas C. Leonard is Research Scholar in the Council of the Humanities at Princeton University and Lecturer in the Department of Economics, which has twice awarded him the Richard D. Quandt Prize for outstanding teaching. His book, Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era (2016), won the 2017 Joseph J. Spengler Best Book Prize from the History of Economics Society. This event receives support from the Jack Miller Center through a grant from the Thomas W. Smith Foundation.”

From the George Washington Forum

As a Liberal as an American, but more importantly as a person and I would hope that all people feel this way, but unfortunately thats not the case, I believe all forms of racism is bad. No matter who’s it directed at and what race. Just as there’s no such thing as a good from of slavery or evil, there’s no such thing as a good form of racism.

As someone who’s a proud product of a very diverse high school (Bethesda Chevy Chase) where literally the whole world is represented there and still is and someone who went to diverse schools my whole educational career and who met and experienced people of different races growing up, including befriending them and still knowing some of these friends today, I got to know people of different ethnicity’s and races early on. And learned on my own that they are just people, you know who happened to look different then from people of my ethnicity and race. And then once you establish that, you learn that they are people and you can treat as such and not differently.

As opposed to someone who grew up in a segregated area and didn’t meet and was unaware of people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds growing up. Perhaps grows up with parents and grandparents with bigoted attitudes growing up. And once they finally are around different people, perhaps in college or when they are working. Don’t know how to act around them.

Now I’ll admit as a Caucasian-American man my experience at feeling racism towards me is pretty limited, mostly in the form of humor. And most of that bad humor has been directed at my German heritage. So mostly about my ethnicity not race. And a lot of those jokes have been German ethnic stereotypes. Still bad but not things like ethnic slurs.

Racism is bad, whether its coming from the Far-Right or Far-Left and whatever race its directed at. Conservatives get accused of racism especially towards minorities all the time. But they don’t own a monopoly on it, even though it clearly exists and has been well documented.

But racism also comes from the Far-Left and a lot of times in the form of humor. Directed at Caucasians, jews and in some cases Asians. And generally directed at men and I believe even though they would describe it as being race conscience.

The Far-Left in America also tend to be more likely I believe, to identify ones race in describing someone. Instead of their hair color or outfit, physical build, etc.

To me any Dr. Martin Luther King who I consider the Leader and hero of the civil rights movement and with his I have a Dream Speech of 1963 laid down the vision of civil rights and equal rights, because of the famous and most important line,:”I have a dream that one day my children would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.”

MLK’s “I Have a Dream” is the  most important thing ever said in the civil rights movement, because that laid down the vision of what that movement was all about: that all Americans would be treated by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. That all racism was evil and needs to be defeated.

All racism is bad and should be treated for the evil that it is. If all people just remember the MLK I have a Dream Speech and just treat people as people, judge them by their character and not race or ethnicity, then Dr King’s dream will become a reality and America will live up to what it represents as a land of equal opportunity for all not for a special few.

I can’t think of anything more regressive and illiberal than racism, regardless of who it’s targeted at and who is doing the targeting. And real Progressive or Liberal (and progressive and liberal doesn’t mean the same thing) hates racism and bigotry regardless of who it’s targeted at. Just because someone calls themself a Progressive or Liberal, doesn’t automatically make that person a Progressive or Liberal. You have to live up to progressive values to be a Progressive and liberal values to be a Liberal, like racial and ethnic tolerance, not bigotry.

Read Full Post »

WAWG Blog: Andy Hailey- ‘As A Progressive, Am I Too Extreme?’

Source:Slide Player– The Progressive Era for women 

Source:The New Democrat Plus

From Andy Hailey

“Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of economic injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their belief that only the wealthy deserve government aid?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of social injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their denial of sexual diversity?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of racial injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their arrogant belief in white supremacy?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of environmental injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their desire for the end times or getting filthy rich in case they are not among the chosen?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect all living and breathing citizens from the economic, social, racial, and environmental injustices committed by man-made, heartless, and greedy entities with their immoral, excessive, power and pursuit of profit without regard to harming citizens?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their freedoms to choose, like voting and medical procedures, are maximized?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their abilities, like critical thinking, are maximized?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from medical bankruptcy caused by death panels protecting health insurance profits?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from sacrifice in never-ending wars for corporate enrichment?

Am I too extreme to want today’s version of FDR’s second bill of rights written into law?”

This could’ve been written by Bernie Sanders today, George McGovern 30-50 years ago, Henry Wallace 70 years ago, David McReynolds or Eugene Debs ( multiple time Socialist Party nominees for president ) in McReynolds case 10, 20, 30 years ago. In Debs case 100 years ago. Socialists and socialism aren’t new to America. It didn’t arrive when Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving in the House for 16 years before the Senate. He’s not the only Socialist in Congress and never has been. He’s just the only self-described Socialist in Congress, ( but not the only current Socialist in Congress ) and he’ll only have that title until the end of this Congress. In the next Congress starting in January we could see 10-20 new self-described Socialists in the House.

What’s new is that we’re now seeing Socialists coming out of the political closet and making public that they’re Socialists. Democratic Socialists in most cases, but if you look at Far-Left like ANTIFA, they’re proud self-described Communists. It’s not extreme to want a country or world where there’s no racism, poverty, selfishness, crime, violence, war, anything else that’s bad about the world. Overly romantic, overly idealistic you wouldn’t have much trouble making the case for that. Anyone who lives in the real world has to deal with both good and bad. Things that are good about people and society and things that are bad. That’s called life and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to improve not only your own life, but the society around you. Overly romantic and idealistic sure, but there’s really nothing wrong with that so long as you keep at least one foot on Planet Earth and stay in touch with reality. As least in writing or texting, or email distance.

But if you’re someone who believes in making the world better, the question is how you go about doing that. Now, if you’re an actual Progressive ( and not a closeted Socialist instead ) it’s not a question if you want to make the world better or not, but how to go about doing that. When I think of Progressives, I think of people who want to make the country or world better through government action. Not people who are looking to create a Planet Utopia where there’s no such thing as poverty, racism, or violence, but people who want to use public policy to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and create genuine, noticeable progress with public policy. Not people who are looking to outlaw everything they don’t personally like including personal wealth. Or create a central government so big that personal decision-making and individualism become extinct. But people who want to improve the lives of their fellow people through public policy.

 

Source:Slide Player– Theodore Roosevelt, one of the first true American Progressives 

From Wikipedia

“Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.”

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists including Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, and even Communists tend to all get linked into the same political faction as if they’re all the same people with 6 different labels. When the fact is Liberals just by themselves are different from the other factions. For example an actual Liberal such as myself believes in liberal democracy. Communists, don’t believe in democracy at all especially liberal democracy. Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats believe in democratic socialism and social democracy. Progressives in the actual sense, are the most interesting in all of these political factions, because they’re the least ideological and most pragmatic of all these groups. They believe in liberal democracy, but they also believe in conservative values like property rights, the rule of law, and other values like that.

Progressives, are people who believe in progress through government action, but limited government action. They’re not looking to create a government that is so big that it essentially takes over the society and is able to manage people’s personal as well as economic affairs for them. Progressives, are people who believe in freedom, but that it should be for everyone and not just for people who are born to wealth or have a certain ethnic or racial background. And want to use government to improve the lives of people who are struggling so they can have the same freedom as people who are already doing well in society. That’s the main difference between a Progressive and a Socialist of any background. Which is Progressives, believe in progress through limited government,. Socialists, don’t believe in limited government and base their ideology around a big central government and what it can do for the people.

Source:Aaron Champaign: The Progressive Era– Woman’s suffrage in the Progressive Era 

Read Full Post »

Politics and Prose: Robert Reich- ‘The Common Good’

Source: Politics and Prose

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

In this long PBS style fundraiser marathon of a speech that Robert Reich gave in Washington about his book The Common Good, I got the sense that he was talking about what’s called the social contract. This idea that Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists and some Progressives push that government is there to make sure everyone is taken care and has what they need to live well in society. And Reich is probably using the New Deal from the 1930s and the Great Society from the 1960s, as his idea of what the social contract or the common good is.

As a Liberal I’m all in favor of a public safety net for people who truly need it. And if we’re going to continue to have a public safety net for people who are uneducated and under skilled, than that safety net should be used to empower people so they can get a good enough job to become economically self-sufficient and no longer need public assistance at all. Instead of just giving low-skilled workers and non-workers money that is produced by people who work hard for a living and don’t qualify for public assistance.

I’m all if favor of requiring people to who are on Welfare to go to work and even take the first job that opens up for them that they’re qualified for. As well as giving them child care assistance so they can go to work, if they have kids. As well as education assistance so they can go back to school and further and finish their education, so again they can get themselves a good job. That programs like Medicaid and Food Assistance, to use as examples, Public Housing would be another one, would be for low-income workers, instead of non-workers.

My idea of a safety net ( which I prefer over social contract or welfare state ) is a public social insurance system. There for people who can’t survive even in the short-term without that financial assistance. But also there to help those people get on their feet economically. Similar to auto insurance, or property insurance. You don’t use those insurances to pay your bills. You use them when your car is in an accident, or your house is on fire or gets flooded.

A safety net should be for people who lose their jobs, don’t have a good education, can’t afford health insurance, don’t make enough money to feed themselves, can’t afford housing. Not for people who simply don’t want to work in America.

Politics and Prose: Robert Reich- ‘The Common Good’

Read Full Post »

Caleb Rojas Castillo: Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America, 1998

Source:Caleb Rojas Castillo– U.S. First Lady Hillary R. Clinton, on ABC’s Good Morning America, in 1998.

Source:The New Democrat 

“First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gives an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America”, facing tough personal questions.

January 28, 1998. (A day after the famous “Today show” interview)”

From Caleb Rojas Castillo

Lisa McRee, hosting ABC’s Good Morning America. Gee, there’s a blast from the past. She co-hosted that show, what two weeks. I guess when your network’s overnight newscast gets better ratings than your morning show, that’s a clue that you might need to change your morning crew. Diane Sawyer, saved Good Morning America and perhaps is the reason why that show is a strong competitor with The Today Show. Or at least while Diane was hosting GMA.

Hillary Clinton, is either the most gullible person on the planet: and would take the word of a known compulsive liar, when the liar says that fire is cold and water is dry and it snows in South Florida in July, or she’s just a bad liar herself. I mean, to say she believed her husband, who just happens to be Bill Clinton, perhaps better known as Wild Bill and Slick Willy, when he told her that allegations about Monica Lewinsky were false, is hard to believe. I mean, Bill is her husband and it’s not like they have a long distance marriage and do not know what is going on in the other’s life. They’ve shared a bed at this point for over twenty years. Well, they shared that bed when Bill wasn’t with one of his girlfriends.

When you’re a fly in hot water and you can actually swim, I know a little tough to consider, you get yourself out of the water and fly away. That is what Hillary is trying to do here. Lisa McRee, wants to talk about Lewinsky. Hillary, would rather talking about the color of a brick wall, or how often someone should clean their garbage cans. Or how come the Chicago Cubs, haven’t won a World Series in a hundred years, or the price of Arkansas dirt, then talk about her husband’s latest affairs. So of course she’s going to try to change the subject from Lewinsky and try to talk about her husband’s political agenda. Outside of saving his ass in the White House. And that is exactly what she tried to do here.

Read Full Post »

The Beacon: Randall Holcombe- Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality

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

What people need to understand about progressivism, is that it isn’t socialism. Sure, they are both about big centralized government, but progressivism isn’t completely about government. And doesn’t think individualism and individual initiative is necessarily a bad thing. Or that freedom isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Progressives, unlike Socialists in many cases, believe in all of those things. A true Progressive, doesn’t believe that government can and should do practically everything if not everything for the people. Socialists, don’t seem to have a problem that a new tax increase and government program can’t solve and do something new for the people.

Progressivism, was basically born in the late 1890s and early 1900s, under people like Teddy Roosevelt and later Woodrow Wilson and many others, as part of the so-called Progressive Era. These people who might have seem radical then, but today they would be mainstream Center-Left Progressive Democrats. And thanks to the Great Depression and with Franklin Roosevelt coming to power as President in 1933 with an overwhelming Democratic Congress in both the House and Senate, the New Deal was born. The American safety net and social insurance system. To help people in need help themselves and get themselves back on their feet.

The originally Welfare system was badly designed. Because it didn’t require people on Welfare to finish their education and even look for work. Unlike Unemployment Insurance where people have to look for work and even get help from the program looking for work. But the basic idea of progressivism is that government can help people when they are down get on their feet. And protect the innocent from predators. Either in the economy with the regulatory state. And put criminals way when they hurt the innocent physically and otherwise with the law enforcement state. And protect the country from foreign invaders with the national security state.

If you look at the economic options of the 1930s, the progressive economic approach was actually the middle ground. Which might sound strange even for that period. But think about it, you had Conservatives and Libertarians on the Right, saying that government shouldn’t do anything to help people who are down and stay out of the economy all together. To Democratic Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left, saying that private enterprise and capitalism is the problem. And that government should take over a lot of these sectors in the economy to serve the people. Progressivism, is not socialism, but a very mainstream American ideology.
Right-Wing Watch: FDR & The New Deal- “How Progressives Ended The Great Depression”

Read Full Post »

Politico Magazine: Opinion- Richard Norton Smith- Nelson Rockefeller’s Last Stand

Nelson & Eleanor

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

To understand Nelson Rockefeller’s politics, you have to first understand the politics of the Republican Party up until 1966-67 or so. When the Republican Party officially moved into a different direction politically and became the official right-wing party in America. That had already started in 1964 with Barry Goldwater’s nomination for president, but the 1966 mid-terms is where it started paying off for the GOP in Congress and with governorships around the country.

See the Republican Party that Nelson fit into, was the GOP of the 1950s with Dwight Eisenhower. Nelson Rockefeller was no Liberal at least he wouldn’t be today. He certainly wasn’t a Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat either of course. But he also wasn’t a Rand Paul Tea Party Conservative Libertarian of today, or a Barry Goldwater Conservative Libertarian. If there is such a thing even sixty-years ago, Nelson Rockefeller would’ve been a Progressive Republican. And I mean that in the classical sense.

A classical Progressive in the sense of someone who believes in hard work, education and opportunity for all. A safety net for people who fall though the cracks of the private enterprise system. Someone who believed in rule of law and a tough internationalist foreign policy and national security. But someone who also believed in civil rights and equal rights for everyone. Nelson was to the Left of Franklin Roosevelt on social issues especially civil rights. But not as far to the Left of Franklin on economic policy and who wanted to create the next chapter of the New Deal.

Nelson wanted a safety net for people who truly needed it. Not a welfare state to manage people’s lives for them. And for everyone who was physically and mentally able, which is most of the country, he believed those people should get a good education, work hard and be productive. And then get to enjoy the rewards of their production. That if you were on public assistance because you couldn’t find a good job or not qualified to get a good job, that government could help you finish your education so you can become independent.

The Eisenhower/Rockefeller Progressives were no longer running the Republican Party by 1964. When President Eisenhower left office in 1961, Republicans were looking for a new direction and leadership. Senator Barry Goldwater filled that vacuum for them in 1964 and that is the direction they stuck with until President Ronald Reagan left office in 1989. And because of this there was no longer a base of support for Progressives like Nelson Rockefeller to step up and lead the GOP in that direction. Because they were now outnumbered by Conservatives.
The Political Lion: Conservatives Re-Take The Republican Party- 1964 GOP Convention

Read Full Post »

History Comes to Life: Nelson Rockefeller Announces For the Presidency in 1968

Governor Nelson Rockefeller, R, New York

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times

If Nelson Rockefeller was alive today and still involved in public service in some way, whether it was in public office or working for non-profits, which he did both in his very long and distinguished career in public service. What party would he be affiliated with? I think it’s clear that maybe outside of the Northeast and of course he was from New York I believe GOV. Rockefeller would’ve had a very hard time getting elected as a Republican today. Especially in a Republican Party that’s now dominated by the Christian Right and to some extent Neoconservatives.

But neoconservatism has lost a lot if influence in the Republican Party, at least in the last two elections. Which I believe is a good thing, but the Religious-Right is still there and powerful there. And of course now with the Tea Party movement that’s now run by economic Conservatives and Religious Conservatives and with GOV. Rockefeller being fairly liberal at least to some extent on social issues except for crime and punishment, I don’t see how Nelson Rockefeller gets elected in the Republican Party today. He would probably be a better fit as a Democrat today with his liberal views on some social Issues. And his beliefs in public service and infrastructure investment, but probably like a Joe Lieberman.

Nelson Rockefeller was a social Liberal and somewhat progressive on economic policy. But more conservative on crime and punishment and foreign policy. I mean the Rockefeller Drug Laws aren’t called that for nothing, GOV. Rockefeller played a big role in advancing the War on Drugs in America. And also served as President Ford’s Vice President. Mr. Rockefeleller clearly had conservative leanings, but not enough of them for him to be successful in the Republican Party today. So where would Nelson Rockefeller go politically or maybe he would work on a third-party Movement instead.

I don’t see Nelson Rockefeller as a centrist, but an independent and they are different. A centrist is someone who’s pretty much middle of the road on most major political issues. But Rockefeller had clear political views, some conservative which is why he was a Republican. But also some liberal and progressive which is why I don’t believe he would be a Republican today. So maybe the Independence Party or a movement for that would’ve taken off with Rockefelller and George Wallace as their Leaders.

Nelson Rockefeller would be a prototypical Independent candidate and perfect for that type of political party as well. Someone who could help advance an Independence movement and would’ve been a great third-party candidate today. I don’t think he would’ve gotten elected President this way, but definitely been a factor as a presidential candidate. Sort of like George Wallace in 1968, Jack Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992. And perhaps because of this we could’ve ended the two-party-system that under represents a lot of American voters and we could’ve had more choices in who to vote for.
History Comes To Life: Nelson Rockefeller Announces For The Presidency in 1968

Read Full Post »

Taylor F: President Dwight Eisenhower on Little Rock Integration Plan

Source:Taylor F.– Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Texas) President of the United States (1953-61)

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

“This is for educational and personal purposes.
Executive Order – – Little Rock 1957 – – Dwight D. Eisenhower”

From Taylor F.

Dwight Eisenhower, America’s first civil rights president. Not Lyndon Johnson who was our third, after Jack Kennedy who got involved in it strongly late in his presidency. But President Eisenhower was our first because he took on segregation from the executive level before the 1960s and when the civil rights movement became strong.

By taking on civil rights at the federal and executive level, President Eisenhower immediately gave credibility to the movement. Especially by being in favor of it and against school desegregation, by essentially saying that:

“African-Americans have the same right to a quality education as Caucasian-Americans. And that government can’t force African-American kids to go to poor schools. When Caucasians are going to good public schools”.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Read Full Post »

Market Ex: President Dwight Eisenhower- On the American Safety Net

Source:Market Ex– President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Kansas) 1953-61

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Source:Market EX

Dwight Eisenhower certainly wasn’t a Tea Party Republican economically or anything else. Whatever a Tea Party Republican is supposed to be, because there are many types.

But Ike was not a classical conservative economic libertarian Tea Party Republican. Not a Rand Paul Conservative Libertarian, which is what I’m getting at. But more like a Newt Gingrich Republican at least when it came to economic policy or what they use to call in Canada a Progressive Conservative.

Progressive Conservatives believe in the basic safety net for people who needed it, including the New Deal. But someone who also believed in freedom when it came to economics as well as personal freedom.

A Progressive Republican (not an Oxymoron) is someone who didn’t want a big welfare state for America. Someone who believed that Americans should have the freedom to be able to do as much for themselves as possible.

Progressive Republicans believe the safety net are for those people who needed it. Ike certainly wasn’t a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist (which are very common in Europe) but someone who believed in using conservative principles to accomplish progressive goals. That you needed both freedom and a safety net for the country to be as strong as possible economically.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Read Full Post »