Critical Past: 'Wendell Willkie Arrives in His Hometown And Formally Accepts The Republican Presidential Nomination'

Source:Critical Past- Liberal Republican Wendell Willie: accepting the 1940 GOP presidential nomination.

Source:The New Democrat

"Historic Stock Footage Archival and Vintage Video Clips in HD.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town and formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town after being nominated as the Presidential candidate. Wendell Willkie in a car. A large crowd gathers to greet him. Crowd cheering and applauding. He stands on the podium and addresses the crowd. He formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd. Addressing the crowd, he states that the domestic and foreign policies of the New Deal is leading the nation into war. He endorses the draft for US defense and dares President Roosevelt to meet him for a public debate on questions vital to all Americans. Location: Elwood Indiana. Date: August 19, 1940."

Source:Critical Past

By 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt had his New Deal passed through Congress and the Great Depression was over, but the devastating affects of it were still there and the people were still feeling it. Business investment and economic growth were still low and unemployment was still high. It wasn't the New Deal that saved the American economy: it helped in alleviating pain of the Great Depression, but the economy still wasn't back to anything near to what it was in 1928 before the stock market crash.

President Roosevelt, was a popular President, but there was a real case to be made against him and real room to run against him for President and offer a new direction for the country, which is what businessman Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Republican offered in 1940. Liberal in the classical and real sense, not made up or stereotypical, big government, socialist sense. FDR, wasn't a Socialist either, but his big, central, government approach government approach with his New Deal, was very different from Wendell was offering which was about more individualism private business investment, as apposed to FDR's Federal Government investment approach.

The 1940 presidential election was an interesting election for multiple reasons: you had a popular President against a popular opponent. FDR, was a popular President, but Wendell Willkie managed about 45% of the popular vote which is more than Barry Goldwater in 1964 and President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Wendell with his 10 states won more than President Carter in 1980. It was also an an election where you had a Progressive Democrat versus a Liberal Republican. Willkie, was to the Left of FDR on civil rights and civil liberties. FDR, was to the Left of Wendell on economic policy. And they were similar on foreign policy and national security with both men being strong liberal internationalists and somewhat hawkish.

1940, represents a time in American politics where the country wasn't so divided politically. When Liberals, were Liberals. Conservatives, were Conservatives. Progressives, we're Progressives. Socialists, weren't afraid to be Socialists. ( Unless they were in Hollywood ) Where Americans regardless of their political labels didn't hate each other simply because of their politics which is how you can get a presidential election between a Franklin Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, because their differences were about politics and policy. Not race, ethnicity, religion, or culture.

Academy of Ideas: John Stuart Mill On Liberty

Source: Academy of Ideas-

Source:The New Democrat

When I think of liberty, I don’t think of the liberty to do whatever the hell I want without any consequences. I think of individual liberty, self-determination, free will, the ability for people to make their own decisions and make their own beds, just as long as they also sleep in them. That individual liberty is exactly that, for the individual. That the individual has liberty over their own lives, but not the liberty to manage someone else’s and certainly not to hurt innocent people with what they’re doing. Not talking about anarchy, but individual liberty, balanced by rule of law there to protect the innocent from predators and to handle the predators who hurt the innocent.

Individual liberty, again is exactly that. Not talking about economic freedom, or personal freedom, but individual freedom which covers both, plus political freedom. The ability to run for office and for voters to pick from a wide variety of candidates and to publicly weigh in on them. As well as to weigh in on government policy and potential future government policies. This blog covers freedom of choice a lot and has a whole section dealing with that. But that is exactly what freedom of choice is. The freedom for people to make their own choices in life, but then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

To me as a Liberal, a free society is an educated society. Without education, liberty doesn’t exist. So what you need for liberty to exist and be real is for the public to be educated. And once they’re educated they’ll have the tools and freedom to make the right decisions with their own lives. From where to work, where to live, what health insurance plan they should have, how to invest their money, whether, or not they should gamble or not, to smoke, or not to smoke and that includes marijuana, when it get married, or if to get married and who they should marry if anyone and even things like prostitution and pornography. Just as long as they know what they’re getting into before they make those decisions and the consequences that come with those decisions.

Now if you’re lets say a Religious, or Christian, or even a Conservative-Muslim in America and tend to look at politics from lets say a religious, or traditional perspective, the way I just described liberty probably sounds immoral and dangerous. That I want to destroy America and our traditional moral values and everything and perhaps even have anarchy. And if you’re part of the Paternalist-Left in America, people who I and others both Liberals and Libertarians call nanny statists, because you believe in the collective over the individual, you probably also see my politics as dangerous. Because I’m calling for free will and free choice and you don’t tend to trust the individual. And want a big government big enough to even protect people from themselves.

But that is not what I’m calling for all. Something that both so-called Progressives and Religious-Conservatives have in common is the belief in education and that people should be educated and intelligent so they can live well and make good decisions. The only thing is that I take that a step forward and not just call for an educated society, because without an educated society you can’t have a free society. But then I also say that free individuals should have the education, power and liberty to use that power to make the best decisions for themselves. That you put out all the information there and let free people make their own decisions with that knowledge and hold them responsible for their own individual decisions. Individual freedom and responsibility.
Source:Academy of Ideas

US News: Eric Schnurer: 'Don't Look Back to Move Forward'

Source:US News- former Governor Martin O'Malley (Democrat, Maryland) announcing his 2016 presidential campaign.

Source:The New Democrat 

"I once had dinner with Martin O'Malley – who announced his presidential candidacy last weekend – at a National Governors Association meeting. From what I knew of him, I expected something similar to Olivia Nuzzi's recent description of him in The Daily Beast as "sociopathically charming." Instead, I found O'Malley, as both a speaker and a dinner companion, so earnestly mired in policy details as to be almost boring: In short, I liked him." 

From US News 

Martin O'Malley: "New Leadership" 

Source:Martin O'Malley- Governor Martin O'Malley (Democrat, Maryland) talking about his presidential campaign.

From Martin O'Malley 

I agree with Eric Schnurer, that Martin O’Malley is an old-school Liberal. But we differ on what it means to be an old-school Liberal. Schnurer, seems to think that an old-school Liberal is someone who believes that government has a program that can solve every problem that comes up. That big centralized government has all the answers. That we’re always one new tax increase, or new tax, new social program, or new investment in a current social program from solving all of our problems. And this type of political thinking does have a label for it, but it’s not Liberal. And liberalism is not that government and statist centric.

Jack Kennedy, when he ran for President in 1960, gave a speech at the New York Liberal Party convention and he defined liberalism and liberal there and I’m paraphrasing JFK, but he said that: “If liberal means someone whose soft on defense, irresponsible with tax dollars, believes in a superstate to solve everyone’s problems for them, then I’m not that Liberal.” Then Senator Kennedy went on to say: “But if a Liberal is someone who looks ahead and not behind, whose concern about the welfare of others, who believes we can always do better, then I’m that Liberal.” JFK, is Bill Clinton’s political hero and they think a lot alike when it comes to politics and policy.

Martin O’Malley, is not a Centrist and someone who is basically in the middle on most issues and perhaps leans left on social issues and leans right on fiscal issues. But he’s also not a Democratic Socialist, or perhaps even a New Deal Progressive. He’s someone who believes government can’t do everything, but can help people who especially need it move ahead, move forward and be able to live in freedom with the rest of the country. As his record as Mayor of Baltimore and then Governor of Maryland indicates. He’s someone who believes in making government work and making it efficient to serve as many people as possible. Not making government bigger, just to create more government jobs and spend more money.

Governor O’Malley, has been light on details as far as his presidential campaign so far. But I believe that is how he’s going to run for President. He’s not going to try to out Socialist the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, or get stuck in the middle with Hillary Clinton. But you’ll see the JFK New Democratic Liberal leanings in him and policies. As someone who wants to bring young voters with him and show them how government can work to help people improve their own lives. Not to try to take most of their money from them and try to run their lives for them. And I believe he’ll be able to bring a lot of Democrats with him with that type of campaign.

Mal Partisan: O.A.R.: Liberalism- The Philosophy of Individual Rights & Freedom

Source:Mal Partisan- Dr. Martin L. King.

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m a Liberal and when I hear the term ‘Modern Liberal’ today it makes me a little angry. Because today’s so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ would be called Socialists in any other country. Because they have a collectivist view of society and believe that government should always be looking out for the society as a whole, even protecting people from themselves. Both an economic and personal point of view, instead of allowing the individual to make their own decisions. Today’s so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ are really collectivists or Democratic Statists if that makes any sense. Instead of Liberals or even Progressives.

When people hear the term Classical Liberal and they are pretty familiar with American politics, they tend to think of Libertarians, but the problem with that is that Libertarians tend to be anti-state and anti-government really all together. Liberals aren’t anti-government or even anti-Federal Government, but we are anti-big-government. We don’t want government trying to manage our own lives for us and invading our privacy. We want government doing the things that we can’t do for ourselves. And that isn’t practically everything for us and it is not practically nothing either.

If you read the Far-Left or what are called progressive blogs and publications today and I read them online everyday, they have a role for government to do practically everything for us. They come short as far as nationalizing the entire economy, but would nationalize some industries and nationalize some things that state and local governments do as well. But liberalism or classical liberalism is not about a big state. But having a liberal amount of freedom as well as responsibility for the individual. 

Liberalism is a very pragmatic and mainstream political philosophy especially in America. Even though it would be viewed as pretty radical in most of the rest of the world. Canada, Germany and Switzerland would be exceptions. But it is about defending and expanding freedom for the individual and seeing that we all have freedom over our own lives until we hurt innocent people and that is when our freedom would be taken away. But that all of us have the opportunities that we need to live in freedom. Creating an opportunity society for everyone.
Source:Mal Partisan

PBS: 'Thomas Jefferson American Republic'

Source:PBS- Thomas Jefferson: the father of liberal democracy.

Source:FRS FreeState

"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809. ME 16:346

"It is true, we are as yet secured against [tyrannical laws] by the spirit of the times... But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

"[To establish republican government, it is necessary to] effect a constitution in which the will of the nation shall have an organized control over the actions of its government, and its citizens a regular protection against its oppressions." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1816. ME 19:240

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:178

"No interests are dearer to men than those which ought to be secured to them by their form of government, and none deserve better of them than those who contribute to the amelioration of that form." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Ruelle, 1809. ME 12:256

"A permanent constitution must be the work of quiet, leisure, much inquiry, and great deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483

"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:325

"I am persuaded no Constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1809. ME 12:277

"[Ours is] a constitution of government destined to be the primitive and precious model of what is to change the condition of man over the globe." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1824. ME 16:26 

"The authority of [the] people [is] a necessary foundation for a constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:28" 

From Darkness At Noon

There is a debate in the United States about what is America according to our own Constitution. Are we a republic or a democracy, the fact is we are both. But then why are we both and how are we both? 

A republic is not necessarily democratic or authoritarian, but it is a republican form of government (Small r) Where the people are governed by civilians for the most part, not by the military or a monarchy or religious leaders. But you can have democratic republics and you can have authoritarian republics. 

America is a democratic republic, China is a communist republic. (To use as examples) A lot of times when people tend to think of democracy, they automatically think of voting the right to vote and majority rule. But the fact is that is only one aspect of democracy. Democracy even depending on what type of democracy, what you are talking about is about freedom and people having freedom over their daily lives and not being harassed by government because they are seen as enemies of the state like in Syria, Egypt or Iran.

America is a federal republic which means we have a federal government as well as state and local government's. Rather than one big government that essentially runs the entire country which is common in authoritarian states. But even at least to a certain extents in big government social democracies, where a lot of power is centralized with the national government. 

America is a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where not everything is done by majority rule. Elections for the most part yes, but where we are governed by a large extent by a Constitution with three branches in the Federal Government. 

America is also governed by our local government's that have responsibility for seeing that our Constitution is equally enforced. Where we all have constitutional rights that are supposed to be equally enforced. So we can’t lose our constitutional rights just because they may seem unpopular or get in the way with whatever the current party in power has planned for the country.

That is what Thomas Jefferson and the other Liberal Democrats (the real Liberal Democrats) who are our founding fathers, created more than two-hundred and thirty years ago. A federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy that comes with a lot of individual freedom. Set responsibilities and authorities for government, but where their number one responsibility is to protect our freedom and constitutional rights equally under law. Not run our lives for us.

Mometrix Academy: What is Social Liberalism

Source:Mometrix Academy- Not socialism. 

Source:FRS FreeState

"Learn more about social liberalism and its roots. Know what social liberals believe and why. Make sure you are prepared for your exam.

Mometrix Academy is the world's most comprehensive test preparation company. This channel will provide you with videos that will help you learn about many different subjects."

Source:Monetrix Academy

In this post, I’m just going to get into what social liberalism is and what it isn’t. What it really is and what it really isn’t and I’m writing this especially this weekend when I hear people who are called ‘college Liberals’ who want to control speech they disagree with on campus. And have it eliminated, or outlawed as if these people are Liberals, or even Social Liberals. Because they want to eliminate speech that may offend people they want to protect. When the fact is for anyone who understands liberalism social, or otherwise knows that one of the key elements of liberalism is free speech and the right to free assembly.

Just look at the First Amendment which is one of the most liberal things ever written. Paraphrase- Congress shall make no law that fringes on free speech in America. So when talking about liberalism social, or otherwise, or studying it, make sure you are actually talking about liberalism and not fascism. Like these politically correct speech codes by the Far-Left in America that want to eliminate speech in America that they find offensive. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but Fascists, or leftist statists. Which is a bit different.

So free speech is a big part of social liberalism, but it is certainly not the only part. And when Americans tend to think of social liberalism, they tend to think of people are pro-choice on abortion and other women’s healthcare issues. And that even the state meaning government in general should have to fund these things for women who can’t afford them in general. As well as being pro-women’s rights in general and pro-gay rights and pro-minority rights. And that none of these groups should be discriminated against at all. When the fact is these things aren’t true. Liberals, are pro-individual rights which is different.

That we are all created equal with certain basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us unless we hurt other people’s freedom. And being pro-individual rights covers everything from abortion to homosexuality. But also things like marijuana. But also gambling and pornography. And again free speech which even covers an individual’s right to quite frankly be an asshole and say and do offensive things. And that everyone is treated equally under law. And are not denied things based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality or sexuality.

A good way to think of social liberalism, or a Social Liberal is someone whose pro-choice. Literally pro-choice across the board regardless of the issue. As long as people aren’t hurting innocent people with the choices that they are making. That people should have the right to make their own bed in life and make their own way. But then are also responsible for sleeping in their own beds. In other words, individual freedom and responsibility. And not being able to force others to pay for one’s bad choices in life.

As for what the women in this video had to say about social liberalism, who will go nameless simply, because she didn’t give out her name and I don’t personally know her, or know of her. She nailed the definition of liberalism in the broader context. And perfectly laid out how liberalism, or how she called it social liberalism is different from libertarianism, or what is called classical liberalism. Or even democratic socialism, even though she didn’t mention that. That liberalism, is about individual liberty and individual rights. But that those rights are for everybody and that where government in is not to manage our lives for us. But to help people in need be able to get by in the short-term and help them be able to live in freedom as well. And not need to be taken care of.

Learn Liberty: Antony Davies: 'Who Favors More Freedom: Liberals or Conservatives?'

Source:Learn Liberty- Antony Davies, talking about Liberals and Conservatives.

"Prof. Antony Davies analyzes the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.  He then proposes an alternative method of viewing political issues, which looks at policies and their respective impact on individual freedom.  Prof. Antony Davies concludes that the conventional liberal/conservative dichotomy encourages us to ignore first principles, and hence, overlook contradictory views.

Want to advance liberty?:Learn Liberty."

From Learn Liberty

One of the things I don't like about American politics is that it tries to take complicated issues and philosophies and tries to divide them into two factions as if those factions are in sink on all of the issues and that the left and right is only made up to two political factions that agree on everything and all of the issues even though we do have a left and a right and so does every other country at least in the democratic world.

But the left and right are basically just the two ends of the political spectrum. But both sides of the political spectrum have multiple and diverse factions on both sides. It's not just About liberal vs conservative, but the left and the right where the left is made up of more than just Liberals, but the left has Progressives, Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, as well as Communists. And the left has people who describe their politics as Socialist-Liberal or Socialist-Libertarian. People who Are socialist or social democratic on economic and perhaps foreign policy, but liberal-libertarian on social issues.

Whereas the right has Conservatives or Conservative-Libertarians, but they have people who are more classically libertarian and they have people who are neoconservative and religiously conservative. (Which is different from politically conservative) People who may be conservative on economic policy, but more statist on social issues and foreign policy.

So left vs right is not just about liberal vs conservative. And Liberals and Conservatives at least Liberals and Conservatives in a classical sense generally don't view themselves as liberal vs conservative in the sense that they are enemies, but competitors who have competing political ideologies. But not out to destroy the other side and they also have more in common than I believe Americans tend to think.

And they both have the same goals and see their philosophy as the best to achieve their goals which is individual freedom for all Americans. The ability to chart one's own course in life and be able to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing.

Which is one example why Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians hate the War on Drugs (to use as an example) because we both believe in economic freedom as well as social freedom, we both believe in limited government and a limited foreign policy and national security. That our military can't be everything for everybody. And that it should be limited to protecting our own national interests and helping others that deserve it when we can, but that we can't do everything.

Where Liberals and Conservatives tend to differ is government's role in helping people who can't take care of themselves and need a hand up to be able to do that. Conservatives tend to be more hawkish on foreign policy and Liberals tend to be more internationalist, but we both believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. But Liberals and Conservatives are the two dominant political factions in America. Center-Left and Center-Right where most Americans tend to be on one side or the other, rather than being Far-Left or Far-Right.

History Comes To Life: 'Wendell Willkie (1892-1944)'

Source:History Comes To Life- 1940 presidential candidate Wendell Willkie (Republican, Indiana)

"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

I'll go on the record right now and just admit that I'm a big fan of Wendell Willkie to the point that if I was from his generation, or even from the World War II generation, I would probably be a Republican as well back in the 1930s and 40s. He and might match up very well with our center-right, classical liberal (meaning the real liberal) philosophy. 

Wendell Willkie was a cold warrior, he believed in property rights, (both economic and personal) he believed in civil rights and equal rights for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, he even believed in a public safety net for people who truly needed it. 

Wendell also believed in limited government and fiscal responsibility as well and when you look at the 1940 presidential election, it wasn't conservative versus liberal. More like Liberal versus Progressive or Social Democrat, which Wendell Willkie representing the Liberal Republicans and to a certain extent the Conservatives as well and Franklin Roosevelt representing the Progressive Democrats, as well as the Neo-Confederate Democrats, who were latter called Dixiecrats. The 1940s was a very a different time politically and ideologically.

Professor Milton Friedman: 'On Taxing The Rich To Help The Poor'

Source:The Republic- Economics Professor Milton Friedman from 1978.

"Milton has little faith the government can effectively tax the rich and help the poor. In fact in this short video you will see why he believes it does the opposite and hurts them. Milton Friedman was the foremost economist of his time and many say one of the best of all time, and most respected." 

From The Republic

With all due respect to the people who put this video together, Professor Friedman is not talking about taxing the rich to help the poor. He's talking about how states fund their state universities. And talking about what he believes we should do instead to fund college in this country. 

If you want me to talk about taxes and how they should be used (if at all) to help low-income people, I'll tell you anyway. I don't believe the problem with America and it's economic system is that we have too many rich people. The opposite is true. We have too many poor people of all racial, ethnic, cultural, and regional backgrounds. 

We have too many people in America who simply lack the skills that they need to do well in life. And as a result they have kids anyway that they're not personally and financially ready to take care of, where in a lot of cases there's no father in the family and they become dependents on the state (meaning taxpayers) just to financially survive in America. 

If you want people to make it in America, not only does everyone need the opportunity and skills to make it in America, but they also need to be incentivized to make it in America. You don't do that by soaking the rich simply to take care of the poor with all sorts of government welfare programs. Because you send two wrong messages there. 

By soaking the rich to take care of the poor, you are telling Americans that if they're successful in this country, big government is going to tax the hell out of you, to take care of people that aren't doing well and lack the skills to be successful in this country. But then you are also telling low-income, low-skilled people that they don't need a good education, good skills, a good work ethic, personal responsibility, to do well in America. Because as long as they're low-income and low-skilled, big government is going to take care of them. 

If you want people to make it in America, you have to incentivized work, education, and success. And for low-income, low-skilled adults, who for whatever reason or reasons don't have the skills to make it in America, yet, you need to empower them to be able to get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job that allows them to be economically independent. 

Government through it's taxpayers can help the poor by not only incentivizing work over Welfare, but allow them to keep their Welfare checks while they're still working, until they're able to make enough money on their own that they're no longer income, which is called subsidized work. But empower them to go back to school while they're working to get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and become economically independent.

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- 'Health Care in a Free Market (1978)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman speaking to the Mayo Clinic about health care, in 1978.

"Milton Friedman fields questions from medical professionals at the Mayo Clinic regarding his advocacy of a free market in health care. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

To be frank and to simply just cut through the bullshit: if this was really a discussion about health care and health insurance in free market, the people, not government or the private health care industry, would decide for themselves where and how they get their health care. Not government or the private, for-profit, health care industry. 

I believe and at risk of playing mindreader, but we saw this in the health care debate of 2009-10 when people who were arguing against what became the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) were saying what we really need is a free market in health care, not more government control or subsidies. But that's not really what they're arguing for. What they want is an unregulated, private, for-profit, health care and insurance industry, where insurance companies get to decide how much everyone has to pay for their health care and insurance and what health care everyone should be allowed to get. 

I'm not in favor of rationing when it comes to health care when it comes from government. But pre-2010, it was the private, for-profit, health insurance industry that was rationing health care in this country, by saying they won't cover this, that, the other thing, and perhaps something else. And once a person reaches some financial cap as far as how much health care they've gotten because of their health insurance, those folks would lose their health insurance all together. 

What the Affordable Care Act does at the dismay of Socialists who want a socialized, government-run, health care system in America, is leave the private, for-profit, health care industry in place. But lays out a set of rules that this industry has to operate under, to protect health care consumers in this country. So you could argue that the proponents of the old health care system in America were making a conservative argument in 2009-10, because they were arguing in favor of the status-quo and conserving the old system. 

Real Liberals: What is Liberalism?

Source:Real Liberals- Liberals believe in the defense of private property rights. But that's not the whole philosophy.

"The principles behind the liberal philosophy" 

From Real Liberals

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power... 

From Britannica 

There are terms like Real Liberal and Classical Liberal because there are people who call themselves Liberals or are called by others Liberals, like the mainstream media and hyper-partisan, right-wingers, even though these so-called Liberals aren't very liberal at all. They are people who in many cases don't even believe in personal freedom and free speech, let alone private property rights and economic freedom. Even though the foundation of liberalism is private property rights relating both to economic and personal freedom. 

I think a lot of people (at least outside of America) when they think of a Liberal, they think of someone whose some antiestablishment, hipster with long hair, looking to take down the man (meaning the white man) and creating new society that's dominated by women of all races and ethnicities and minorities. They supposed Liberal supposedly hates everything that America is supposed to stand for. 

There also so-called Liberals who believe that liberalism is a philosophy that believes that the role of government is to meat the needs of the masses. Meaning to the role of the national government is to take care of the people, even if that so-called protection infringes on individual freedom and choice. 

I've been asked and been labeled several different things since I've been blogging now three years about how I would describe my politics.

When I speak about things like individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice, people automatically assume I'm a Libertarian.

And when I speak in favor of things like decentralization of the Federal Government and I express concerns about big government and speak against things like single payer Medicare For All health insurance, or creating a 21st Century New Deal or speak in favor of American power even in a limited way like being in favor of the Libyan no fly zone, people assume I'm a Conservative. I've actually been called a Conservative on YouTube. I was called that to be insulted, which I wasn't, not that I'm a Conservative. But because I actually know what conservatism is and can differentiate between conservatism and neoconservatism or religious conservatism or even libertarianism.

I've been labeled a Classical Liberal, which so far has been the most accurate way to describe my politics. Especially if classical liberalism is used to differentiate from what's called "modern liberalism". Which I just call democratic socialism and I'll explain why later. 

To give you a clue about about I would describe my politics, just go to the link of the blog site. FRSFreeState.Blogspot.com . The name of the blog site is called FRS FreeState, thats what my politics are.

I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility, as well as limited government, which leads to good government. And no you don't have to be a Libertarian to believe in these things. A lot of Libertarians today tend to be anti-government and I'm not one of those people. And I don't want government out of the economy all together as well.

Yes, I have respect for Ron Paul and Milton Friedman and perhaps you've noticed. I've quoted Professor Friedman on this blog several times. But, Professor Friedman self-described his own politics as liberal and let others call him a Classical Liberal, is they wanted too.  But we are a little different on economic policy and I just laid out a few differences. Liberalism is not libertarianism and it's certainly not socialism. Even though we have some things in common, as it comes to social issues.

Dennis Kucinich is no more a Liberal, than Rick Santorum is a Conservative. Representative Kucinich is what people call a "Modern Liberal." I'm a Liberal because I believe in liberal democracy, which is why I'm also a Liberal Democrat. Again because I believe in liberal democracy, individual liberty, personal responsibility, freedom of choice and limited government, equality of opportunity. These are all liberal values.

When you think libertarian, think of someone that yes believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom of choice. But also think of someone who wants to return the Federal Government, back to only what's laid out for it in the 10th and 11th Amendments, meaning we would only have a State Department, Defense Department, Treasury Department and a Justice Department and thats about it. Thats what you call small government, which is different from limited government.

When you think of a Socialist, think of someone who believes in big government in the form of a welfare state. Socialists believe we need a large welfare state and high taxes to promote economic equality. And when you think of a Liberal, think of someone who believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, freedom of choice, equality of opportunity, rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. And limited government and that government should be used to empower people who need help but not take care of them.

I really blame the so-called mainstream media and our public education system for the lack of education that a lot of Americans have when it comes to American politics. And why Americans get Liberals mixed up with Socialists and Libertarians. And Conservatives mixed up with Libertarians and Christian-Fundamentalists. And why people who are Democratic Socialists, like Senator Bernie Sanders or Representative Dennis Kucinich, are labeled Liberals, when we are really different from these other political factions.

C-SPAN: George Will- 'Dependency on Government is The Liberal Agenda'

Source:C-SPAN- Conservative columnist George Will, at CPAC in 2010.

"George Will: 'Dependency on Government Is the Liberal Agenda' Visit Polijam FOR ALL THE TOP NEWS!!!" 

From Polijam

Ronald Reagan a man I'm sure the great conservative author and columnist George Will admires, had a saying and I'm paraphrasing: "That it's not that people don't know thats the problem, but it's the amount that people don't know that's not true thats the problem." And the people who are dangerous are the people who who know so much thats not true and actually believe what they say. Representative Michele Bachmann, qualifies for the ladder.

George Will who I like for his sharp wit and intellect about politics, sports, and other issues qualifies for the former when it comes to liberalism. I'm sure Mr. Will is a genius about everything else he talks about, but when it comes to liberalism he's a raving moron. Sort of sounds like the drunk on the street corner who always has a bottle in his hand and perhaps is only sober when he's asleep, who feels the need to shoot his mouth out about everything that he knows nothing about pretending to be an expert on everything he talks about.

I'm a Liberal and damn proud of it that's how I describe my politics and it's always how I've been describing my politics since I started following politics in my late teens. I'm a Liberal Democrat because I believe in liberal democracy and thats what liberalism is about: liberty for the individual. Not because I believe in the state or that government's job is to make society equal.

Government's role is to insure that everyone has a good opportunity to reach their potential in life. Based on what they contribute to society, not to try to manage outcomes. And thats what separates Liberals from Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, who believe the role of government is to insure that equality of outcome is insured in society. Not equality of opportunity, which are two different things.

What George Will is describing when he talks about liberalism, looks like socialism, which are different political ideology's from liberalism. I've never called myself a Progressive because today's definition of Progressive and perhaps in the past, even though the first eight letters in progressive spells progress and if Progressive is someone who believes in progress then I'm definitely a Progressive, but the popular definition of Progressive is someone who believes in using government to insure quality outcomes in society.

A so-called Someone today is someone who wants to use government to ensure equality of outcome in society. Which is different than equality of opportunity, that's a simple definition. But the best way to ensure equality of opportunity I believe as a Liberal, is through individual liberty. Empowering people through education and job training so they can have the individual liberty to reach their full-potential. If I was a Socialist, I would believe in using government by empowering it to ensure equality of outcomes.

Socialists, would raise taxes on people who are already doing well, to take care of the people, not empower the disadvantage, but take care of the people who are disadvantage. With high tax rates on the rich and probably middle class as well. And that's George Will's whole point about government dependence. To talk about liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, progressivism whatever it may be, it helps to know what you're talking about.

Assholes, quite frankly speaking out of their ass. Liberalism and progressivism, and socialism, are three different political ideology's and not one in the same. And Conservatives especially (Christian-Nationalists, who are different from Conservatives) like to make Liberals look bad by trying to make us look like Socialists. But Liberals believe in defending liberty and expanding it for people who don't have it. People who are struggling have the opportunity to become independent and make their own way life. 

This is what Liberals believes is the proper role of government. Not to take from the wealthy to manage the daily lives of people who aren't doing well. Or outlaw wealth all together so everyone is dependent on government. Which is what Socialists tend to push and are in favor of.

This is not a debate about government doing everything, or almost nothing. But instead a debate about government doing practically everything, versus limiting government to doing only what it does well. Including helping people who are snuggling achieve economic freedom for themselves. 

The Socialist versus Liberal debate, instead of Liberal vs Liberal, radical Liberals (who are actually Socialists and even illiberal) vs Center-Right Liberals (or Classical Liberals) who push for liberal democracy and a society where everyone has a quality opportunity to succeed in life on their own.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Joel Austin: 'The Rise of Liberalism- The History of The Christian Church'

Source:Joel Austin- one of the first great German philosophers.

"This is a documentary style video combining Tom Nelson's  audio lesson with images found on the World Wide Web. Video #12 covers the Rise of Liberalism (late 1800s to present day)."

From Joel Austin 

Liberalism and the Christian Church, which is what I guess what this piece is about. 

To start off as a Liberal I believe not just in the U.S. Constitution, but the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendments, are my favorite amendments, because they guarantee Americans right to think for themselves, speak for themselves, and act for themselves. 

I'm an Agnostic, so obviously I'm not a believer in religion or God, because as a Liberal I'm a big believer in reason and facts and only put faith in things that I trust and know. Not what some spiritual power that may or may not exist anywhere in the world or universe. Liberals (at least in the classical, if not real sense) are the least romantic people you'll ever meet, at least in a political sense, because we're such believers in reason. And we're also the least idealistic people that you'll ever meet, because we believe in reason and progress, not idealism. 

But having said all of that, just because I'm not religious, doesn't mean I want Big Government to tell people that they have to think and act like me. One of the great advantages of living in a liberal democracy is that everyone can act and think for themselves. This is not some communist state where individualism is almost completely eliminated and outlawed, including religion. Or some theocracy where it's not just religion that's forced on everyone, or a certain type of religion that's forced on everyone, but a certain fundamentalist religion that's forced on everyone. 

If there are liberal religious values, I guess they have to do with the Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated. Respect others property and privacy, as much as you respect your own. And treat everyone as an individual, not as a member of any particular group, whether it's racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, whatever it might be. But myself as a Liberal I'm not a believer in religion. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Christopher Hitchens & Emmett Tyrell- 'Is There a Liberal Crack-Up? (1984)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- self-described Socialist writer Christopher Hitchens, when he wrote for the socialist magazine The Nation, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

"Episode S0629, Recorded on December 11, 1984. Guests: R. (Robert Emmett) Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Christopher Hitchens. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution" 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"The 1984 election suggested, as WFB puts it, "the collapse of liberalism as we

have known it during the past half century," and he asks his two guests, one on the right, the other on the far left, where liberalism is likely to go from here. Messrs. Hitchens and Tyrrell actually talk more about the past than about the future, and it is illuminating (when they don't indulge in billingsgate) to get such different takes on the same set of events. CH: "I believe that the American Left, in starting the civil-rights movement for black Americans, in combating an unjust war in Indochina, and in beginning the emancipation of women ... changed the way everyone thinks and the way everyone lives ... the whole world is in debt to the American Left for these three enterprises." RET: "In the Sixties and Seventies the liberals achieved most of the things they set out to achieve, particularly welfare and civil rights, and then were overtaken by a lust for power. They refused to notice that they had indeed achieved these things ... 

From the Hoover Institution

By the time the late 1970s came around, it was rough time to be a Democrat. The Democratic Party was becoming divided and running out of ideas in where to take the country. So-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) wanted to pass the next installment of the Great Society, what's called the Fair Deal: single payer health care, universal higher education, return to the high tax rates of the 1950s, etc. 

The New Democrats (the real Progressives) wanted to freeze new social insurance spending and balanced the Federal budget. And Conservative Democrats were becoming Conservative Republicans. 

Progressivism was the ruling political ideology in the Democratic Party and in the United States from 1933-81. There was a feeling that the Federal Government wasn't big enough. Conservatives make a big comeback in the late 1970s just as the Far-Left of the Democratic Party wanted to take over the party and move it way to the left and the Democratic Party becomes divided as a result, with the Progressives wanting to govern the party and country from the Center-left. 

There was a tax revolt in California and in other places in the country led by Howard Jarvis and his group, Kemp-Roth is proposed in Congress (Senator William Roth and Representative Jack Kemp) 1978-79. Which became the Economic Recovery Act in 1981 signed by President Reagan. And after having their clocks handed to them (to put it mildly) in 1980, the Democratic Party wasn't sure where to go. And I believe they basically settled for Walter Mondale in 1984, who was President Carter's Vice President. 

Learn Liberty: Dr. Nigel Ashford- 'The History of Classical Liberalism'

Source:Learn Liberty- Dr. Nigel Ashford, talking about classical liberalism. The real liberalism.

"Historian Stephen Davies describes classical liberalism as a comprehensive philosophy, which has had implications in all the major academic disciplines.  Learn More:Learn Liberty.

At an abstract level, classical liberalism offers three key insights:

1) The goal of life is human happiness and flourishing. 
2) Personal choice and individual liberty are crucial in explaining and appreciating how society develops.
3) Commerce, wealth, and trade are preferable to war and conflict.

If you agree with these classical liberal insights, you might be a classical liberal!

Source:Learn Liberty

The Professor in this video does a pretty good job of laying out what classical liberalism is. That it's about individual liberty and protecting individual liberty and is skeptical of power. Governmental power or too much power in the private sector. Because as the Professor says power is the ability to make people do what they otherwise wouldn't do. And liberalism is also about rule of law, not being so-called soft on crime as people have stereotyped Liberals. But that government should protect people from the harm of others, not try to protect people from themselves.

Liberalism is about individual liberty and limited government, which those being the main two principles. All other aspects of liberalism get to that. How to promote, advance and protect individual liberty. About individualism not collectivism which is about expanding government and spending more on social insurance. Or creating new social insurance programs, but laying out exactly what government should be doing. Socialism is about welfare state programs and using those programs so none has too much or too little, as they would see it.

Again, the role of liberalism is to promote, advance and protect individual liberty. The constitutional rights of individuals to live their own lives and be as successful in life as their production will allow. To take out of life what they put into it and limiting government to doing what it can and does well. And what it only can do and should do. Not having government try to solve every problem that society faces.

And these are the things that liberalism is about, coming from liberty. It's not socialism or even but like progressivism trying to use government to make society better. It is progressive though, because again it's about promoting, advancing and protecting individual liberty for all, not just some. In the early 20th Century during the Teddy Roosevelt era which was called the Progressive Era, there was this feeling that America had to much inequality. And that a lot of Americans were falling through the cracks in the economy and that government should step in and solve these programs.

That government should create things like Unemployment Insurance, National Health Insurance, protecting workers rights and worker Safety. And a lot of these things were achieved in the FDR New Deal in the 1930s. These are all progressive policy's and a lot of Liberals all support these goals. But these aren't liberal policy's, because they are about using government to help people in need. Instead of empowering people in need to help themselves become self-sufficient.

And some so-called Liberals may sound similar as Liberals, but they are different because a lot of people who are called Liberals today, are really not. They have some liberal positions on most if not all social issues. But they tend to have  social democratic views on economic policy. And that government especially the Federal Government should be a lot bigger to solve the problems that society faces. It's great that people who actually understand what liberalism is and what it's about speak out about it.

Liberals whether you want to call us Classical Liberals, (which is fine if you're talking about John F. Kennedy) should give speeches and lectures about it and even make videos about it. Because a lot of Americans especially in the media don't understand what liberalism is. And get it mixed up with progressivism and democratic socialism. Which unlike liberalism aren't individualist ideology's, but collectivist ideology's using government through high tax rates to make society equal. Where liberalism is about using government to make people freer so we can all as a society enjoy individual liberty.

Liberalism is a political ideology based on realism and the real word. It's not about perfection and making the world as perfect and great for everyone, but instead creating a society where as many people as possible can thrive and achieve individual freedom for themselves. The ability for as many people as possible to live in freedom and make their own economic and personal decisions and then live with the consequences of those decision for the best and worst of their decisions. Doesn't sound very idealistic or realistic and something that some Hollywood movie would be based on that prefers socialism because of how romantic and idealistic it is. But liberalism is based on realism and how the world really works. Where the best decisions tend to be made.

Learn Liberty: Pavel Yakolev- What Are The Limits of Liberal Democracy?

Source:Learn Liberty- Pavel Yakolev, talking about freedom and democracy. Which aren't the same things.

"People often associate freedom with electoral democracy. According to Prof. Pavel Yakovlev, the freedom to vote is an inherently limited tool for fostering a free society. Although majority vote can serve as a useful tool for expressing the will of the people, it can be taken too far.

Imagine a world governed entirely by majority votes—including your personal decisions! Would you be happy if a majority vote determined who you could date? What you could eat? Now consider the world you currently live in, where you make decisions and purchases in the context of a marketplace. In a market, you can choose goods, services, and activities that diverge from majority trends. Moreover, markets also provide a greater number of choices.

Free markets and limited government depend upon and facilitate individualized and decentralized choices; they create the conditions necessary for a truly free and democratic society.

Watch more videos at:Learn Liberty."

From Learn Liberty

What’s the best way to guarantee individual liberty for the people so they can be free to live their own lives as they see fit short of hurting anyone else with their liberty and not be harassed by government?

One, you need a constitution that guarantees individual liberty. And limits what government can do.

Two, you need rule of law to limit what government can do. But also how people interact with each other. But it’s not just a constitution that you need but constitutional rights that are in that constitution.

Like freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, or not practice religion.

Right to vote but through a multi-party system.

Decentralization of government, a Federal Government, but state, or provincial governments as well as local governments. That all have enough power under the Federal Constitution to govern themselves and handle their own affairs. As well as again to limit what the Federal Government can do. You don’t have to have a weak Federal Government either. That they have to be able to defend the country and to a certain extent look after its people’s welfare. But it needs to be limited so it doesn’t become too powerful.

You need a republic not a monarchy, or theocracy, but a republic. Where civilians are running the government. Again to limit the power of government and you also need checks and balances, separation of branches. Executive, legislative and judicial.

I just laid out a lot what the United States Government looks like. Some people say especially Conservatives and Libertarians that the best way to insure individual liberty is with a republic. But I counter that argument by say that there are also authoritarian republics. Like the People’s Republic of China, the Communist Republic of Cuba, or Baathist Republic of Syria, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a republic and still are.

The difference being that under the Hussein Regime, Iraq was an authoritarian Baathist Republic. Today they are basically a democratic republic and a federal republic, but with some flaws. There good republics like America and bad republics like Syria. A republic basically lays out what type of powers the federal or central government have. In a liberal democracy like America, those powers are very limited, but in an authoritarian republic not to pick on Syria, but their government’s powers are basically unlimited.

Which is one reason why we see such an intense democratic opposition in Syria right now. The Syrian people are good-by in large, but their government is bad. My argument as a Liberal Democrat for what’s the best way to insure individual freedom is with a republic, but in the form of a liberal democracy. A liberal democratic republic with a liberal amount of individual rights and freedom. Not a liberal amount of government, which is very different. Which is what we have in the United States, with a Federal Constitution, separation of powers and checks and balances. With the individual liberty to live our own lives and be successful economically. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Genetic Identity 101: Liberalism- Liberal Democratic Ideology

Source:Genetic Identity- Sounds like the liberal defense of property rights. Which is what all actual Liberals believe in. Unlike Socialists, who get called Liberals.

"Genetic Identity 101: Liberalism." Originally from Genetic Identity.

If you watch this video, it should give you a pretty good idea of what liberalism is. And the point that it makes that most people have liberal leanings, at least up to a certain point including Conservatives.
If you believe in individual liberty of any kind, you have at least one liberal view. And then it's a question of how liberal you are.

Take, me I'm very liberal I'm pretty far to the left, (in the classical sense) because I believe in a lot of individual liberty. That innocent people (free adults that is) have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom and they can pay for their own actions. And then be held accountable for their actions. I'm definitely a Liberal not a Centrist. I'm basically one step away from being a libertarian, you could even call me a Liberal Libertarian and be accurate. And I'm miles away from being a Socialist. Actually, at least one plane fight way from socialist, whether it's a Marxist or a Democratic Socialist.

One thing thats wrong in this video is when they talk about the difference that Liberals and Conservatives have when it comes to so-called free markets.

This video suggested that Liberals and Conservatives both believe in free markets. That part is true.

And it suggested that Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to be rewarded for the good decisions that it makes in the market. Thats true.

As well and also suffer the consequences of their bad decisions in the market as well. Thats also true.

Thats called accountability something I mentioned earlier.

This video also mentioned that Liberals believe that people should be rewarded for their correct decisions in the market as well. Which is also true, but then suggested that government meaning taxpayers should bail people out when they make bad decisions. And I'm thinking of TARP of course of 2008, thats flat false! Liberals believe in accountability as I just mentioned.

Liberal and libertarian both come from the word liberty. And when you're talking in a political sense that means individual liberty.

Liberal does not mean collectivism or rob the rich to pay for the poor. Or democratic socialism having a large welfare state to take care of people. These are all Democratic Socialists beliefs that we are only as strong as our weakest link and that we should meaning government through tax revenue. Take care of the weak, etc.

Liberals however believe that free people in a free society like America, should have the freedom to take care of themselves. And make these decisions for themselves on their own as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. And then government should come in like take the market to use as an example, to punish people who abuse innocent people. As well as empower people who fall through cracks and can't take care of themselves. Thats what separates Liberals such as myself from Libertarians.

I've lost count of how many times I've been called a libertarian. (Not that math was ever my best subject) I'm not, I'm a Liberal and they are different. Liberalism/liberal democracy is a beautiful philosophy because it puts the power in the hands of the people,e not the special few or government. And then we lend some of this power through the U.S. Constitution to do the things that government can do better than free people on their own. And thats why I'm a Liberal.

The only thing I'm interested in politically when it comes down to a liberal amount of (fill in the blank) is a liberal amount of freedom and responsibility. Part of freedom is security in the sense that we don't have to worry about being physically, or financially hurt on a regular basis. And that is a an important role of government to protect the innocent from predators.

But where government can hurt people's freedom is to try to do for people what they can do for themselves. Like trying to make their health care, or other financial decisions for them. Or personal decisions in how we live our own personal lives like how we communicate with people. That is where Liberals tend to separate from Socialists and Communists on the Left and the Religious-Right and Nationalists on the Right. 

RT America: Francis Fukuyama- 'End of History For Neoliberalism?'

Source:RT America- Well, if Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin had his way, what perhaps Russia calls neoliberalism (which is actually liberal democracy) would end. 

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Liberal democracy is really all there is now," political economist and author Francis Fukuyama said in 1992. Fukuyama's theory, outlined in "The End of History and the Last Man" claimed that neoliberal economic policies and liberal democracies were the "universal consensus" that arose from the fall of the Berlin Wall. But a report released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this month states that China will overtake the US economically by 2016. Based on both countries' purchasing power parity, "the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America's share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China's would reach 18% and [continue] rising." So is neoliberalism the end of history—or history?" 

From RT America

This notion of neoliberalism that Democratic Socialists use to describe liberalism is a myth. And when they talk about so-called Neo-Liberals the Bill Clinton's of the world, they are talking about actual Liberals. People who are not as liberal as me especially on social issues, but economic policy and even foreign policy. But they are still Liberals with liberal positions and not centrists. Socialists don't like what they call "neoliberalism, because it doesn't fit into their collectivist ideology.

And Liberals tend to support things like strong national defense.

Strong law enforcement.

Free trade.

Tax cuts, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, decentralization of government power.

Government living within the U.S. Constitution, empowering people to help themselves instead of empowering government to take care of them.

Freedom of choice in health care and on other economic issues as well as social issues.

Liberalism unlike socialism is not government-centered, but people-centered. Liberalism is and individualist ideology similar, but different from classical conservatism and libertarianism. Whereas socialism is a collectivist ideology. 

The socialist idea being government shouldn't allow some people to do a lot better than others and take from them when they do, etc. And Socialists especially in the Democratic Party, especially don't like people who I would call Moderate Liberals, who emerged in the Democratic Party in the mid 1980s. 

People who were labeled New Democrats. The Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman's of the World. Democrats who wanted to move the party past the New Deal and Great Society and George McGovern era, when Democrats were labeled by Conservatives and others and I believe to a certain extent had a case, as tax and spenders. People who believe in a strong centralized Federal Government with high taxes to finance it.

Thanks to the New-Left that emerged in and outside of the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we saw the Democratic Party get whipped in three straight presidential elections from 1980-88 as well as lose the Senate in 1980 for the first time a generation. And saw the Republican Party hold the Senate for two more elections and decided it was time to move the Democratic Party past this era. 

So you have Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party who are anti-liberalism, because they know that their main competition in the party and also know Liberals run the party. And you have others who don't know any better that get liberalism mixed up with libertarianism and people on the Far-Right who mix up liberalism with democratic socialism. 

Libertarianism and classical conservatism are similar political ideology's from liberalism, but are different. The similarity's are that all three of these ideology's are built around the U.S. Constitution and individual freedom. The differences are that Libertarians want government out of the economy all together and just want government to protect individual freedom and keep the streets safe.

Classical Conservatives- The Barry Goldwater's and to large extent the Ronald Reagan's of the world, would like to privatize or block grant to the states a lot of the American safety net. Liberals believe government can help people in need empower themselves to become self-sufficient and these are just the differences on economic policy.

The idea of neoliberalism is a myth from Democratic Socialists who don't like liberalism and especially moderate liberalism. They feel they use to run the Democratic Party from the 1930s up to the 1990s and feel left out. And would like to get their power and back and take back the Democratic Party.

The term RINO (Republican in name only) that the Tea Party has invented, well the Democrats have that term for themselves, but replace the R with a D and I'm not talking about Dean Martin (ha, ha) but DINO's are what the Far-Left calls Democrats in name only. People who use to run the Democratic Party in the 1960s and 1970s and now see themselves out-of-power and are now only Democrats in name only, because they don't have another major party to call home. 

But ideologically the Far-Left of the Democratic Party is much further left than Center-Left Liberal Democrats who believe in liberal democracy. Instead of some collectivist socialist society where we're all dependent on government for our daily economic survival.