The New Republic: Bryan Mealer- 'The Struggle For a New American Gospel'

Source: The New Republic- TNR: not so liberal anymore. 

Source:The New Democrat

"God first appeared to me in a photograph. I was six years old. A deacon in my family’s Pentecostal church called me over one morning and pulled out a grainy photo from his suit pocket. It was taken from an airplane window, he said. Out past the wing, suspended in the clouds, was the faint image of a man. “That’s Jesus,” he told me."

From The New Republic

"What is the history of the freedom of religion as outlined in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution? How is this freedom enforced? How does religious policy manifest in the real world?"

Source: History- Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Liberals. 

From History

As someone who grew up in an Atheist family where both my father and mother were Atheists at least when I was growing up, (I believe Mom is more of an Agnostic now, but Dad if he could would probably outlaw religion and has more of a communist view of it) I've never been very religious at all.

I grew up with hardcore Atheists during a time when the Christian-Right was becoming very powerful in America politics at least within the Republican Party and with Republicans who represent a lot of fundamentalist Christians, so I grew in Maryland just outside of Washington in the 1980s and early 1990s and got to see both fringes when it comes to religion in America.

But because I come from Atheists and have seen what religion looks like from the other side, I'm not in love with either camp and I'm not religious, but I'm not ready to say God doesn't exist and religion in itself is a bad thing.

As a Liberal if there any religious values I believe in its do unto others what you would do to you. Meaning treat people the way you want to be treated. And if that's not good enough for you there's always a backup plan which is treat others the way they treat you. If someone is a jerk ( to be kind ) to you, you can be a jerk to them. But don't be a jerk just because you want to be a jerk, or you are a jerk and if you are a jerk, reform your ways and learn how to treat people properly.

The other religious value and this is I believe probably best liberal value out there along with free speech and racial and color blindness is live and let live. Meaning you make your bed in life and live with the consequences and responsibilities from making your own decisions, but you let others do the same thing and don't try to micromanage people especially adults. Which gets to the last reason I'm not religious which is you don't see religions that tend to believe in these things even from the Left.

From the Right all you basically get now a days at least from what's reported is that homosexuality, women's liberation, personal freedom and individualism in general are ruining America. From the Left, you just get a lot of social democratic propaganda that for a government to be moral it must take care of the poor and that somehow being wealthy is some type of sin.

If there were or is and perhaps someone who is smarter than me when it comes to religion knows this better than me, but if there is a religion that preaches the liberal values that I just mentioned before, even though I don't believe in God, I could probably get into that religion myself and at least want to check out that house of worship and hear preachers talk about the value of live and let live, do unto others what you would do to you, racial and ethnic tolerance and not just for minorities, but for all people all races and ethnicities, as well as traditional religious values like helping the needy help themselves through charity.

As a Liberal I don't believe in God because as a Liberal I believe in reason which tends to be out of line with faith. Faith about belief and believing in something even if you can't see it because the facts and evidence don't back it up. Reason of course is about evidence and believing in what you can actually see for yourself. But I don't believe you have to believe in God to be religious, but just believe in a certain set of religious and moral values that others believe in as well.

The New Republic: Win McCormack: 'Are You Progressive'- Differences Between Progressive, Socialist & Liberal

Source:The New Republic- The Progressive Era.

Source:The New Democrat

"What distinguishes a progressive from a liberal? This is one of the more pervasive ambiguities in contemporary American political discourse."

From The New Republic

"LibertyCon unites the people who are redefining the pro-liberty movement. For more info, visit www.libertycon.com
Looking to bring some company? Invite your Facebook friends to LibertyCon. For more info, visit:Learn Liberty."

Source: Learn Liberty- Learn Liberty talking about progressivism.

Before I offer you my own personal definition of progressive and progressivism and there really isn't any official of progressive and progressivism unlike liberal and liberalism, or conservative and conservatism, I want to lay out what progressive and progressivism isn't. Even if others believe their so-called progressive values are the real progressive values. And people who disagree with those values are regressive or right-wingers.

Source: The Slide Player- Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Republican 

Progressives aren't Liberals and they're not Socialists either. Progressives and Liberals, share similar values, but Progressives also share similar values with Conservatives, which I'll explain later. You can be a Liberal and believe that people who are down should be able to get help from to help them sustain themselves in their time of need ( for lack of a better phrase ) and to help them get back up. And you can be a Progressive who believes in free speech, the right to privacy, personal freedom generally, but who isn't a Liberal more broadly.

And just as important, Progressives aren't Socialists ( democratic or communist ) and Socialists aren't Progressives. In many cases the opposite is very clear. One of the most if not most regressive ( anti-progressive ) political philosophies in the world is communism. ( For all you young hipsters who think Communists are cool and communism is cool and wear Che Guevara t-shirts ) When it comes to Democratic Socialists, similar to Liberals, Democratic Socialists share similar goals and in some cases values. The belief in a minimum wage, the right for workers to organize, health care for everyone, that poverty should be addressed, etc. But tend to differ in how to accomplish those goals and don't have a big centralized welfare state tax hike solution, to accomplishing all those goals.

Again, about what progressive isn't, you can be a man-hating, anti-Caucasian, Che Guevara and The Weather Underground loving, radical feminist Marxist-Socialist, or just a Socialist but not a Marxist with those other political characteristics. Who believes individualism and property rights are selfish and capitalism and private enterprise is racist, and personal freedom and free speech are dangerous, or you can be a Progressive. Who is forward looking and believes that progress can be obtained through government action, but isn't looking to destroy or takeover the American Federal form of government with checks and balances and replace it with a  socialist government. But you can't be a Progressive and a Socialist-Communist. They don't go together and tend to be at odds with each other. Progressives believe in progress through government action. Socialists and Communists, believe in collectivism, whether it's democratic or communist.

So what is progressive, what are Progressives and what is progressivism? I actually know the answers to these questions, otherwise writing this piece would be a waste of my time.

As I briefly hit on before in the last paragraph Progressives believe not only in progress, but that progress can be obtained through government action. Doesn't have to be the Federal Government necessarily, we live in a federal republic with a federalist form of government. Which means the states and localities have a role in addressing a lot of these domestic issues. Also doesn't mean that the Federal Government doesn't have any role in addressing issues and problems in the country. Again, Progressives are different from Socialists, but also different from Conservative-Libertarians.

One thing that I like and respect about progressivism is how non-ideological and pragmatic it is. Barack Obama should really be the modern spokesperson and father for what progressivism really is in America, because of how pragmatic he was as President.

Progressives like to solve problems in American society. They're not looking to nationalize this or that, or restrict this current freedom or take that one away and make the country more collectivist.

And this is true going back to the Progressive Era ( which actually was progressive ) to the New Deal of the 1930s, the Dwight Eisenhower Progressive Republican Administration of the 1950s, where President Eisenhower successfully addressed civil rights in America with school desegregation and gave us along with Congress our national infrastructure system. Or the Great Society of the 1960s, as well as smaller but important accomplishments of President Richard Nixon dealing with the environment, President Carter with energy independence, President George H.W. Bush with civil rights, President Clinton with family and medial leave, President Obama with health care. Which I believe is just as important as anything from the New Deal, if not more important.

The first word in progressive is progress and the second word is ive. Maybe someone will someday define ive for me, ( ha, ha) but nowhere in the word do you see socialist, collectivist, communist, feminist, or even liberal. Our most Progressive President's have been our most anti-authoritarian and anti-communist President's. Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama even with his major campaign against Islamism and ISIS.

I mentioned earlier ( feels like yesterday at this point ) that I would show you something that Progressives and Conservatives have in common. ( Mission impossible to believe, right ) Well, I just did that with the President's that I just mentioned. The belief in that America has to be both strong at home as well as abroad. That liberal democracy is a great thing that needs to be defended and supported and that authoritarianism whatever the philosophy, needs to fought and defeated. As well as limited government and fiscal responsibility. Before President Bill Clinton, the last American President to have a balanced budget, was President Lyndon Johnson. something to think about when you're looking at political philosophy and labels.

There's been a lot of discussion the last few years, more like going back to the start of the Obama presidency, about what's the difference between Liberals and Progressives, or are they the same thing and what's the difference between Liberals and Socialists, or Socialists and Progressives, are they the same things. Senator Bernie Sanders, has been labeled as all three or that he's all three. Which is not true because he's a Democratic Socialist and a proud one at that.

When you think of Socialist, think of socialism democratic or communist depending on the person. When you think of Liberal, think of liberalism which is about liberal democracy. When you think of Progressive, think of progressivism through government action, but in a limited form. Not government trying to do everything for everybody and trying to run people's lives for them. Which if anything is actually regressive with all the individualism and freedom that people would lose as a result.

The New Republic: Clint Smith: 'Affirmative Action as Reparations'

Source:The New Republic- The American agriculture industry in the 1930s.

Source:The New Democrat 

"For affirmative action to survive, we need to rethink what it is meant to do and who it is meant to serve."

From The New Republic

"Jay Fayza of TheRebel.media says that a libertarian, meritocratic approach to higher education makes more sense than the Marxist focus on quotas. MORE:Rebel News."

From Rebel News

Source: Rebel News- Talking about affirmative action.

The main reason why I oppose affirmative action at least in the sense of reward any American or Americans based on race, ethnicity, or gender, is because I have this old and I guess what young Millennial's who love socialism and would find corny Martin Luther King notion of judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. If you want a race, ethnicity, and gender blind society, then that has to start at the top and with government.

You can't have government preach about the dangers of racism and other bigotry when on the other hand its subsidizing racism and bigotry. Denying people access in America simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, is bigotry. Even if you're doing it to help people that you believe are disadvantage perhaps even to the point that they're not good enough to make it on their own.

Which is what affirmative action is basically saying to African and Latin-Americans. That we meaning Uncle Sam, believe that you (African and Latin-Americans) not good enough to compete with European and Asian-Americans, so as a result we're going to give you an extra head start and allow for you to go to college and get other jobs at the expense of European and Asian-Americans in the name of diversity. And at the same time tell European and Asian-Americans that their too many of them here right now. They're too successful and because of that they're not welcome to work here or go to school here.

What proponents of affirmative action don't seem to understand is that affirmative action is not bigoted towards just European-Americans, but everyone else. Asian, African, and Latin-Americans. Affirmative action tells European-Americans that there too many of them here and that since their families have benefited from racism against African-Americans in the past including slavery, government is now going to punish Europeans for the evils of their ancestors.

Asian-Americans lose access to college because Asians do very well in America when it comes education and everything else and as a result a lot of them are qualified to go to college and get good jobs. Except for one qualification which is that they happen to be from the wrong race. And as a result too many of them according to big government go to this school or that one and as a result that school is telling them that they can't take any more Asians at this point.

Affirmative action tells African and Latin-Americans that they're not good enough to compete with their European and Asian counterparts on their own. That they don't come from the right families and aren't raised properly, didn't go to the right schools, and as a result need help from big government to compete against everyone else in America, because they're not good enough on their own.

You want a race, ethnic, gender, and color-blind society in America and I'm only talking about how people are judged and not what we see out of our own eyes, but just how we treat each other and not reward or punish people because of their ancestry, then you only accomplish that by not having policies that reward or punish based on ancestry. No to affirmative action and yes to strong civil rights laws and enforcement.

Punish people economically to the point that it would hurt employers and schools and other organizations when they deny or punish people simply because of their ancestry and be a strong incentive not to reward or punish people base on ethnicity.

And yes to a modern infrastructure and economic development system so every community in America regardless of race and ethnicity can succeed in America. As well as an education system where every American can go to the best school for them and have a real shot at succeeding in America even if they come from low-income parents and not be forced to go to school simply because of where they live.

What makes America exceptional is not our vast economic resources or our military firepower, even those things are great benefits to our country and we don't ever have to worry about another country attacking us and have to take foreign aide from other countries just to survive economically. But what makes us exceptional is our diversity at all levels and all kinds and our individualism. That we're this vast and diverse superpower and giant of a country that represents the whole world in the sense that everyone lives here.

No majority ethnicity and by the 2050 no majority race as well. And we're this country where regardless of your ancestry and how you start out in life you can literally make it in America. You don't see Americans escaping or even trying to escape America to live in another country where they believe they can get a better opportunity at life. We're all equal as Americans and are no better or worst than anyone else simply because of our ancestry.

Which means we can all succeed if just given the opportunity. Getting a good opportunity meaning education early in life and then taking advantage of that. Not because they needed big government to reward them simply because big government believes they have the right complexion or eye shape, hair, of whatever physical features that we inherit from our parents. African and Latin-Americans, don't need big government's help and reward them simply because of their race and ethnicity to succeed in America.

African and Latin-Americans, can accomplish these things on their own if they simply are able to go to good schools growing up and have parents who do everything they can to raise them properly so they can succeed. Because African and Latin-Americans, are just as good as everyone else in America and don't need special treatment and protection from big government.

The New Republic: Jeet Heer: 'Sibling Rivalry: Democratic Socialists & Liberals'

Source:The New Republic- Bernie Sanders & Nancy Pelosi: political tug of war.

Source:The New Democrat 

"At a town hall meeting in New York City early this year, Nancy Pelosi fielded a thorny question about the direction of her party. Trevor Hill, a dapper New York University sophomore sporting a light purple shirt and suspenders, wanted to know where the House minority leader stood on the question of socialism. A recent poll had shown that more than half of all American voters younger than 30—not just Democrats—no longer support capitalism. This statistic felt true to Hill’s own experience, not just among his NYU classmates but also from what he’d seen in polls and on television. He was glad that Democrats had moved to the left on social issues, like gay marriage. So why, he asked Pelosi, couldn’t they move left on economic issues? Could she see Democrats embracing a “more populist message—the way the alt-right has sort of captured this populist strain on the right wing?”

From The New Republic

"The man who got 13 million votes in the Democratic primary is now poised to lead the effort to bring about structural changes to the party."

From The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont? 

What's going on in the Democratic Party today reminds me of what was going on post-JFK assassination in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Even though I wasn't born until 1975, of course I don't remember seeing this, but I read pretty well and watch a lot of documentaries. With John F. Kennedy in the White House the Democratic Left was essentially made up of Center-Left Progressives and Liberals. Democratic Socialists back then were still in the closet politically. Communists, were either in hiding or looking to escape both physically and politically to Cuba or Russia.

Back in the early 1960s you had the FDR/LBJ Progressive Democratic Coalition. And the JFK Liberal Democrats who believed in freedom and even capitalism, but that it should benefit everyone and not just people born to wealth and European-Americans. JFK Democrats would be what are called New Democrats today. The Center-Left Progressives and Liberals, tended too agree on foreign policy and national security issues, both were strong internationalists, anti-Communists, strong defense, effective law enforcement, fiscal responsibility, free trade, civil rights, equal rights, but tended to differ on the role of the Federal Government and what it should do for the people and how much it should tax.

It was Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, (Progressive Democrats)  that made America the economic and military power that it is today. Not all by themselves obviously, but moved us into the direction during World War II and after that. Liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy was an internationalist hawk on foreign policy and national security and probably hated communism as much as Ronald Reagan. But he also believed in civil rights and pushed for those things, as well as civil liberties, freedom of choice, right to privacy, didn't believe Americans should be highly taxed.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson pretty much all by himself, along with the JFK assassination, pretty much destroyed the old Democratic Party. The civil rights laws and the Great Society, moved the right-wing Dixiecrats (who would be called Nationalists today) out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party. Thanks to the Baby Boom coming of age in the the 1960s and the Vietnam War, Socialists in America (both Democratic and Communist) came out of the closet. Perhaps moving back from Cuba and Russia and into the Democratic Party.

Democrats started losing the South but started dominating the West Coast and Northeast with all of these new Socialists into the party. Who didn't think communism was a bad thing, who didn't like capitalism, who thought America was the real Evil Empire and I could go on, but I'll spare you. The New-Left in the Democratic Party came of age post-JFK assassination and into the LBJ Administration.

What we're seeing now in the Democratic Party is the Democratic Socialist (not Communist) wing of the New-Left, that is led by Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist Republic of Vermont) and the Nancy Pelosi Progressive Democratic wing of the Democratic Party led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Who comes from the New-Left socialist wing from the 1960s in San Francisco, but has moderated her radical views from the time before she was Democratic Leader, because she now represents and much broader party and caucus. My JFK Liberal Democratic wing is not as big or at least as vocal. Perhaps Senator Cory Booker and former Governor Martin O'Malley, now represent the Liberal Democrats in the party.

If the Democratic Party wants to win back the House and have even a shot at winning back the Senate in 2018, both the Center-Left Liberals and Progressives and Far-Left Socialists, are going to have to come together and work together, stop attacking each other because they believe one side is too centrist or radical. Come together on a agenda that brings new Democrats into the party and votes Democratic. And let the presidential primary season decide how far left the Democratic Party goes into the future, or do we remain a Center-Left party that we've been at least since the 1990s. Otherwise the party will break up and you won't see a large Democratic Party that can compete against the GOP in the future.

The New Republic: John Judis: 'The Socialism America Needs Now'

Source:The New Republic- South American Communist revolutionary Che Guevara t-shirt: an actual hero to Millennial leftist-hipsters in America.

Source:The New Democrat

"Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, and the DSA convention just made national news. But U.S. socialism has to find a viable path to power."

From The New Republic

"Bernie Sanders delivered his long-awaited speech advocating for democratic socialism in America. He pointed to the example of FDR’s New Deal which was part of a massive social movement to secure rights for workers against the corporate/owner class. Ana Kasparian (The Point), John Iadarola (Think Tank), and Jimmy Dore (The Jimmy Dore Show Podcast), hosts of the The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"In a speech at Georgetown University on Thursday afternoon, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont who's seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, did something unprecedented for a major candidate: He made the case for democratic socialism.

The address, which Sanders wrote himself, had been in the works for weeks, and in it Sanders embraced a label that has most often been used to attack him. (At the first Democratic presidential debate last month, front-runner Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Sanders' "democratic socialist" views.) At times, this address sounded much like Sanders' stump speech: He railed against Wall Street, the "ruling class," and the billionaire Koch brothers. But he tied those stances to an ideology that he contended was an essential part of the United States' heritage."

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont.

From The Young Turks

To give you an idea of what I believe socialism is and what it isn't: I agree with John Judis at TNR that socialism has a couple layers, three if you include Chinese communism.

But before that I want to talk about a discussion I had on Quora last week. (Of all places) Before that discussion I had absolutely no use for Quora and would even tweet or post on Google+: "why is someone following me on Quora: I'm never on Quora!" Which is true! When I would pick up a new follower. Except for last week when I responded to a question posed on Quora about socialism by someone who will go nameless simply because I don't remember their name. And this person asked :"Are Liberals, Socialists?"

To put it simply, Liberals are not since liberal democracy is very different from social democracy or communism. But I went further and said that there are three separate political ideologies in this discussion. Liberalism that I believe in as a Liberal. Marxism which is essentially communism today. Which is the Un-democratic form of socialism. And social democracy/democratic socialism. The third layer of socialism would be Chinese communism.

China certainly still qualifies as a Marxist-Communist State as it relates to social policy with no free press and legal political opposition in the country. No guaranteed ability for people to speak out and express themselves, certainly about the central government. No right to privacy and people could lose their homes easily to the state if the state simply decides to take that property from them. No guaranteed right of religion and for people to make that choice to practice or not practice religion themselves.

But economically the only reason why China has boomed in the last lost forty years now is because of the privatization of their economy. You have big cities in China now like Shanghai that look like big cities in Japan, Europe, or even America. Highly developed with all sorts of private companies and business's, with large middle classes and even rich people. That is because they've now become a capitalist economy with a large welfare state and still have some state-run enterprises from their previous communist regimes.

What I was trying to get through to the person on Quora I was talking to with his point being that so-called Liberals aren't socialists because they haven't called for economic nationalization with the state owning and running the entire economy, is that there are layers of socialism. And none of them are part of liberalism.

Yes, there are still Marxist-Communists who are Un-Democratic Socialists who do believe there should be no private sector and private ownership in the economy. But other than North Korea and someone might find some small country in Africa where this philosophy is still practiced,

Marxism is a dying governing philosophy in the world. Even Cuba has opened their economy to so some private ownership and capitalism. Other than maybe Eugene Debs (Socialist Party presidential candidate in the early 20th Century) there are really no Democratic Socialists who believe in complete state-control of the economy in society.

The mainstream wing of socialism is social democracy/democratic socialism. Which includes private ownership of the economy and even allowing for people to own their own property. But where private industry is heavily regulated for the good of society. As Democratic Socialists would put it) Highly taxed to prevent income inequality and to provide a large welfare state to provide the public services to people that Socialists believe shouldn't be in private for-profit hands. Services like health care, health insurance, education, pensions, child care, perhaps a few other social services.

But even the democratic wing of socialism would considered Far-Left in America, (except for Millennial's and aging Baby Boomers like Bernie Sanders) because of the high taxation, regulation, over centralization of government especially in a federal republic like America where we tend not to trust big centralized government and like to see more power with the states, localities, and individuals themselves. But still a very mainstream not just political philosophy, but governing philosophy in Europe. Especially in Scandinavia.

I disagree with John Judis and his TNR column about another thing: I don't believe America needs any form of socialism. You would almost have to rewrite or at least seriously reform our U.S. Constitution and take away our federal form of government for any socialist model of government to be put in place in America. Or have some political revolution where Communists come into power through violent  military means and eventually take over the U.S. Government and throw out our form of government. And start nationalizing state and local government's and replacing them with Marxist-Socialists or Communists. (I guess ANTIFA is working on that right now)

So in this sense at least socialism simply wouldn't be a practical governing philosophy in America. Our form of government is simply too decentralized and would require again reforming the U.S. Constitution through all sorts of amendments, or rewriting it which would require amendments.

But for socialism in the democratic form to become an alternative philosophy to Center-Right conservatism and Center-Left liberalism, Socialists in America and that starts with their leaders Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein, need to start being real with their followers.

Stop promising free candy, cookies, sodas, to their followers that they want Uncle Sam to take care of. Explain to them why democratic socialism is the best governing philosophy, but also be realistic and honest with that. Stop promising so-called free stuff! Like health care, health insurance, college, pensions, child care, etc. And tell them that government services have to paid for and be paid for by the people who consume them who are taxpayers. And tell them that if government is going to provide these services to people that taxes are going to have to be raised on everyone who consumes these government services.

And then we'll really see how popular socialism is in America and if Americans really want to pay for this government-run Socialist Utopia that Socialists keep promising. Especially as more Baby Boomers die off and Millennial's get older and hopefully finally grow up.

The New Republic: Hanif Willis-Abdurraqif: America’s Most Electable Fictional Presidents

Source:The New Republic-

Source:The Daily Review

Hey, what do you know. The New Republic with an article not only worth sharing, but commenting on and blogging about all in one. Maybe they’re partially only dead and when they’re finally sold and hopefully bought by people who know what they’re doing this time and who aren’t to the left of Bernie Sanders they may come back to life. And return as a great Center-Left liberal magazine that they use to be. And stop doing their impersonation of Salon. And leave socialism and political correctness for Socialists and political correctness warriors. Not people who call themselves Liberals.

I’m going to cover a few of the Hollywood president’s that I’m actually familiar with. I know, why not instead speak about Hollywood characters you know almost nothing about and pretend to be intelligent about them like every other asshole blogger out there who knows so much about nothing. I guess I just have this weakness called character and a conscience that prevents me from talking about people and things I’m simply not familiar with, because I lack interest in them. Anyone born before 1980 might think I’m talking about people from the 19th Century, or something. So you might want to leave this page and get back to your favorite reality TV programs. There’s the asshole in me.

This might sound corny, but I guess my favorite Hollywood president is Andrew Shepard. Who sounds like a Founding Father or something from New England, or some place. But even if Carl Reiner only spent all of two-minutes coming up with the name for Michael Douglas in The American President, this character is a great character. Douglas, plays a president with big progressive goals, but knows how to work with people even in his own party in order to move the ball forward and get a progressive accomplishment. Which is the definition of a pragmatic Progressive, something that I believe Franklin Roosevelt would be proud of. While at the same time he’s also a man and a widower and has needs and falls in love. And hopefully you’re familiar with the rest of the story.

Jack Evans from The Contender from 2000 played by Jeff Bridges. Someone whose determined to nominate and get confirmed a female Vice President after his first Vice President has the nerve to die before his term is up. There’s an unfortunate political correctness slant to this as well. That a President would go out-of-their-way to pick a women as his VP simply because there’s never been a female VP before. But the story is great and the Republican opposition especially in the House of Representatives wants to make Senator Lane Evans personal life especially her sexual history the focal point there. Instead whether she’s qualified for the actual job of both Vice President and President of the United States. Where they never question her credentials. And President Evans and Senator Hanson, never play ball with the House Republicans on her past and nomination.

I would be lax in my duty here if I didn’t mention a character who I spent too much of my life during their seven-year run watching, if I didn’t mention Jeb Bartlett. Who of course is played by the great Martin Sheen in The West Wing. I can’t think of a Hollywood character who was better suited for the job of President of the United States than Jeb Bartlett. Who always knew what was going on what needed to be done and what he needed to do to get it done. That he had his own politics and policies, but who never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. To use a cliché, but who had a Republican Congress his entire time as President. And had to deal with all sorts of horrible issues and a lot tough decisions that yielded him no political benefit. But made them, because they had to be made.

I think if you’re going to do a show or movie about an American president, you should be realistic. Either cover someone who has already had the job, but give your character a different name. But with the same character, personality, intelligence, demeanor, judgement and everything else. And cover similar stories that the real president dealt with. Or come up with your own president that perhaps represents America at its best, or worst and deal with stories that haven’t been dealt with, but are
realistic. I think the problem with a lot of Hollywood political movies especially about the President, is that they look like they come from Hollywood. And they look almost completely make-believe. Like Dave from 1993. The Hollywood president’s that I mentioned are realistic, because the characters are believable and so are the issues that they dealt with.

The New Republic: The Long March to Medicare

Source:The New Republic- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) signing Medicare into law in 1965.

Source:The New Democrat

The fiftieth anniversary of the most successful government health insurance program in the country, if not the most successful health insurance program period. No other health insurer has provided more health insurance to more Americans than Medicare. And perhaps to more people in the world than Medicare. My issues with Medicare is not that the program exists at all, which is the libertarian argument against it. Or that it is a government-run health insurance program. But my issues is with how the program was set up. And the reason why it was set up, is because that is the best that Democratic Congress with Republican help from the minority could come up with in 1965.

We are a huge country that is between two of the largest oceans in the world. And that is just the mainland United States and back in 1965 we were a country roughly one-eighty-million people or so. And today we are pushing three-hundred-twenty-million people. And yet we set up two new huge health insurance programs that are to be run by one central authority in this huge country. Instead of bringing in the states to run their share of this program for their state. Or to create one health insurer that everyone could be eligible for. Not forced on them, but have a new public health insurer that everyone could sign up for and pay into if they choose to. Along with putting money down along with their employer so they are guaranteed health insurance in their senior years.

The original Affordable Care Act of 2009-10 that was passed by the House of Representatives in fall of 2009 had a public option in it for Medicare. Meaning people under Medicare age could sign up and pay into Medicare before they retire and before they are 65. That amendment was taken out of the Senate in the early spring of 2010. So the final bill that was passed on March of didn’t have the public option in it. So Medicare is still the largest health insurer in the country if not world and yet it only covers seniors. The least healthiest population of the country and makes it very expensive to run and pay for. You give middle-age and young adults and their kids the option to be part of Medicare and you would see millions of Americans sign up for Medicare. Which would bring down the costs of Medicare, because you would have young healthy Americans as part of the program.

Yes Medicare has been a very successful program because it has guaranteed health insurance to millions of Americans who otherwise wouldn’t have had it. Or would’ve ended up moving to the poor house, or having to sell everything that has value to them in order to get health care in their senior years. But this program could be so much better and so much more cost-effective and not so top-down. And allow for middle-age and young adults to cover themselves and their health insurance through Medicare. As well as similar to Medicaid bring the states in and allow for them to set up their own Medicare program where all of their citizens would be eligible for instead of just their seniors. And we wouldn’t need a Medicaid, or a Children’s Health Insurance Program, because those customers could take Medicare. Which is a much better program anyway.

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: 'Your Right to Die Isn’t Enough'

Source:The New Republic with an article about euthanasia.

Source:The New Democrat

Euthanasia, is a tough issue for me. We’re not just talking about suicide here, but someone getting legal help from not just someone else to kill them, but getting that help from someone whose sworn to protect life. And do whatever they can to save people who are hurt. And in many cases where their life is at risk and they can die if they don’t get the proper medical treatment.

But I’ve never said that I believe in an absolute Right to Life. Besides, my definition to Right to Life, is a bit different from let's say a devout Catholic, or Evangelical. My Right to Life is about the individual. That they’re responsible for the management of their own life and held accountable for good and bad exactly how they live their life and the impact that they make on others. My Right to Life, or belief in it, is conditional, to be blunt about it. That once a person becomes a person, meaning they’re born, they’re responsible for their own life and can live their own live anyway they choose. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

And because of this as a Liberal, I can say, you what this is your life. How you decide to live is up to you and you’re going to be held accountable for exactly how you live for good, bad an in between. Which is why I can say as a Liberal that I believe physician assisted suicide, should be an option for people who are terminally ill. Or in such bad shape that it’s just not that they’ll never recover, but they’ll be in some type of horrible pain regardless of the amount of medication that they have access for the rest of their lives. But I’m a Liberal, not a Libertarian, or an Anarchist. And I believe there also needs to be rules in place for exactly how physician assisted suicide could be carried out. To protect the innocent from predatory behavior.

One, a patient who is in real bad shape physically and suffering a lot, or not, whether they’ve essentially been given a death sentence from their doctor, or not, would need a doctor’s written consent to be put to death. Doctors shouldn’t be forced to deliver this procedure, especially if they’re against it.

Two, someone who is contemplating physician assisted suicide, needs to either facing a death sentence. Meaning they’ve been told they only have a certain amount of time to live and they’ll be in pain for the rest of their life. Or, they’re such in bad shape that they could theoretically live a natural life in years, but will be in serious pain for the rest of their life.

Three, the patient is in solid mental health and think clearly and knows exactly what they’re doing. That they’re in the best mental health that they possibly can be. So they don’t make a horrible mistake that they’ll never recover from.

Four, they’re 21, or over. Minors, should not only be able to make this decision for themselves, but not even be able to make this decision with parental consent.

Five, that the patient informs their family that they’ve decided to end their life. So they know what’s going on here with their relative. Even if they are not physically and emotionally close with that person.

Again, physician assisted suicide, should be a tough issue for anyone whose either on the fence on it, or thinks it should be an option for people. Because we are talking about ending the life of someone who hasn’t even been accused of hurting an innocent person. But for me at least as a Liberal, the Right to Life belongs to the individual. And they have that right until they lose it. And for me that even includes the right to take that life under the conditions that I’ve laid out.

The New Republic: David Dayen: 'Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley Failed Their Black Lives Matter Test'

Source:The New Republic- Governor Martin O'Malley: at Net Roots Nation in 2015.

Source:The New Democrat

"Jose Antonio Vargas interviews Gov. Martin O'Malley.
Presidential Town Hall featuring Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders."

Source:Net Roots Nation- I guess this is where Governor O'Malley, gets into trouble for saying all lives matter. 

First of all, it's great to hear a politician go to a political group and event and tell them what they don’t want to hear. Especially when they are right and knowing that it might hurt them for speaking the truth. Which is what Martin O’Malley did at Net Roots Nation when he said: “all lives matter”, instead of Black lives matter. Which is what the Far-Left wing of the party wants all Democrats to say. As if it is not obvious enough that Black lives matter. As if anyone is arguing that Black lives don’t matter. Which no offense, is a borderline brain-dead thing to say and imply. Which is one reason why people who are pushing this Black lives matter theme, are on the Far-Left. Senator Bernie Sanders, instead of saying Black lives matter, instead dodged the question and tried to get back on economics.

Again, all lives matter. And to even say that is an idea of how stupid this whole discussion is and some of the people in the whole so-called Black Lives Matter movement are acting. Instead of talking about the challenges and issues that the African-American community are facing and offering solutions to discuss them, they pull out a straw man that no one can disagree with. None of the Democrats running for president are running to be president of this American group, or that one. They’re running to be President of the United States. Which covers the whole nation, even if they win the Democratic nomination, elected President and don’t win every single vote and state in the country. They’ll still be President of the United States. And not the Caucasian President, or African President, Asian President, Latino President, or any other President of one group, or one group.

Republicans and for good reason, all the time get accused of creating wedge issues to divide the country. And try to make Democrats look like they don’t love America as much as Republicans do. And you know the issues. It was crime in the 1970s, followed by abortion, pornography, homosexuality and other issues. But the whole so-called Black Live Matter movement is doing the same thing, but from the Far-Left. And if you don’t say Black lives matter and instead say all lives matter, regardless of race, or color, they imply you don’t care about the African-American community and minorities as much as they do. Which is really stupid and also insulting. Instead of saying Black lives matter, as if people believe they don’t, they should be addressing the issues and offering solutions to those problems.

The New Republic: Andrew Sullivan: Here Comes The Groom: The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

Source:The New Republic- Andrew Sullivan's 1993 article on same-sex-marriage.

Source:The New Democrat

Just to be perfectly clear, conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, wrote this piece in the formerly liberal The New Republic, back in 1989, of all places. And the New The New Republic, (ha ha) reposted his piece about same-sex marriage last Friday. I once heard Sullivan on a panel talk show, I think on PBS, or maybe CNN, say that he opposed same-sex marriage, because of how straights have ruined marriage and hurt it so badly. With half of all American straight marriages ending in divorce and all the adultery that goes on in marriage. Kids, growing up in single-parent households, or being shipped from their father and mother back and forth. Perhaps only seeing their father on weekends and holidays, because their parents are divorced. And I’m not sure how Sullivan currently feels about same-sex marriage.

As far as the conservative case for gay marriage. I agree with Andrew Sullivan and I think he makes an excellent conservative case for it. But for me even as a Liberal talking about Conservatives and conservatism, it depends on what you mean by conservatism. Do you combine both political conservatism, which has more of a federalist conservative libertarian bent to it and is more constitutionally based. With religious or cultural conservatism, that takes us back to a time that Christian Conservatives and Neoconservatives see as an American Utopia, what they view as Traditional America. Where things that are considered mainstream and even legal today and homosexuality would just be one example of, would’ve been unacceptable and even illegal back in the 1950s and 1940s.

Or do you separate political conservatism, classical conservatism, conservative libertarianism even, with religious or cultural conservatism. I mean, are Barry Goldwater, who is Mr. Conservative and Phyllis Schlafly, who is Miss American Traditionalist, both Conservatives, or do they come from different political camps on the right. Are Rand Paul, perhaps the modern Mr. Conservative and Mike Huckabee, perhaps the hero of today’s Christian-Right, both Conservatives, even though ideologically they look and talk very differently and have very different views when it comes to their politics. And social issues might just be an example of that.

Does conservatism, mean conserving the growth of government and even shrinking it when it becomes big, so it doesn’t threaten our economic, or personal freedoms and doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution, as well as conserving freedom both economic and personal? Or to go back to Phyllis Schlafly, doesn’t conservatism mean conserving the 1950s and taking America back to that point, or perhaps even the 1920s pre-New Deal and saying through government force, “this is what America is and what it means to be an American. And people who move away from this way of life and lifestyle, are Un-American and perhaps should even be in jail.”

Again I’m a Liberal and it would be easy for me to lump all Conservatives and anyone on the Right into one big camp of traditionalists and neanderthals and say that conservatism, is really the big government ideology in America. Because they want to force their way of life through government force on the rest of America. But that wouldn’t be accurate of me and it would even be dishonest. I go with the Barry Goldwater/Rand Paul wing as far as who I see as the Conservatives in America. And say the Conservative case of same-sex marriage, is that marriage is about two people who are in love, in most cases and want to be legal romantic partners with each other for the rest of their lives. Or at least give it their best shot. And that marriage just like domestic partnerships, should be a civil issue between consenting adults. Not for government to decide.

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: 'House GOP, White House Budget Overuse The Word Taxpayers'

Source:The New Republic- if TNR had their way, Tax Day would be a national holiday that they and other Socialists would celebrate.

Source:The New Democrat

"Earlier this week, House Republicans released their budget for the 2016 fiscal year, “A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.” There is much to criticize in it, including deep cuts to social spending, questionable accounting, increasingly quixotic Obamacare repeal procedures, and disturbing gestures toward more military spending. But the plan is also an ideological document meant to advance a particular set of beliefs about how government should function, and toward what end. Its composition and slick rollout (including an upbeat YouTube presentation, a BuzzFeed-esque gif set, and a highly navigable website complete with rolling documentation of news coverage) are meant not only to advance certain policy measures, but persuade voters to adopt its ideological point of view.

Which is why its use of the term “taxpayer”—though hardly atypical of political documents—is notable. In the 43-page budget, the word “taxpayer” and its permutations appear 24 times, as often as the word “people.” It’s worthwhile to compare these usages, because the terms are, in a sense, rival ideas. While “people” designates the broadest possible public as the subject of a political project, “taxpayer” advances a considerably narrower vision—and that's why we should eliminate it from political rhetoric and punditry.

Though addressing people as “taxpayers” is common enough to appear politically neutral, it tends to carry more argumentative weight than it’s typically credited with. The House budget is full of examples of seemingly straightforward deployments of the term which are, upon closer inspection, clearly furthering a particular ideology. “There are too many scenarios these days in which Washington forgets that its power is derived from the ‘consent of the governed,’” the plan reads in one instance of the term’s use. “It forgets that its financial resources come from hard-working American taxpayers who wake up every day, go to work, actively grow our economy and create real opportunity.” In other words, Americans’ taxes are parallel with taxpayers' consent, suggesting that expenditures that do not correspond to an individual’s will are some kind of affront. The report goes on to argue that  

food stamps, public housing assistance, and development grants are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets. It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.

Put simply, taxpayers should get what they pay for when it comes to welfare programs, and not be overcharged. But, as the Republican authors of this budget know well, the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, because they are in most cases low-income. The “taxpayers” this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs, but rather those who imagine that they personally fund them. By this logic, the public is divided neatly into makers and takers, to borrow the parlance of last election’s Republicans.

Democrats often refer to "taxpayers," too. At 150 pages, the White House budget proposal for 2016 uses the term 26 times, predictably invoking it when referring to cuts and reductions in services. "The Budget includes initiatives to improve the service we provide to the American public; to leverage the Federal Government’s buying power to bring more value and efficiency to how we use taxpayer dollars...," President Barack Obama writes in his introductory message. "The Budget includes proposals to consolidate and reorganize Government agencies to make them leaner and more efficient, and it increases the use of evidence and evaluation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on programs that work."

There are countless examples of this reading of “taxpayer” bleeding out of official rheotric and into mainstream political commentary. Consider Megan McArdle’s recent meditation on prison reform in Bloomberg View, in which she points out that “prison is … very expensive,” and therefore, “while we're punishing the criminal, we're also heavily punishing the taxpayer.” Imagining tax payment as a kind of punishment is the upshot to the general use of the term, however innocuously the majority of its speakers may intend it. If money owed in taxes is imagined, as in the budget plan and McArdle’s usage, to belong to the taxpayer, then programs operating off of public revenue do seem to have some obligation to correspond to their funders’ consent, and serving the interests of others does seem unfair. But these are all obfuscations brought on by the term.

The same laws that determine that money deposited into a person’s bank account belongs to that person also determine that taxes owed on that deposit do not. Public revenue is just that: a pool of public money to be used for the good of the public, not 300 million pools of private money each to be used to serve private individuals’ interests. What is in the interest of the public may involve expenditures that can’t be filed in a pay-in-cash-out formula, as the “taxpayer” terminology would suggest. Kids, for example, usually don’t pay taxes whatsoever, but spending on children is a necessary social function. Our roads and public utilities, too, are available to anyone inside our borders, not because they have been purchased, but because strong infrastructure provides for the common good.

Along with wrongly dividing the public into various private interest sets, taxpayer terminology also seems to subtly promote the idea that a person’s share in our democratic governance should depend upon their contribution in taxes. If government should respond to the will of taxpayers because programs are incorrectly supposed to be financed on their dime, then those contributing larger shares would seem to be due greater consideration, like shareholders in a company. (It would also mean that the countless undocumented immigrants who contribute more than $10 billion a year in taxes ought to become voting citizens.) But this view is precisely contrary to the democratic vision invoked in historical verbiage like “consent of the governed,” as it mistakes the source of a person’s rights. Our share in democracy arises not from what we can pay into it, but from the fact that we are persons and personhood confers certain obligations and dues.

Whereas "taxpayers" is strewn throughout political documents, “people” is associated with populist and revolutionary movements, and not for nothing. Power to the people, the evergreen revolutionary slogan trumpeted by popular fronts around the world, has a ring that power to the taxpayers does not precisely because it demands an inclusive view of public goods. The same could be said about the first line of the U.S. Constitution: "We the Taxpayers" would have been an odd construction for a nation born from a revolt against British taxation. So let's leave "taxpayer" to the IRS and remove it from everyday speech. With every thoughtless repetition of the word, we’re carrying political water." 

From The New Republic

This article from Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig in The New Republic is just another example that TNR is gone and finished and has now become a different current affairs magazine. Another version of the New-Left The Nation or Salon. (To put it nicely) 

To suggest that using the term taxpayer is somehow insulting to people who don’t make enough money to pay federal income taxes, is ridiculous. The term taxpayer is generally used for Americans who pay federal income taxes. Most of those Americans tend to be middle-class Americans and even the wealthy, even after all of their tax breaks. It is not used as an insult for people who collect public assistance because they don’t make enough money to support themselves. And in some cases don’t work at all.

Americans who do collect public assistance especially if they are working, do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance. If they drive and own a car even a cheap one, they pay gas taxes to pay for roads and other infrastructure. And they may even pay state and local income taxes even if they are low-income. And if they aren’t working and are on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance, they pay sales taxes and perhaps even gas taxes if they have a car. So even low-income Americans are taxpayers. And even income taxpayers when it comes to payroll taxes. So really except for being a political correctness warrior or something, I don’t see what Elizabeth Bruenig is complaining about here.

The American Prospect: Paul Starr: The Crash of The New Republic

Source:The American Prospect-

Source:The New Democrat

I would put it differently and if I was writing for The American Prospect, well if I was writing for The American Prospect, they probably wouldn’t of published what I have to say about The New Republic, because I wasn’t backing the party line. But for the sake of this piece had I wrote this article at The Prospect about The New Republic I would’ve put it differently. I probably would’ve called it The Death of The New Republic: How Chris Hughes Killed a Great Liberal Magazine. And he did it a couple of ways.

Chris Hughes took a great center-left liberal magazine, not a far-left more social democratic oriented magazine like The Nation or The New Republic and turned TNR into The Nation or The Prospect ideologically. You read TNR today and it is very similar to Nation or Prospect or the AlterNet, TruthOut, Salon or any other far-left publication that struggles just to stay in business today. Because they don’t have any advertising revenue. Because they are anti-business if not anti-private enterprise all together.

When Mike Kinsley was running TNR they were still that great center-left magazine. That had solid suspicions about big government in people’s economic and personal lives. Today’s TNR now not only supports a Scandinavian social democratic high taxed welfare state to manage people’s economic affairs for them. But backs Mike Bloomberg’s nanny state and would like to regulate how Americans can eat an drink.The New Republic might not become like The Prospect or Nation financially. Because they do have wealthy backers and are entertainment and tabloid driven with what they want to cover. So that alone might keep them in business. But The Liberal Republic is gone.

The other issue has to do with Chris Hughes himself. He’s a businessman first and comes from the OMG awesome entertainment universe and politics and current affairs is not his meat and potatoes. He goes where the money is and that is probably where TNR is headed with a few political writers left over to tell people what the far-left is thinking. And why middle class Americans are under-taxed and that the Federal Government is too small, states and local governments, as well as individuals have too much power and can’t be trusted and you need a bigger government to take care of them. Which is what you get from The Prospect, The Nation and Salon today.

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: 'Catholic Upbringing Made Me a Libertarian Activist'

Source:The New Republic- Libertarian activist?

Source:The New Democrat

"Belle Knox, the enterprising Duke undergraduate who ascended to fame last year after her porn career was discovered by nosy classmates, has decided to direct her notoriety to politics. In an interview with Business Insider, Knox expressed her desire to become a libertarian political activist, having already begun work with libertarian campus groups. Knox evidently identifies failed screenwriter Ayn Rand as a personal hero, and supports the Paul dynasty, citing appreciation for both Ron and son Rand. And she attributed her libertarianism to her conservative religious upbringing."

From The New Republic

"Libertarians will be flooding the streets of Las Vegas. Thousands are expected to attend Freedom Fest which features forums, debates and freedom lover speakers. The agenda will cover anything and everything from Wall Street to the 2012 election. Matt Welch, editor in chief for Reason Magazine, joins us with more about the event and the Libertarian movement."

From RT America

Source:RT America- is at least partially funded by President Vladimir Putin's Russian Federation Government.

I believe in both economic freedom and personal freedom. The idea that people should have the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs. Be able to make their own decisions in life as it relates to their financial and personal lives. What they do with their own time is their own business, as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. I want taxes fairly low for everyone, at least compared with the rest of the developed world.

But I also want government there to do things for the people that we can’t do for ourselves, or do as well even in the economy.

Smart regulations to protect the innocent from predatory behavior.

Infrastructure, social insurance, but just for people who need it while they get themselves on their feet. Not a welfare state designed to take care of us for us.

Again, I believe we should have the freedom to be able to take care of ourselves. And that it is the job of government to see that we all have that. Not take care of us, but to see we all are able to live in freedom. Which is a big difference between a Liberal Democrat and a Social Democrat.

I’m not a fan of the welfare state on the Left, that’s wants government big enough to take care of everyone for them. And I’m not a fan of the nanny state on the Right. That wants certain behavior in life to be outlawed because it offends their moral and religious values and they see it as dangerous to a civilized society. Things like homosexuality, adult entertainment, to use as examples.

But again, another issue I have with the Far-Left in America is that I’m not a fan of the nanny state on the Left either. That would also outlaw certain behaviors they see as dangerous, because they’re concern with our general well-being. And believe that individual choice has to be limited if not eliminated so we don’t make bad decisions with our personal lives as well. Things like what we can eat and drink, how we can communicate with each other. To use as examples, things like prohibition and political correctness.

So now having see what I believe in and the values and vision that I have, do you see me as a Libertarian because I believe in both economic and personal freedom. Libertarians don’t believe in government economic regulations, or the public safety net.

Am I a Liberal because I believe in personal freedom, privacy, freedom of choice and civil liberties. And I also believe in the public safety net, infrastructure, education, empowering poor people to be able to live in freedom on their own. I would definitely say yes. But keep in mind, American Liberals today get stereotyped as European Democrats. People who would be called Social Democrats or Socialists in Europe. People who believe in the welfare state, the superstate. They want a government big enough to take care of everyone.

And again today’s Liberals supposedly don’t believe in freedom of choice. And see it as dangerous because they believe it means that people will make bad decisions. Today’s so-called Liberals believe in both the welfare state and the nanny state.

Keep in mind, Liberals are center-left. Most Americans are somewhere between center-left and center-right and the people who tend to decide presidential elections tend to be even closer to the center than that. Instead of being close to one of the twenty yard lines, they are between the 45 and 50. And Americans tend to want the freedom to be able to manage their own affairs themselves, economic and personal.

So if you want a government big enough to take care of everyone, you’re not center-left. Now you may be center-left in Britain, France or Sweden, but those countries are further to the Left of Americans anyway by in-large. And if you want a government that big in America, you would be Far-Left in this country and not a Liberal. At least overall, even if you may have some liberal leanings.

The New Republic: Kevin Mahnken: President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch & Need For Succession Reform

Source:The New Republic- U.S. Senate Pro-Tempore Orrin Hatch (Republican, Utah)

Source:The New Democrat

Here’s a post that perhaps only political, Constitution and American history junkies would be interested. I just happen to be all three, so I’m more than qualified to be interested in this. But here’s something that I actually agree with a New Socialist, I mean New Republic author on and that is the need to reform U.S. Senate rules and perhaps even the U.S. Constitution itself. That is if the Senate simply couldn’t reform the President Pro Tempore position itself. And it might be able to since under the Constitution Congress writes its own rules. But I’m not a lawyer.

But what I would like to see done in the Senate and I’ll explain why assuming this could be done by the U.S. Senate laterally, is to add an amendment to the Pro Tempore position. The amendment would say that the majority party decides who the Pro Tempore is and that person doesn’t have to the longest Senator in the majority party. Actually I would go further than that and say the Pro Tempore or Leader of the Senate, whatever the title of the position is who would be the first ranking member of the Senate, would be an at-large seat and member. Mot elected by a state, but by the American people themselves, or at the very least the Senate majority members. But that is for a future post.

What I would do is essentially male the Pro Tempore or Leader of the Senate like the Speaker of the House for the Senate. The lead presiding officer, but also the person who appoints committee chairman, decides what bills come to the floor and up for a vote. And have that person in charge of the Senate floor. Because if we are going to even have this position, then it shouldn’t be signed to someone simply because they are the oldest or have been in the Senate the longest. If the Pro Tempore should ever become President because something happens to the President, Vice President and Speaker, that person should be ready to be President and healthy enough for the job.

I doubt Orrin Hatch ever wants to be President of the United States, at least at this point, he did run in 2000. He’s someone who I respect as a Liberal, even though he’s pretty right-wing and I’m not taking this position because he is currently the Pro Tempore. But just to point out that someone shouldn’t be the chief presiding officer of the Senate with real responsibilities, that is when the Vice President is not up at Congress and third inline for the presidency, just because they are in their late seventies or eighties and have been in the Senate for a long time.