Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge WithPeter Robinson- Interviewing Christopher Hitchens & Anne Applebaum: 'Is The New Left History?'

Source:Hoover Institution- Author Christoper Hitchens, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, back in 1998.

"In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran to the right of Richard Nixon, arguing that under Republicans, the United States had become too weak in the cold war. A dozen years later, the Democratic presidential candidate was George McGovern. How did the Democratics go from hawks to doves in just twelve years? And what does the history of the Left imply for John Kerry, the Democratic Party, and the war on terror today? Peter Robinson speaks with Anne Applebaum and Christopher Hitchens."

From Hoover Institution

I don't like to as a Liberal Democrat talk about liberalism and the Democratic Party as if they are part of the same organization. Just as if Conservative Republicans don't like to talk about conservatism and the Republican Party as if they are part of the same thing. Liberalism is a political philosophy and the Democratic Party is a political organization that Liberals have used over the years and use today to get elected and advance their political movement and accomplish political goals.

And even though the Democratic Party is the closest thing that we have to a liberal party in America, it's not a party that's just made up of Liberals, but a party thats very diverse and made up different political coalitions. Including Liberals such as myself, but Progressives, as well as leftists  people who call themselves Progressives. ( Socialists, really ) But so-called Progressives who are more statist than liberal and believe that the role of government is to protect and defend people even at times from themselves.

And there are Socialists who sound like Liberals on social issues. People who are called Socialist-Liberals or in Noam Chomsky's case Socialist-Libertarians. So the Democratic Party is a coalition of democrats ranging from center-left to far-left with Moderate-Liberals in between.

I believe the future of American liberalism is very good and I don't just say that as a Liberal. But if you look at where the country is now and where we are going politically and that as younger we get as a country the more liberal-libertarian we are becoming with the belief that government's role is to try to create and environment where all Americans have a good shot at making a good life for themselves that we believe in opportunity.

And what Bill Clinton called an opportunity society where all Americans would have a good opportunity to make a good life for themselves and of course what they do with that opportunity is up to them. But that they would have the opportunity to make a good life for themselves while they are currently still growing up.

Or low-educated and low-skilled adults would have the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. And that all of this would be based on good education, education opportunity and the ability for all Americans to have good access to a good education. That's where the Democratic Party is economically and least the leadership. And that's how Liberal Democrats have countered the Goldwater-Reagan Revolution with the notion of the opportunity society.

The Democratic Party has transformed over the last eighty years. Going from more of a progressive party with a Dixiecrat-Confederate right-wing coalition in it. But today the FDR/LBJ progressive coalition is still there, the Dixiecrats are gone, but they now have a social-democratic socialist win in it. That at times are seen as part of the Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

Back pre Reagan-Revolution were the leaders of the party and represented what Franklin Roosevelt built. Back then and to a certain extent Lyndon Johnson and George McGovern built as the modern Democratic Party back then.

Today thats basically the old Democratic Party and today we are more of a liberal party. Very liberal on social issues, tough liberal internationalists on foreign policy and an economically. A liberal party that believes in what I just called an opportunity society and we've moved from a party that believed in the safety net or welfare state. That government's job was to take care of people, to a party that believes that a role of government is to make sure that all Americans have an opportunity to be successful in life and be able to take care of themselves.

I feel good about American liberalism and the Democratic Party today because of where we've moved as a party. And where we've moved as a country. Liberal Democrats are now in position to show Americans what liberalism actually is and not how it's been stereotyped. And that we aren't wild-eyed Socialists or Anarchists who are soft. But people who are responsible and do believe in freedom but we believe in freedom for all and not just the few or establishment.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Stanley Kurtz: 'Radical In-Chief'

Source:Hoover Institution- Peter Robinson is the host of Uncommon Knowledge, from the Hoover Institution.

"An author, journalist, and social anthropologist (PhD Harvard), Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a contributing editor to National Review Online.  His latest book is Radical-in-Chief:  Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

"President Obama is a socialist!"  The explosive charge has been made, rebutted, and laughed off since the 2008 campaign.  In Radical-in-Chief, Kurtz asserts that the charge is not off base and backs up his assertion with a detailed examination of President Obama's past from his college days to his Chicago associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.  He details the gradualist, socialist strategy of Obama's mentors and answers the key questions at the heart of this issue.  "What difference does it make what Barack Obama believes?  All that need concern us is what he does.  Isn't that right?"

From Hoover Institution

In today's politics when people on the Right and especially Far-Right when they are worried about a Democrat, especially a Progressive Democrat (take Barack Obama, to use as an example) they call that person a Socialist. 

The hyper-right-wing in America knows that Barack Obama is a likable man, with an excellent political skills and are terrified of him winning reelection next year, because they don't know if the Republican Party can beat him, even if they can beat Congressional Democrats in the House and Senate. So what they do instead of trying to beat President Obama in an election, they try to make him seem as unpopular and unelectable at the polls with Independent voters and perhaps blue-collar Democrats, so by the time the President is actually up for reelection, they think he'll be easier to beat. Which is what Stanley Kurtz is up too in his book Radical In Chief, which could've been written about a lot of members of the Tea Party.

I talk to Conservatives and Libertarians on a regular basis. Doesn't mean I'm one of them, I think for myself just like Barack Obama. The main reason why the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party and social-democratic Independents, don't like President Obama right now and have threatened to run a so-called Progressive (Socialist, in reality ) candidate like Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich against President Obama in the Democratic primaries, is because President Obama is not a Socialist. He's not even a Democratic Socialist. 

Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is and that exactly how he describes his politics and is or has been was a member of the Democratic Socialist Party. To know that Barack Obama is not a Socialist, just look at his presidency and the legislation he's passed and proposed and the reversals he's made on major issues.

To know that President Obama is not a socialist again just look at his presidency and how he's not done what Socialists wanted him to do. During the stimulus debate in 2009, Democratic Socialists were calling for a a stimulus of around 2T$, an FDR style New Deal stimulus. With all these new Federal agency's that would do all these works projects putting unemployed workers back to work. Which is what left-wing economist Paul Krugman was calling for. The President and Congress put together a bill called the American Recovery Act of around 800B$, about 25% of that tax cuts.

Another thing Socialists don't tend to like and the so-called House Progressive Caucus ( Democratic Socialist Caucus, in reality ) proposed exactly what Socialists were calling for back in April. The health care reform debate again another perfect example of that,. Socialists obviously we're calling for a single payer health insurance system. And settled for a public option in health insurance as their compromise, but President Obama who supports the idea of a public option, settled for the Affordable Care Act which instead has a tax credit for individuals to buy their own private health insurance. As well as a Patients Bill of Rights to regulate private health insurers.

If you're going to throw out the term socialist especially in America and you use that term to put people down, you should at least have some idea of what the hell you're talking about. Who the person that you are labeling socialist is and exactly what socialism is. Otherwise you're just throwing terms because you're ignorant or you're a political attack dog. Which is exactly what Americans hate about American politics right now.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'Explains The Great Depression'

Source:Hoover Institution- Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson & Thomas Sowell.

"The Master Conservative Economist of our time explains what happened in the Great Depression; quite to the contrary of what you may have been led to believe.  Go to fora.tv for the complete video."

Source:Hoover Institution

For all the great things that Franklin Roosevelt did as President of the United States. Leading America as we saved Europe from Nazi Germany, pulling the country out of the GreatDepression, establishing the America's version of a welfare state which is really more of a safety net and I'll get into that later, as well as saving American capitalism even though he was very progressive if not a Democratic Socialist on economic policy, its not the New Deal that pulled us out of the Great Depression.

Its really our involvement in World War II that did that. Because of all the money that the Federal Government borrowed to fiance that war and people we put to work in our war effort. With the draft and all of the resources that it took to fight that war and all of the company's that we put to work building our supplies to fight that war. And all of the people that the war took out of our workforce and were sent to Europe and other places to fight that war. Leaving jobs for a lot of unemployed workers at home.

Democratic Socialists, like to point to the New Deal and government spending that pulled us out of World War II. Well they are half right, because it was government spending, but not on the New Deal, but our military. Where you can make a pretty good case, that World War II is where our military industry was formed. Because pre-World War II, America had a pretty small military compared with size of our country and economy. But by the time World War II ended, we had the first, or second largest military in the world.

We were pretty close with Russia and President Truman and President Eisenhower made our military every bigger.  Countries like Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Britain were the military powers of the world pre-World War II. But only Russia and Britain was still a military power after World War II. Because Europe took such a huge beating in World War II. And America came in and saved their necks (to put it mildly) so they could rebuild. We saved Europe from Nazi Germany and then helped Europe rebuild themselves with the Marshal Plan.

What the New Deal did was save American capitalism, but it also hurt it I believe especially in its efforts to deal with poverty in America. And its not everyday, week, month, or year that I agree with former Speaker Newt Gingrich on anything. (Including the weather) But he's right at least about one thing, the New Deal and Great Society did create what Speaker Gingrich calls a "Culture of Dependency" letting people go on these anti-poverty programs indefinitely without empowering them to become self-sufficient. But the positives of the New Deal are that it created a safety net for American capitalism. For people who fall through the cracks in the economy.

It helped people on hard time sustain themselves until they started working again. Things like Unemployment Insurance and Disability and Welfare Insurance, as well as Social Security so people would at least have a floor in retirement that they could count on. Pre-Great Depression, America pretty much had no such thing as a safety net or welfare state. If people lost their jobs, or didn't have a retirement, they were pretty much at the mercy of their families, or charity to help them out and support them. So to that extent the New Deal has been very positive.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'President Obama's Health Care Reform

Source:Liberty Pen- Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson, about President Barack Obama's health care reform plan.

"Thomas Sowell discusses the proposition that government can operate a health system more efficiently than the market." Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

You look at the Affordable Care Act of 2010 objectively, you'll see what is basically a health insurance reform law. As well as expanding health insurance through the private market for people who can't afford health insurance on their own. 

It's not "government-run health care or health insurance" that Democratic Socialists in America were calling for: a single-payer Medicare for all health insurance law, with government-run hospitals, thats similar to Canada or Britain. There's no new entitlement program in the ACA that the right-wing claim is is in it. 

The ACA simply reforms the private health insurance industry to prevent them from abusing its patients. Like dropping them from coverage just because they get sick, ending lifetime caps on the amount of health insurance they can consume. Or kicking them out of hospitals before they are ready, closing the "doughnut hole" in Medicare and making that program more affordable. 

The Affordable Care Act is simply a Patients Bill of Rights, that expands health insurance coverage for 30M Americans who can't afford health insurance on their own or their employers plan, through the private health insurance market, with a tax credit that helps people pay for their health insurance. 

And it's not just President Obama's health care law, but it's also every Democratic Member of Congress who voted for it and got an amendment attached to it. As well as every Republican Member of Congress who got an amendment attached to it as well. They all own at least a piece of the Affordable Care Act. 

What I believe the President originally wanted to do was design a new health care system for America that would be similar to France a combination of private and public health insurance, but where the people not the government would decide for themselves where they got their health insurance and health care. And wouldn't have to get it from a private or public monopoly. Thats what France has and France health care system costs half of what ours does. 

The reason why the President pushed hard for a public option in health care reform, a non-profit health insurance provider that would be independent of the Federal Government that people could choose or not choose. The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law by far but its a good first step in reforming our health insurance system that cost twice as much as the rest of the developed world for similar outcomes. 

I would like to see a public option in the future as well as more reforms to brings down our overall health care costs.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'Barack Obama's Vision'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge.

"(2008) Thomas Sowell discusses his concerns with the unconstrained vision of Barack Obama. Liberty Pen."

From  Liberty Pen

I have my issues with Barack Obama as well. He was actually my fourth choice for President in 2008. We Democrats unlike Republicans, today had a deep presidential field in 2008.

My first choice was Al Gore but he decided not to run for President. My second choice was Bill Richardson but his campaign went nowhere in the Democratic primaries and was unable to raise a serious amount of money. My fall back option was Hillary Clinton because even though I had issues with her which mostly went to character. I saw then Senator Clinton, as very political and looking mostly towards her political career, rather than doing what's right. But I saw her basically as a Progressive who wouldn't do anything stupid or crazy and run too far to the left to appeal to Democratic Socialists in the party.

Obviously none of my choices came through. I didn't support then Senator Obama from the start because I saw him as a Democratic Socialist trying to transform America into another Europe. Which is why the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party threw all of their support behind Senator Obama, rather than Representative Dennis Kucinich, who they are more ideologically in touch with. Because they saw Barack Obama as a candidate who could not only with the Democratic nomination for President, but win the general election over John McCain in November of 2008 which of course is what he did.

My other fear about Barack Obama is that he would tax and spend and not do what it took to protect the country. So far in Barack Obama's presidency my fears going into his presidency have been wrong. My problems with President Obama's leadership now are exactly about his leadership. I see him as somewhat weak, to willing to lay down goals of what he wants to do. And not willing enough to lay down a vision on how to get there. Too willing to say this is what I want done and then forming a committee and telling them: "this is what I expect you to accomplish, tell me what you come up with and I'll let you know what I think about it."

Barack Obama despite all the claims that the Far-Right have made about him, is no Socialist. His faith in the welfare state is clearly limited, which is something I actually like about him. He would actually be an insult to Socialists to call Barack Obama a Socialist. His supporters from 2008 the people that were with him the whole way up until 2010 ,could be called Socialists. Despite all the claims that the Far-Left have made, Barack Obama is no Conservative either and would actually be an insult to Conservatives to label Barack Obama a Conservative.

What Barack Obama is even though his Senate voting record makes him look a lot farther to the left, is a Center-Left Progressive, similar to Teddy Roosevelt. Basically a Progressive similar to Bill Clinton, perhaps a little farther to the left, still a Progressive like Clinton, but more cautious and willing to compromise, rather than make a good deal than just fight the fight. At least thats how he governs, I'm talking more about his governing style. I believe his actual politics are farther to the left and has a bolder vision of what he wants to accomplish.

But President Obama's practical side tells him that only so much is possible and you should just try to accomplish that or you'll be left with nothing. And I believe the same thing can be said about Bill Clinton, who personally is a Progressive-Liberal. ( In the classic and real sense )

As a real Classical Liberal myself ( the reals Liberals in America ) who just views myself as a Liberal, I have my own issues with President Obama and they don't just have to do with his leadership but his politics as well. I wish he was stronger on gay rights like with gay marriage, but I believe he's been strong everywhere else on gay rights.

I wish President Obama would come out for marijuana decriminalization and come out for reforming the War on Drugs more broadly. So we stop treating drug addicts like criminals and treat them like patients that need help. I wish he would come out for prison reform so we can do something about reducing or 2M prison inmate population and start preparing these inmates for life on the outside as well as alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders.

I wish President Obama wouldn't have signed the Patriot Act which I believe is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Which is why he voted against it in Congress. And his latest position on the War Powers Act as it relates to Libya to me is quite frankly scary, the sixty days have long past. But he doesn't believe he needs a Congressional resolution on it.

President Obama is no Socialist or no Conservative. He's a Progressive or at least thats how he governs. Because I believe he believes thats the best way a Democrat can get reelected President of the United States and win Independent voters, who rather make a good deal then fight the good fight.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Kesler: 'On The Grand Liberal Project'

Source:Hoover Institution- Charles Kesler, being interviewed by Peter Robison, on Uncommon Knowledge.

"In a sweeping review of American political history, Kesler outlines the grand liberal project begun a century ago.  It is a project, he asserts, that has expressed itself in three distinct waves: political liberalism, economic liberalism, and cultural liberalism.  Kesler further maintains that Barack Obama seeks nothing less than to complete and perfect this project.  Finally, he confronts the issues of how conservatism lost its way in the face of the liberal project and how it might regain its imitative." 

From the Hoover Institution

What conservative historian Charles Kesler is talking about is American socialism, a political philosophy that’s government centric. And in the United States Federal Government centric, but there are left-wing governors and other leftist Democrats in state government that believe in a certain level of federalism. But the idea of American socialism is a very collectivist political philosophy that’s about using government to make society better.

Socialists believe we need these government policies and government programs to make people’s lives better for them. Even if we need high taxes to finance all of these programs: "That if government has a lot of the people’s resources, then that money will be spent better. And those decisions will be made better if big government is doing these things better for us, than people spending their own money on their behalf and making their own decisions".

But the philosophy that I just described is not liberalism and is America’s version of democratic socialism. Where you mix in capitalism and the private sector with a large welfare state, to assure that resources are spread out equally that’s common in Europe. And in Europe this philosophy would actually be described as socialism. 

But in America with socialist and socialism having such negative stereotypes and so-forth attached to them, Socialists in America tend to be called Progressives, even though they're Socialists, which is very different. You have left-wing Progressives like FDR and LBJ and you have right-wing Progressives like Nelson Rockefeller.

But this is not liberalism because liberalism is about the individual. And progressive in the sense that government has a role to see that as many people as possible have the opportunity to live in freedom. But it’s not the job of government to take care of people. And it’s not the job of government to give us our freedom. But to see that the opportunities are there for people to get their freedom for themselves like through education and job training. A safety net for people who are out-of-work that empowers them to work their way back to being able to take care of themselves and so-forth.

When right-wing historians like Charles Kesler and others examine and write about liberalism or progressivism or socialism or communism, they tend to put all these philosophies into one pot. As if they are all the same thing and depending on how partisan or ignorant they are about liberalism and tend to look at liberalism as America’s version of communism or Islamism. That Liberals want to outlaw all individual freedom basically and make everyone dependent on the state and so-forth.

Liberalism is not about the state, but about the individual. That Liberals believe in individual freedom. But both economic and personal freedom, not like some right-wingers today when they are talking about individual freedom, they are mainly talking about economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. But that "personal freedom is dangerous because it empowers people to make bad decisions that are bad for society as a whole who has to pay for them".

Another thing about liberalism and Liberals is that Liberals not only believe in individual freedom again both personal and economic freedom, but that individual freedom should be for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. Or even income level, that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in individual freedom in America.

And that government has a role to see that these opportunities are there for everyone, but what people do with these opportunities is up to us. And not having a welfare state there to take care of everyone. And have everyone dependent on the state for our economic well-being. 

Liberals truly believe in individual freedom, but again for everyone, whereas today's so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) believe in the welfare state. To be there to take care of everyone mixed in with private-enterprise.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- James Pierson: 'The Rise and Fall of Liberalism'

Source:Hoover Institution- Author James Pierson, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, talking about his book: The Rise and Fall of Liberalism.

"In Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, James Piereson asserts that, as the 1960s began, liberalism was  the single most creative and vital force in American politics and that the Kennedy assassination caused a split within this movement between its more traditional supporters and cultural activists that still exists today. Peter Robinson explores with Piereson how and why this happened -- how a confident, practical, forward-looking philosophy with a heritage of accomplishment was thus turned into a doctrine of pessimism and self-blame, with a decidedly dark view of American society."

From The Hoover Institution

Again I separate socialism from liberalism. And the progressivism From Teddy Roosevelt in the early twentieth century all the way up through the 1950s up until John F. Kennedy, is progressivism in its best form and classical form and I would argue in its only form.

And the so-called Progressives of today that are part of the New-Left that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response in favor of the civil rights movement and the Great Society and of course against the Vietnam War, is a much different and more leftist movement.

The Socialist New-Left: People who tend to be against authority all together as it relates to law enforcement and national security and this movement got behind George McGovern for President in 1972 and Senator McGovern ran with them and lost in a landslide as a result.

So these are people who are called Progressives today or "Modern-Liberals", (a term I hate) but they aren’t either and I tend to call them Social Democrats or McGovern Democrats, McGovernites, Socialists, Communists in some cases, but they aren’t liberal in the Jack Kennedy sense or any sense at least from my perspective. Because they are not liberal, (to put it plainly) and tend to be illiberal. Because they tend to be against free speech and even property rights. They're so far to the left on economic policy and so anti-authority and rule of law when it comes to law enforcement and national security.

One of the reasons why the death of President Kennedy was so tragic was for both political and ideological reasons (from a Liberal’s perspective) because the 1960s was the decade that brought so much economic as well as personal freedom to so many new Americans. With the tax cuts of the early 1960s and the civil-rights laws of the mid and late 1960s, American women entering the workplace. And had Jack Kennedy survived and then been reelected in 1964 which of course we’ll never know, we probably are not involved in Vietnam the way we were. At least not invading the country.

And President Kennedy probably moves much more cautiously in Vietnam and we probably would’ve played a more of a supportive role there and not invading North Vietnam. And trying to wipeout the Communists on our own. So the Democratic South could govern the country. But of course we’ll never know this.

The 1960s was a great time for real Liberals not the New-Left because of the Cultural Revolution that brought so much freedom to new Americans as well as the economic freedom that came in that decade. But by the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the New-Left, it was a bad time for the Democratic Party.

Both sides of the American political spectrum have their centers and their cores. And the fringes that sort of give the Left and Right bad names and make them look bad as if the entire Left and Right is like that. And that’s what we saw in the Left in America in the 1960s and 70s. Where the Left in America was no longer made up of Liberals and Progressives. But the New-Left emerged of people who I would call Socialists. Some cases even Communists. Or Occupy Wall Street people of today.

The New-Left are people who do not see America as a great country, but a force for bad in the World. And want to try to make the country like Europe even though Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson never wanted to go that far. And some people who call themselves FDR Democrats today do not even understand Franklin and just look up to him because of the New Deal. And see him as their vision for creating some type of European welfare state and finishing the job of the New Deal and Great Society.

But in the 1990s America liberalism made a comeback with Bill Clinton. And the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party was no longer in charge. And Clinton New Democrats were and the Democratic Party once again became about opportunity and freedom for all both economic and personal. Rather than being about the welfare state and government dependence.

As well as a country that could not only defend itself, but would do what it took to defend itself without trying to govern the world. Bill Clinton brought American liberalism back to life and made it a governing philosophy again and perhaps saved the Democratic Party as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.