Wide World of Wisdom: Fred Barnes- Interviewing Thomas Sowell: 'The Difference Between Liberal & Conservative'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- conservative writer Thomas Sowell, being interviewed by FOX News's Fred Barnes, in 2006.

"Thomas Sowell discusses characteristics that define liberals and conservatives, and his own personal transition from Marxism to libertarianism. From: "Thomas Sowell: In the Right Direction"

Fox News (2005)" 

From Wide World of Wisdom

If you look at what actual classical liberalism is ( which I just view as liberalism ) and you look at what classical conservatism, ( which I just view as conservatism is ) actual liberalism and conservatism, they are actually not that different. They both believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they both believe in protecting and defending those rights.

Both Liberals and Conservatives, believe in individual liberty and individualism, they are both internationalist on foreign policy, they both believe in a strong national defense, they both believe in American capitalism, they both believe in limited government.

Liberals and Conservatives,  actually have a lot in common, perhaps more than they don't have in common. They both believe in self-governance, that people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. That government should protect innocent people from being harmed by others, but not try to protect adults from themselves. And not try to regulate how adults live their own lives.

The differences come in how these things are carried out. They have differences when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, they are both internationalists, but in different forms. Liberal Internationalists tend to be more willing to negotiate and Conservative Internationalists tend to be more willing to use military force.

Liberals tend to be more in favor regulation in the economy to prevent people from abusing other people. Conservatives tend to believe that regulation isn't always needed and that the private market can work these abuses out on its own.

Liberals and Conservatives, both believe in limited government, but again in different forms and I'll use the economy as an example. Liberals tend to believe that government can be used to help people who are down help themselves to become self-sufficient. Conservatives tend to believe that a lot of these social services should be privatized and let the market empower these people instead.

See, liberalism and conservatism are both centered around the U.S. Constitution and individual liberty. Protecting individual rights and letting people live their own lives. Liberal comes from the word liberty and conservative meaning someone who wants to conserve. And when it comes to politics and government, that means conserving constitutional rights for individuals. 

Liberals and Conservatives might have more in common than they don't and why they are the two leading political ideology's in the country right now. With democratic socialism and authoritarianism, whether it's theocratic or or secular being on the outside looking in. Instead of being considered part of the mainstream of American politics.

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.

CNN: Dr. Sanjay Gupta- Interviewing President Bill Clinton in 2009: 'Bill Clinton Compares Single-Payer, Universal Health Care Vs. Free Market, Private Health Coverage'

Source:CNN- President William J. Clinton (1993-2001) being interviewed by CNN about healthcare reform, in 2009.

"(3/11/09) Bill Clinton debates the merits of a pure, universal single-payer health care model vs. a free market, privately insured system.  Video: CNN's "Larry King Live" w/ guest host: Dr. Sanjay Gupta." 

From CNN

My ideal health insurance system as well as health care system, is a system that puts the consumers, not government in charged of where they get their health insurance and health care and how they pay for it. That doesn't put monopolies private and public in charged of where and how people get their health insurance. Where you have multiple health insurance and health  are providers, including non-profits competing with each other. To give consumers maximum access in where they get these services. Bringing prices down through competition. 

If people don't like the health insurance, or health care from one provider, they have the option to go somewhere else. Forcing providers to compete with each and force them to provide the best service possible to have the most customers possible. A health care system thats well-regulated, not over or under regulated, something like a Patients Bill of Rights in order to prevent health insurance and health care providers from abusing their patients. I'm against dumping people when they get sick for example, or having lifetime caps. 

I've basically just laid out the health care systems of France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Japan. Not the health care systems of Canada, Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. Which have single payer systems that Socialists tend to favor in America and in other countries. 

The Obama Administration during the health care reform debate of 2009-10, attempted to move our health care system, to the French-German public-private model. And even wanted to put through a public option non-profit health insurance provider that would be self-financed, self sufficient and independent of the Federal Government. This wasn't going to be some new entitlement program that would cover the entire country like a single payer system. And they got damn close to passing it before they settled for the Affordable Care Act.

My opposition with a single payer system is that takes power away from the people who would be consuming the health care system and giving it to government. As a Liberal I have a big problem with that, or any other attempt to take power away from people and give it to government. 

Yes, Canada and Britain's health care system costs half of what ours as far as GDP. But in my opinion Canadian and Brits pay a heavy price for it. They pay less money in exchange for less freedom when it comes to their health insurance. 

I rather pay a little more for health insurance, as long as I have the freedom in where I pay it. By the way, France which doesn't have a government-run system, but a public-private system, spends less of it's GDP on their health care system than Canada and Britain. 

If I had a choice in where I was going to live between these three fine countries and it came down to health care systems, I would take my chances in being able to speak French fluently and move to France. If America ever moved to the French model as far as health care and we were still paying more for our health care than Canada and Britain, but a little more, then it would still be a damn good investment for America.

CNBC: Michele Bachmann Interview- Economic & Social Policy

Source:CNBC- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) being interviewed by CNBC.

Michele Bachmann: “I have talked to business owners all across the nation,” she said. “They’re really paralyzed with fear right now. This won’t help hearing (the unemployment news) because it shows that Washington doesn’t have the solution.”

She spoke as Congress and the White House are locked in debate over whether to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Bachmann dodged a question over whether the failure to increase the borrowing limit while drastically cutting spending would raise unemployment, but she said more taxes certainly aren’t the answer, either.

“We need to fundamentally restructure how government does spending,” she said. “We’re still operating under the principles of FDR and LBJ. We need to move into the 21st century so we embrace pro-growth policies. Unfortunately they’re tone deaf here in Washington, D.C. They think government is the answer, and the American people know it’s not true.” 

From CNBC

"Michele Bachmann on social issues" 

Source:Think Progress- Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) on CNBC talking about her social issues.

From Think Progress

Representative Michele Bachmann wants to as she says run a presidential campaign that’s a three-legged stool, that represents fiscal Conservatives meaning  business and Center-Right Republicans, national security Conservatives (probably meaning Neoconservatives) and people who are called social Conservatives. (Meaning Christian Conservatives) And in America that would mean the Christian-Right. 

Apparently Representative Bachmann did an interview today and came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a law banning porn. The constitutional amendment is nothing new, but the anti-porn law is at least new on her part.

With those two positions Representative Bachmann can forget about appealing to Libertarians because she’s come out for at least two big government positions. I would love to hear her speaking out against big government, because then she would be able to run for Hypocrite in Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief. With those two positions she’s just taken, she’ll lose part of her Tea Party base because there are actually real Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party who don’t give a damn about social issues, they are only interested in fiscal and foreign policy. But Michele could unite the Christian-Right behind her. 

This three-legged Stool that Representative Bachmann is talking about, that as I see it, she wants to be a three-legged tool for them. This strategy doesn’t work, a Republican or any other presidential candidate can’t win a presidential election with a base that includes Conservative-Libertarians, theocrats and Neoconservatives. And she goes off against big government when she’s in favor of big government. Because her positions contradict each other. Representative Bachman is a Christian-Conservative on social issues and a neo-con on national security and perhaps somewhat fiscally conservative.

A candidate like this can’t appeal to Conservative-Libertarians. Her best bet is to appeal to fiscal and Neoconservatives. Instead of going for everybody on the right-wing, including residents at mental hospitals. Because there are still Conservative-Libertarians out there who don’t care what people do with their own lives. And don’t want government trying to tell people how to live. 

Michelle Bachmann is a Christian-Fundamentalist a fiscal message. She’s not a unifying candidate that can bring the entire Republican Party behind her. And I believe she actually knows this because, I believe she’s politically smart enough to understand this. Which makes her a tool for all the other factions she claims to speak for. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

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.

NFL Network: 'Top Ten- Most Feared Tackler: Dick Butkus'

Source:NFL Network- Ernie Acorsi, is a longtime NFL executive and general manger, being interviewed by NFL Network about Chicago Bears great LB Dick Butkus.

Source:The Daily Press 

"The most feard tackler linebacker and the best all time ever!!!" 

From NFL Network

When I think of tough players in the NFL, I think of guys who could and did scare the hell out of their opponents, if not people watching the game as well. I think of guys who not only scared the hell out of their opponents on the football field but on film in practice, putting the fear of God into offenders and offensive coaches and head coaches. "Damn, we are facing this guy this week, how are we going to block him or how many guys are we going to need to block him on any play?"

I can think of a guy who not only hit and tackled his opponents but also hit them so hard that they knew exactly who hit them, because they never felt that kind of pain from anyone else. Offenders were always trying to avoid Dick Butkus, who was a 6’3″, 240 to 245-pound MLB with the Bears from 1965 to 1973 and at his size was playing middle linebacker at a time when everyone else that size was an offensive or defensive lineman. This meant you basically needed an OL to block him, and probably a couple of them.

Butkus was all muscle, and not only huge and strong, but fast as well. He probably ran a 4.4 to 4.5 forty, which is similar to Lawrence Taylor and Ray Lewis, three LBs who weigh about the same and are all muscle, but Taylor and Lewis played in an era where big LBs were typical. The closest LB I’ve seen to Butkus’s size, strength, and athletic ability would be Brian Urlacher. I am not saying Urlacher is as good as any of these other LBs, because he’s not, but he is headed to the Hall of Fame.

Urlacher is a 6’4″, 265-pound MLB, again the size of a DL playing middle linebacker because of his athletic ability and speed. These guys are freaks as athletes, but especially as linebackers, but Dick Butkus was the first freakish LB who was also a great player and is still the best at his position and best LB ever, period.

The name Dick Butkus itself sounds like a tough guy. It doesn’t sound like the name of a jockey. Wiley Pope sounds like the name of a jockey, but Dick Butkus sounds like the name of a macho individual who probably played football and perhaps even had to play football to relieve some of his testosterone. If he hadn’t played football, he might have ended up in jail or something; that last part is a joke, but you get the idea.

Some people who are less impressed with Dick Butkus, (to put it mildly) make the argument that Butkus only played nine seasons, so his greatness isn’t as impressive because it wasn’t as long. What they fail to realize is that what Butkus accomplished in his nine seasons has been matched by no other, which is why he’s the best. Jim Brown also only played nine seasons but what he accomplished in nine seasons, no other running back has matched: nine-time Pro Bowler, eight rushing titles, and never missed a game as well.

Dick Butkus left the NFL as the all-time leader in fumble recoveries, 30 INT again in nine seasons as a MLB, not a corner or safety. He once sacked the quarterback 20 times in a season, again as a MLB not as a DL, also in a 14-game season. But these are just stats. The way to judge Dick Butkus is the same way you need to judge Jim Brown. What did he bring to to the table and what did offenses have to do to stop him?

Another way to judge Dick Butkus is to look at the position he played. He played MLB, meaning that the offense always knew where he lined up and could always prepare for him. He was predictable in a sense; he wasn’t a rush end like a OLB/DE Hybrid who lined up in several different positions always looking for the best matchup like, let’s say, Lawrence Taylor or Derrick Thomas.

Offenses knew where he was and still couldn’t stop Butkus. Dick Butkus was the best ever at what he did, because he basically couldn’t be stopped. He played the last four seasons of his career on two bad knees, which is why he only played nine seasons, but he was still an eight-time Pro Bowler. Dick Butkus was the most feared and the best LB to ever live.

The Associated Press: President Obama- 'On Debt Deal: Let's Get It Done'

Source:Associated Press- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about debt negotiations with Congress.

"President Barack Obama has used a broadcast news conference to warn about the danger of defaulting on America's debt -- and with the deadline fast approaching, and to challenge lawmakers to cut a deal. (June 29)" 

From the Associated Press

"Let's get a deal done" as the President said on Wednesday sounds great, but they are only words unless he puts some actions behind them. The President could speed up this process a lot, if put some of his own ideas on the table and laid out his own vision for deficit reduction and a debt ceiling limit. Instead of leaving it up to the bipartisan negotiators and then stepping in when things slow down. 

Barack Obama is the first President I know who sees his job as essentially talking rather than leading. And what I mean by leading is actually putting ideas down on paper in legislation and then sending it to Congress. 

President W Bush whether you liked him or not as President, sent legislation up to Congress when he believed he needed to get something done. As far as what he sent up to Congress and what he was able to pass. Both of his tax cuts, the two wars, No Child Left Behind, etc. He had a pretty good legislative record as far as passing legislation. And President bush had two years of a divided Congress from 2001-03 and two years of a Democratic Congress from 2007-2009 and four years of a Republican Congress, but with very tight majorities in both Chambers. Where Senate Democrats could always block almost anything in the Senate. 

President Clinton had an excellent record of getting his priorities through Congress. The two trade deals, his deficit reduction plan, his crime bill, balanced budget agreement, Welfare To Work, Family and Medical Leave, etc. And President Clinton also had six years of a Republican Congress. 

President Obama had an excellent record of getting legislation passed through Congress his first two years in a Democratic Congress with large majorities in both chambers. But a lot of it was done in emergency form like the Recovery Act. Now that there's a divided congress, the House GOP at least has an agenda but we haven't heard much from Senate Democrats or the White House as far putting legislation on the table. 

For the President to be successful, he's going to need to put ideas on the table and offer legislation so the country knows where he is on these issues. And so where Republicans and Democrats know where he is on the issues. So both sides know where the other side is and then they can go from there and reach agreements on these issues by compromising.