Democratic Socialists USA: Myths About Democratic Socialism

DSA

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Democratic Socialists USA: Myths About Democratic Socialism

With this piece, I’m going to layout as someone who is not a Socialist in any form, even in what I at least would view as the best form of a Socialist which are Socialist Liberals, what socialism is and what it isn’t. And again if you’re familiar with my blogging I’m more interested in the social democratic form of it, not the Marxist-Communist state-control form. I’m going to do this, because people who are Socialists, don’t own the label of their own politics. And prefer Progressive, or in Bill Press’s case Liberal. And all Socialists tend to get lumped in with Marxists. Which is something different.

Democratic socialism, is not about complete state-control. Sweden, is a successful social democracy with a very large welfare state and we can argue why they’re successful and why their system wouldn’t work here. But they have a large private economy with property rights and take home pay and a lot of other economic freedoms that every other developed Western country has. The world is really down to one Marxist state as far as state-control of both the economy, as well as social policy and politics and that of course being North Korea.

Democratic Socialists, aren’t Liberal Democrats. This is where I’m in complete agreement with DSA. Liberal democracy, is based on a guarantee of individual rights. Free speech, equal justice and equality under law, privacy, freedom of choice, personal responsibility even, rule of law, a national defense that defends the country, property rights, limited government, etc. As well as a safety net for people who truly need it, quality education for everyone and modern infrastructure. Liberal democracy, is truly about the individual. With a limited government there to protect everyone’s freedom equally.

Democratic socialism, is about welfare rights. Having a government big enough to make sure no one has to go without the basic necessities that everyone must have to live well in society. Health insurance, health care, education, pension, childcare, etc. And having a big centralized government with a lot of the power and responsibility in the country. Instead of the federal system where you have layers of government that each have real responsibility over their own affairs. Democratic socialism, is not just very government-centric, but big government-centric. And sees an entire country as one community. Instead of individuals living their own lives.

Democratic socialism, is not just an economic policy, but a political ideology. They have their own foreign and national security policy, as well as criminal justice policy. Which tends to be a lot more dovish at least compared with Liberals, Conservatives and even Libertarians. At least with criminal justice policy. But this is where even Democratic Socialists are somewhat diverse. Because you have Socialist Liberals, that sound like Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, even with free speech and personal choice. But are Democratic Socialists on economic policy. And you have the paternalists, who aren’t crazy about either economic, or personal freedom. Especially freedom of choice and free speech that can be offensive. And want government to regulate and prohibit.

If you look at the left side of the political spectrum, you have Liberals, or Social Liberals, who are Center-Left. Lets say FDR Progressives, who are more left, but still in the political mainstream in America. But move further left and you get to the New-Left, or even Far-Left with Democratic Socialists and even further left with Marxist-Communists. These are all different political factions and on the left, but they aren’t all the same political animal with four different political labels. They are separate political factions with things in common, but are very different ideologically.

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Louder With Crowder: Steven Crowder: ‘Myth Busted- Adolph Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal’: Give Me a Break!

Adolph Hitler

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Louder With Crowder: Steven Crowder: ‘Myth Busted- Adolph Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal’: Give Me a Break!

I hope Steven Crowder isn’t a professor of political history, or German history. Because his students would leave his class knowing less than what they knew going in. Crowder, knows less about Socialist Liberals and socialist liberalism, than Ben Carson knows about foreign policy and Donald Trump, knows about national security and Norwegians know NASCAR and Texas rodeos combined. Adolph Hitler, wasn’t just a Socialist, but a Marxist. Nothing liberal, or democratic about the man. Socialist Liberals, believe in democracy and personal freedom, with a big welfare state when it comes to economic policy, but not a Marxist command and control government-run economy. This idea Crowder throws out that Hitler was an inspiration for the KKK and other Southern Anglo-Saxon racist Democrats, again not Liberal Democrats. But right-wing Democrats who are and would be Far-Right Republicans today.

Hyper-partisan Tea Party Republicans, seem to believe that the only way they can look good is if Democrats and people they see as Liberals look bad. So they don’t talk about communism and socialism anymore, but instead one big mother ideology that they call liberalism. That they probably made up when they were getting high in their pickup trucks in South Carolina, or some place. They may officially be against marijuana and legalization, except for themselves. But of course they always leave out actual liberal ideas and values that most of the country including Conservatives actually support. Equal rights, equality under law, tolerance, judging people individually and not as members of groups, personal freedom, economic opportunity for everyone, public infrastructure and education, etc.

Adolph Hitler, was monster who didn’t believe in liberal values and conservative values either. Who just didn’t hate Jews, but Slavs, Gypsies and I’m sure Africans as well. Not that Europe had much of an African population back then. This idea that any of these hateful policies would be liberal, when he was completely against the actual liberal values I mentioned in the last paragraph, would be like saying the Saudi Kingdom is run by Conservatives. Because they have a state religion and are not just fundamentalist, but have a state religion and treat women as second-class citizens, as well as ethnic minorities in Saudi Arabia. When the fact is Conservatives not only believe in a republic, but Separation of Church and State, as well as Freedom of Religion. Which all includes all religions. The Tea Party, just sounds like hyper-partisan desperate liars, when they need to compare Liberals with a evil man like Adolph Hitler.

If you want to call Adolph Hitler a Liberal, don’t wine when someone on the Left who might be as stupid as you and perhaps you could settle that in a debate, compares Ronald Reagan with a Saudi, or Iranian theocrat. Because Ron Reagan was pretty religious, at least after he bombed in Hollywood as a b actor and got into politics instead. Which many times actually has less truth in it than Hollywood. If you’re going to describe someone’s politics, here’s an idea. Know what their politics first and then be able to explain them. Instead of comparing saying everyone on the Left is a Liberal, or everyone on the Right is a Conservative. I realize that could cost you ratings and subscriptions from people who were passed up when brains were being passed out. But at least you could be educating people instead of contributing to the state of ignorance in America.

Posted in Political Satire | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fusion: Daniel Rivero- An O.J. Simpson Trial Refresher For 90s Kids: A Look Back at The Trial of The 20th Century

O.J. Simpson

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review on WordPress: Fusion: Daniel Rivero- An O.J. Simpson Trial Refresher For 90s Kids: A Look Back at The Trial of The 20th Century

Just to give you a little background of myself, I was eighteen in June, 1994 and about a week out of high school after graduation vacationing with my parents in Delaware. So I guess technically I didn’t count as a kid then, because I was one of the youngest adults from Generation X. Actually, more than twenty-years later I still am. Which makes me feel a little younger now than I’m in my forties. My point being that I remember this case very well, because again as a young adult and having my first real job out of high school and actually interested in the 1994 NBA Finals that was interrupted by this bizarre case.

The O.J. Simpson case represents everything that is wrong with celebrity culture, celebrity news and the country’s obsession with it. We have Americans literally who can’t go to bed until every single text message that they have is responded to and call is returned. Or have checked every single celebrity news story online generally on their phone and have watched all of their so-called reality TV shows. The O.J. Simpson, was the start of the reality TV and celebrity news watch in this country. Where you would have networks dedicated to this, well stuff. (To keep it clean) NBC, breaks into NBC Sports that was covering the NBA Finals in 1994. Arguably the biggest event in sports that year. With NBC News, not to cover even a plane crash, or some terrorist explosion, but a car chase that happened to have a celebrity in it that was suspected of murder. We didn’t have that type of national coverage before 1994.

We had a twenty-four cable news network that dedicated all of their coverage each day during this trial not to coverage of the 1994 mid-term elections that saw House Republicans win the majority for the first time since 1952, or how would Democratic President Bill Clinton work with this new Republican Congress that controlled the House and Senate, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or what was going on in the Balkans with Europe and America, about to get involved there, but again this bizarre celebrity crime trial. That looked more like a Hollywood crime movie than a real-life murder trial. Pre-1994, CNN actually stood for Cable News Network. Before it was changed to the Celebrity News Network. (Ha, ha)

Of course we’ve always had celebrity news and celebrity news coverage and even tabloid news and I’m a big movie fan myself especially classic movies and like bios of my entertainers. But pre-1994 average Americans had lives outside of their celebrity news world and reality TV. They wouldn’t run to the nearest TV and to find out how juries ruled on cases, or skip work to follow murder cases. The O.J. Simpson case, must have been a boom for the brand new internet, that had only been around for a couple of years at this point and started becoming big and more universal in 1994 and the same with cell phones. All because one of the most famous sports/movie celebrities was on trial for murder.

And by the way we’re talking about a very interesting case here and I’m not denying that and denying that it should have been covered. But that is what Court-TV was for and what E is for and perhaps A&E and other entertainment networks. My point is that when you have hard news organizations like CNN and NBC News, dedicating all of their coverage essentially, or at least marathon sessions of it, you’re saying that important news is not real news is not as important, because it doesn’t help the bottom line as much, or that Americans are pretty stupid and have nothing better to do with their lives. Which is too many cases is very true. That news organizations are not so much reporting important hard news, but reporting on things that drives their ratings.

The O.J. Simpson trial, was a gift to Hollywood. They couldn’t have come up with a better soap opera or mini series on their best marijuana high, than what they got from O.J. Simpson, his star power, the people he was involved with and of course how he butchered two innocent people in the prime of their lives and then got away with it. At least in the short-term. Life has been hell for him as it should almost every moment since. But that is what you entertainment networks for to cover these stories. That is what cable TV, but not cable news is for. To cover cases that Americans who have too much time on their hands and not enough going on in their lives, who have the time to follow these stores will watch. And leave hard news organizations for covering real news.

Posted in True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GataBella: Ava Gardner’s Private Moments

Ava Gardner

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: GataBella: Ava Gardner’s Private Moments

I think what I love and respect most about Ava Gardner is not her beauty, (not many prettier) not her adorableness, (not many women cuter) not her sex appeal even though she was this gorgeous baby-faced brunette with a sweet body and great personality and sense of humor. What I love about her the most was her realness. The women you saw on stage and in her movies is the women you saw off camera. The people who worked for her and gave her roles knew her so well and set her up so beautifully.

It was like she was never acting in her movies, because she was so natural in the roles that she played. She always said that the only thing that she wanted was to be happy. Those are the characters that she played. She had the reputation of a somewhat immature wild child who went too far and had too much fun and then would pout when she wasn’t happy. You see her first seen in the movie Earthquake that she did with Charlton Heston and they have an argument and she’s in early fifties at this point and still very beautiful and adorable and she runs to the bathroom almost like a little girl and takes a lot of pills. Heston, her husband in the movie finds her and saves her.

She was always playing a bit of a wild child who loved to have a great time and took it too far. Because as she would tell you life to her was about being alive and living and not just being around. And enjoying life and being happy as much as you can. She died at 68, but she lived her life her way (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra) and was Ava Gardner her entire life. This gorgeous baby-faced adorable brunette with the personality and sense of humor to match. And I believe this is all part of why she’s so likable then and still so popular now. Because she was this goddess who was so sweet, charming and funny, but so real and you always knew who she was and what she wanted. Not a lot of mystery with Ava Gardner.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Notes On Liberty: Edwin Van de Haar- Liberalism and Sovereignty 

Liberalism

Source: Notes on Liberty: Edwin Van de Haar- Liberalism and Sovereignty

Here’s another interesting piece and discussion from Notes on Liberty. And something The New Democrat debates all the time in the Classical Liberalism group on Google Plus. If you’re on Google Plus which we are and are interested in classical liberalism, I suggest you check that group out. Just look for the photo of the great Classical Liberal Milton Friedman.

Because when you’re talking about liberalism, what are you talking about exactly. Are actually talking about liberalism, or are you talking about libertarianism, or socialism, or Marxism. Because these are all different philosophies. Or are you talking about socialist liberalism, which combines social liberalism with a heavy belief in personal freedom. But with economic socialism and a huge welfare state that is financed through heavy taxation.

I and this blog fall into the Social Liberal camp. A heavy belief in both personal and economic autonomy, but with a limited government there to not only protect our individual rights and freedom, but to help people in need help themselves so they can to also live in freedom. So we separate from the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist, or Socialist Liberal camp, but also separate from the Ron Paul Libertarian camp. Where government is there just to protect the borders, defend the homeland and prosecute criminals when they hurt innocent people.

Social Liberals, share things in common with Libertarians. Because both factions believe in a lot of personal freedom short of hurting innocent people, but also holding people personally accountable for their own decisions. And we both believe in a lot of economic freedom. With low taxation to encourage economic investment and success. But we apply the don’t treat on me belief to both social and economic policy. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone from either a personal and economic standpoint, your business is just that. Social Liberals believe in a regulatory state not to run business’s, but to protect consumers and workers. And that is where we separate from Libertarians.

And I could get into people who are called Modern Progressives, who believe in both the welfare state and the nanny state, but now also have a speech state. That says government should decide what speech is appropriate and what isn’t. The so-called political correctness warriors. So-called Progressives that believe its the job of government not to expand freedom, but to be the national parents of the country and even protect us from ourselves. But this philosophy has nothing to do with liberalism and looks more like Neo-Communism, or Marxism, with a capitalist economic system and political freedom. When you’re talking about individual freedom it really gets to social liberalism, libertarianism, what is called conservative libertarianism and to a certain extent even socialist liberalism.

Posted in Classical Liberalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gil Troy: Moynihan’s Moment- Daniel P. Moynihan’s Fight Against Zionism is Racism

DPH

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Gil Troy: Moynihan’s Moment- Daniel P. Moynihan’s Fight Against Zionism is Racism

I’ve never understood the New-Left’s hatred of Israel and perhaps the Jewish community in America in general. Socialists are supposed to be for the underdog and looking after their well-being and even using government to do that. Who is the biggest underdog at least in the Middle East if not the world? It would be Jews of course. An ethnic group that has at most ten-million members in and outside of Israel in the Mideast, in a region of three-hundred and fifty-million people, give or take. Israel, is literally surrounded by enemies once you get past Western Europe and into the Mideast.

And other than Egypt and Jordan they all hate Israel and would like to see the Jewish State be destroyed. Yet according to the Far-Left Marxist dictators are really cool and simply misunderstood hipsters who deserve our compassion. Even if they’ve murdered millions of people. And according to the New-Left and Libertarian-Right, the Jews represent the real evil in the world. Even though they’ve been murdered by Marxists. And gays, Gypsies and other ethnic minorities in these Slavic countries have been murdered by Marxists regimes as well.

When the New-Left in America and the Libertarian-Right, go against Jewish-Americans and Israel, they’re on the same team as Marxists, Baathists, Islamists and other authoritarians in the world. Who hate Jews, because they’re Jewish and believe that Jews aren’t entitled to their own homeland, if not lives in the world. They’re in the same camp as the German Nazis who murdered millions of Jews in World War II and German Nazis who’ve murdered Jews and African-Americans in America. And the same thing as the KKK.

That is who the New-Left and Libertarian-Right are in bed with when it comes to their hatred towards Jews and Israel. If you want to support underdogs, sure! Palestine is a good place to start, because they’re outnumbered, out-gunned and out-classed by the Israelis. And Palestinians by in large are good people. But how about Israel which is a developed country and democracy that is surrounded by people who hate them. That is what the Jews have faced in Europe, America and even their homeland in Israel and yet they’re still her and doing well against horrible odds.

That is what Pat Moynihan stood up against at the United Nations. And organization that in the 1970s was in the third world Marxist dictator camp. Who saw Jews as the real racists in the world and stood up for every Far-Left rebellion that was trying to overthrow liberal democratic government’s and establish their Marxism in their country. Instead of standing up for real freedom fighters who were actually fighting for their own freedom along with their own survival. The Jewish State of Israel, has been in a seventy-year struggle for their own survival. Against hundreds of millions of Arabs who hate them and don’t believe they have a right to even exist.

If you want to fight for underdogs, how about first fighting for underdogs! I know, crazy concept, but if you say you’re in favor of something you can at least understand what that is and what that means and then stand by it. But also fight for the good underdogs. People who fight for freedom and against racism. Not people who fight for Islamism, Marxism, or any other authoritarian philosophy. Whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. Stand up for freedom fighters who fight for freedom and stand for equality and equal rights. Not fascists who want to force their own warped ideology on an entire country.

Posted in Book TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New York Times: Room For Debate: Andrew P. Kelly- The Problem Is That Free College Isn’t Free

Free College

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The New York Times: Room For Debate: Andrew P. Kelly- The Problem Is That Free College Isn’t Free

I believe the main problem with many of these political debates has to do with language and how things are described. Whether it’s called free health care, free health insurance, free education, free college, free anything else that could be viewed as a positive thing that people should at least want to have. When the fact is none of these things are free for everyone if they’re provided by government. Because who funds government? Of course the taxpayers and anyone who pays taxes. You even now have Democratic Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders saying tuition-free college when he talks about his college plan. Because he knows he’ll have to have new taxes in order to pay for his so-called free college plan.

Just replace the word free with affordable and apply affordable to every new service that you want government to provide for people and now you’ll be telling the truth when speaking to voters. Instead of giving voters impressions that you would be giving them all of this free government stuff, you’ll be treating them like adults and taxpayers. You tell them that you have a better deal for them with deal being the key word, because better of course would be debatable, because it would depend on the plan. And then tell them how you would pay for whatever you want to provide for them. Democratic Socialists like Bernie, Jill Stein and whoever else, would earn credibility with Joe and Jane Average taxpayer who are already paying a lot in taxes who know the government services that they’re currently receiving aren’t free.

So of course Bernie Sanders so-called tuition-free college funding plan, sure as hell won’t be free. At least not for anyone who pays taxes including payroll taxes. Bernie will say he’ll tax corporations and rich people to pay for his plan. But then those business’s will raise the costs of their customers, because they don’t want to see their cost of business to go up. Rich individuals will take their business and investments somewhere else where taxes aren’t as high. And Bernie might come back with passing some new law that outlaws business’s from raising their prices to cover their tuition-free college costs. But again those business’s will just take their business somewhere else where their cost of business isn’t as high. Every service anywhere that comes with a cost in creating that service also comes with a cost in providing that service to their customers. Why would government be any different?

Posted in Role of Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment