Category Archives: Book TV

Washington Watch: BookTV Afterwords- Carlos Lozada Interviewing David Frum: Trumpocracy & The State of Western Democracy

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Maybe Trumpocracy is another way of talking about the new highly rated Washington reality TV show known as The White House, with Donald Trump. I say highly rated and not highly successful, because it’s not successful at least as far as far as how the American people think of it. Anytime 3-5 voters don’t like the politician that is supposed to represent them whatever the office is, that politician is not doing well. 3-5 Americans don’t like the job that President Trump is doing, don’t like him personally, and don’t trust him. He’s in Richard Nixon territory as far as how unpopular he is with the American people. But his new show and perhaps Amateur Night at The White House, would be a better name for President Trump’s latest reality TV show, is highly rated.

You can’t just look at Donald Trump by only looking at one aspect of him. You have to look at the narcissistic selfish gigantic sized personality. You have to look at his governing style, which he doesn’t seem to have at least from the outside looking in. You have to look at his policies. You have to look at his supporters which at this point are only little more than a third of the electorate, but were enough to at least get him the Republican nomination for President. And then you have to look to his appeasement of those voters. The salesmanship to be kind, the con game would be more accurate in how he appeals to blue-collar fundamentalist Christian voters especially in the Republican Party, but ins some cases in the upper Midwest the Democratic Party as well.

In 2016 we saw the John Birch Society/George Wallace/Ann Coulter/Pat Buchanan right-wing populist ethno-Tribalist-Nationalist presidential candidate, but with a personality, as well as great sense of humor and even likable at times in Donald Trump. And yes, Donald Trump is a very funny man ( even intentionally ) and even likable when he’s in small spaces and groups. This is a political faction in America that has been around since World War I at least in America that views conspiracy theories as real news like Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordering the assassination of President John Kennedy. And real news as fake and establishment news. Who don’t trust institutions especially non-partisan institutions like the CIA and FBI, simply because they can’t be controlled by partisans. And operate independently even from the President.

I view Donald Trump as wannabe dictator who picked the last country in the world to try to become a dictator in the United States of America. Sort of like a village idiot who tries to rob a bank with just a leaky water gun at 12 noon on a Monday and wonders what went wrong and how come people were just laughing at him instead of giving him their money.

President Trump knows he can’t shut down the private media because we have a guaranteed free press and his administration simply wouldn’t allow for him to even try that. So he calls them fake news at least when they report negative facts about him. Which is most of the time. He says his entire intelligence community is wrong when they say that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election. He accuses people that he personally appointed as being disloyal and part of the establishment when they don’t shut down the Russia investigation and even expand it when new facts and evidence come to light about the Trump Campaign’s involvement with Russia during the 2016 election. Because he’s smart enough to know he can’t control these investigations and what Congress does by himself. So he instead attempts to make them look corrupt. He’s a wannabe dictator in the wrong country and doesn’t like accountability and limited power.

In some ways Donald Trump is the worst nightmare and horror movie coming to real life and part of that is because he’s now the President of the United States. Literally the most powerful and most important country in the world, the greatest country in the world as far as how powerful and influential in the world. But part of why we’re so strong, powerful, and great, is because of our checks and balances, our accountability. Which was designed in case someone like Donald Trump ever became President. The reason why we’ve been able to avoid nationalist populist authoritarians from coming to power in America and why countries like Russia, Poland, Venezuela, haven’t, is because of our checks and balances. And is something that Donald Trump is learning the hard way.

Advertisements

Book TV: Afterwords- U.S. Senator Tom Daschle Interviewing Ira Shapiro: Broken

99e3ccbe-3ecd-48ab-8840-bb2488cabaf8

Source: Book TV– Ira Shapiro

Source: Book TV: Afterwords- U.S. Senator Tom Daschle Interviewing Ira Shapiro: Broken

Warning! This post is for all of you not just political junkies, but Congressional junkie. Which are people with a special type of mental disorder that is worst than simply just being a political junkie. But for people who watch at least one hour of C-SPAN a day and at least one Congressional hearing or part of a hearing each week. You’ll get no news about what rehab the latest hot celebrity is going to and for what for. Or what shoes that person wore when they stopped for coffee in Malibu.

In all seriousness or as serious as I’ll be for this post, the U.S. Senate is broken and needs to be reformed. So does the U.S. House of Representatives by the way ( the lower chamber of Congress ) and I’ll get into a little bit of that with this post as well. But this is really about the Senate ( the upper chamber of Congress ) because it’s so important as an institution because like the court system and the U.S. Justice Department, they’re the only institutions that can hold the President and Executive accountable regardless of which party is in the White House or what the makeup in Congress is both in the House and Senate. And when the Senate doesn’t operate properly because of either hyper-partisanship or one party in the Senate is simply too divided to act, the country suffers and has to live with the gridlock.

Why is Congress both the House and Senate broken? Part of that has to do with the addiction to absolute power that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party has. This consumption to not just control the White House and Congress, but to have such large majorities in both chambers that they wouldn’t have to work with the minority party, especially the minority leadership on anything. I don’t believe it’s so much the leadership’s in both parties that are driving the hyper-partisanship but the hyper-partisan fringe bases that literally see any type of compromise with the other party as treason and an offense that deserves a primary for that member of Congress or the leader, who decided to work with the other party even on need to pass legislation and when the margins in Congress are close.

Another part has to do with gerrymandering both from the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party as well. Not just in Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, where the Republican Party has successfully if not unconstitutionally gerrymandered all of the House districts in those states. But the Democratic Party has done this as well in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. It’s just that the Republican Party currently controls 34-50 statehouses with a solid majority of individual legislatures all over the country and has been more successful at this what I would I call at least an unconstitutional hyper-partisan policy.

Another contributor to this hyper-partisanship in America has to do with dark money. Where outside groups can give a Senator or Representative, financial contributions to their political campaigns without anyone else knowing about that. Not even their constituents would know where the members of Congress are getting their political money. As well as third-party hyper-partisan groups in both parties who run adds in a state or district  in an attempt to push the incumbent or candidate to vote a certain way when their issue is addressed in Congress. Or run ads to make a particular incumbent  or candidate look bad and to support their opponent without actually naming the candidate. And these groups don’t have to reveal how they’re funding their political operations and neither do members of Congress.

So what would I do about it? Well like any good responsible doctor ( and I’m not ) before they recommend a prescriptions for their patients physical issues, they first look to see what the problems are and then look to see what can be done about those issues. What I’m doing here is a political diagnosis of Congress, especially the Senate which traditionally has operated and been run through bipartisanship. Where the Minority Leader was almost as important and powerful as the Leader of the Senate.

There are several things that can be done to fix Congress. And trying to make the Senate look like House where the minority party is simply just there to vote against the majority party, like in the House for the most part, which seems to be the goals of current Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, or to try to make the House look like the Senate where you basically need a super majority to pass the most basic pieces of legislation except for reconciliation, wouldn’t work.

The House needs to continue to be the House, otherwise Congressional gridlock will just get even worst. But the House should be more like the Senate at least in this sense. Allow for the minority party under the leadership of the Minority Leader, to offer relevant amendments and alternatives to all legislation in the House. Both in committee and on the floor. The majority party would still not have to work with the minority party, but at least the minority would be able to debate, offer amendments and alternatives, and get votes on those proposals.

Reform if not eliminate the Senate filibuster. Right now even amendments to bills can be filibustered and blocked in the Senate. If you keep the filibuster, only limit it to the final passage of bills after debate and voting on amendments have been completed.

Allow the minority party under the leadership of the Minority Leader, to offer amendments to all bills that come to committee and make it to the floor for debate and consideration. Eliminate the filibuster, but replace it with a tabling motion that could only be made by the Leader and Minority Leader, that could only be offered at the end of debate on legislation. Which would take 60 votes to overrule the tabling motion. Which means the Senate along with the judiciary and the U.S. Justice Department, will continue to serve as checks on executive power regardless of which party is in power and if they have complete power with Control over Congress as well. But the Senate and House as well, would be able to get back to debating and legislating. Offering other ideas and alternatives as well.

Amendments and alternatives to bills, could no longer be filibustered or even tabled with this new set of Senate rules. But either floor manager ( the Chairman or Ranking Member of the committee ) could mark amendments that don’t have bipartisan co-sponsors as controversial. Amendments that are simply design to weaken or defeat bills. And the member with the controversial amendment could appeal to the chair and their amendment would then need 60 votes to pass, instead of 51. But they would still get their amendment voted on.

Eliminate gerrymandering of all U.S. House districts, as well as all state legislative districts in the country. Which will vote out the hyper-partisans on the Far-Right and Far-Left in America. Those people would be replaced by center-right Republicans and Center-Left Democrats. And these Representative’s would then have political incentive to work with members of the other party and even vote with them from time to time.

Pass a Federal complete disclosure act of all political contributions to all Federal campaigns. For all Federal incumbents and candidates, but all third-party groups would also have to disclose under Federal law how they’re paying for their political operations. Where they’re getting their money and have no loopholes in this disclosure act. American voters would then be able to see where their members of Congress, as well as their President, is getting their political money. When they see a third-party political ad on TV, they’ll see where that group is getting their money.

Don’t see commonsense bipartisan proposals and plans ever passing in Congress and don’t expect an approach to how Congress operates like this anytime soon. Not until the U.S. Supreme Court outlaws gerrymandering at least. Unless Americans voters make this an import issue and you start seeing rallies around the country calling for the end of hyper-partisanship in Congress. But if you want to fix Congress, especially the Senate, but the House as well, this would be an approach that could accomplish that.

The Film Archives: Book TV- U.S. Representative Bobby Rush Interviewing Catherine Wilkerson: The Legacy of The Weather Underground & The New Left Movement of The 1960s

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

From Wikipedia about The Weather Underground.

“The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American militant radical left-wing organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party to overthrow the U.S. Government.[3]

“With revolutionary positions characterized by black power and opposition to the Vietnam War,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s and took part in actions such as the jailbreak of Dr. Timothy Leary. The “Days of Rage”, their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, under the name “Weather Underground Organization”.[4]

The bombing campaign targeted mostly government buildings, along with several banks. The group stated that the United States government had been exploiting other nations by waging war as a means of solidifying America as a greater nation. Most were preceded by evacuation warnings, along with communiqués identifying the particular matter that the attack was intended to protest. No people were killed in any of their acts of property destruction, although three members of the group were killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion.

For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a communiqué saying that it was “in protest of the U.S. invasion of Laos”. For the bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated that it was “in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi”. For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the United States Department of State building, they stated that it was “in response to the escalation in Vietnam”.[4]

The Weathermen grew out of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) faction of SDS. It took its name from Bob Dylan’s lyric, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”, from the song “Subterranean Homesick Blues” (1965). “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows” was the title of a position paper that they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a “white fighting force” to be allied with the “Black Liberation Movement” and other radical movements[5] to achieve “the destruction of U.S. imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism”.[6]

The Weathermen began to disintegrate after the United States reached a peace accord in Vietnam in 1973,[7] after which the New Left declined in influence. By 1977, the organization was defunct.”

I think a good way to look at The Weathermen would be look to Fidel Castro’s revolutionary movement in Cuba in the late 1950s. Except that the Castro Marxist-Communists in Cuba were looking to overthrow a dictatorial authoritarian regime there. But then what happened there is that they replace one dictatorial regime with another and turned Cuba into Marxist-Communist state which it still is today 60 years later. The Weathermen were looking to overthrow a liberal democratic government and society in America and replace it with a socialist society. Where things like racism, materialism, individualism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, masculinity, would be eliminated or those would be the goals of this group.

The 1960s is not just a fascinating time but a revolutionary time in America. The 1950s and 1960s are only one decade apart and the people who came of age in both decades are only a generation apart, but the two decades have almost nothing in common with each other and looked completely different culturally and politically. The difference between America and Russia, or North Korea and South Korea. Two very different looking and completely different societies. The 1950s was the Christian-Right’s utopia where men worked and paid the bills. Women stayed home and raised their kids. Gays were buried in the closet culturally and perhaps you would need a rocket launcher back then to break the door down to let them out. African-Americans as well as other racial and ethnic minorities were treated like second-class citizens compared with European-Americans. Especially Anglo-Saxon men.

But thanks to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement African-Americans woke up and said they want their rights and would march for them and even give up their health and lives to get them. And had help from Caucasians who agreed with them and thought treating people as second-class citizens simply because of their race was evil. The Dr. King movement was the start of three left-wing movement’s in America. The King movement was a social-democratic movement.

The Baby Boomers start to come of age in the 1960s and start the Hippie movement ( the real Liberals back then ) because the 1950s lifestyle that they were part of as kids wasn’t good enough for them. They wanted the freedom to be themselves and be Americans which is what being an American is about which is the freedom for people to be themselves.

But then you have this radical socialist movement in America ( not to be insulting ) that believed the social-democratic movement of the 1960s led by Dr. King and others wasn’t good enough and didn’t go far enough. Dr. King and Social Democrats of the 1960s, weren’t looking to overthrow the American Federal Republic and our liberal democratic system, but instead improve on it and establish an economic system that benefited more Americans so more Americans could benefit from our capitalist system.

What The Weather Underground and other New-Left socialist groups were looking to do was to overthrow the U.S. Government literally and create a socialist state in America. Some of these people might have been Democratic Socialists, but a lot of them were Communists like The Black Panthers and other groups who literally looking for revolution in America.

The 1960s and 1970s was a very violent time in America. We were going though terrorist bombings every week in the early and mid 1970s. Wealthy people were being kidnapped by Far-Left terrorists to get their money and then give it to poor people. Not everyone on the Left are pacifists. Only Social Democrats and some Democratic Socialists are. Communists are not obviously and believe violence even if they don’t like it can be an effective and justifiable tool to accomplish their political objectives. And that is what The Weather Underground was which was a socialist militant political organization in America.

The Film Archives: Book TV- U.S. Representative Bobby Rush Interviewing Catherine Wilkerson: Legacy of The Weather Underground and New Left of The 1960s

Remember This: Cary Reich- Nelson Rockefeller: Biography, Accomplishments, Education & Legacy

Source: Remember This: Cary Reich- Nelson Rockefeller: Biography, Accomplishments, Education & Legacy

To undertand Nelson Rockefeller I think you have to understand the Republican Party of the 1950s, 1960s, and even the 1970s. Gerald Ford was a traditional Conservative Republican, but in the real sense and not with the Christian-Right and other Far-Right factions in America. But Richard Nixon I believe you could at least argue was a Progressive Republican and he was President in the 1970s. After Gerald Ford leaves the presidency in January, 1977 is where the you see the Republican Party really start to change. You have the Conservative-Libertarian faction that Ronald Reagan and Senator Barry Goldwater were part of. But you also have the emergence of the Christian-Right come into the GOP. With the Progressive faction that Nelson Rockefeller was part of start to move out of the party and into the Democratic Party.

Before the Democratic Party and Republican Party, become more ideologically unified in the late 1970s with the GOP now being dominated by Conservative-Libertarians and the Christian-Right, as well as Moderate Conservatives, and the Democratic Party being dominated by Liberals in the classical sense, Progressives in the classical sense, and even Socialists in the real sense, as well as Southern moderates, the Republican Party had a real-life Progressive faction in it that Nelson Rockefeller was  big part of and perhaps the leader of it.

Progressive Republicans who were anti-Communist cold warriors, who believed in a strong national defense, strong but responsible law enforcement, limiting deficit and debt spending and even balanced budgets in good economic times, free trade. But people who believed in strong but responsible regulation of the economy like environmental, consumer, and worker protections, infrastructure investment, public education, and even raising taxes on people who could afford it to pay for government investments in the economy. These Republicans weren’t Conservatives, Liberals, or Moderates, but Progressives who believed in progress through government action. And as a Progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller was Governor of New York from 1959-74 became he became Vice President of the United States. And ran for President three times as well.

The Film Archives: Joe Nocera & Diana Henriques- The Worst Day in Wall Street History: The Stock Market Crash of 1987

Attachment-1-1768

Source: The Film Archives– Actor Michael Douglas 

Source: The Film Archives: Joe Nocera & Diana Henriques- The Worst Day in Wall Street History: The Stock Market Crash of 1987

Similar to what happened with the Stock Market last Friday and this Monday, is that we had a major downturn of the market or in 1987’s case a crash when the basic fundamentals of the economy were strong. Not counting the high budget deficit and national debt. But with solid economic and job growth, low unemployment, and even seeing wages ramong middle class Americans going up. Before the 1929 Wall Street crash the economy was fairly strong as well and then the crash happened and shortly after that we’re not only in a recession but the Greatest Depression and the economy hasn’t been worst since even with the Great Recession.

I believe as an non-economist that 1987 is where we see the negative consequences of what’s called Reaganomics. The theory being that you can cut taxes deeply and increase government spending dramatically and that somehow the new economic growth will pay for those new priorities. But the opposite actually happened. When President Ronald Reagan comes to office in 1981 he inherited a budget deficit of about 40 billion dollars, which even in the early 1980s was a fairly small deficit. By the time President Reagan leaves office in 1989, we had a budget deficit of around 2 hundred-billion-dollars, which in the late 1980s was a large budget deficit. Today that would be over 400 billion dollars. The economy bounces back in 1988, but struggles in 1989 and we’re in a recession by 1990 that lasted about two years and costing President George H.W. Bush reelection.

If you look at recession of 1990-91, you had high interest rates, combined with inflation, with the high budget deficit contributing to the high interest rates. Because you had the Federal Government competing with the private sector to borrow money just to pay for it’s government operations. America is now due for another recession simply because we’ve been growing as an economy coming up on nine straight years now and have growing since the Great Recession broke in the summer of 2009. The longest economic expansion at least in modern history. Rarely do you see a decade pass in America without at least one recession even if that recession is mild.

Assuming the Trump Administration continues to borrow money in huge chunks, if inflation and interest rates were come onto the scene again especially with the Federal Reserve feeling the need to raise interest rates to combat inflation because of higher consumer spending because of wages being increased, we may be in another situation like we were in the early 1990s. A recession to go with high budget deficits and a national debt. That will have to be addressed with major coming for people to prevent the economy from getting even worst.

 

 

C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- A. Scott Berg: Woodrow Wilson

Attachment-1-1750

Source: C-SPAN

Source: C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- A. Scott Berg: Woodrow Wilson

I agree with Scott Berg as far as how consequential President Woodrow Wilson was. “We must create a world safe for democracy”, is the most famous and important quote of the Wilson Presidency. That is the foreign policy in one way or another that America has used and been a part of since his presidency, except for again perhaps Donald Trump who is more of a Nationalist and not so much interested in working with our allies when it comes to foreign policy. And when America does act in foreign affairs and national security, President Trump and his Administration tends to do it alone.

Almost every President since Woodrow Wilson has had their own version of this liberal internationalist policy that is about promoting, protecting, and defending, democracy around the world.

President Franklin Roosevelt and then later President Harry Truman, were our strongest liberal internationalist hawks. World War II being the perfect example of that where America conquered Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and knocked out those authoritarian regimes that were replaced with democratic government’s and democratic constitution’s.

President Dwight Eisenhower was perhaps our most cautious liberal internationalist President and believed in limited usage of our military power. And understood the importance of having a strong military like our other President’s, but understood perhaps the limits of American power and that we couldn’t do everything ourselves as a military power. Probably the most anti-Neoconservative President that we’ve had.

John F. Kennedy perhaps being the strongest anti-Communist President that we’ve had and strongest cold warrior that we’ve had as President as a liberal internationalist.

President Lyndon Johnson tried to literally wipeout communism in all of Vietnam and using almost exclusively American power to do that.

President Richard Nixon was  a strong anti-Communist himself but was the great negotiator and believed the best way to defeat communism and authoritarianism in general, was to open authoritarian regimes up to Western culture and freedom.

President Jimmy Carter was a strong liberal internationalist and anti-Communist himself as President, as well as a World War II Naval veteran, believed that communism wasn’t the only threat to freedom and human rights. And gave his best speech as President in 1977 about the importance and need for human rights and freedom and that communism wasn’t the only opponent of those things.

President Ronald Reagan, believed that America should no longer try to live with the Cold War, but win it by ending it. President Reagan, obviously didn’t win the Cold War and defeat the Soviet Union by himself with all the President’s I just mentioned going back to Harry Truman, all having a major role there. But President Reagan hated communism so much and the system that Russia had that it had to be defeated and eliminated and replaced with a more responsible governmental system.

President George H.W. Bush, saw a world post-Cold War where America would be able to trade and work with all of our new European allies and even ben able to work with Russia to keep the peace in Europe and protect democracy there, but also protect and defend democracy in other parts of the world. Like in Asia and Africa. The 1991 Gulf War wasn’t America against Iraq, but America, Europe, and even Arabian countries, against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

It took President Bill Clinton at least two years to develop his own foreign policy as President, but the Balkans in Southern Europe and the wars going on there is where you finally see the Bill Clinton Doctrine as President. That America wouldn’t stand by and watch authoritarian regimes try to wipeout ethnic groups and ethnic minorities in their own countries. And because of this foreign policy the Communist ethno-Seriban State of Yugoslavia, is no longer in existence. And we now see democratic peaceful countries in the Balkans. And President Clinton worked with Europe and this was a American/European campaign against Yugoslavia. First during the Bosnian/Serbian conflict in Yugoslavia and then later in Albanian Kosovo.

President George W. Bush is where you see a break from America’s liberal internationalist foreign policy doctrine. He was a Neoconservative as President with the 9/11 attacks being the ignitor to this new right-wing authoritarian unilateral foreign and national security policy. The 2003 Iraq War as basically America and Britain, against Iraq because America didn’t like Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Saddam was brutal to his people as President of Iraq, but never before had we eliminated another dictatorial regime simply because we didn’t like them.

President Barack Obama, gets I believe most of his best marks as President in foreign affairs especially in his first term. You can say what you want about Libya today but America and Europe working together, with both France and Italy, having major roles there, stepped in to that civil war and crude the Quadafi Regime in Libya. Not just because we didn’t like the regime there but because the Libyan Military was about to crush 100,000 people in Benghazi and we not stepped in the Libyan Military would have massacred 100,000 of their own people simply to protect the Quadafi Regime.

Woodrow Wilson was obviously a flawed President and was a racist as President who believed that European-Americans were superior to African-Americans, simply because of their race. And was a s supporter of the Jim Crow segregationist laws of the South and these are horrible aspects of the Woodrow Wilson Administration. But you’ll have a real hard time finding a President who had more of  an impact on America as they relate both to our economy with the Federal Reserve, the progressive income tax, and and support for workers rights, as well as foreign policy and national security, than President Woodrow Wilson. I don’t believe we become the world superpower without President Wilson, at least not as soon as we did without him. And he deserves a lot of credit for these policies.

 

The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- August Hecksher: Woodrow Wilson- Biography, Background, Education & Politics

Source: The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- August Hecksher: Woodrow Wilson- Biography, Family Background, Education & Politics

As I mentioned last week, I have mixed feelings about Woodrow Wilson and his politics. Because on one side he’s basically the father of liberal internationalism and was our first liberal internationalist as President. This foreign policy that is about liberal democracy, defending liberal democracy, supporting liberal democracy around the world, and working with our allies to defend liberal democracy and promote liberal democracy. To defend liberal democracy against communism and other authoritarian philosophies around the world. This has been the dominate foreign policy of the Democratic Party going from President Wilson, all the way up to President Barack Obama.

But while President Wilson believed in liberal internationalism and defending liberal democracy around the world which was a reason why he got America involved in World War I, he supported and promoted authoritarianism at home. He is one of the father’s and architects of our Jim Crow laws that segregated the races in schools and other forms forms of access to American life like housing and backing to use as other examples. Which was always a big weapon and tool that authoritarian states like Russia and others used during the Cold War, used against America. Saying that while we attack their authoritarianism in their countries, we promote a different type of authoritarianism in our own country. By denying African-Americans access to American life simply because of their race.

So on one side you have a brilliant President when it comes to foreign policy and national security, similar to Richard Nixon or George H.W. Bush, but without as many national security qualifications as President Nixon or President Bush, But on the other side you have a President who believes Americans should be separated simply because of their race and that African-Americans are inferior to European-Americans, simply because of their race and complexion. You combine Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, with Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights policy, with Bill Clinton’s economic policy, and you might have the perfect President politically. Because those three President’s were so successful in their one area. Without President Wilson’s lack of support for civil and equal rights, I believe we’re definitely talking about a great President instead of a mediocre President.