Tag Archives: Brian Lamb

The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I like and respect Camille Paglia a lot, at least when I’m quick enough to understand what she’s saying, or at the very least catch every word that she says. She talks the way kitty cats run and Nascar cars race. You can write a book with her mouth in a few minutes. But when I am able to follow along she makes a lot of sense. Her politics at least up to ten years ago would put on the liberal-libertarian or classical liberal wing of the American political spectrum. ( The real Liberals )

She calls herself a feminist but I would put her on the classical side of that as well. That women shouldn’t be discriminated against based on gender, but that women shouldn’t be rewarded based on their gender. Unlike a lot of these so-called radical feminists today on the New-Left ( or Far-Left ) who think America should just be made up of women and gay men and that masculinity ( unless it comes from women ) is somehow a bad thing. That straight men at least Caucasian straight men, are inherently bad people and that straight men are ruining America.

Camille’s politics when it comes to liberalism and feminism, seems to be about choice. That women should be able to make their own choices in life and be able to think for themselves. That if they want to work, than that should be their choice. But if they decide to stay home and raise their kids which is also a job and a paying job at that, then that is what should be able to do. That women should be able to think for themselves and not be feel the need to look down at straight men and see them as evil. But if they want to believe that straight men are bad, then that would be their choice as a radical feminist.

That women shouldn’t be forced to be big government Socialists, who believe big centralized government has all the answers in life. Or they can be Conservative-Libertarians who don’t believe big government has many if any answers at all to solving problems in society. But that they should be able to think for themselves without radical feminists viewing them as sellouts to the feminist cause or a traitors who are in the laps and beds of straight men.

If there was a free market for women, it would’ve been created by the Camille Paglia liberal wing of feminism. That there should be choice across the board and not just when it comes to abortion and sexuality but in life in general. When and if they work, sexuality in general, how they should think, what their politics should be. Instead of being told by radical feminists and the Socialist-Left or the Christian-Right on what it means to be a real woman in America and how all women should be forced to live.

The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education & Women in Politics- In 1997

Advertisements

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.

The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- James Chace: The Election That Changed The Country- How 1912 Was a Defining Moment in American History

Attachment-1-1692

Source: The Film Archives– Theodore Roosevelt 

Source: The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Jame Chace: The Election That Changed The Country- How 1912 Was a Defining Moment in American History

The 1912 presidential election was very interesting for many reasons in American politics. More than a hundred years later in a country that is now around 320 million people and yet 1912 was one of our last presidential elections with three major politic parties with the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and then Progressive Party, but also with three major presidential candidates. With none of the three candidates getting anywhere near 50% of the popular vote. This was truly a mule-party presidential election.

1912 was also an election where Woodrow Wilson from the Democratic Party, was the centrist candidate. Even though he is basically the father of liberal internationalism and the foreign policy that was about liberal democracy and defending liberal democracy and fighting authoritarianism around the world. And had a progressive economic policy as far as regulating the economy and a belief in a public safety net. But President William H. Taft was a Conservative Republican and Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive and in some cases ran as a Social Democrat in 1912 when he ran for President for the last time. So Americans voters had a real choice for President in 1912 and didn’t have to vote for the candidate they disliked the least, but instead had a real choice for President.

Back in the early 20th Century the Republican Party was a conservative party, but with a Progressive Republican wing in it. That Teddy Roosevelt was the leader of and when he didn’t win the 1912 presidential election and believed the nomination was stolen from his by President William Taft, he decided to create and build his own progressive party. He had the name and the ability to get the resources to do that and mange to run a credible third-party presidential campaign in 1912 because of these factors. And even though he lost to the eventual winner Democratic Woodrow Wilson, he beat the President of the United States Republican William Taft.

 

 

 

Andrew Kaczynski: Brian Lamb Interviewing Newt Gingrich in 1999- Theodore Roosevelt-Robert La Follete Tradition

Source: Andrew Kaczynski: Brian Lamb Interviewing Newt Gingrich- Theodore Roosevelt-Robert La Follette Tradition

This might sound at least borderline crazy at least for hyper-partisans, on the Right who see Democrats as immoral criminals and terrorists, who all deserve to be locked up. And hyper-partisans on the Left, who see all Republicans as nothing but ignorant fundamentalist neanderthal bigots. But there is such a thing as Progressive Republicans and reform republicanism, which is what Newt Gingrich has always represented in his 20 years in the House of Representatives and his post-Congressional and political activist career.

Again, progressivism is not socialism and is not even liberalism. And its the least ideological of all the political ideologies in America that is barely qualifies as an ideology. The definition of s Progressive in a political sense is someone who believes in progress and making things better and using a limited government to help create that progress. So a Progressive on the Right like a Newt Gingrich, is going to be different than a Progressive on the Left. Someone like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Sherrod Brown today is currently a U.S. Senator from Ohio.

Progressives right or left, are different from Conservatives, because Conservatives believe in conserving the status quo when it comes to government. And that current society and the way of life is already great and doesn’t need improvement. Progressives always believe things and society can be better. That things and life aren’t always good or bad, but they can always be improved. That progress can always be made.

So someone like a Newt Gingrich can be a defense hawk and believe in a strong national defense and law enforcement strong enough to protect the innocent from predators, believe in fiscal responsibility and that government shouldn’t run high deficits and debt, that taxes and regulations should be low for everybody. But that there should also be a safety net for people who truly need help in society, but to use that safety net to help improve people’s lives. Not just give  them cash in the short-term, but help them improve their lives so they no longer need public assistance in the future. Newt is one of architects of Welfare Reform that became known as Welfare to Work in the mid 1990s. If he was a hard-core Conservative-Libertarian, he wouldn’t believe that there should even be a government Welfare program or public assistance at all.

Being a Progressive is not about being pro-big government or anti-government all together. Or being for a big strong national defense, or almost no national defense at all. Or someone who believes in freedom, or believes in statism. Being a Progressive is about believing in progress and believing that government can serve a useful purpose in making things better for everyone in society. But progressivism is not very ideological at all in how that progress is achieved.