Joe Biden: The Liberal Democrat

Now that we are in the last 5 full days of the Joseph R. Biden presidency and administration and as President Biden is about to give his farewell address as President of the United States tonight, I thought this would be a good time to talk about the man's politics and philosophy. Last week, I wrote about Jimmy Carter's character as President, instead of his political philosophy. But this week, I'm going to talk about Joe Biden's hardcore politics: what he believes, his political philosophy and why. 

The so-called mainstream media (that some people call legacy media) like to say that Joe Biden is a moderate or centrist Democrat. Anyone to the right of lets say a Never-Trumper Republican, like to describe President Biden as Bernie Sanders ideological twin brother. But this is an example of where two sides can be wrong about the same thing and person. 

You have to remember, or even know (I guess you have to know something before you can remember it) that Joe Biden was born just after the start of World War II: November 20, 1942. He came of age in the 1960s, growing up for the most part in the 1950s, where probably most of his early childhood memories started, graduated high school in the early 1960s. He's what we would call an early Baby Boomer, which was someone who was born during World War II, instead of just after it, and grew up during the early days of the Cold War. 

So when you are lets say Baby Boomer, growing up in a small, blue-collar town like Scranton, Pennsylvania, (which is right between Philadelphia and New York) and you are growing up during the start of the civil rights movement, as well as the Cold War, and you are going to college in the 1960s, that has to have an effect on one's politics. Perhaps especially since they're studying to become a lawyer, which is what Joe Biden was before he became a politician. 

So you have Joe Biden's background, who comes from a Irish-Catholic, blue-collar, Pennsylvania, Democratic family, where his father worked really hard just to take his care of his wife and kids, and John F. Kennedy becomes President of the United States right when you are finishing high school, that has to affect your politics and what you believe. And Joe Biden was interested in politics very early in life. 

You can'r really call Joe Biden a Cold War Liberal Democrat today. But only because the Cold War has been over for over 30 years now. But the John F. Kennedy's, the Henry Jackson's, the Ed Muskie's, I would put Jimmy Carter in this ideological camp as well... this is the type of Democrat that Joe Biden is ideologically. Someone who is very hawkish not just against communism, but authoritarianism in general, including Anglo-Saxon-American nationalism, and Islamism as well. He doesn't oppose these authoritarian philosophies because he's not a Liberal and he's really just a moderate or even a Conservative. He opposes these authoritarian philosophies because he is a Liberal. I would describe Joe Biden as a Henry Jackson Liberal Democrat, ideologically.

Source:The White House- Joseph R. Biden (Democrat, Delaware) 46th President of the United States of America.

To give you more of an idea about what Cold War Liberalism is: 

"Cold War liberal is a term that was used in the United States during the Cold War, which began after the end of World War II.[1] The term was used to describe liberal politicians and labor union leaders who supported democracy and equality. They supported the growth of labor unions, the civil rights movement, and the war on poverty and simultaneously opposing totalitarianism commonly seen under Communist rule at the time. Cold War liberals supported efforts of containment, such as diplomat George F. Kennan and U.S. president Harry S. Truman during the post-World War II era, towards Soviet Communism." 

From Wikipedia

Liberal Hawk would be a great way to describe Joe Biden's foreign and national security philosophy: 

"The term liberal hawk refers to a politically liberal person (generally, in the American sense of the term) who supports a hawkish, interventionist foreign policy.

Past U.S. presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson have been described as liberal hawks for their roles in bringing about America's status as the world's premier military power. The Clinton Doctrine can also be considered as consistent with this vision. Today the term is most frequently used to describe liberals who supported or still support the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which was authorized by the United States Congress and ordered by president George W. Bush. The invasion was controversial among all political sides. In December 2002, American liberals were conflicted over whether or not going to war in Iraq was the correct decision; some felt that they should support the war, in accordance with their philosophy of liberal internationalism, i.e. support of military intervention.[1]

One document cited as promoting a liberal hawkish point of view is Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, published by the Progressive Policy Institute in October 2003.[2] Another document related to the stance is a letter to President Bush sent by Social Democrats USA in February 2003, which urged the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime." 

From Wikipedia

And you are interested in straight up, hardcore liberalism, where Joe Biden also fits in very well ideologically: Britannica has an excellent definition of liberalism: 

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the American Revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against the individual. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power... 

From Britanica

At least before Joe Biden became President of the United States, the so-called mainstream media had him down as a centrist Democrat. Not a soft Democrat like a Joe Manchin, or someone like that. But way to the right of the Bernie Sanders's of the worlds and other leftist Democrats in Congress. Anyone who to the right of the Never-Trumper Republicans, again they see him as Senator Sanders twin brother, ideologically. 

The left-wing of the Democratic Party, before Biden became President, saw him as a moderate Republican ideologically, because of his hawkish views on foreign policy, national security, and criminal justice. 

But this is what happens in a country that's so illiterate and ignorant when it comes to political philosophy, where liberal and progressive is automatically seen as everything that is politically left. Because of how words like socialist are automatically viewed as insults or curse words, where almost no one in their right mind wants to be associated with Socialists, even if they are Socialists. 

But if political labels are going to matter, they have to be used correctly. Otherwise Libertarians could get called Communists and vice-versa, because political labels no longer matter. But the fact is Joe Biden grew up and came to age as a Cold War, Henry Jacksonian Democrat, who loved John F. Kennedy, who was also a Cold War Liberal Democrat. And that's who Mr. Biden has always been ideologically. If political labels still mean anything in America, Mr. Biden is a Liberal Democrat who believes in and defends American liberal democracy whenever he can. 

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Coordination Problem: Peter Boettke- ‘Liberalism Misunderstood’

Source:Slide Player- Liberalism, is based around liberal democracy, not collectivism. 

Source:The New Democrat

“Liberalism was born in an effort to escape oppression and dogma — a critique of the alignment of the Crown and the Altar that was enforced by the Sword. True radical liberalism is a foundational critique, and seeks to set in place constraints and establish extreme limits on the scale and scope of the Crown, Altar and Sword. In operational terms this led to constitutionally limited government, religious toleration, and peaceful relations between nations through the free flow of labor, capital and goods. I have not raised the issue of the abolition of the Crown, the Altar and the Sword, I am just limiting the discussion to the constraints and the machinery of establishing and enforcing those constraints — the institutions of Liberalism.”

Read more of Petter Boettke’s piece at Coordination Problem

Source:Learn Liberty: Stephen Davis- 'The History of Classical Liberalism'- Sounds nothing like socialism 

“Historian Stephen Davies describes classical liberalism as a comprehensive philosophy, which has had implications in all the major academic disciplines.

At an abstract level, classical liberalism offers three key insights:

1) The goal of life is human happiness and flourishing.
2) Personal choice and individual liberty are crucial in explaining and appreciating how society develops.
3) Commerce, wealth, and trade are preferable to war and conflict.

If you agree with these classical liberal insights, you might be a classical liberal!”

This blog covered Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism yesterday, which is also an important political philosophy and even though classical liberalism ( or liberalism ) and objectivism have things in common and that libertarianism has a lot in common with liberalism as well, there actually different political philosophies than liberalism. And even though they have a lot more in common with liberalism than socialism, they’re actually fairly different. Which is what I’m going to explain here.

When people think of Liberals, they tend to think of people who are so in love with government, ( especially big government ) that they would go to bed with it, if they could and even bang government. Not bang on government like in protest, but bang government, because they’re so attracted to it. And that’s as far as I’m going to go with that metaphor: at risk of disappointing anyone.

When people think of Liberals, ( especially the so-called mainstream media ) they think of people who from Senator’s Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, even though none of these members of Congress self-describe their politics as liberal, to Communists and other left-wing Socialists around the world.

The popular opinion of liberalism and Liberals, is that the more government that someone believes in, the more liberal that they are. People tend to view liberal as less or more: the more government you want, the more liberal you supposedly are. The less government that you, supposedly the more conservative that you are. So the popular view of liberalism is that if you believe in a liberal amount of government, ( meaning a lot of government ) the more liberal that you supposedly are.

But if you’ve been following along so far, that’s not what liberalism is about: the liberal philosophy is not built around government, but built around liberty and even individual liberal, with liberal coming from the word liberty, not government, state, or authoritarian. So the more liberal that you are, the more liberty that you believe in. So a Radical Liberal, is not a Socialist or Communist. Radical liberalism, is not socialism or communism. Radical Liberals, are people who believe in no government and believe in anarchy instead.

A lot of Libertarians today, are essentially Radical Liberals, because they don’t seem to have much if any role for government do do anything for them or for anyone else. A lot of these Liberals, actually call themselves Voluntarists: people who believe that people should interact with each other only through voluntary exchange and not being forced to through government or anyone else to do anything.

So what do Liberals ( or Classical Liberals ) believe in and what does it mean to be a Liberal? ( Or Classical Liberal )

A good way to look at liberalism and Liberals, or Liberal Democrats and liberal democracy, is to look at it like a sporting event or just life in general: where you have people who are free to live their own lives as they see fit, short of abusing innocent people with what they’re doing. So the Liberal believes that people should have a lot of free choice and individual freedom, just as long as they’re not abusing any innocent person with what they’re doing. And where government comes in is to regulate what people can do to each other, but not what people can do to or for themselves.

A liberal society is a society where both personal and economic freedom is not just tolerated, but encouraged. Where society is protected from predators both foreign and domestic. Where government is responsible to only doing for the people what we can’t for ourselves. And that government needs money to perform these limited but critical services., but that it should be limited and decentralized as much as possible, and be as responsible as possible with the limited resources that the people give it.

So when you think of Liberals, don’t think of you new-tech hipster ( or hippie ) who is always walking around with a coffee house cup who thinks they know best what everyone should think and believe and what people should be able to do with their own lives and wants government to manage everyone’s life for them, because they believe that people are essentially stupid ( especially minorities ) and can’t manage their own affairs and handle what people have to say or think about them. Those people are basically Neo-Communists, who might only considered mainstream in the People’s Republic of California. ( Especially in the San Francisco area )

When you of Liberals, think of people who believe in individual liberty, as well as truly racial, ethnic, religious, and gender-blind society. Or to paraphrase the great Dr. Martin L. King: a society where no one’s children are judged based on the color of their skin of any other physical characteristic that they were born with, but by the content of their character and what they bring to society as individuals, not as members of any group.

LA Progressive: Ted Rall: 'The Difference Between Liberals and Leftists'

Source:LA Progressive- Socialists and Liberals?

"Living as they do in a bipolar political world where politics consists of Democrats and Republicans and no other ideology is real, media corporations in the United States use left, liberal and Democrat as synonyms. This is obviously wrong and clearly untrue—Democrats are a party, leftism and liberalism are ideologies, and Democratic politics are frequently neither left nor liberal but far right—but as Orwell observed after you hear a lie repeated enough times you begin to question what you know to be true rather than the untruth. Sometimes it’s useful in this postmodern era to remind ourselves that words still have meaning, that distinctions make a difference.

Let us now delineate the difference between liberals and leftists."

Read the test of Ted Rall's piece at LA Progressive

Source:Prager U: Dennis Prager- 'Left or Liberal?'- Liberals vs. Socialists

"Tell the average American you’re a liberal and they’ll assume you’re on the political left. Yet, leftists and liberals hold very different positions on key issues. In this video, Dennis Prager explains how the tenets of liberalism like a belief in capitalism and free speech have more in common with conservatism than with the identity politics and racial resentment preached by the left." 

I believe the best way to look at the differences between Liberals and what both Ted Rall calls Leftists ( people who I call Socialists ) is to look at the differences between liberal democracy and social democracy: Liberal, believe in democracy, which is what liberalism was founded on and is all about. Democratic Socialists, ( let's call them ) believe in democratic socialism/social democracy. If you understand the differences between these two ideologies, you then know what it means to be a Liberal and what it means to be a Socialist. Which would make you politically smarter than almost everyone else in America.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called Western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world."

So liberal democracy ( or liberalism ) is a philosophy based on individual rights, the rule of law, limited government, self-government, freedom of choice, personal responsibility, separation of powers, equal justice, equal rights.

Liberals do not believe big government knows best. Or that people are stupid and need government to run their lives for them. Or that capitalism is racist. Or personal freedom is dangerous. Or free speech is bigoted. Or European-Americans ( or what the Left calls White people ) are bigoted and racist. Or that women are superior to men. Or that ethnic and racial minorities ( people that Leftists call "people of color" ) are incapable of hearing anything that's negative and even hateful about them and therefor deserve special protections from critical and even hate speech about them. Or that Communists and communism is actually misunderstood and that and communism is actually a progressive ideology and that it's the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who are the real authoritarians.

So what do Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats or let's just call them Socialists or what Ted Rall and Dennis Prager calls Leftists believe in?

Well, according to Wikipedia

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy has become associated in policy circles with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century."

Sounds very different from what Liberal Democrats believe in which is liberal democracy. And I'm talking about the Eugene Debs, Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas, George McGovern, Bernie Sanders wing of socialism. Not these hipster-leftists who believe that Che Guevara was a good man and wear Che t-shirts and hats. But people actually do believe in freedom and even individual freedom, but want a national government big enough to ensure that no one has so much money and freedom, while other people have so little and have to struggle just to survive in life.

Bernie Sanders, is not ant-freedom, but anti-excessive wealth and wants taxes so high across the board to ensure that everyone has the basic necessities in life and that no one has what he would call too much. Which actually puts Bernie to the Right of people who  I've already laid out about what hard-core Socialists or Neo-Communists actually believe in and that Liberals don't believe in having to do with personal freedom and free speech, as well as identity politics.

Dennis Prager is right about another thing: Liberals and liberalism is misunderstood by not just the so-called mainstream media ( another way of saying popular media ) but also by people who call themselves Liberals or Progressives, ( who are actually closeted Socialists ) but people who in actuality are actually very illiberal and even regressive. To the point that they call people like Thomas Jefferson, ( the father of liberal democracy  ) Wendell Willkie, ( perhaps the last Classical Liberal Republican ) and President John F. Kennedy, ( the last Liberal American President ) Conservatives, because all of these men supported individual freedom and believed in capitalism.

But that's only because for one: they're still afraid to be called Socialists and are still stuck in the political closet, but also because they're so far to the left now ( and are too high or drunk to see that ) that Liberals now look very conservative to them. Just the way that the liberal parties in Europe and Australia are called conservative in America and other places, even those the so-called Conservatives in Europe like in Germany with the Free Liberals, but go down under to Australia ( pun intended ) and the so-called Conservatives they are self-described Liberals. The so-called Center-Right in Australia, is the Liberal Party. Because the Center-Left party there, is the Labour Party of Social-Democrats and Socialists. 

So, if you're actually interested in Liberals and liberalism and actually have other things to do than to stare at your phone at your favorite coffee house ( or wherever you decide to hang out at ) or want to know what rehab or jail your current favorite celebrity is staying at, then read up on liberal democracy, Thomas Jefferson, Wendell Willkie, and John Kennedy. If you want something other than a popular definition of the most popular and dominant political philosophy not just in America, but in France and Germany as well. An ideology that Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and other authoritarians, including Socialists around the world all hate, which is liberalism and liberal democracy.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Critical Past: Wendell Willkie: 'Arrives in His Hometown & Formally Accepts The Republican Presidential Nomination'

Source:Critical Past- Liberal Republican Wendell Willie: accepting the 1940 GOP presidential nomination.

"Historic Stock Footage Archival and Vintage Video Clips in HD.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town and formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town after being nominated as the Presidential candidate. Wendell Willkie in a car. A large crowd gathers to greet him. Crowd cheering and applauding. He stands on the podium and addresses the crowd. He formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd. Addressing the crowd, he states that the domestic and foreign policies of the New Deal is leading the nation into war. He endorses the draft for US defense and dares President Roosevelt to meet him for a public debate on questions vital to all Americans. Location: Elwood Indiana. Date: August 19, 1940."

Source:Critical Past:

By 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt had his New Deal passed through Congress and the Great Depression was over, but the devastating affects of it were still there and the people were still feeling it. Business investment and economic growth were still low and unemployment was still high. It wasn't the New Deal that saved the American economy: it helped in alleviating pain of the Great Depression, but the economy still wasn't back to anything near to what it was in 1928 before the stock market crash.

President Roosevelt, was a popular President, but there was a real case to be made against him and real room to run against him for President and offer a new direction for the country, which is what businessman Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Republican offered in 1940. Liberal in the classical and real sense, not made up or stereotypical, big government, socialist sense. FDR, wasn't a Socialist either, but his big, central, government approach government approach with his New Deal, was very different from Wendell was offering which was about more individualism private business investment, as apposed to FDR's Federal Government investment approach.

The 1940 presidential election was an interesting election for multiple reasons: you had a popular President against a popular opponent. FDR, was a popular President, but Wendell Willkie managed about 45% of the popular vote which is more than Barry Goldwater in 1964 and President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Wendell with his 10 states won more than President Carter in 1980. It was also an an election where you had a Progressive Democrat versus a Liberal Republican. Willkie, was to the Left of FDR on civil rights and civil liberties. FDR, was to the Left of Wendell on economic policy. And they were similar on foreign policy and national security with both men being strong liberal internationalists and somewhat hawkish.

1940, represents a time in American politics where the country wasn't so divided politically. When Liberals, were Liberals. Conservatives, were Conservatives. Progressives, were Progressives. Socialists, weren't afraid to be Socialists. ( Unless they were in Hollywood ) Where Americans regardless of their political labels didn't hate each other simply because of their politics which is how you can get a presidential election between a Franklin Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, because their differences were about politics and policy. Not race, ethnicity, religion, or culture.  

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

My Footage: Wendell Willkie: 1940 Republican National Convention Speech

"Reel #: 1468 TC In: 011439 TC Out: 011834

Source:My Footage- "1940 Republican National Convention: Wendell Willkie gives speech. 

This clip is available for licensing without time code and logo - To inquire about licensing email us at Myfootage@gmail.com or call us at (212) 620-3955  - Please Subscribe to our channel, as we are constantly adding new clips. Thanks!

Keywords

Time: 1940s, 1940, June

Setting: Philadelphia Convention Hall, Philadelphia, PA

People:  Wendell Willkie, Charles McNary, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, Robert Taft, Thomas E. Dewey,

Objects: banners, podium, microphone, ballots,

Subjects: 1940 Presidential Election, 1940 Republican Primary, 1940 Us Politics, 1940 RNC, Wendell Willkie Speech, 1940 RNC Opening."

From My Footage

People even if they've ever heard of Wendell Willkie ( and I would be impressed if they did ) might ask why blog about Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Republican back in the 1940s who advocated for civil rights, civil liberties, the Constitution, limited government, and a strong but limited national defense, especially since his Republican politics no longer exists except for perhaps a few exceptions. People like former Governor Bill Weld, Senator Susan Collins and perhaps a few other Republican in Congress today. Well, for me that's exactly why I at least who is a strong admirer of Wendell and consider him to be one of my political heroes blogs about Wendell Willkie.

I don't want to make this a partisan post other than to say that the Republican Party today whether you want to define it as a Nationalist party or a Christian-Right party looked nothing like they did up until really the late 1980s, or early 1990s. Back in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Conservative Republicans were people like Barry Goldwater, not Ann Coulter or Steve King or anyone else who is part of the New-Right today that are supposed to be the Conservatives.

Back in 1940, Wendell Willkie was to the left of President Franklin Roosevelt on civil rights, civil liberties, and even personal freedom. Imagine that for a moment: a Republican who is to the left of a Democrat on civil rights, civil liberties, and personal freedom. But Wendell was to the Right of FDR on economic policy. Wendell believed in the public safety net, but didn't want a socialist welfare state where welfare benefits would be universal, which is what FDR was pushing for by 1944 with his so-called Economic Bill of Rights.

Wendell Willkie, represents the Grand Ole Party where you could have both Liberals and Conservatives in it. as well as Progressives but where they could all function together in this national grand party, because they shared similar values that at least Classical Liberals, Conservatives, and Progressives believe in. Like equal rights, equal justice, civil liberties, property rights, personal freedom.

The GOP was a party that could nominate Wendell Willkie, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater, because back then Liberals, Conservatives, and Progressives weren't like apples and oranges, they weren't the complete opposites of each other and shared similar values and objectives, but had different approaches in how to defend those values and accomplish those objectives.

Back in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, liberal wasn't another word for hippie or hipster. It had real meaning and instead being a Liberal meant you were someone who not only believed in liberal democracy, but that liberal democracy needed to be defended and you had to confront authoritarian states when they threaten you or your allies, or threatened your liberal values. Like Communist Russia, to use as an example.

Which is how someone like a Wendell Willkie, Tom Dewey, Ike Eisenhower, could not only do well in the Republican Party politically, but win the Republican nomination for President, because they believed in those liberal values because they were Republican values. That is how much the Republican Party has changed today, because that wing of the party is almost extinct with the Far-Right now looking so mainstream inside that party. 

CPH: David Levering Lewis- 'The Improbable Wendell Willkie'

Source:Southern Methodist University- David L. Lewis, talking about his book about Wendell Willkie. 

“In the wake of one of the most tumultuous Republican conventions ever, the party of Lincoln nominated in 1940 a prominent businessman and former Democrat who could have saved America’s sclerotic political system. Although Wendell Lewis Willkie would lose to FDR, acclaimed biographer David Levering Lewis demonstrates that the corporate chairman–turned–presidential candidate must be regarded as one of the most exciting, intellectually able, and authentically transformational figures to stride the twentieth-century American political landscape. The Center for Presidential History:SMU Center. This recording is the property of the SMU Center for Presidential History and may only be used for research and teaching purposes. It cannot be copied or reproduced for profit.”

From CPH

"In the wake of one of the most tumultuous Republican conventions ever, the party of Lincoln nominated in 1940 a prominent businessman and former Democrat who could have saved America’s sclerotic political system. Although Wendell Lewis Willkie would lose to FDR, acclaimed biographer David Levering Lewis demonstrates that the corporate chairman–turned–presidential candidate must be regarded as one of the most exciting, intellectually able, and authentically transformational figures to stride the twentieth-century American political landscape."

Source:Livestream- David L. Lewis's book about Wendell Willkie 

If anyone is wondering why I bother too write about Wendell Willkie a man who maybe only 5% of the country has ever even heard of and most of those people being old enough to remember his presidential campaign or born just after his 1940 presidential campaign: the reason why I'm interested in Wendell to the point that I write about him is because I base my own politics and political ideology around 3 people: Thomas Jefferson, the father of American liberal democracy. John F. Kennedy, the last Liberal and not just Classical Liberal President that we've ever had. And Wendell Willkie, the last Classical Liberal as well as Liberal Republican nominee for President. Who left the Democratic Party, because he believed they were moving in a socialist big government direction under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Source:Presidential History Geeks- Classical Liberal Wendell Willkie 

Wendell Willkie, is a political hero of mine and if the Republican Party today was the Willkie Republican Party, I would be a Republican instead of at best an Independent Democrat today. Wendell, was a Republican who supported civil and equal rights of all Americas. Who opposed social classes even as it relates to race and ethnicity. Wendell, was to the Left of President Franklin Roosevelt on civil rights for African-Americans, as well as other racial and other ethnic minorities. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Republican Party was the civil rights part. First lead by President Dwight Eisenhower who opposed school desegregation and also supported a broader civil rights bill in the 1950s. And without Congressional Republicans, President Lyndon Johnson doesn't get his civil rights laws in the 1960s.

Wendell Willkie, was anti-Communist, antiauthoritarian Liberal Republican. Think about for a second and see if you can get past that. He obviously wouldn't fit inside the Republican Party today, but there wouldn't be much room for him inside the Democratic Party today either. Because he was a true constitutionalist who believed in constitutional rights for all Americans and believed in limited government. He was one of the first true liberal internationalists that we've ever had in a presidential candidates at least., who believed that America couldn't police the world, but we needed to be engaged with the world to protect liberal democracy and stand up to communism and other authoritarian ideologies. A Wendell Willkie, couldn't fit inside of a Republican Party today, that's dominated by Nationalists when it comes to foreign policy and in general. And a Democratic Party that's not only now embracing democratic socialism, but doesn't seem to have issues with authoritarian socialism either.

Wendell Willkie to me, even though I'm maybe 1 out of 5 Americans who've ever heard of man ( perhaps a few more ) is very interesting to me because he was a man and a political candidate who was not just ahead of him time as it relates to foreign policy, the Constitution, limited government, and civil rights, but also represents the the liberal democratic ( or classical liberal, if you prefer ) void that was left inside the Democratic Party when President John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a Communist, with the Democratic Party moving Left ever since President Kennedy was assassinated. We no longer have a liberal ( or classical liberal ) wing in either the Democratic or Republican Party today and is still missed by me and other Liberals ( or Classical Liberals, if you prefer ) today.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Lew Rockwell: Bionic Mosquito: 'Liberalism and Christianity: Liberal Christianity'

Source:Disqus- Christian-Conservatives vs. Christian Liberals. 

“Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (EvKL) examines what he calls “Real Liberalism” in chapter 13 of this book. I think it is worthwhile to capture his understanding of this political and economic philosophy.

Let us look at the verbal meaning. The root is liber (“free”). The term liberalis (and liberalitas) implies generosity in intellectual and material matters.” 

From Lew Rockwell 

“What is LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY? What does LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY mean? LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY meaning – LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY definition – LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY explanation…  

From The AudioPedia

Liberalism and Christianity implies at least that they're two different things when the fact is there's a fundamentalist and even theocratic version of Christianity way over on the Right, the Christian-Right in America represents that movement. There's a social democratic version of Christianity way over on the Left, that has been lead by people like Reverend Martin L. King, Reverend Jesse and many other left-wing preachers. And there is a liberal version of Christianity that is less government centric than the social democratic version and even the fundamentalist version. That is more about treating people the way you would want to be treated. About respect and earning the respect of others by how you treat people.

Source:Reformed Spirit- Good quote about Liberal Christianity 

As someone who is not a Christian of any sect or a member of any other religious sect, but who is also not an Atheist, but an Agnostic I actually agree with some of the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not kill: meaning we shouldn't take innocent lives.

Thou shalt not steal: any moral person can agree that theft and burglary are wrong and immoral.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

The Golden Rule is not a Ten Commandment, but it's a great rule and gets back to one of my points about Liberal Christianity having to deal with respect which is do unto others as you would have done to you. Treat people the way you want them to treat you. Don't live life thinking you're superior to everyone else and that it should be someone else's honor just to be in your presence. And therefor you can get away with being a jerk ( to be generous ) around other people simply because you're better than them and they don't want to lose you.

Live and let live: here's a moral value that Liberals and Libertarians at least can fall in love with. Also goes to Economics Professor Walter Williams broader definition of property rights which also goes to the liberal value of free choice. Which is free people should be aloud to live freely and don't need big government trying to manage their personal affairs for them and telling them how they should live. Short of hurting innocent people with our personal freedom and choices.

Goes back to two of the Ten Commandments that I mentioned earlier which are thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal. Add thou shalt not abuse others either physically or verbally. Thou shalt not rape would be another good example of this. Thou shalt not hurt innocent people with what they're doing especially children and women. The second one some might believe is sexist, but so what.

I'm not a Christian of any sect, but someone with my liberal values could get into a liberal version of Christianity instead of Christians trying to use government to manage people's lives for them and punish people simply because of how they communicate or what they do with their personal times and lives because they see those choices as immoral. Or the Christian-Left, trying to turn government into some national charity and perhaps even replacing charity with some national welfare or charity state using it to take care of the poor by taxing the rich, instead of using government to empower the less-fortunate to be able to take care of themselves. If there was a Liberal-Christian sect like I mentioned, I could become a Christian myself.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The Aspen Institute: David Brooks: 'On Conservative and Liberal Values'

Source:The Aspen Institute- Conservative columnist David Brooks.

"David Brooks, the leader of a new Aspen Institute initiative to understand and reduce the growing fragmentation, alienation, and division around the country, spoke at the 2017 Aspen Ideas Festival.

This clip comes from a conversation with David Brooks, Michael Gerson, Amy Walter, and Peter Wehner...

From The Aspen Institute

If you just arrived on Planet Earth yesterday and were an adult and two of the first things you observed were supposed to be what it means to be a Conservative and Liberal and what conservatism and liberalism are supposed to be, you would probably think Conservatives are simply bigots who hate anyone who isn't of European, (especially Anglo-Saxon background) who isn't a Christian especially a Protestant and who isn't male. That conservatism is simply an authoritarian, bigoted political philosophy that is about conserving everything in society for Europeans, especially English-Europeans in America and especially Protestant males.

If you arrived on Planet Earth yesterday, you probably think Liberals are simply statists. In some cases democratic, but in many other cases communist, who believe European-Americans are all bigots, unless they come from the Northeast or West Coast and were educated there as well. Who hate European-Americans, again, unless they come from one of the coasts and were raised there. The Northeast and West Coast, that is and believe the role of government is to take care of non-Europeans in America and to punish Europeans for being successful.

You would probably think that Liberals are supposed to be people who believe that anyone who doesn't look at the world as they do are basically idiots who need to be babysat by government. That freedom is dangerous and it only gives people the freedom to make mistakes. That free speech is only the freedom to offend non-Europeans. That capitalism and property rights are selfish. That even education and self-improvement are dangerous things, because it means that people would be able to obtain the power and freedom to live independently and be able to think and act for themselves.

Now, I just gave you a pretty good idea about what conservatism and liberalism aren't. What it doesn't mean to a Conservative and what it doesn't mean to be a Liberal. The anti-conservative views when it comes to conservatism and the illiberal views when it comes to liberalism. Now, how about what it actually means to be a Conservative and what conservatism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal and what liberalism actually is.

I agree with David Brooks about one thing which seems to be a common theme when I hear him speak, at least about public policy and philosophy. That conservatism is about conserving tradition and a certain way of life in America. Which is different from saying that the role of government is force a way of life on the rest of the country and force everybody to basically live as straight fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals. Which is what Christian-Conservatives who today are basically Christian-Nationalists believe, that the problem with the America is personal freedom and individualism and that Americans shouldn't have the freedom to live their own lives and have their own lifestyles.

My personal view of what it means to be a Conservative in the political sense, comes from Mr. Conservative Senator the late Barry Goldwater, who said that he wanted big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, and classrooms. He wanted big government out of our personal and economic affairs. He believed in limited government and federalism and that the role of government was to protect Americans from predators both foreign and domestic, but not try to protect Americans from themselves and punish Americans for their own personal decisions. And that a big role of government was to conserve the U.S. Constitutional and our constitutional rights. Not conserve some fundamentalist Protestant Christian way of life and to force everybody to live under the same religious and cultural values.

For me as a Liberal, defining Liberal and liberalism is very easy for me. A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal democracy what some people might call classical liberalism, but what I just call liberalism and liberal democracy. That government should be limited and there to defend our constitutional rights and civil liberties, including our property rights. That everyone in America is the same at least in the sense that no one is better simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender and that everyone has the same civil rights and are all entitled to the same equal and constitutional rights.

Real Liberals believe in limited government, the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, individual rights, a safety net for people who truly need it, but not having a government big enough to manage people's lives and to force everyone to live equally from an economic standpoint. Socialists believe in forcing equality on everyone. Liberals believes in quality opportunity for everyone, which is different.

Now, if you just watch Fox News and MSNBC, you might think Conservatives are from Mars and Liberals are from Saturn. Two completely different planets with very little if anything in common. Thousands if not millions of miles way ideologically. But if you look at the American political spectrum Conservatives are on the center-right and Liberals are also on the center-right, ideologically. They're political opponents ( not enemies ) but have the most in common ideologically of any two political factions on the American political spectrum. With the Socialists ( both democratic and communist ) and the Christian-Nationalists, having the least in common. 

Conservatives and Liberals both believe in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, our federal form of limited government. But differ when it comes to government's role in the economy and national security. But don't live in two on two different planets ideologically. As much as Fox News and MSNBC may disagree with this. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Source:The Film Archives- Author Camille Paglia, giving a speech in New York City?

"Buchanan was the national treasurer of the "Reagan for President" primary campaigns of 1976 and 1980, and the Reagan-Bush general election campaigns of 1980 and 1984. After appearing regularly on CNN's news program Inside Politics, she became a commentator for The Situation Room, and later Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull. She previously served as the co-anchor of Equal Time on CNBC and MSNBC, and during that time also hosted a two-hour radio talk show...

From The Film Archives

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, then 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.

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

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

National Constitution Center: Alexander Hamilton's Vision of Federalism, National Authority & Judicial Review

Source: National Constitutional Center-

Source:National Constitution Center 

There is very little if any mention and discussion about federalism in this video even though Alexander Hamilton's vision of federalism is part of the title of the video. But I'll give you the vision of federalism that our Founding Fathers ( our Founding Liberals ) gave us.

There was no such thing as America or the United States pre-Revolutionary War when the British colonies in what is now known as the United States of America broke way from the United Kingdom. The 13 original colonies came together to form this one new nation and created a Federal Republic. Which is sort of stating the obvious but important for this discussion. A big reason why the colonies or American colonies broke away from Britain was because they wanted more autonomy and more ability to govern themselves.

The United Kingdom was a unitarian superstate both in mainland Britain but in their colonies as well. With all of the governmental power being centralized in London and with the King back when the U.K. Monarchy ran Britain. Britain is still a unitarian state with most of the governmental power rested with the U.K. Government, but they do have cities now and municipal government's with at least some control over their own local governmental affairs. And now Northern Ireland and Scotland, have some control over what Americans call their state affairs. What other countries call their provincial affairs.

So when the Founding Fathers created the United States of America, they just didn't want a republic but a federal republic. Where Americans wouldn't just be free from Britain, but from dictatorial power from a supersize central government where most of the power would be rested with the national government. A governmental system that Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, all love and want to keep. While Social Democrats or Socialists in America, want to replace because it severely constrains what the national government can try to do for the people.

Federalism is a governmental system of how government works in America and in other countries, including Europe like in Germany where the national government is much larger than in America's when you talk about percentage of the economy that is taxed and by national government. In a federalist system you have a national government that is called the federal government. But you also have state and local government's.

And you don't just have these other government's within the country, but they have real governmental authority over their own governmental affairs. And have the power to govern themselves and do for themselves what they choose to do as long as they're within the U.S. Constitution. So they can run their own law enforcement and education department's, but they can't discriminate based on race or try to create their own currency or military, try to eliminate property rights, the right to privacy, the right to free speech. State and local laws, like federal laws, have to be within the U.S. Constitutional. With all laws from all levels subject to judicial review.

I'm what I call and perhaps others call a Liberal Federalist. I'm both a Liberal and a Federalist. Which might sound like an Oxymoron to people who view Liberals as the same thing as Socialists and Communists. But I'm a Liberal in the classical and real sense and if you're a real Liberal you're not a fan of big over centralization of power whether it's private power with how business's and private organizations are run, or with how government is run. Which is why federalism is a perfect governmental system for myself and other Liberals because we don't want one big government trying to run everything for everybody in a country this huge and diverse. And don't believe Washington even with all their brilliant people are capable for making decisions for Los Angeles, Denver, Milwaukee, or any other jurisdiction that the U.S. Government doesn't have direct control over.

Federalism is the only type of governmental system that can work in a liberal democratic constitutional republic like America, because again of our physical size and being so huge physically, but also having such a large diverse population as well. Culturally, racially, ethnically, and politically diverse a country that we are. You try to impose a socialist unitarian superstate in America, which is what they still have in Britain today even with their new municipal government's, and you would see states like California, Texas, the Northwest, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, the states in New England, and others break away and try to form their own countries. Being a Federalist doesn't mean you approve of every law that another jurisdiction or your own jurisdiction passes. But it means you believe they have the right and should have the right to pass those laws and govern themselves as long as those laws are constitutional.

Source: NCC: Alexander Hamilton's Vision- Federalism, National Authority & Judicial Review

Libertarianism.Org: Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna- The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

Source: Libertarianism.Org-

Source: Libertarianism.Org: Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna- The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

With this piece I'm going to separate liberalism where I am on the Center-Left of the American political spectrum, from not just Marxism/Communism, but what's called classical liberalism or what and most other people at least today call libertarianism.

Liberalism or liberal democracy, is about individual rights, equal rights, civil rights, equal justice, equal opportunity and yes limited government. Liberals aren't anti-government which is what a lot of modern Libertarians seem to be today. Liberals just don't want big government running people's lives for them and replace individualism with a big central government. And even using big government to try to tell people what they should think and how they can talk with other people. What language is acceptable and so-forth.

Liberalism is the ultimate color, race, ethnic, and gender-blind society. Because it believes in individualism and people should be treated exactly as that as individuals. And don't believe people should be rewarded or punished based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Unlike Socialists even Democratic Socialists and Communists today, who believe minorities should be rewarded over majorities, because of their race and ethnicity and they would simply argue because European-Americans especially men were rewarded because of their race, ethnicity, and gender in the past. And it's time for racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds should be reward based on those factors today.

Whether you want to call them Marxists, Socialists, or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists, Socialists today have very different views from Liberals and don't think liberalism and liberal democracy goes far enough in seeing that the needs of the society and public are met. And don't trust individualism and freedom, opportunity, and even education for the masses, enough to see that everyone's needs are met. And believe you need a big centralized government and perhaps just one government for the entire society, to be used to meet the needs of that masses. And believe that individual freedom and individualism, even the ability for people to think and speak for themselves, as dangerous. Because they see it as the freedom to make mistakes that society will have to pay for. And for the rich will just richer and everyone else will be left behind.

When you're talking about liberalism versus socialism and communism, you're talking about individualism versus collectivism and even statism. Liberals trust educated individuals to be able to self-govern themselves and meet their own needs and be able to take care of themselves. With a limited government to regulate how people interact with each other, but not how we govern ourselves. Socialists and Communists, put their faith in government especially the central state, to see that needs of the masses are taken care and no one is left behind and has to go without. When you're comparing liberalism with socialism, you're talking about individualism and freedom, versus statism.

Democratic Socialist: 'Classical Liberalism and Fascism'

Source:Democratic Socialist- Communists vs Lady Conservative Margaret Thatcher.

"Classical Liberalism and Fascism"  

From Democratic Marxist

According to Wikipedia: "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

To put it simply: Fascists believe that their beliefs and values are so superior to anyone else's, that people who disagree with them, their beliefs and values are not worthy of being considered and perhaps those people don't have a right to even exist. 

Fascists believe that any opposition to what they believe should not be allowed to exist. Generally one of the first things that authoritarians do when they come to power in a country is attempt to completely shut down the political opposition and put them in prison, if not just murder the opposition. And then they shut down any private media organizations that disagree with their regime and report negative information about the authoritarian regime. Noticed, I haven't labeled Fascists as right-wing or left-wing.

The only governing philosophy that fascism is about is complete destruction of any possible opposition to what the party in power believes in. And for Fascists who aren't in power but would like to come to power, they believe opposition movements to what they believe in and advocate, don't have the same rights to exists, speak, and believe, that they do.

Communism is a governing philosophy.

Democratic socialism/social democracy, is a governing philosophy.

Libertarianism is a governing philosophy.

Religious theocracy or religious nationalism (whether its Christian or Muslim) are governing philosophies.

And then go to the Center-Left with progressivism which is a governing philosophy.

Liberalism is a governing philosophy.

Conservatism/conservative-libertarianism, is a governing philosophy.

But Fascists, similar to Nationalists who are also Fascists, are on both the Far-Left and Far-Right, both in North America and Europe.

Communists who are on the Far-Left, don't believe political opposition to what they believe and advocate, have a right to even exist let alone speak out. 

Right-wing Nationalists who are cultural Marxists and Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and ethno-Nationalists like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, on the extreme Far-Right, believe that opposition to what they believe don't have a right to even exist, let alone speak out.

Now, liberalism according to Wikipedia:

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law."

In other word: Liberals believe in individual rights, as well as liberty and equality. Some of those individual rights are obviously Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, as well as Freedom of Assembly. Property rights and the Right to Privacy. 

Communists and even Democratic Socialists, tend to oppose most if not all of these liberal values which are reasons why they're not Liberals, but Communists and Socialists. 

Communists don't believe in democracy because they see it as a  threat to their regime and absolute power over society, even to serve the people. 

Democratic Socialists believe in democracy and even in the right for non-Socialists and even right-wingers to exist. But promote the human welfare and total economic equality, over property rights and individual freedom, both economic as well as personal freedom.

This is an important debate and discussion and debate especially in a time like now and in a country like America where political literacy (for lack of a better term) meaning knowledge of different political philosophies, are so low. Where people get labeled as Liberals by the media and by themselves even though they don't believe in Freedom of Speech (at least for people who disagree with them) don't believe in property rights, and in many cases don't even believe in personal freedom. And yet they get labeled as Liberals even though consistently promote illiberal values over liberal values and have illiberal tendencies instead of liberal tendencies.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

Source: The Independent Institute-

Source: Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

According to Wikipedia the definition of social justice is, "justice in terms of distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society."

People let's say on the farther left (Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists) take the definition to mean that there should be distribution of wealth in society. That wealth should be distributed based on what people need to live well. Not based on what people earn. And of course the central government usually a unitarian government in most social democracies (one large government for the entire country) will collect most of the wealth in the country and dish it back out in the form of welfare state payments to the people based on what the government believes people need to live well in society.

So the people not just living above poverty, but living somewhat comfortably, but short of being wealthy and perhaps even upper middle class. Socialists (democratic and otherwise) don't believe in rich or poor. They want equality of outcomes where no one is wealthy or poor, but able to live well. This type of economic system is how Scandinavia operates and the states there and to a certain extent even in Britain. (Even when the Conservatives are in charge)

The libertarian notion of social justice is to put it in plain terms is that what's mine is mine and what's yours, is yours. To paraphrase Libertarian Economist Walter Williams. Meaning what the people make for themselves is exactly that. And shouldn't be subjected to taxation especially to help pay for the people who don't have much to live on and are in living in poverty as a result.

To go back to the Wikipedia definition of social justice. Liberals (in the real and classical sense) concentrate on the opportunities portion of social justice. Liberals believe in an opportunity society. Where everyone has the ability to make a good life for themselves. Where everyone has access to a quality education even if they live in poverty. And if they live in poverty that their parents or parent, has the ability to finish and further their education so they can get themselves a good job and make a good living.

Get off of public assistance, buy a nice home and live in a nice community where they don't have to worry about being physically harmed when they go to the grocery store, or are coming back or going to school. Where they have a basic fundamental sense and reality when it comes to their own economic and physical security. And then what the people make for themselves financially, they're able to keep most of that and pay back in taxes what it takes for the government to function effectively and to do only what we need for government to do well for us, that is also consistent with strong economic and job growth so people are encouraged to be productive and make a good living for themselves and their families.

And yes you need an effective government to invest in what makes economies strong so as many people can benefit from capitalism and private enterprise as possible. Not to run the economy or to run business's, or tax and regulate private business so much that the government essentially owns and runs those companies.

But to see that everyone can get a good education. Where kids aren't sent to school simply because of where they live, but what's the best school for them even if that might mean a charter school or private school all together.

Where economic development is encouraged so you don't have ghost towns essentially where the only people who live there are people who can't afford to live anywhere else. Where gangs and organize criminals run the communities.

Where you have an modern infrastructure system so companies can get their products to market (to use an old phrase) and also to encourage more private economic development.

A responsible regulatory state to protect consumers from predators and worker from abusive employers.

And a limited effective safety net (not welfare state) that serves an economic insurance system for people who are out-of-work, or lack basic skills to get themselves a good job. But also empowers low-skilled individuals to get themselves on their feet by finishing and furthering their education and learning a trade so they can get themselves a good job.

Where Liberals separate from Socialists has to do with government's involvement in the economy. Socialists want government to take most of the national income and dish it back out based on what they believe people need to do well. Where Liberals differ with Libertarians is that Liberals believe that the people should be able to to keep most of what they earn. But that Liberals believe there is a real role for government even in a free society and that being part of a free society is like being part of a club. Where you end up paying for the services that you consume and even some of the services that don't personally benefit you.