The American Prospect: Julian E. Zelizer: When Leftists Were Organized

The American Prospect: Opinion: Julian E. Zelizer: When Progressives Were Organized

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The Democratic Study Group that Julian Zelizer, was a coalition of FDR/LBJ Progressive Democrats who gave America the New Deal, Great Society and the civil rights laws of the 1960s. They created public social safety net in America. Safety net being the key here, because it is one thing that makes America very different from lets say Scandinavia economically. Americans don’t expect government to take care of them indefinitely, but to help us when we need it. That is why it’s called a safety net and social insurance. You collect your insurance when you need it. But you don’t use it to pay your bills for the rest of your life unless you are disabled or retired. The Progressives of that era understood that and also didn’t want Americans thinking they could just live off of government indefinitely.

Today’s Progressives are much further left than Progressives at least traditionally have been. They’ve gone from Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Teddy Kennedy, mainstream Progressives, all the way over to the Dennis Kucinich’s, Ralph Nader’s Bernie Sanders and yes Bob Kuttner’s of the world who expect government to take care of people in general. Instead of being there for people when they need economic assistance and empowering people who are down to get up on their own feet. The reason why the Democratic Study Group had real clout in Congress in the 1950s and 60s is because they were mainstream in America and tended to believe in things that Americans tend to believe when it comes to the economy. Social insurance for people who need it, infrastructure and quality education for all. So everyone could live in freedom and not need government to take care of them.

The Democratic Study Group and the old The New Republic have been replaced by the new The New Republic, The Nation, AlterNet, TruthOut, and yes The American Prospect and other Far-Left social democratic publications and political activist groups. Who represent very few Americans because they tend to be on the fringe in America and need their readers and followers to give them financial contributions just to stay in business. Because they have so little in advertising revenue. I know this from personal experience being on the email list of all of these publications to see how far left the Far-Left is today. FDR/LBJ Progressives are still around today. Senator Sherrod Brown might be their best and leading spokesperson in Congress today. But unfortunately they’re being shouted down by MSNBC and those publications that I mentioned earlier.

Crash Course: Video: John Green: The Reagan Revolution

Source:The New Democrat

The Reagan Revolution was all possible because of what Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon were able to build in the 1960s and 70s. Moving right-wing Democrats from the Midwest and South over to the Republican Party. It was sort of the final nail in the coffin to the FDR/LBJ Coalition that included Southern right-wing Democrats, to go along with Northeastern Progressives and organized labor being part of both groups. The Reagan Revolution dominated the South and Midwest, but also did well in the Northeast with people who are called Northeastern Republicans today. People who are economic Conservatives and socially moderate to classically conservative, but do not go along with the Religious-Right on social issues.

That is how a right-winger wins 40 and then forty-nine states in America. You convince the Northeast that you don’t want big government into the private lives of Americans. You convince everyone else that you truly believe in economic freedom. And that appoint people who your Far-Right loves and pretend you are with them on the issues, while actually not really doing anything for them.

Vox: Amanda Taub: 'The Truth About Political Correctness is That it Doesn't Exist'

Vox: Opinion: Amanada Taub: The Truth About Political Correctness is That it Doesn't Exist

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

So when Rush Limbaugh calls a young women a slut a few years ago and people on the Far-Left protest and try to get Rush fired because they believe slut is offensive and politically incorrect, that didn’t happen? Or when campus, leftists lets say to be nice try to prevent Anne Coulter from speaking at their college because of offensive remarks she’s made about minorities Latin immigrants, gays and go down the list, she’s serial offender, that didn’t happen either?

Or go up to last year and what Bill Maher who just happens to be a hard-core Atheist that the Far-Left use to love, but he has the balls to criticize Islam, the Far-Left attacks him on Twitter and other places and call him a racist. And the leftists at Berkley try to prevent him from speaking at their state university, by the way, but in Amanda Taub’s world that didn’t happen either? Please, let’s be adults here and not debate whether or not political correctness exist or not. And at the same time not debate whether water is wet or not. And have a real debate about the merits and weakness’ of it instead and have an adult conversation.

Lets also be real about what it is as well, even if the truth may tend to offend the supporters of it. Which is one thing that free speech is about. The right to not only express yourself, but also the right to tell the truth even if it may offend. The fringe version of political correctness is a form of fascism. “I not only disagree with you, but find your point of view hateful and offensive to the point that you don’t have a right to speak in my world. And I’m going to do whatever I can to shut you up”. That is exactly what political correctness is when it comes from the Far-Right and elements of the Tea Party that want to define what it means to be real American. And the Far-Left that wants to shut people up who they find offensive.

Reason Magazine: Jesse Walker: What The Hell Does Politically Correct Mean?

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not saying this is the official definition of political correctness, but this is mine that I believe others share. And by the way, I’m not a fan of political correctness, except as it relates to slurs and perhaps racial, ethnic and sexist jokes. But political correctness are terms and phrases that are considered by lets say the broader public as acceptable. And something that is not considered politically correct is considered offensive. No racial and ethnic slurs by a majority if not most Americans are generally considered offensive and politically incorrect. Only the Far-Right and Far Left approve of them. Well they approve of the slurs against people they disapprove of.

The extreme version of political correctness which is really a form of fascism, is when people criticize members of minority groups and minority groups in general. And they don’t even use bigoted language. Like with Bill Maher back in September and October criticizing Islam and certain aspects of it, accurately so I might add. And the Far-Left who use to admire Maher now viewing him as a racist for criticizing Islam even though his critique was factually based. But since Muslims are a religious, not ethnic or racial minority in the country, the Far-Left jumped on Bill Maher and called him a bigot if not racist for his critique of Islam.

I agree that people who use offensive language against members of groups or groups in general, especially when they are inaccurate and are intentionally being offensive should be looked down upon as bigots and people who aren’t very bright and everything else. But that is different from saying someone should automatically be fired or not allowed to speak simply because they say things that is offensive. Whether its Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage on the Far-Right, or Michael Moore on the Far-Left. People on the fringes in America have the same free speech rights as people in the mainstream. So when political correctness becomes fascism is when I have a real problem with it as a Liberal who loves free speech and the First Amendment.

The New Republic: Brian Beutler: Republican Homeland Security Spirals Out of Control

Source:The New Democrat

For the life of me, I can’t figure out how Democrats lose to these Tea Party and Neoconservative Republicans in any elections outside of the Bible Belt. Congressional Republicans know that if they vote to overturn President Obama’s immigration executive order, they may pass it in the House, but probably pay a price for it in 2016. But it will die in the Senate with even some Senate Republicans not comfortable about voting for it. And Senate Democrats would block it anyway with all of their forty-six members and perhaps with some help from some Senate Republicans. And even it did somehow pass both chambers, President Obama would certainly veto it.

Which leaves Congressional Republicans with only one tool left and it is a big tool, but comes with a lot of risks and after effects if it is used. Sort of like a nuclear bomb and what they say is, “if we can’t overturn President Obama’s executive order, because we can’t either pass it ourselves and perhaps are even divided on it. So what, we’ll strip away the funding for his executive in the Homeland Security appropriations bill”. Thinking the President will have to sign it in order to fund Homeland Security, which is something the Federal Government has to do anyway.

Senate Republicans are now learning what it is like to be in the majority. That you don’t always get everything your way. Even when you control the entire Congress, both the Senate and the House. And especially when the President is from the other party. They are going to have to cave at least in the Senate because they have vulnerable members in blue states up for reelection next year. And have other things that they want to do in this Congress. Homeland Security funding runs out at the beginning of March and they don’t want to get blamed for that department and those workers getting shut down. Which they will because they decided to attach a rider to this bill about immigration. When a clean bill would’ve easily passed both the House and Senate and get signed by President Obama.

Now here’s where I agree with Senate Republicans, a small but important point. I hate the motion to proceed rule in the Senate to begin with and would simply just eliminate it. And let the Leader of the Senate bring up whatever bill and nomination he wants to that has been cleared by the appropriate committee. And then let the Senate Minority Leader block the final bill after debate has been completed and the amendment process has been completed, if he has the votes to do that. So I would’ve voted to proceed with the House bill and then proposed an amendment to strip the immigration defunding part of the bill out. And if that didn’t get a vote or wasn’t passed, then Senate Democrats should then block the bill at the end, but not at the beginning of the process.

New York Magazine: Jonathan Chait: Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

New York Magazine: Opinion: Jonathan Chait: Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

If you are familiar with my pieces about Bill Maher and how the Far-Left attacked him over his comments on Islam back in September and October, you know I view political correctness as not just illiberal, or how I prefer to put it anti-liberal because that is what this is, you know I’m not a fan of political correctness. Because it is a form of fascism, leftist fascism sure, but the Right doesn’t have a monopoly on fascism in America or anywhere else in the world. There’s nothing liberal about trying to shut down the opposition because you disagree with them. Or they offend you, or offend people you care about.

Liberalism was built around the hard-core individual rights of Freedom of Speech and Assembly, Freedom of Movement and Freedom of Choice. Not built around a superstate that would block language that may attend to offend the superstate or offend some of the people. The Wall Street Journal late last week or earlier this week published an editorial questioning whether or not Jonathan Chait is a Liberal or not because of his stance against political correctness. I questioned his credentials as a Liberal two-years ago because of all of his big government social democratic leanings that he has expressed in The New Republic. But now seeing him question political correctness and whether it is a good thing now, gives me a new respect for him.

The way the Far-Left attacked Bill Maher who just the day before he criticized Islam on his show and saw him as one of their heroes or God’s even, (even though the Far-Left tends to be Atheist) supplies all the evidence that people who far to the Left aren’t very liberal at all. Except for perhaps when it comes to some civil liberties, even though they are pretty weak when it comes to free speech. And the way they are probably going to go after Jon Chait for the same reasons shows you that people who are that radical on the Left, aren’t very liberal at least when it comes to speech. But leftist fascists who have the goal of shutting down the political opposition.

The Week: Paul Brandus: The Deficit is Shrinking, But it's Still a Huge Problem

Source:The New Democrat. 

Ideally what you want to do with your debt and deficit outlook, is to run deficits and even big deficits when the economy is bad. And when the economy is good and in today’s case is growing well with good job growth, is to run surplus’, or at least start paying down your debt and deficits. The United States has been in deficits since 2002. So obviously we’ve run up debt ever since and the only way to start paying that down is with a balanced budget. You don’t have to have a balanced budget to have a strong economy. But your debt even if it is growing has to be manageable and not growing faster than your economy. To use as an example.

Assuming America doesn’t balanced its budget in the next 5-10 years, which I believe is likely, what we need to do is to have an economy that is as strong as possible which means growing well and producing a lot of good jobs. And during this period the country needs to be doing things that doesn’t make our short and long-term fiscal outlooks look even worst. What is called in Washington PAYGO, which means paying for things that you do as you do them. Whether it is government investments or tax cuts, you don’t borrow the money. You pay for them up front.

So if the Federal Government is doing things to create even stronger economic growth, which I believe it has to do to help avoid future fiscal crisis’, you pay for them. We need to as a country need to rebuild our country through infrastructure investment. We need to get off of foreign oil at least and long-term perhaps fossil fuels all together. To do that we need to produce our own natural resources. Natural gas, solar, wind to use as examples. And to do these things we need a national energy policy that invest in and encourages these American natural resources.

We need to reform our immigration system and we need to reform our tax code. Our poverty rate is way to high for our economy to as strong as it needs to be and to compete with the rest of the developed world. So we need to move Americans out of poverty and into economic dependence. And all of these new things are going to require additional financial resources, but we need to do them and pay for them.

The stronger your economy is, the better off you’ll be to balance your budget and start paying down your debt. Which is why economic and job growth and paying for the things that drives that should be our number one economic and fiscal priorities right now.