Foreign Affairs: Sebastian Mallaby: 'How Should a Liberal Be?'

Source:K-Top- Thomas Jefferson; one of the Founding Fathers, as well as Founding Liberals, and father's of American liberalism.

"In James Grant, it sometimes seems, the nineteenth century has been resuscitated. Towering, gaunt, bow-tied, and pinstriped, he writes with a sly wit that recalls the novels of William Thackeray. His signal achievement is a fortnightly cult publication bearing the antique title Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. He is a nostalgic believer in the nineteenth-century gold standard. He eyes modern banking innovations with stern, starch-collared suspicion, as though peering at them through a monocle. Even traditional financial instruments elicit a wry scorn. “To suppose that the value of a common stock is determined purely by a corporation’s earnings,” Grant once wrote, “is to forget that people have burned witches, gone to war on a whim, risen to the defense of Joseph Stalin and believed Orson Welles when he told them over the radio that the Martians had landed.”

Now, Grant has written a delightful biography of Walter Bagehot, the great nineteenth-century Englishman in whom Grant perhaps recognizes a grander version of himself: the would-be Victorian sage is paying tribute to the authentic one. From 1861 until his death in 1877, Bagehot served as the third and most famous editor of The Economist. He was a confidant of William Gladstone, the dominant liberal politician of the era, and his words exercised such sway over successive governments that he was regarded as an honorary cabinet minister. After Bagehot’s death, a contemporary remarked that he might have been the most fascinating conversationalist in London.

Like Grant, Bagehot was a vivid wordsmith and a cult figure. Unlike Grant, Bagehot was generally a modernizer, a believer in progress, and therefore an opponent of the gold standard. (Bagehot’s views on certain matters, such as gender and race, were far from enlightened.) In his slim 1873 volume, Lombard Street, Bagehot explained how central banks should quell financial panics by printing currency and lending it liberally—“to merchants, to minor bankers, to ‘this man and that man,’ whenever the security is good.” To Grant’s evident dismay, this formulation."

From Foreign Affairs

"On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy was sworn into office and delivered one of the most famous inaugural addresses in U.S. history."

Source:CBS News'- Our last Classical Liberal if not Liberal President

From CBS News

"Liberal democracy is generally understood to be a system of government in which people consent to their rulers, and rulers, in turn, are constitutionally constrained to respect individual rights. However, widely divergent views exist regarding the meaning of consent and individual rights, of the particular forms of government that are best suited to the preservation of popular rule and the protection of rights, and of the types and effectiveness of constitutional constraints within particular forms of government. Nonetheless, liberal democracy is common throughout most of the developed world."

Before I get into how should a Liberal be, perhaps I should get into what Liberals aren't.

If you look at what stereotypical Liberals are, they represent almost nothing as far as what Liberals actually are and if anything if you look at what stereotypical Liberals are ( as some people call Modern Liberals ) and what real Liberals ( or Classical Liberals ) are supposed to be, they look almost as different as Communists and Ayn Randian Objectivist-Libertarians: with the so-called Liberals believing that government should try to do practically everything for everybody and that free choice and private ownership should be as limited as possible, if permitted at all. With Randian-Libertarians thinking that government should do practically nothing for people, if anything at all.

If you look at the so-called Liberals going back to the late 1960s and all through the 1970s, you would think that Liberals are nothing but rebellious leftist-hipsters who believe everything that America represents is immoral and bigoted and that they want to tear down the system ( or as they would say, the man ) and replace it with a socialist state.

Radical leftist groups from the late 1960s and early 1970s like Students For a Democratic Society and The Weather Underground and other militant socialist groups, didn't even call themselves Liberals. It was the so-called mainstream media that did that. They were people who literally believed that liberal democracy is bad and communism is good. And today you see groups like that on the Far-Left in America that are supposed to be the Liberals of today, but who aren't militant: groups like The Left Forum, Democratic Socialists of America, ( who call themselves Democratic Socialists, not Liberals ) the Occupy Wall Street movement from early in this decade just after the Great Recession, and other left-wing, socially and politically active political organizations in America.

That if you're a Liberal, you're supposed to be a rebellious hippie ( either from the 1960s or today ) who believes that everything that America stands for and even our form of government is immoral and that it's your job to tear that down ( either through democratic means or otherwise ) and replace it with some type of Scandinavian socialist state. You're supposed to believe that the socialist dictators of the world like in Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and other places are actually decent moral people and if there's anything wrong with them at all, it's America's fault and that we forced them on those countries. And that it's America who are the real authoritarians and terrorists in the world.

The so-called Modern Liberal is supposed to believe that capitalism is racist and bigoted, that personal freedom is dangerous, people are stupid and therefor you need big government to babysit people and manage their lives for them. That free speech is supposedly bigoted and therefore has to be regulated so that no one is offended. Well, anyone who isn't a member of some minority group ( except for Jews ) in the country. But free speech for anyone who has something to say about any member of a majority group. And free speech for anyone who has something negative to say about anyone on the Right ( including the Center-Left, who look Right compared with the Far-Left ) or any member of a majority group.

So-called Liberals are supposed to believe that anyone who sets out to get a good education and become financially independent in life and them accomplishes those objectives, even if they donate part of their wealth to charity, is somehow immoral and bigoted. The so-called Liberals from back in the day and today are people who not just question capitalism and private ownership, but are looking for alternatives to replace those actual liberal values. We're seeing that with young Democratic voters in the Democratic presidential race right now.

So I just laid out what Liberals aren't, even if the so-called mainstream media is too clueless or brainless to get that. And I'll tell you what it means to be a Liberal, at least to me.

If you look at the word liberal and liberty, they're very similar because liberal comes from liberty. ( Not big government, socialist, communist, collectivist, welfare state ) If you look at the words liberation, liberalize, liberalized, they're all not just very similar to liberal because they're the same things.

When countries liberalize their economies, their societies, their government's, they're opening them up and expanding individual freedom. Not expanding the government and taking away free choice and free ownership. We're seeing that in Cuba today with is more liberal today than they were even 15 years ago with Cubans now being able to own and start their own businesses and own their homes. When they were a pure communist state under Fidel Castro, they were less liberal than they are today.

To put it simply: a Liberal is someone who believes in liberty, not big government. Liberals, believe in liberal democracy and the liberal values that it represents: like individual rights like free speech, personal freedom, property rights, limited government, decentralization of power, ( both governmental and private ) checks and balances, free, fair, and open elections, quality of opportunity, equal rights, equal justice, pluralism, diversity, a race, ethnic, gender, and religious-blind society where individuals are judged exactly as that, not as members of any group. Liberals are not Anarchists or Communists: we want government to defend all of our rights for every one us, not to do nothing, or try to run our lives for us. These are the liberal values of liberalism, not collectivism.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Foreign Affairs: Senator Elizabeth Warren: 'A Foreign Policy For All'

Source:The Atlantic Magazine- U.S. Senator's Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren 

"Around the world, democracy is under assault. Authoritarian governments are gaining power, and right-wing demagogues are gaining strength. Movements toward openness and pluralism have stalled. Inequality is growing, transforming rule by the people into rule by wealthy elites. And here in the United States, many Americans seem to accept—even embrace—the politics of division and resentment.

How did we get here? There’s a story Americans like to tell ourselves about how we built a liberal international order—one based on democratic principles, committed to civil and human rights, accountable to citizens, bound by the rule of law, and focused on economic prosperity for all. It’s a good story, with deep roots. But in recent decades, Washington’s focus has shifted from policies that benefit everyone to policies that benefit a handful of elites. After the Cold War, U.S. policymakers started to believe that because democracy had outlasted communism, it would be simple to build democracy anywhere and everywhere. They began to export a particular brand of capitalism, one that involved weak regulations, low taxes on the wealthy, and policies favoring multinational corporations. And the United States took on a series of seemingly endless wars, engaging in conflicts with mistaken or uncertain objectives and no obvious path to completion. 

The impact of these policy changes has been devastating. While international economic policies and trade deals have worked gloriously well for elites around the world, they have left working people discouraged and disaffected. Efforts to promote the United States’ own security have soaked up huge resources and destabilized entire regions, and meanwhile, U.S. technological dominance has quietly eroded. Inequality has grown worldwide, contributing to an unfolding nationalist backlash that seeks to upend democracy itself. It is little wonder that the American people have less faith in their government today than at any other time in modern U.S. history. The country is in a moment of crisis decades in the making."  

From Foreign Affairs 

A "foreign policy for all", I guess has a real hipster ring to it, similar to Medicare For All or whatever example you want to use, but like most catch phrases whether they're pop culture or political, when you actually get into them the first question is always, "what does that mean?" What do you mean by that? As much as President Donald Trump's presidency contradicts this, the President of the United States and American government more broadly are actually serious things meant for serious people. This is not a reality TV show or some movie or hip sitcom or anything else. This is real-life where real decisions are made everyday effecting real people. "A foreign policy for all" might have a catch ring to it, but what does that mean and what is in that foreign policy.

So when Senator Elizabeth Warren, argues that it's time to bring our troops home, the first obvious question is, "bring them home from where?" If you're talking about bringing them home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then the next question would be, "what would happen instead after America is out of those two countries?"

Senator Warren, also argues that America spends too much on national defense, OK where would you cut the defense budget? It's hard to get official numbers from the U.S. Defense Department on this, but we're currently somewhere between 50-100 billion dollars on the defense of Europe in NATO. We currently make up just as one country 70% of the entire NATO defense budget. Would asking or demanding that Germany, France, Italy and other European states spend more on their own defense and take a good chunk of that revenue out of our own defense budget since Europe is now spending more on their own defense? America could do a lot with 50-100 billion dollars a year that it wouldn't have to spend on defense. 

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

Foreign Affairs: Graham K. Brown & Arnim Langer: Lessons From Affirmative Action Around The World

Source:The New Democrat

Imagine fifty-years ago when the U.S. Government under the Johnson Administration had a federal policy designed to empower racial and ethnic minorities in this country who were stuck in poverty that was built around infrastructure, education and job training. That all of that money, or at least some of it that went into the Great Society was put into low-income communities. Things like roads, bridges, schools, health care centers, job training centers, incentives for economic development. Are we still looking at an African-American poverty rate of thirty-percent today and a Latino-American poverty rate of twenty-five percent today?

Fifty-years later after affirmative action, who’s benefited from it the most part. Caucasian-American women who were already doing well. And Asian-Americans who were already doing well. Latinos are doing better, but a lot of them have come to America and started their own business’s. And some of them have benefited from affirmative action. Like the kids of immigrants and others. And yes African-Americans no longer have a poverty level of fifty-percent and that is a good thing. But at thirty-percent it is still twice that of the national average. About the level they were fifty-years ago. Twice that of the national average.

So what we’ve done as a country with affirmative action is to tell Caucasian men and women as well, as well some Asian-Americans, that they are already doing very well in this country. And because of that they are going to be denied access in some cases like at college and federal contracts, so people who aren’t doing as well and in many cases aren’t as qualified for those opportunities to have that new access so they can do better as well. And a lot of African and Latino-Americans have taken advantage of that access that they wouldn’t of gotten except for affirmative action. But at the expense of Caucasians and Asians who were more qualified going in.

I’m all for empowering people of poverty regardless of race and ethnicity to do well in America. That is something I believe as a Liberal, liberating people from poverty. But there’s a right way to do that and a wrong way. And the wrong way to empower people who are struggling at the expense of people who are doing well and have taken advantage of the opportunities they were given in life by working hard and being productive. What you do with people who are struggling is give them opportunities to get themselves out of poverty. You invest in their communities with new economic development. You give them education and job training opportunities so they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job. You modernize their schools, roads, bridges and everything else that communities have to have to be strong.

And when you invest ins struggling communities, you invest in inner cities and rural areas. And you don’t make those communities even poorer by building new public housing projects in those communities, so you have more poor people moving in there. And even few property owners and leaving the schools there without the resources that they need to give their students a good education. You instead put public housing projects in economically successful areas. So the residents there can immediately get the resources that they need to be able to live a good life. Where their kids can go to good schools. While you’re tearing down or renovating the public housing projects in poorer communities as part of a community rebuilding plan.

We could’ve been doing these things fifty-years ago when economic times were good and weren’t running up huge debts and deficits. Even with the Vietnam War, instead of affirmative action. Instead concentrating so many poorer Americans in one community where they are dealing with bad schools for their children. Where the parents of these kids haven’t finished school themselves in many cases. Where they are dealing with high crime and criminal gangs. Because when business’s leave communities crime tends to move in. Because the resources aren’t there to fight crime in an effective way. And with a better more proactive and even more liberal approach to economic inequality, we could be dealing with much lower poverty rates in this country.

Foreign Affairs: Michael T. Klare: Hard Power, Soft Power & Energy Power

Source:The New Democrat

I’ve been thinking about this myself, but up until now have never gotten around to blogging about this. But what if in response to Russia invading Ukraine and threatening to cut off Ukraine and Europe from oil and gas that Europe desperately needs, America and Canada and perhaps Mexico stepped in and said, “we’ll give you what Russia has given you to make up for what they cut off and give it to you at cheaper rates. In exchange you continue to enforce current economic sanctions on Russia, as well as impose new ones.”

Russia is already headed for recession this year and if it wasn’t for their energy sector they would already be there. Because they don’t have much else going for their economy other than their energy and military sectors. They have a very education system and produce a lot of well-qualified workers, but who can’t get good jobs because of President Putin’s unwillingness or inability to develop the rest the Russian economy. While we are also helping Ukraine develop their own military and economy and be able to ditch Putin’s Russia.

Whether you’re talking about hard power which tends to be the neoconservative response to foreign crisis’, or soft power which tend tends to be the liberal response and to a certain extent energy power as well, none of them are silver bullets that can stop military conflicts on their own. Unless you not only have overwhelming force and use it and aren’t too concern about the lost of innocent lives as a result. But what I prefer as a Liberal is Smart Power where you put all of your options on the table and use the best of what you have to work with. And not become overly dependent on any one form of response.

Foreign Affairs: Kenan Malik: Why Multiculturalism Failed

Source:The New Democrat

The Far-Left both in America and Europe put down America as being this country of racial and ethnic discrimination where the majority population is always putting down racial and ethnic minorities. While Europe on the other hand is a utopia of social democracies where everyone lives in peace and lives together and where racial and ethnic diversity is celebrated and where everyone gets along. I had a real hard time just writing that without laughing. Because the opposite is actually true.

You’re not going to find another country has big as America or about the same size give or take that is as racially and ethnically diverse as America is. As well as religiously diverse where even Agnostics and Atheists have as much freedom for their religious beliefs as believers. You’re also not going to find another country where all of our different ethnicities and races get along as well than America. And if you want to look at racist groups in America, fine. But where did the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan come from originally as far as their people? Britain and Germany respectfully.

America doesn’t really have a Nazi Party anymore, unlike Germany and the KKK is almost nothing now as far as presence and are about as small as the Italian-American crime families now. One of the reasons why America is so big is because of our diverse immigrant population. Where the whole world comes to build better lives for themselves. And a lot of those immigrants are still European. America still does have hate crimes based on race, ethnicity and religion, but we also have hate crime laws to specifically punish those terrorists for those crimes.

America is not a country where 8-10 people or more come from one ethnicity or race. Unlike lets say Britain where roughly 8-10 Brits are English. Go to Germany and about 8-10 Germans are ethnic-German to use as examples. And the same thing with Italy as far as ethnic-Italians. 1-6 Americans are ethnic-German and about the same with English and Irish-Americans. But we also has large African and Latino-American populations and a significant Asian population both South Asian and Oriental populations. And by in large we all get along very well in America where all Americans have the same rights under law as everyone else.

America is sure as hell not perfect, but neither is Europe. But its real hard if not impossible to make the case that Europe is this peaceful utopia of racial and ethnic diversity and that America is some racist hell where everybody hates everybody especially European-Americans. Which by the way where did they come from again. Because Europe is not a hell, but neither is America, but America has a much better record of including all of its Americans. While Europe is still trying to figure out how to do that especially with their Middle Eastern populations. And even deciding that maybe multiculturalism has failed there and that they need more segregation and less immigration.

The Washington Post: Venezuela & Cuba: Partners in Repression

Source:The New Democrat

Just as Cuba has started to move away from Castro Marxism/authoritarianism and have opened up their economy and at least to a small extent their country, Venezuela has moved towards Castro Marxism/authoritarianism. Which is a sad state of affairs for Venezuela a mid-size that is energy independent with a good deal of land and a lot of potential to become a developed country. If their government just freed their people and allowed for them to build that society.

The answer for America is not to cutoff economic and diplomatic ties with Venezuela, which is what we did with Cuba in the early 1960s and Iran in the late 1970s. The answer is to punish their bad behavior in conjunction with our North and South American allies. And give them incentive to improve their own behavior. So they don’t have to live under an indefinite period of sanctions like Cuba and Iran. And one way to do that is by working with the Venezuela liberal democratic opposition with our allies. So the Maduro Regime is not the only voice in Venezuela.

The Maduro Regime needs to get the message that oppression and repression and other forms of authoritarianism even in the name of socialism which is certainly not democratic in Venezuela, is not how they are going to build a developed society. And when they act in that way they need to pay a heavy price for that from America and our allies especially in South America. But in Mexico as well especially a huge country that has made it out of authoritarian and is building a developed country of their own through democratic means.

Foreign Affairs: Jose W. Fernandez & Eric Lorber: Opening Cuba to American Telecommunications Investment

Source:The New Democrat 

I agree that opening up the Cuban telecommunications industry and allowing for others to be involved there outside of the Castro Regime is a way to not only open up Cuba and open up a better relationship between America and Cuba, but the two government’s, is not only a good way to open up Cuba, but also a good way to open up the Cuban economy. The Castro Regime decided in the late 2000s or so that Marxism was failing in Cuba and that their state-owned economic system simply wasn’t working. Which is when they started opening up their economy to private investment and allowing for Cubans to start their own business’s. And sell off some of their state-owned business’s to the Cuban people.

But what has also failed is the American-Cuban Trade Embargo. A unilateral decision by the Eisenhower Administration in the late 1950s to end relations with the Cuban Government and stop trading with them. After the Castro Communists came to power in Cuba and started nationalizing a lot of the Cuban economy. While Europe, Asia and South America, Canada and Mexico continued to trade and relate with Cuba, America was on the sidelines. And stayed on the sidelines until the last few months believing that not trading and isolating Cuba would end the Castro Regime or at the very least get them to respect the human rights of their own people and act responsibly. That has obviously failed as the Castro Regime has been in power for fifty-five years now.

You open up countries by talking to them and incentivizing them to act responsibly. And you especially allow for the people’s of both countries to interact and for business’s of both countries to be able to trade with each other. Which is what we did during the Cold War either every country that was aligned with the Soviet Union including the People’s Republic of China. Shutting the door on a country when the rest of the country has their doors open to that country simply doesn’t work. Sanctions can only work when other countries apply the same sanctions as well. Which is why the sanctions on Russia and Iran have worked because both America and Europe have the same sanctions. And trading and communicating with Cuba will not only improve the relations of that country and the lives of the Cuban people.

Foreign Affairs: Alan J. Kuperman: How Barack Obama Failed Libya

Source:The New Democrat

I supported a limited intervention of Libya that would have a coalition between America and Europe especially NATO that would establish a no fly zone over Libya as the Libyan rebels did the groundwork in Libya to knockout the Gaddafi Regime there. I was in favor of this by February 2011 and even criticized the Obama Administration for not acting soon enough. President Obama finally makes the decision to intervene in Libya and be part of the NATO coalition that would hit Gaddafi forces in the air as the Libyan rebels did the groundwork. This was one of the most successful, cost-effective and quick military operations that America has ever been part of that ended in the early summer of 2011.

This was not Iraq 2011 where we would go in and invade the country with a hundred-thousand ground troops, knockout the government and establish our own state there to occupy the country. Why the Iraqi people would figure out what kind of country they wanted to have. The operation in Libya was about knocking out a murderous dictator who was simply only interested in staying in power in Libya. And this is something I believe we could’ve done in Syria by now. Knocked out the Assad Regime in coalition with NATO and not have to debate and consider if we arm the Syrian rebels or not. But that is a different debate.

Libya is not a failed state now because America and Europe decided not to occupy it. Libya is a failed stated because they didn’t have the leadership to unify the country around a new government that could bring this large country the size of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Algeria physically, but with only six-million people, together and plot the course for the new Libya. What they instead got was another semi-authoritarian government that wasn’t prepared to govern and defend the country. And now you have new rebels and terrorists including ISIS that Egypt of all countries has decided to intervene against and take out.

Foreign Affairs: Alexander J. Motyl: Why Vladimir Putin's Days Are Numbered

Source:The New Democrat

If you look at how the Russian Federation is set up and what type of country and the government they are supposed to have on paper, it is very sound and looks very similar as the United States. They are officially a Federal Republic with checks and balances in their Federal Government. A strong executive, but independent judiciary and legislative branches. With states that they call republics who are also independent of the Federal Government. With their own governments and independently elected governors of their republics. Sounds like America, doesn’t it.

But that is not how President Vladimir Putin governs Russia and no he’s not as bad as Joe Stalin and a lot of Russian dictators from the Soviet era. Russia is a hell of a lot better off now than they were in the Soviet era as far as being able to move around the country and being able to build lives for themselves and being able to live in some type of freedom. And they do now have an independent media and access to foreign media. But this is not a liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination and doesn’t even advertise itself as one. And if Vlad Putin is not a dictator officially, he is certainly one in practice with all of the power he’s centralized in his own office.

But it looks like President Putin may have gone too far, because as much economic progress that Russia has made in the last fifteen years or so under his leadership, that has mostly been from their energy industry that is state-owned. Russia is one of the top three energy producers in the world. This is a country that should’ve been an economic superpower sixty-years ago with their natural resources and their educated public. But of course their communist system ruined that for them and the Putin Administration hasn’t done much to develop their other industries and create other industries. That America did a long time ago and that Europe in Japan did sixty-years ago.

And now that oil prices are falling and the with the American/European economic sanctions on Russia because of their unlawful invasion of Ukraine and all of the money that Russia has spent to try to occupy parts of Ukraine which is a large country, the Russian economy is taking a big hit. And people in the Russian Government and around the country know this and have only their President Putin to blame for that. And as a result President Putin’s strong hand on that entire country of one-fifty-million people is getting a lot weaker. And hopefully his days as dictator of Russia are numbered.

Foreign Affairs: Bilal Y. Saab: Saudi Arabia's Way Forward

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not claiming to be an expert on Saudi Arabia and that their people and especially their government is ready for this type of government, system and constitution. Especially their government that currently benefits so much from their current makeup and setup. That their oil and gas revenues provides so much for their people and that most of the country is able to live pretty well in return. That their people in return give up individual freedom, or at least a lot of bit certainly from a personal perspective, but perhaps from an economic perspective as well. Since the Saudi economy is so dependent on their oil and gas.

What I’m saying is that what I would propose for them has worked very well in other countries with similar government’s or population’s. That Britain is a democratic monarchy where their government is separated from their monarchy. That their head of state is a Prime Minister who is independent of the monarchy. And that country has done very well for about sixty-years now under that system. Turkey one of Saudi Arabia’s neighbors in the Middle East is a very religious Muslim country. But their government is secular by in large even if their current government wants to change that. And their government has functioned very well the last thirty-years or so.

I believe the way forward for Saudi Arabia is not to abolish their monarchy or their form of Islam. But to separate them from their government and have those three things act independently, but in partnership with the others. A national government, hopefully federally under a federal system. That has checks and balances with an executive, legislature and judiciary. That again are independent of each other, but work in partnership. An executive that is led by a president or prime minister, not a king who is accountable to their legislature, judiciary and most importantly the Saudi people.

What Saudi Arabia will probably get instead from their new King is the status quo. Which is very conservative at least on sense that they won’t change anything. And if anything make their current system stronger and more centralized and dictatorial. But for this country to truly become a developed country and a giant in the world economically, politically and militarily, they need to diversify their government and their economy so their people have the freedom to make Saudi Arabia as strong as it can be. And not so dependent on a monarchy and energy industry doing so much for everyone else.

Foreign Affairs: Anton Barbashin: The Eurasian Economic Union Is An Illusion

Source:The New Democrat

Eurasia lets call it, the area east of the European Union with the first Slavic states and former Soviet republics, all the way over to the Arab states, will never be very successful economically as long as Russia is run by someone who simply wants to put the Soviet Union back together. Or bring back all of those republics back to Russia. And not so much interested in what is in the best interest of the people in these countries. Because decisions will always be made on how to obtain greater power and territory. And not what is in the best interest of the economies in these Slavic countries.

Russia will always be a potentially great country and new superpower, with its great and educated population, land mass, and natural resources and not actually returning to the world again as a superpower, but this time economically to go along with militarily and diplomatically, as long as Vladimir Putin is running the government there. Whether he has the official title as Russian Federation President or not. As long as Vlad is interested in obtaining more power and territory for Russia and not developing the economy so it reaches most if not all the Russian people, Russia will remain a developing power, if not country all together.

Foreign Affairs: Matthias Matthijs & Daniel R. Kelemen: Reforms That Will Save The EU From Irrelevance

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m not suggesting that in the short-term the European Union go from essentially a regional United Nations, even though it’s a lot more effective and run a lot better and I would argue a lot more important and perhaps the most important international player in the Western world outside of the United States and the United Kingdom, to a Federal Republic and state. Even though long-term I believe that would be in Europe’s best interest would be as one federal state in Western Europe. Going from Belgium and Portugal in the West over to Poland and Italy in the East, with every other state in between.

The European Union as a Federal Republic would be a superpower economically, militarily, diplomatically and everything else. And the economies in Europe would be much better off as part as this one huge market of three-hundred and fifty-million people or so. Instead of one mid-size market of forty or sixty-million or so, or even smaller depending on the country. But short-term for the EU to be stronger and more relevant, they need to be a little more centralized as far as the Commission and Parliament being in the same European capital and being part of the same organization under the EU.

As well as the EU should be more democratic with a real executive branch lets say that comes under the President of the European Union. Who would be elected by European Union voters. Voters in each EU state, instead of the EU rotating the presidency every few years or so. The people in these states would elect the EU President. And Commission would come under the President, with the President having their own Commission and appointing essentially cabinet members to the Commission, that would need to be approved by the Parliament. Whether the Parliament is bicameral or unicameral.

These reforms would make the EU more relevant and more effective, because the EU under the President and their commission would be able to act and act effectively dealing with issues that effect Europe and have a Parliament. Organizations like a united European Defense Force, that could eventually replace NATO and be a major partner of the Britain, Canada and America would be able to respond to either attacks inside of the EU, or attacks nearby like human rights and military crisis’ nearby, like in Africa or in Arabia like with what we saw in Libya in 2011 or in Syria today.

The United Nations is essentially a joke and not much more than a debating society. But especially if you compare the UN with the EU and that is not what you want the EU to become a place where nothing is essentially done other than debating and critical issues are never addressed. Which is what we saw with Russia in their invasion of Ukraine and with Syria as well. A united EU whether it is a federal state or not with a strong Commission under a President and a strong Parliament, would be able to address these issues in a timely and effective way. Because now you wouldn’t need all the EU members to agree on anything before anything is done.

Foreign Affairs: Omar Al-Nidawi: How PM Nouri Maliki Lost Iraq

Source:Foreign Affairs

It would be easy and perhaps even tempting to blame crisis going on in Northern Iraq and the fact that it is now under control by Islamic terrorists on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney when they were President and Vice President. But the fact is both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been out of office for over five years now. And Iraq was fairly stable when they left office with a competent federal government.

George Bush and Dick Cheney deserve a lot of blame for what happened in Iraq and their mishandling of that war during the six years we were over there during their time in office. But the fact is Iraq is now under the control and responsibility of the Maliki Administration which is what Iraq wanted. And when Iraqi troops fail to even bother to try to defend their nation against rebels when they were trained to fight for their country. Its kinda hard to say that is somehow the United States fault or to blame it on one president.

The blame goes to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and his corrupt dictatorial administration and his failure and unwillingness to unite his country. And what he's done instead is try to centralize the power in his own office instead of reach out to the different diverse groups in that country. And has been left with forces that aren't willing or able to defend and fight for their own country and instead walked away when given the opportunity to defend their country. And as much as the American Neo-Cons want to blame President Obama for the fall of Northern Iraq they should first look at the corrupt Iraqi government that they backed.

Foreign Affairs: Lane Kenworthy: America's Social Democratic Future

Source: Foreign Affairs-

Source:Foreign Affairs 

The Affordable Care Act is a health insurance plan that won’t be expanded to all Americans even when fully implemented and that is one of the weakness’s of it, which is why I was in favor of the public option when it came out as well as making Medicaid universal for everyone eligible and fully funded and self-financed for everyone in the country who is eligible for it. But the great thing about the ACA is that it is exactly not what the Tea Party and Libertarians says it is. That Social Democrats in America wanted. Which is that government takeover of at least the health insurance system.

Expanding health insurance to millions of Americans who do not have it, but allowing for them to decide where they get their health insurance. Because despite what the Tea Party and Libertarians say it is, this is not a government takeover of health care that Social Democrats in America wanted, but the opposite. It builds on the private health insurance model while fixing the weakness’s of that system as it gets to consumer protections. That millions of new Americans now getting health insurance and millions of Americans not losing their health insurance because of the new consumer protections in the ACA.

The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats made a smart calculation in 2009 when they started pushing for heath care reform. And knew that there was a limit to what Americans wanted government doing for them. Especially the Federal Government and a big reason why they pushed the consumer protections in the law so heavily. As well as that old line, “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” And whether that is true or not that was big key to their message.

That they didn’t want Americans to think that Uncle Sam was taking over the health insurance system. Or the entire health care system that what they wanted to do was to expand health insurance through the private system. And create a public option that Americans could decide for themselves to choose or not. But again it would be their choice and not Uncle Sam making that decision for them. And as badly as they played the politics and failed to get Americans behind that message and it cost them the House of Representatives in 2010 as a result, that is the health care plan they were pushing and ran on from day one.

Lane Kenworthy was pushing the idea of social democracy in Foreign Affairs today. That ObamaCare is the sign that America is moving towards social democracy and we are going to transform America into Scandinavia. And create this huge centralized superstate known as the super or welfare state. That we are going to be transform from a Jeffersonian Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy which is different from a social democracy. Liberal democracy is about choice, freedom the ability for people to govern their own lives.

Social democracy is about having a large centralized central government to provide the basic human services that the capitalist economic system comes up short in providing. We are still that Jeffersonian Federal Republic and will remain that for an indefinite future. Because the younger generations Gen-X and Gen-Y, do not expect and want government trying to do everything for them. And tend to be more liberal to libertarian with their social and economic views. Instead of progressive to socialist. Which is why social democracy in America is still considered Far-Left.

For politicians and politics to be successful in America no matter from which political philosophy it is they are coming from, the people in power have to know where the country is politically and what is politically possible. The Obama Administration knew that which is why single payer Medicare For All was never on the table. And even considered because of the political backlash that would’ve come from the Right and Independents as well as some Democrats. Democrats paid a heavy price for the bill they got which was just building off of the private health insurance system. With the public option being pulled out because of some vulnerable Democratic senators.
Big Think: Jeffrey Sachs- Can Universal Basic Income Fix America's Income Inequality?

Foreign Affairs: Francis Fukuyama: The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class

Source:FRS FreeState 

I saw a blog post last night on The Dish with Andrew Sullivan which is also on WordPress, if you are interested in The Dish and the blog was called. Why hasn’t there been a Liberal version of the Tea Party. I’m paraphrasing, but that is pretty close to the title of it. Referring to groups like Occupy Wall Street as if these are liberal groups. Granted these groups are on the Left, but they aren’t Liberal. And ideologically have more in common with SocialDemocrats in Europe than they do with Liberal Democrats in America. 

Liberal Democrats like Wendell Willkie from the 1930s and 40s. Or Jack Kennedy or Bill Clinton or Dick Durbin the Assistant Leader in the U.S. Senate. Or Representative Jared Pollis one of my favorite members of the House who I would love to see run statewide at some point. A real New Democrat, a true Liberal Democrat who is pro-gay rights, anti-war on drugs, pro-marijuana legalization, fiscally responsible. The men that I mentioned are the real Liberals in the Democratic Party and the country. Senator Ron Wyden would be another and I’m sure there are plenty women like this, Wendy Davis in Texas. That make up the real Liberals in America as well. 

So perhaps Andrew Sullivan’s blog should’ve been titled something to the effect. How come there hasn’t been a leftist version of the Tea Party. Whether it comes from Liberals where I am or Social Democrats. Who are a bit further to the Left and perhaps not even center-left. But the point is taken that there hasn’t been a liberal response to the Tea Party in this century. When Republicans took control of the House and the state governorships in 2011 after the 2010 elections, the Democratic response led by President Obama was a defensive one. 

President Obama responded with you meaning the "Republicans are back in power and we have divided government now, but we are here to stop you and prevent you from getting everything you want". And this went on for over a year until Democrats got back into campaigning and decided they wanted to get reelected. And not have a President Mitt Romney with a united Republican Congress including the Senate. And set out to essentially destroy these people . Tea Party Republicans running for election in swing states and of course Mitt Romney who gave Democrats plenty of weapons to hit him with. But it wasn’t a positive reaction to the right-wing Tea Party.

In 2005-06 when the Democratic Party started rebounding thanks to the Iraq War, President Bush’s failed Social Security reform effort, Hurricane Katrina after President Bush was reelected in 2004-05. And with Republicans in Congress going downhill thanks to corrupt House Republicans and President Bush’s lower thirties approval ratings. One poll I saw in late 2005 had President Bush at twenty-nine percent. And to go along with the Iraq War and House Republican scandals some bad Senate Republicans incumbents. running for reelection in 2006. 

Like George Allen in Virginia and Conrad Burns in Montana all of these things led to the first Democratic Congress since 1993-94. Democrats won back the House and Senate in 2006, but not because of some liberal or social democratic revolution similar to the Tea Party on the Right. But because Republicans had ten toes that year and probably shot off eight of them. So Democrats coming back to power in 2006 was a response to Republicans failing in power with a united government, not because of a Democratic revolution liberal or otherwise.

To go back even further with the Goldwater-Reagan Conservative-Republican movement, that started in the mid 1960s and went up all the way through George H.W. Bush losing reelection for president in 1992. And this revolution was in response to the Progressive Era of FDR and LBJ. Where Progressive-Democrats essentially were in charge of the United States from 1933 until 1969 with a small break with Eisenhower years in the 1950s. Who did not seek to roll back the New Deal. But even added to it with the creation of the interstate highway system. 

There wasn’t a counter-movement from the Left at all until the mid or late 1980s after Democrats had taken it on the chin for twenty years. Basically at least at the presidential level losing 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88, four of those by landslides. Jimmy Carter’s defeat to Ron Reagan in 1980 was so bad it also cost Democrats the U.S. Senate. And gave House Republicans a large minority working with Southern Democrats an ideological majority in the House. But it wasn’t really to 1985 or later that Liberal Democrats woke up and said "we need to take the party back from the Far-Left if we are going to govern again".

The closest thing I believe we’ve seen to a liberal version of the Tea Party as far as in power and the ability to mobilize is what is known as the New Democrat Coalition in the Democratic Party. An organization that was put together to respond to two ideological factions the Goldwater-Reagan Conservative Republicans. And the George McGovern Social Democrats in the Democratic Party. New Democrats are Democrats whose message is basically this. What we aren’t crazy like these people on the far-left in the Democratic Party and we are responsible and know how to govern". 

New Democrats  aren’t going to tax or regulate people out of business. But they aren’t Conservatives either, but that don't believe government has a strong role to try to take care of everyone and try to run people’s lives for them. But there to support people who need it and to see that there is opportunity for everyone to survive on their own. And government is there to protect consumers and workers from predators. Not try to protect people from themselves which is different. And this movement produced Mike Dukakis for president in 1988 who ran a horrible campaign. And Bill Clinton who of course was elected president in 1992 and reelected overwhelmingly in 1996.

But since the Tea Party was created in 2009, there hasn’t been a strong Democratic movement that could gain the support and manpower. As well as a political and governmental agenda to counter the Tea Party from the Liberal-Left in America. And I would like to see that happen, because if this movement were put together and it would have more than enough resources to compete with the Tea Party because it would be business friendly. Not owned by business, but be able to raise funds from them. Because there are plenty of liberal business groups, as well as be able to raise a tone of money online from individuals as well. And as a Liberal Democrat I would love to see this happen.

Foreign Affairs: Jal Mehta: Why American Education Fails

Source:FRS FreeState

For the United States to succeed long-term and for us to ever get our poverty rate down to at least a more competitive level with our developed competitors, instead of twice as high, or to get our level of poverty down to where our normal rate of unemployment is, we simply are going to have to have better public education in this country. And get back to being in the top ten in education in the world where we were twenty thirty years ago instead of 39th. And being towards the middle of the pack with our competitors. Being ranked with small developing countries like the Baltic Republics.

For this to happen we simply our going to have to stop sending our students to school based on where they live. And instead send them to school based on what’s the best school for them. And that means things like public school choice and charter schools especially for our low-income students and even empowering their parents to go back to school. To finish their education so they can get good jobs as well. Stop paying teachers based on how long they’ve been teaching and instead pay them based on how well their students are learning.

And hold our teachers and their students accountable for the jobs that they are doing. Like we do in practically every other profession. And stop promoting kids to the next grade level based on their age and instead based on how well they are learning and what they know. Can they read and write and so forth at the next grade level. And we need to stop funding schools based on where they are located and instead fund based on what they need to serve their students and staff well and do a good job. That means another revenue sources to go along with the property tax or replace the property tax.

I’m not in favor of private school choice at least that’s funded by taxpayers. Because it diverts money that otherwise could be going to things that fund public school choice. Which would give parents the option to send their kids to any school in that public school system that they want. So basically that would have an opening for their kid. Or money that could be used to fund charter schools. Which are public schools that are run independent of the public school bureaucracy. Or money that could be used to fund low-performing schools in low-income neighborhoods.

So low-income schools have the resources that they need to be more competitive with let’s say middle class schools. Or money that could be used to pay good teachers more. And retrain low-performing teachers. But what public school choice and charter schools do is give parents and students the choice to go to what’s the best school for the student. And not based on where they live. And that means if a school is not doing very, well they are going to lose students. And forces public schools to compete with each other to make the public school system as effective as it can be.

There’s not a lot of things I would spend more money on at the Federal level. But public education, job training and public infrastructure would be the areas I would spend more money. But not to fund a failing system. But I would reform the system to improve and then invest more in an improving system. So we have all the resources that we need to see that everyone in the country has access to life long education.

Not just K-12 or even just through college, but as working adults as well. No matter their income levels. So we all have the opportunities that we need to be successful and live in freedom in life. And not be dependent on government, because we didn’t have access to a good education. And that’s what education reform looks like from me. And the liberal way to reform education and job training in this country.