The American Mind: Charles Kesler: Liberalism, Utopia & Government

Source:The New Democrat

Replace the words liberal and liberalism, with either statist and statism, or socialist and socialism and everything these four men were talking about in this video was accurate. They obviously, other than maybe Dennis Prager, don’t understand what liberalism is and what Liberals are. They see liberalism as a philosophy being about an unlimited state and superstate. That if people just gave up their freedom, or let the central state take it from them, everything would be swell, or great. Because people would no longer need to take care of themselves, because Uncle Sammy and his big government would do that for them.

Now, if you want to talk about the so-called Liberal Utopia, or Liberal State. It would be a society where the people would have the freedom to take care of themselves. Without big government minding their business for them and interfering in their personal and economic affairs. And no, I’m not talking about libertarianism. But liberalism, that believes everyone should be treated equally under law and that everyone is entitled to a quality opportunity to achieve freedom in life. And live their own lives and make their own personal and economic decisions with their own lives. And be held accountable for all the decisions that they make in life.

That government’s role is to see that everyone has the opportunity to achieve freedom. That means things like quality education for everyone. Including people who can’t afford private schools, which is where public education comes in. An infrastructure system, so we can all get around and our business’s can all get their goods to market. A regulatory state, not to run private business’s, but to protect the innocent from predators and prevent monopolies from happening. And a social insurance system, for people who fall down, or have never stood up on their own. So they can pay their short-term bills and get themselves on their own two feet.

Liberalism, when it comes to economic policy, is just about economic opportunity and freedom for all. Not about a superstate to take care of everyone, so people don’t have to do that for themselves. A superstate statist philosophy certainly exists. But that is not liberalism. Democratic socialism, or democratic statism, would accurately describe a superstate ideology that sees the role of government to take care of everyone. And views individual freedom as dangerous and is more about welfare rights than individual rights. But that is not liberalism. Which is about liberty for the individual.

The American Mind: The Fate of Modern Liberalism With Charles Krauthammer

Source:The New Democrat

It depends on what you mean by liberalism and this is a reason why I’m glad Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is running for president. Because he’ll represent the so-called modern liberal movement in America and the so-called modern liberals. Even though he’s a Democratic Socialist. And this is what I mean, because what is called modern liberalism, is democratic socialism. Its America’s version of Britain, France and Scandinavia, Canada, and Australia as well. And the Democratic Party has a sufficient Democratic Socialist wing in it, led by Senator Sanders and others.

The reason why liberalism, classical liberalism if you want to call it that, but not libertarianism, but the reason why liberalism is in good shape, is because of the country. Americans, including young Americans, tend to like both personal and economic freedom. We tend to like the ability to manage our own personal and economic affairs and not need or want government do that for us. We also believe there should be a safety net for people who get knocked off their feet. Or don’t have the skills to take care of themselves. To help them get on their feet. America is as Barry Goldwater put it. A country where we don’t want big government in our wallets or bedrooms.

America doesn’t want a big government trying to run our lives for us. But to do what we need it to do. Like protecting us from criminals and keeping the air clean and products that make it to market safe and so-forth. Which is very different from having a government so big that the people don’t have to do much for themselves and don’t have choices in how they can live their own lives. Without much money after taxes to take care of themselves, because government is doing that for them. Liberalism in is real sense, classical or otherwise, is about personal and economic freedom. With a limited government there to protect us from people who would harm us and help people who are down get on their feet. A liberal government is an insurance system with law enforcement and a military. Which is what Americans tend to want from government.

The American Mind: Video: Charles Kesler Interviewing Francis Fukuyama: The Meaning of Life

Source:The New Democrat

There’s an obvious reason why people from at best developing countries, but in some cases come from countries where the economy is barely moving at all and come to America or Canada and Europe to a certain extent, but generally America. Because they want a quality life for themselves and their kids if they have any. They are looking to escape poverty or authoritarianism and in come cases both. And live in freedom and have the opportunity to build good lives for themselves and their children. Which I think is one of the points that Frank Fukuyama was making here.

You don’t many people emigrating from free developed countries, to move to some place where they won’t be able to find a job. Or if can get a job it would be less than what a minimum wage worker would work for in America. Or because they are trying to escape freedom of speech and assembly, or believe they have too much privacy. They in a lot of cases are tying to escape countries where they don’t have those things at all, like in the Middle East to be able to live in a country where they can have basic levels of freedom and human rights at least. And the opportunity to build a good life for themselves.

That is a big reason why America has ten-fifteen-million illegal immigrants in America and why we take in somewhere around a million new legal immigrants each year. Because there are so many people around world and not just in Latin America, but Africa, Middle East, Asia and yes still Europe, people who want to move to America to build good lives for themselves and their families. They aren’t looking escape freedom and a middle class way of life to live in poverty and under a superstate that is going to try to manage their own affairs for them. But to live in a country where they can do those things for themselves.

The American Mind: Charles Kesler- Interviewing Francis Fukuyama: The Final Form of Human Government

Source:The American Mind- Author Francis Fukuyama, on The American Mind 

Source:The New Democrat

At risk of sounding insulting, wasn’t Frank Fukuyama a Neoconservative 10-15 years ago and one of the big backers of the Iraq War? I liked his first line about “democracy will only survive if the people want democracy.” I just wish he believed and wrote about that during and before the Iraq War. And now I’ll get off that because we’ve all taken positions before that we now disagree with and even regret. And saw new evidence and perhaps old evidence that we didn’t see before and saw that we were wrong and changed course appropriately.

If the Communists can have their own vision of government and governmental system and call it communism, than so can Liberals especially Liberal Democrats and we can call our vision of government and governmental system liberalism. Because that is what this is about which is liberal democracy and not just the right to vote and the majority generally rules. And generally rules is key because unlike social democracy the majority in liberal democracies don’t always get their way. Just ask U.S. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell when it comes to appropriations bills that Congress has to pass.

Liberal democracy is yes of course the right to vote and majority tends to win, but where there’s also minority rights. So strong majorities can’t vote away our individual rights and protections. Like the right to vote to use as an example, Freedom of Speech and Assembly, Right to Privacy, Right to Self-Defense, all our personal and economic freedoms that most Americans love having. Liberal democracy is not simply about the right to vote. It is really about the right to be free with a responsible limited government tasked to doing the basic services that we all need. And to protect our rights and freedoms.

Frank Fukuyama wasn’t talking about voting. He was talking about liberal democracy in general where yes of course we have the right to vote. But where we have broad set of individual rights with a responsive, but responsible government that is limited to doing the things that we need it to do. But not run our lives for us, but protect our ability to run our own lives under Rule of Law. Which is are things that Neoconservatives and Social Democrats simply don’t understand. That both put order and equality over individual freedom for people to manage their own lives.
The American Mind: Charles Kesler- Interviewing Francis Fukuyama: The Final Form of Human Government

The American Mind: Video: Charles Kesler Interviewing William Voegeli: Ending The Welfare State

Source:The New Democrat

This blog has already laid out why it is against the negative income tax. Handing people who up to this point at least haven’t been responsible with their lives in too many cases to the point not they are jobless and on public assistance is not a good idea and a bad taxpayer investment. So I think that would be the bad libertarian alternative to the safety net in America. The bad progressive or even socialist alternative to the safety net in America would be to give everyone a check of lets forty-thousand-dollars a year to pay all of their bills so no one lives in poverty. Which is what is called the minimum income or national basic income.

The problem with monopolies private or public is that they don’t work. Oh you want more than that. Fine I’ll give you more since you asked. But with a monopoly you give an organization private or public the complete market in whatever they are involved in. Which means they are no longer incentivized to improve and give the best service that they can. Why should they unless they are saints or angels, because their customers have no other options to turn to. And why not charge as much as you can get away with, because again what alternatives do your customers have to turn to. And that I think is an issue with the safety net in America, that it is not a total monopoly, but it does take resources that could be used in non-profit private sector.

I don’t like the term welfare state because that implies that the state meaning the government is now responsible for their citizens welfare. No longer just their safety and protecting their freedom, but their welfare as well and responsible in seeing that everyone is taken care of and has enough food, health care, housing and everything else. I like terms like safety net and social insurance. Because these are things that people can turn to when they are in need. When they are out of work or do not make enough money to support themselves, but they are working. And that you can collect from this social insurance to help you survive in the short-term. But you are also getting assistance to get on your feet and become economically independent.

The safety net in America shouldn’t be about government running it or not having government involved at all. We as a country public and private sectors should be involved in it. Government programs helping people in need run at the state and local levels with the Feds serving as a regulator and no longer as a director. While at the same time empowering non-profits and even for-profits who want to get involved in empowering people in poverty live better lives and be able to escape poverty. That we as a country help people in need not just get by, but help them get themselves on their feet. We should look at social insurance the way we look at homeowners insurance. That when you are in trouble you have money in the short-term. But also assistance to help you get back on your feet.

The American safety net should almost be designed the opposite way it was put together in the 1930s. As close to home as possible, the public and private sectors both involved and designed to help people in the short-term, but long-term help people get on their feet. Because we are such vast country with so many people and resources government shouldn’t be so centralized and instead about empowering people an utilizing all of our people from all around the country to help people in need. So they can get by and not longer have to live in need and finally be able to live in freedom.

The American Mind: Video: Compassionate Conservatism: Charles Kesler Interviewing William Voegeli

Source:The New Democrat 

Before I almost sound like I’m speaking in favor of George W. Bush a man I was proud to vote against twice for president, I just want to say that if I was a Conservative and if I was a Conservative it would have to be the real thing and more Rand Paul/Barry Goldwater and not a Neoconservative or someone on the Religious-Right, but if I was actually a Conservative I would be insulted by the term compassionate conservative. Why, well think about it. What does that imply? That Conservatives aren’t compassionate, they could care less about people who suffer. “But I’m a compassionate conservative and I’m different. I care about people who suffer, I just want to spend a lot less money helping people who suffer.”

Now to President Bush’s credit what he wanted to do was in sense move the Republican Party past Reagan/Gingrich. A party that was seen as mean and not caring at all for the suffering. Which is sort of ironic because when Newt Gingrich was in the U.S. House and even as Speaker, politically he would’ve been a labeled in the 1980s and 1990s had the term been around as a compassionate conservative. Back then he believed in federal funding for education and job training for the unemployed and low-skilled uneducated adults on Welfare. He was just a lot more fiscally conservative than G.W. Bush as President. And believe the Federal Government should pay for what it does. And that these services should be run by state and local governments.

What President Bush was trying to do but communicated it poorly was to say that government has a role in helping people in poverty and other forms of suffering. But that government especially the Federal Government can go it alone and do everything themselves. That the faith community and non-profits, charities and other private institutions also have a role in helping the less-fortunate in society. And that the Feds can help with financial grants to these private groups to help people meet their basic needs. But that they can also help with things like job training so people in these circumstances can finish their education and get out of poverty. Without 9/11 I think that is the President Bush we would’ve seen in the first term.

The American Mind: Video: Charles Kesler Interviewing William Voegeli on Liberal Bullshit

Source:The New Democrat 

It took nine minutes into this interview to figure out exactly what these two guys were getting at. And I’m not sure I have, but this is the best idea that I have at what they are getting at. And after I explain that I’m going to call bullshit on Bill Voegeli. But they Bill and Chuck seem to be arguing that so-called Liberals believe that it doesn’t matter if problems are being solved through public assistance and wealth redistribution or not. What matters is that they care and come off as caring. And if what they are doing doesn’t work, just throw more money at poverty or whatever the problem is and that will make it seem that Liberals care even more.

To sort of paraphrase and take Chuck’s and Bill’s point that if anyone should care about whether public programs are working or not, it should be the Liberal. I would amend that and say the Progressive or Socialist should care even more because they are the people who believe in public social programs the most. And you might say, “well aren’t Liberals, Progressives and Socialists all the same people?” And if you are familiar with this blog, you I say no those three labels are all different, because they are three different groups of people.

The Socialist, the tax and spender from the 1960s and 70s and even till the 1980s to a certain extent even though Ronald Reagan was successful in ending a lot of that, was the person who would argue if a social program is not working, it must be because we aren’t spending enough on that. Not because conditions have changed to make the program seem no longer adequate to addressing the concerns it was designed for. Or it was simply not designed with very well to begin with. Remember, it was Liberal Democrats President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gores who established the reinventing government program of the 1990s. Actually it was Vice President Gore who presided over that effort. Not Conservative Republicans.

Now here it where I call bullshit on Bill and Chuck. That is how right-wingers especially hyper-partisan right-wingers want Liberals to be seen as. As people who don’t give a damn about people’s tax dollars and the money that they worked for and earn. Because supposedly Liberals believe that is the government’s especially the Federal Government’s money that they are allowing the people to have some of. That Liberals are more interested in looking like they are care about social problems and want to help people. But aren’t so much interested in actually solving the problems, but looking like they care and spending public money on them. That view of Liberals is bullshit.

One of the genius’ of President Bill Clinton is that he almost completely changed how the Democratic Party was received. When he came to office the Democratic Party was perceived as a big government tax and spend social democratic party. That was more interested in spending people’s money than actually solving problems. Thanks to little things like deficit reduction, reinventing government, Welfare to Work and the only two balanced federal budgets since 1969, millions of Americans moving out of poverty and the poverty rate actually coming down, Democrats and Liberals have almost completely shedded that stereotype. And only the Far-Left of the party still carries it.

The American Mind: Video: Charles Kesler Interviewing William Voegeli, Secrets of The Liberal Agenda

Source:The New Democrat

The title of this video is “The Secret Liberal Agenda”. So hearing that I thought to myself, oh no! The Right has figured out our secret agenda of economic and personal freedom and equality for everyone and are going to use that against us! And then I had a big drink of something, went to the bathroom as a result and calmed down and thought about a couple of things. Wait, why would it be bad if the public found out the Liberals want both personal and economic freedom for everyone and that for all of us to have quality opportunities to achieve those things. And why would keep those things a secret?

As far as what Charlie Kesler, lets call him and Bill Voegeli were talking about, I didn’t hear any mention about any so-called secret liberal agenda. I did hear them talk about compassion and feeling for other people especially when they are down, for lack of a better phrase. But I did hear them talk about compassion and if compassion makes people Liberals, then America has a lot of Liberals and probably the most in the world. Because we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to private charity at least, both for Americans and people outside of America. And perhaps even when it comes to public charity if you look at our foreign aid.

I do believe that America has a lot of Liberals, real Liberals that is and not just people who call themselves Liberals, but are actually more socialistic or social democratic at least as far as they practice their politics. But you don’t have to be a Liberal to be compassion. Just a decent and caring human being who doesn’t believe that you are entitled to everything, at least everything good. And don’t give a damn about anyone else, especially people who are struggling and are even barely surviving.

The American Mind: Video: A Historical Look at American Liberalism, Charles Kesler Interviewing Walter Russell Mead

Source:The New Democrat

I like how Walter Mead put it about liberalism that there have been different stages of liberalism, but I would put it differently. And that the Liberals that Mead was talking before America and the Federal Republic was put together with its federal system and the Liberals are of the eighteenth century were the real Liberals in America. Mead used the term real liberalism, I’ve used that myself as well, but I tend to use the term real liberals instead. I don’t buy the notion that if you call yourself a Liberal, Conservative or whatever, than that is what you are. That if you want to be part of those clubs, there are certain values you have to believe in and practice.

I would’ve love to of seen our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals of America and what they would’ve thought of today’s so-called ‘modern liberals’. I seriously doubt they would’ve seen people on MSNBC talk, who watch MSNBC talk, who read or write for The Nation and what now has become The New Republic, after apparently it was hijacked from Socialists, I doubt they would’ve viewed these leftists as Liberals. You have writers for The Nation and TruthDig supposed to be Liberals, who identify their own politics as democratic socialist. John Nichols and Chris Hedges, respectfully. Certainly on the Left, but who make Liberals look very conservative in comparison.

I’m a Liberal, a proud Liberal at that and have always identified my own politics as liberal. Tom Jefferson perhaps the Founding Liberal in America and Jack Kennedy are two my political heroes. Jefferson for the idea of the Federal Republic, individual rights and freedom, a real individualist, who also believed in responsibility. Yes he owned slaves, but his vision for what America should be and could be for everyone, even if he didn’t include Africans and women of all races, still stands as this great liberal democracy where is freedom can be achieved for everyone.

Except for slavery and racism Jack Kennedy believed in the same things as Jefferson. A bit more progressive than Jefferson when it came to the idea of a public safety net. But Kennedy believed in individual freedom both personal and economic for everyone. He believed that all Americans should and have equal rights under the law. You can be a Liberal and believe in individual freedom and also believe in the public safety net for people who fall on hard times. A public insurance system for people who are going through rough economic waters. What separates Liberals from Social Democrats lets say, is that Liberals believe in insurance. Social Democrats believe in welfare and government dependence regardless of income level.

Jack Kennedy believed in the public safety net, but again a social insurance system for people in need. That would help them in the short-term be able to survive, but would also empower them to be able to get themselves on their feet and live in freedom, not of government. Thats the main difference between a Liberal and a Socialist. Between a Jack Kennedy/Bill Clinton and a Bernie Sanders. Limited government to help and empower people, vs an unlimited government designed to take care of everyone for an indefinite period. The real Liberals believe in opportunity and freedom. Good opportunities to achieve freedom in life. Not the freedom to live off of a welfare state and take no responsibility for one’s own affairs.

The American Mind: Video: Individual Rights vs. The Administrative State, Charles Kesler Interviewing John Marini

Source:The New Democrat 

I agree with some of what John Marini was talking about as far as the Progressive Era as far as Progressives back then wanting to change the country and put in public social insurance that people could use when they are in need, that we as a society a collective would all contribute to finance those services. But where Marini and I separate is that Progressives back then wanted to change the U.S. Constitution, or even be more radical and do what today’s so-called Progressives, who aren’t real Progressives, but that is a different subject, but today’s so-called Progressives are much more radical. And if anything would throw out the U.S. Constitution and replace it with something a lot less individualist and more collectivist.

The Progressives of the Progressive Era were radical back then and even through the New Deal period and perhaps even as far up to the Great Society era of the 1960s. But today they would be pretty mainstream, especially compared with Occupy Wall Street or the so-called Coffee Party movement from the New Left that came about in the late 1960s and all through the 1970s and we now see their sons and daughters carry this movement through today. People who support Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders and want them both to run for president in 2016. And these people are Social Democrats that don’t like our federal republican form of government with our individualist constitution. And would like to see more a a social democratic collectivist form of government. That perhaps doesn’t even have a Constitution.

What the Progressives of the 1930s and before that, what they were actually were moderates more mainstream leftists. You had Communists and Marxist Socialists who wanted to the U.S. Government to respond to the Great Depression by creating what is known in Europe, especially Scandinavia as a superstate or welfare state that would make the New Deal look like a child in comparison. Because there would be a boatload of new federal social insurance programs that would be designed to provide most if no all the human services that people need to live well. Education, health care, health insurance, banking, housing, childcare, pensions, unemployment insurance, energy and perhaps even more. To go along with nationalizing major sectors of the American economy.

What the New Deal Progressives wanted to do was to create a public social insurance system that people could take advantage of when they needed it. Unemployment insurance for people who are out of work. Welfare insurance for people without the skills they need to get a good job and who also have dependents. Food assistance for people who do not make enough money to feed themselves adequately and feed their kids. Public housing for people who do not make enough money to even afford an apartment. These are social insurance programs which is much different from a welfare state that is designed to take care of people and are universal so that people regardless of income level would be eligible, if not required to take them.

Now in the last years of Franklin Roosevelt’s life he even moved further left as President and proposed something called the Economic Bill of Rights. Which would’ve been the next phase of the New Deal and perhaps gone as far as creating that superstate that Socialists in the 1930s wanted. But that is not what he was talking about in the 1930s and what Teddy Roosevelt Progressives were talking about at the turn of the 20th Century. Progressives tend to be fans of the U.S. Constitution and even things like individual freedom, just as long as it is not used to hurt and prey on innocent people. Its today’s so-called Progressives, Social Democrats welfare statists in actuality, who tend not to be fans of the U.S. Constitution and American individualism.

The American Mind: Video: The Pity Party, A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion: Charles Kesler Interviewing William Vogeili

Source:The New Democrat

The whole time that Charles Kesler and William Vogeili were talking about what they would call liberal compassion and that anyone who disagrees with them must be either immoral, ignorant, or hates poor people or something, gave me the idea that they didn’t know who they were talking about. This is why we should never link the Left or the Right under one ideology. That if you are on the Left, you must be a Liberal no matter how far to the left that you are. And if you are on the Right, you must be a Conservative no matter how far to the Right you are.

I wish the Left was just made up of Liberals, well not really, because then it would get kind of boring over on the Left always talking to people on the Left who always agree with me. And we would stop thinking as a result because we always believe we have all the answers and stop coming up with new ideas, because we always agree with each other. You should think of the Left the way you think of the Democratic Party. As a broad coalition of different political and ideological factions. Liberals such as myself and many others who are Center-Left New Democrats. Progressives who are a little further left, people like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. And then you move Far-Left and you’ll find Bernie Sanders Social Democrats and Socialists.

The people who Kesler and Vogeili were talking about are the people who would make of up Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party. Social Democrats who believe government always has the answers to the nation’s problems. “Especially the Federal Government and that nothing else is needed to fix the problems of the country. That is government is not completely running something and that there might be a public/private partnership, or taxpayer subsidization of private sector programs to address certain needs of the country, than those programs don’t go far enough and aren’t substantial”.

People who think like this I call Social Democrats or welfare statists, but certainly not Liberals.

I notice you don’t see many books critiquing the Center-Left in America, again Liberals and not people who believe in unlimited government at least as it relates to the economy. Why, because Americans tend to either be center-left or center-right or in some cases dead-center. And like the idea of public assistance, especially education and job training for our low-skilled adults who are currently trapped in poverty, to help people in need get themselves on their feet and live in freedom like the rest of the country. They like public education and infrastructure investment. Americans like smart regulations to protect individuals and consumers from predators that would prey on them. They like both economic freedom and personal freedom. And these are all liberal values that most Americans support.

The people who Kesler and Vogeili were talking about are leftist radicals on the Far-Left in America that came about in the 1960s and 70s. Because they didn’t believe Liberals and Progressives went far enough with the New Deal and Great Society. “And that we needed a superstate that is common in Scandinavia to manage people’s affairs for them so they would make fewer poor decisions with their money and lives that society as a whole would have to pay for”, in their view. And these are the people who watch MSNBC talk, read The Nation, AlterNet and unfortunately now The New Republic since it is no longer a great center-left liberal magazine. Who are part of Occupy Wall Street and want Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders to run for president in 2016.

The American Mind: Charles Kesler- Interviewing Chris DeMuth: Welfare Reform

Source: The American Mind- Author Chis DeMuth 

Source:The American Mind

What they are essentially talking about is what became known as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 that was a bipartisan bill in Congress between Democrats and Republicans that was negotiated with President Bill Clinton. But the law and pieces of it were already proposed in the late 1960s by people on the Right and even Progressives on the Left. That became proposed by law by the Nixon Administration that Chris DeMuth was part of in 1969 and the early 1970s.

What Welfare to Work says is that people who are mentally and physically able to work, will be expected to do that and not be able to collect Welfare indefinitely. And that people who don't currently have the skills to get themselves a good job, they would get assistance to go back to school and finish their education so they can get themselves a good job. This law that the late great Senator Pat Moynahan and today's so-called Progressives called mean-spirited and that people would get kicked out of their homes and starve to death as a result, simply hasn't happened because of the 1996 law.

The American Mind: Video: Charles Kessler Interviewing Dennis Prager: "The Religion of the Left"

Just to sort of point out the obvious. There is no one religion of the Left and Dennis Prager doesn't seem to understand that because his idea of a leftist is essentially a Communist, or other some type of collectivist statist on the Left who sees the role of government to protect and take care of people to look after the general welfare of everyone. Instead of allowing free people the freedom and responsibility to manage their own affairs. That branch of the Left obviously exists and this blog covers that at least once a week now. But that is not the entire Left.

Now where I agree with Dennis Prager and is one example of why I respect the man at least to some degree. Is how he talked about what he calls leftist (again what is that) and differentiating that from liberalism. Instead of saying that "Liberals are collectivists and statists to their core. But who are against the military, law enforcement, religion and private enterprise". He said that people who he calls leftists are that instead.

And the other point that Prager made about John Kennedy saying that he was "a Liberal who believed in lower taxes, strong defense, individual freedom and opportunity" and so forth. Well guess what all Liberals believe in those things, otherwise we wouldn't be Liberals and liberal wouldn't be that beautiful word that Prager describes it as. I'm a Liberal and a Leftist which puts me on the center-left of the American political spectrum. Those collectivists that Prager is always putting down and critiquing are on the far-left in America even though they look mainstream at least in Scandinavia.