The Real News Network: Paul Jay: 'Is Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialism, Socialism?'

Source:The Real News Network- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont. 

"Sanders says that medicare for all, a living wage, and other reforms is the socialism that’s possible, but is he too reserved on strengthening public ownership? - with Jacqueline Luqman, Eugene Puryear, Norman Solomon and host Paul Jay"

From The Real News Network

Apparently we need and the people from the so-called Real News Network need a refresher course on Socialists and socialism, because there are Socialists and then there are Socialists and none of these factions are the same as the other except when it comes to Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, are the same faction.

Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats both believe in a democratic form of socialism or socialist form of democracy and neither wants to eliminate the private enterprise or even capitalism. They just want the national government to provide the people's workers benefits. Things like health care, health insurance, pension, child care, education, etc. Services that a country like America you would get those services from the private sector, or at the very least would have the option in getting those services from the private sector.

Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in democratic socialism/social democracy. He's not looking to government to come in and close down private business's ( except for perhaps health insurers and hospitals ) or have government come into people's homes and other properties and kick people out and have the properties taken over by the government.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration if a President Sanders had his way let's say, the private sector in America would remain in place, but the public sector at least at the Federal level would be a lot larger. Trillions of dollars would be added to the Federal public sector every year in new social programs and in expansions in current Federal social programs, but the private sector would remain in place.

I'm not explaining this because I'm a fan of Senator Sanders, because I'm not even though I respect his candor and honesty, but to explain his own politics so people know what they're getting when they hear about Socialist Bernie Sanders. He doesn't represent the Communist or Marxist wing of socialism and looking to turn America into a gigantic Cuba, but instead if he had his way America would become like a gigantic Sweden or gigantic Scandinavia. Where the national government would be a lot larger and more expensive, taxes on everyone would be a lot higher, but the national government would provide a lot more social services and individuals would still own their own properties.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post on FreeState MD, on WordPress.

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: FDR Created A Social Safety Net, Not Socialism

Source: The Real News- President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing Congress.

Source:The Real News

I actually agree with Paul Jay on something here. ( For a change ) President Franklin Roosevelt, his Administration and Congress, didn't create a socialist economic system in America for good reasons. They left the American capitalist system in place but added regulations to it, as well as creating a public safety net in America which is the New Deal. FDR and the Democratic Congress's back then didn't even create a social democratic system where workers get most if not all their employment benefits like pensions, health care, etc, from the national government but where business is in private hands. But a public social insurance system that people could collect from when they're out-of-work, or don't have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and aren't able to pay their bills. As well as Social Security for people who don't have a pension or a big enough pension. 

If you look back at it now and I would argue if you look at this in the 1930s, the New Deal was actually the centrist approach compared with what was also on the table and being offered in response to the New Deal. You have Hoover Conservatives and Libertarians arguing that the Federal Government shouldn't do anything in response to the Great Depression. And you had Socialists in some cases Democratic Socialists, as well as Communists who were arguing that the American capitalist system was the problem. And what should be done instead is to start nationalizing private industries, along with a socialist welfare state to provide workers the benefits that they had been getting from the private sector in the past. What FDR did was save the American capitalist system but make it better and stronger than it was before the Great Depression. 

In President Roosevelt's last term he moved further left on economic policy and became more interested in expanding the New Deal to create the Scandinavian social democratic welfare state. When he proposed his economic bill of rights that would've put the Federal Government in charge of guaranteeing workers benefits for all American workers. But what he was able to get passed into law as President was the New Deal which wasn't a welfare system, but and insurance system for people to collect from, but only when they need it. Similar to how Americans use their auto insurance when their car is in an accident. But not to help them pay their everyday bills. FDR was a Progressive because he was very pragmatic in how believed government should respond to problems in the country. But didn't govern in a way that would've put government in charge to solving every problem that every American ever faced. 

Dandelion Salad: Henry Wallace- Undoing The New Deal

Source: Dandelion Salad-

Source:The New Democrat

Vice President Henry Wallace, was President Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President from 1941-45. This was the term that President Roosevelt moved left on economic policy while still being a strong anti-Communist and anti-Fascist liberal internationalist on foreign policy. But on economic policy FDR moved left and moved past the New Deal that he got through Congress in the 1930s and instead of talking about the need for a public safety net for people when they needed it, instead started talking about what’s called welfare rights.

FDR’s Four Freedoms agenda was about guaranteeing that every American would have exactly what they need to live well in life and that these human services would be provided by the Federal Government. The Henry Wallace social democratic side of FDR comes out in the 1940s and FDR again came out in favor of moving past the safety net and instead creating a welfare that that is common in Britain and Scandinavia. Where the national government would become responsible for seeing that every America had a good education, a good home, enough food to eat, health care, health insurance, a good pension, and I could probably go on from here, but I’ll spare you.

Henry Wallace was the Bernie Sanders of the 1940s ideologically. A true Democratic Socialist who thought that the American capitalist private enterprise system, left too many people behind with few people who were rich financially, a lot of people in poverty, and a lot of people struggling just to pay their bills. The Great Depression of the 1930s did a lot to change how Americans looked at politics and economics.

Pre-Great Depression America was basically a libertarian utopia economically. With every little if any government involvement in the economy. But when you start to see 1/2 Americans living in poverty with food lines and food banks in every major city in the country and 1/5 Americans who are unemployed, most of the major banks failing in the country, you might start to reexamine your own politics and look at economics as well.

It is after the 1944 presidential election where Henry Wallace is no longer Vice President of the United States and becomes independent of the Roosevelt Administration politically with the ability to speak for himself and express his own politics politically and look at running for President himself in 1948. In 1948 Wallace runs for President himself and wins the Progressive Party nomination which was really a social democratic or democratic socialist party and runs for President against Progressive Democrat President Harry Truman, Republican Tom Dewey and Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. And America has a major Democratic Socialist presidential candidate to consider voting for.

Source: Cinema Insiders: Vice President Henry A. Wallace- Common Man Speech

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: The 1944 Coup Against Vice President Henry Wallace

Source: The Real News-

Source:The Real News

The division between in the Democratic Party between the Hillary Clinton, even though I don't believe she's that strong of a Democratic leader anymore, but her New Democratic Theodore Roosevelt progressive wing of the party and the Bernie Sanders social democratic wing of Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, is not new. Which might be the only thing that I agree with Paul Jay and Peter Kuznick on.

There were Socialists in the Democratic Party in the 1930s and the 1940s which was a Dixiecrat party with some Northern Progressives led by Franklin Roosevelt, but there were people even further left than FDR and his wing of the Democratic Party led by Democratic Socialist Henry Wallace who was President Roosevelt's Vice President from 1941-45. But there were also Neo-Confederate right-wing Dixiecrat Democrats who represented the Bible Belt South of the Democratic Party. That fought against desegregation, civil rights laws, and even the New Deal, but supported President Roosevelt's liberal internationalist anti-Communist foreign policy.

The extremely unfortunate assassination of President John Kennedy, is where you see the Democratic Party change. The Democratic Party up until the 1980s or so was never a pure left-wing party that was dominated by Social Democrats. They always had a Far-Left which was made up of Socialists, but they also had a Center-Left of JFK Liberal Democrats and the FDR Progressives. And I mean liberal and progressive both in the classical and real sense. Not the stereotypical sense of someone who believes in big government across the board and doesn't believe in national defense or law enforcement and sees individualism and freedom as dangerous. But liberal and progressive in the sense as people who believe in individual rights, equal rights, and progress.

The 1960s and 1970s is where you see the old Henry Wallace New-Left Socialist wing of the Democratic Party come to life. Thanks to the Baby Boomers growing up and becoming very politically active. And they were so powerful in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s that Senator George McGovern (the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his generation) wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Gets trounced by President Richard Nixon, but that is only because there weren't a lot of Socialists in America back in the early 1970s.

The Democratic Party is exactly that. People who believe in democracy. In some cases that means liberal democracy, the JFK Liberal Democrats which is the wing of the party I'm from. But you also have Democrats who believe in social democracy and democratic socialism. Which is the wing that Bernie Sanders now leads, that Henry Wallace led in the 1940s and George McGovern led in the 1970s. But the Democratic Party has never been a purely liberal democratic party or social democratic party and pre-1960s or so the Democratic Party was a Dixiecrat Neo-Confederate party. Which is one reason why the Democratic Party has always been fairly divided. 

Real News: Anton Woronczuk Interviewing Bruce Dixon: "Affirmative Action Ruling Will Further Racial Inequality"

Source: The Real News: Anton Woronczuk Interviewing Bruce Dixon- Affirmative Action Ruling Will Further Racial Inequality

This is the third post from The New Democrat on affirmative action this week.  It is a very important subject because it effects the whole country even though it doesn't benefit the whole country.  With all of the falsehoods being put out on the U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action decision this week, I believe that it's important to set the record straight and explain the narrow decision delivered and the judicial restraint demonstrated by the Roberts Court on this key issue.

SCOTUS ruled in a 6-2 decision that public institutions, by themselves, can't have their own affirmative action policies that consider race, ethnicity or gender, even as just one consideration, when granting access to public benefits.

I'm not a lawyer but what SCOTUS said was that for state institutions to have affirmative action policies, they must be developed through democratic processes. That since affirmative action effects the whole state, these policies need to be developed democratically by legislatures or voters and not by executive branch entities.

The Real News: Video: Jessica Desvarieux: Decriminalization vs. Legalization of Marijuana

As a Marylander, if I was a member of the State Assembly, House or Senate, I would've voted for the marijuana decriminalization bill  because that was the only good option.  We could either continue the prohibition of marijuana or decriminalize possession so that people caught  with ten grams or less would pay a fine instead of going to jail.  This was a good bill because it diminished the so-called War on Drugs, both in Maryland and the United States.

Marijuana decriminalization is a good first step in Maryland and the best the Assembly could do this year.  Next year, Maryland will have a new Assembly and governor.  They will have the opportunity to see how marijuana decriminalization is working and consider possible next steps.

2014 is a general election year for the Maryland Assembly and governor's office.  I believe that the legal status of marijuana will be an issue in all of these races.

The Real News: Jaisal Noor Interviewing Annelise Orlick- A True War on Poverty Would Place Poor Place Poor People on The Forefront

Source: The Real News: Jaisal Noor Interviewing Annelise Orlick- A True War on Poverty Would Place Poor People at The Forefront

I love what Annelise Orleck is talking about here. Which is sending money out of Washington the Federal Government, directly to the communities that the money is intended to serve so these communities can build their schools, their health clinics, their housing especially for homeless people. Their day-care centers so single parents can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves good jobs. Their private non-profit job training programs. Encouraging business’s to hire in these communities so good jobs can be created.

I probably blogged this last week but what America actually needs instead of this experiment. With fifty years of the so-called War on Poverty that at best has produced mixed results for us. What would be better is a national campaign to end poverty and this would be done by actually empowering people in poverty to get themselves out of poverty inside the communities they live with the resources they need to make these things happen for them inside of their communities. Getting help from people who actually live in these communities. And perhaps came from poverty themselves as Annelise Orleck said in the video. The real experts of poverty are the people who live in poverty.

This is what we should be doing creating a bottom up grassroots approach. That brings in the people who are on the front lines so to speak when it comes to poverty in America. And empowering them to tackle this huge problem with the resources that they need. To empower the people who are in poverty to get themselves out of poverty and off of public assistance. All together and into the middle class.

The Real News: Is There Any Henry Wallace Left in The Democratic Party?

Source:Free State MD

What would the Democratic Party be today had Henry Wallace succeeded with his Progressive Party and they became the official third-party in America? And not just a third-party, but in actual competition with the Democratic and Republican parties. Unlike the Libertarian Party today, which is probably the largest third-party, but not much of a threat to either major party. And maybe had Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace succeeded, the Progressive Democratic Socialists in America would have their own home. And not basically represent the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, but the actual mainstream of a major party.

Similar to the New Democratic Party in Canada, or as I call them the Social Democratic Party of Canada. Or even Progressive Democratic Party of Canada, with the Liberal Party there representing the Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. I’m a Liberal Democrat myself and I don’t use these terms to be insulting, but descriptive. The New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Democratic Socialist Party by their standards as well as ours. Is considered mainstream in Canada. Even though for the most part they’ve been the third-party. But they’ve always had considerable representation in the Federal Parliament, or at least recently they’ve had for the last twenty years or so.

Progressive Democratic President Harry Truman, tried to pass the Fair Deal in the 1940s. Which would be round two of the New Deal. Or round three after the New Deal and Great Society, if today’s Occupy Wall Street, or Coffee Party movement, the social democratic wing of the Democratic Party had their way. Making America’s version of the welfare state. Perhaps twice, or three times the size it is today and trying to make America look like Europe. With things like single payer health insurance, perhaps a national health care system with national hospitals. Universal pensions, universal public education, with the Federal Government taking a much larger role in funding our public schools. If not running them all together. Perhaps outlawing private schools. Universal higher education, so everyone can go to college that’s qualified for it. Perhaps nationalizing the banking system.

I mean the New Deal was considered radical in the 1930s and the Great Society was considered radical in the 1960s. But the Fair Deal, whether it came from Henry Wallace, or the modern Henry Wallace social democratic movement, would dwarf both agendas in America. Making our social insurance system a hell of a lot bigger than its today. And our taxes as hell of a lot higher than they are today. And this is just how it relates to economic policy and with a lot more regulations and taxes for our economy as well. Had Progressives, continued to push the idea of a Progressive Party which is what they would’ve called it when it started back in the Teddy Roosevelt era in 1912 and after that, maybe they’re a major political party today.

The Progressives had Henry Wallace in the 1940s and had they kept it going, Democratic Socialists would have their own party to call home today. And perhaps they would’ve left the Democratic Party. And Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, the Progressive Caucus and many others, would be in the Progressive Party today. Instead of representing the Far-Left of the Democratic Party today. But Franklin Roosevelt sort of co-opted parts of their agenda in the 1930s and the rest as they say is history.