Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: Anything Goes With Chris Buckley

Source:The Daily Review

Chris Buckley, (and I call him Chris because we’ve never met before) is one of my favorite political satirists along with P.J. O’Rourke, Dennis Miller and now Bill Maher. Since he’s ditched the Far-Left when it comes to free speech and other big government social issues and is still one of the best critics of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. I like Buckley, because like George Carlin who makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. He’s not John Fugelsang, who only makes fun of right-wingers when it comes to politics. Buckley makes fun of politicians and Washington in general. I mean it’s a city that doesn’t need any heat and humidity, even though we get a lot of it every year, because of all the hot air that comes out of our 535 member Congress. That has both a House and a Senate.

American politics is very easy to be make fun of. You can literally make a career of doing it and a lot of people like Chris Buckley have. And even if you come to politics with a strong ideological bent and you have a good sense of humor, you’re denying yourself a lot of great material and perhaps employment and financial opportunities if you just concentrate on one side of the aisle. I mean how you only make fun of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump and never take a shot at Dennis Kucinich. Whose the president of the Republic of Dreamland and sees a world that only exist in make-believe. Where there’s no violence, or ignorance, or poor people. Who believes the old hippie saying of Give Peace a Chance should be the our national foreign policy. And that the use of force is never an option even when we’re under attack. “If we don’t hit them back, maybe they’ll get bored and go away.”

Again, something I love about Chris Buckley who I see as a non-partisan political humorist, he’s someone who at least leans right if he’s not a Conservative and yet he looks at politics and politicians for what they are. The George W. Bush Administration, comes into office as what they called compassionate conservatives (as if Conservatives aren’t compassionate) and lives up to that as best as possible. And spends more money than a convention of Irish drunken sailors could spend at their favorite Irish bar. With the two unpaid for wars and the seven-hundred-billion-dollar Medicare expansion, all of this borrowed. And he didn’t like that about President Bush, as well as going to war on bogus evidence (to be real nice) and the mismanagement of that war even after it was found there were no WMD in that country. And those weapons were probably destroyed by the United Nations, or our own people in the late 1990s. Again, how you not make fun of a President like that?

If you live in Washington and are involved in it politically in some way nationally whether you work, or write about it, it is really the last place you should try to take yourself, or people around you especially your allies too seriously. I’m a Liberal Democrat and I could write something negative and funny about Hillary Clinton everyday. As well as her husband, not that I don’t like Hillary and that I still don’t love President Clinton. But lets face it, they’re both great political characters. Hillary, doesn’t know who she it until she sees the latest poll. Bill, still hasn’t gotten the memo that he’s no longer President and that he’s still ineligible to run for President again still tries to run everything. And I could write something negative and funny everyday about the United States Circus, better known as the Republican Party. And I think that is where Chris Buckley goes. He makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. Regardless of political affiliation.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: The High & The Mighty- The War on Drugs

Source:The New Democrat

I’ve made this point more times than I can count now and generally I’m pretty good with numbers, but when you try to prevent someone from doing something dangerous, or try to prevent someone from doing anything and say, “don’t do this, or else” and the, or else is something awful like jail, that person, especially if they think they can get away with it, or are addicted and don’t care and think the risk is worth it, is going to do what they want with themselves anyway. You don’t correct improper behavior, or dangerous behavior when just one person is involved, by saying don’t do this, or we’ll make things even worst for you then what you’re doing now and send you to jail.

Jail and prison, is worst for people than illegal narcotics. Because of the stress, the risks to people’s personal safety and even their lives. The slop that they have to eat, that is supposed to be food. All the down time and solitary that leads to human waste. I mean, I rather be a cocaine addict and be far gone from reality, then experience jail, or prison completely sober. What you want to do instead, is instead of making people’s lives even worst than they currently are, you encourage people to improve their behavior. Show them why they shouldn’t be taking any cocaine, meth, or heroin. Don’t criminalize things that have the same, or similar side-effects as alcohol. Which means legalizing marijuana.

One of the tragedies of the so-called War on Drugs, which again isn’t a real war, but its made criminals of people, who are only guilty for what they’ve done to themselves. We spend billions of dollars every year as taxpayers punishing people for what they’ve done to themselves. When what we could’ve been doing is actually helping people get off of those drugs and build their life into something that is positive and productive. Where they don’t want anything to do with cocaine, heroin, or meth. Imagine if we were doing this 45 years ago, instead of locking people up, because they like cocaine. So we can say we’re “tough on crime”, whatever the hell that means. How many lives would we of saved from the War on Drugs as a result?

Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: Richard Epstein on Inequality, Taxes, Politics & Health Care

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with Richard Epstein on one thing. Which is definitely a rarity, but when Epstein says that it’s not that inequality is a problem. But the lack of mobility and opportunity for people at the bottom, or are struggling in the middle class, to move up. And I only think a Socialist, or a true Collectivist could disagree with that. That if Joe makes a million dollars a year as a lawyer and Tom makes fifty-thousand-dollars a year as a plumber, it’s not a problem that Joe makes twenty times more than Tom. The problem is very few people are doing extremely well in America economically. While so many others aren’t. So what you have to do is close the opportunity gap. Which would benefit everyone.

So instead of having a society where who you are born to and where you’re born and how you grow up, deciding how well you do as an adult, you create a society where everyone has a quality opportunity to do well in life. Regardless of where they grow up and the income level of their parents, or single-parent. That you have a quality education system for everyone. That you give people on Welfare and low-skilled low-income workers the opportunity to finish and further their education and get good jobs and even start their own business’s. You do that by making sure everyone can get a good education in life. And granting job training opportunities to low-skilled workers. Having a modern infrastructure system that stretches to low-income communities. And real economic development in those communities.

Sweden, perhaps the most developed social democracy in the world, at least among countries with small populations, has poverty. And people doing real well and people who live in poverty. You’ll never completely eliminate poverty and any income gap in any country. But what you can do especially in America, is have an economy where everyone can do well. And what they do with those opportunities is up to them. And you do that and you’ll have an economy where you’ll still have a top 1-10%, but that population will be much larger. But you’ll also have a lot more people in the upper middle class and a lot more people in the middle class. And a lot more resources as a result, to help people who are struggling in the middle class and help people in poverty. Which a much smaller percentage of Americans in poverty.

Hoover Institution: U.S. Senator Rand Paul- Discusses Individualism, Freedom & National Security

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t agree with Senator Rand Paul on everything, obviously, but he represents exactly what the Republican Party needs more of. Republicans, who can speak beyond the current Republican base. Anglo-Southern Protestant men, generally speaking, who look at America from a 1950s perspective. Who can speak to young Americans, who don’t want big government into their homes, but don’t want, or certainly not a fan of having big government in their wallets as well. Americans, who aren’t anti-government, but don’t want a big government trying to manage their personal, or economic affairs for them.

Senator Paul, can even speak to Independents, who do believe in the American safety net. Our economic social insurance system for people who fall on hard times and have that economic security in their senior years as well. Because what Senator Paul says, is that he’s not interested in abolishing Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other programs. But Paul says, is that those programs should truly be for people who need them. And that all Americans should try to do as much for themselves as they possibly can, including working and finishing their education. And that these programs should be run close to home. Instead of the Federal Government trying to run everything.

Rand Paul, can get classical Libertarians behind him. When it comes to issues like personal and economic freedom and keeping big government out of people’s lives. He can speak to Conservative Libertarians on all issues. In and outside of the Tea Party. And he can speak to Independents and young voters and even young Democrats. Who again don’t want a big government trying to do everything for them. But don’t want government to go away either. Do for us what we can’t do for ourselves. Help people in need help themselves. And protect the country predators who would hurt us. And he might be the only national Republican who can speak to all of these groups right now.

Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviewing Dennis Prager: The New Left in America

Source:The New Democrat

I’m going to actually explain why I actually not just respect, but like Dennis Prager and if I actually met him I would shake his hand enthusiastically even if we spent an hour talking and disagree with ninety-percent of the points that we just made. Because he gets it unlike a lot of people on the Right. He understands the difference between Liberals who defend liberty like Jack Kennedy to use as an example and people on the New Left in America who are interested in equality at all costs through a collectivist state.

Liberals vs. Illiberal’s in America at least and perhaps the rest of the world. Liberals who believe in liberty and the individual. Socialists or collectivists who believe in equality and that the job of the central state is to provide equality for all of its people. The Liberal wants to see that everyone has the opportunity to live as free as they allow for themselves to base on their skills and production, character and everything else. The Socialist lets say says, “liberty is risky and if we allow individual freedom, some people will do very well and others won’t. So why don’t we just move forward together to see that everyone does well, even if that means subtracting freedom.”

Liberals built and created America and built liberal democracy the liberal free state that we all live in as Americans. And created things like Equal Justice Under Law, our Bill of Rights which all of its individual rights, Equal Opportunity Under Law. Created things like the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says no American can be discriminated against based on race, ethnicity or gender. That is the state that Socialists and other collectivists want to tear down or at the very least transform and create their collectivist state and perhaps a social democracy that looks like Scandinavia.

This is not just a battle between the Center-Left and the Far-Left. But a battle between Americans who believe in individual liberty in general and those who see individualism as dangerous and risky. I don’t say this to be insulting or to put people down. But to actually layout what a lot of our American political battles are. People who believe in freedom, between people who don’t essentially other than basic human rights relating to torture, cruel and unusual punishment, voting and anti-discrimination laws. What the New-Left believes in is what Rick Perlstein and others call welfare rights. The right for people to live well and be taken care. And is by the central government even if that means subtracting freedom.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robison Interviewing Harvey Mansfield: The New Left on Campus

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Damn! Some of my Far-Left followers and I do have some aren’t going to like this piece, but sometimes the truth hurts. I actually agree with Peter Robinson and Harvey Mansfield here and both of them are way to the Right of me. But the New Left took over a lot of great major universities in the Northeast and West Coast especially in California in the late 1960s. With Baby Boomers coming to age and graduating college a lot of them were way to the Left of Center-Left Liberals like Jack Kennedy and Center-Left Progressives like Lyndon Johnson.

Here are some of the things that the New-Left which is the Far-Left in America believes.

“With the New-Left of today if you don’t believe women should rule the world instead of being judged equally as men, you are either ignorant or sexist.

Anyone who criticizes people who are of non-European and Christian background are racists. Unless the people they are criticizing are on the Right like Tom Sowell, Walter Williams or Clarence Thomas. Two prominent college professors and of course a U.S. Justice.

The real terrorists in the world is the U.S. National Security Council which includes all the U.S. national security agencies. And ISIS and Al-Qaeda and other extreme terrorists groups are either minor league or are misunderstood and deserved to be listened to.

Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez President’s of Cuba and Venezuela respectfully are misunderstood and are actually great men just trying to serve their people. So they don’t become victims of a capitalist private enterprise system. Instead of being Un-Democratic far-leftist dictators who don’t believe in human and individual rights. And the bad guys are actually the United States.”

These are just some of the extreme fringe views from the Far-Left in America that would put the only in the mainstream in maybe Britain, France and Scandinavia and perhaps some authoritarian states. We are not talking about Liberals here and even Progressives, I would argue but people who have a soft heart for Marxism and communism. Who think the idea of a liberal free state based on individual freedom and rights is somehow corrupting and even immoral. And that we need a much more centralized collectivist state where women would be in charge for the most part and where the state would assume responsibility over the people.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: David Mamet on Conservatism

Source:The New Democrat. 

The type of liberalism that David Mamet seems to be talking about an interested in is how Liberals get stereotyped by what my father calls knee-jerk Liberals. People who are actually not very liberal at all, but who wear the label because they thing Progressive is a sellout and they don’t want to have to deal the negative Americans stereotypes of Socialists and socialism. Or even a further left ideology than that. That if you’re a Liberal, you’re really a European leftist ideologically and you don’t like America and what it stands for. And that is putting it simply.

That if you’re a Liberal you believe in political correctness who defines that as being against any speech that offends groups of people who you generally support. And that some language is so offensive that it must not only be talked down upon, but banned. And speaking groups of people, that all people are members of groups. And because of that they should be treated as members of groups and not as individuals who can take care of themselves and even think for themselves. Even if a lot of members of their so-called tribe feel differently about certain issues.

That if you’re a Liberal you not only support the welfare state, but you are all about the welfare state. And that people are generally stupid and can’t be relied to take care of themselves. And are going to make mistakes that the society as a whole is going to have to pay for. So why don’t we just have a government a superstate big enough to take care of everyone with taxes high enough to finance this superstate to take care of everyone. That individualism and individual success and wealth by nature are bad things. Because it encourages people to go on their own and those things should be discouraged.

These are the negative and false stereotypes of liberalism that David Mamet seems to of bought into. And I would think someone as smart and as good of a writer that he is would know better than that. And perhaps has spent too much time with the Far-Left in America and now believes that everyone on the Left is part of the Far-Left. That there’s no such thing as Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist or Communist. That all of these political groups are liberal and all of these people are Liberals. Which is simply not true.

Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: P.J. O'Rourke Reflects on Life in The Sixties to Today

Source:The New Democrat 

The Baby Boom is sort of tough for me to blog about as someone who was born in the mid-1970s the tail end of Generation X. And also as someone whose parents were born in the 1930s and are part of he Silent Generation. So I don’t really have much to go on other than my two of my uncles who were both born in 1944 who I didn’t see very often growing up and who I’m not close with today. Other than Boomers that I’ve talked to, but mostly as an adult. So what I have to go on for the most part is history. Which is generally a great reference to go on even if that is all you have.

Boomer stereotypes are people who were Hippies and looking to escape the 1950s and when that finally happened in college in the 1960s they just sort of exploded and freaked out on marijuana trips. Wait, that’s not so much a stereotype, but is actually true. But there’s more to that because this is a generation that is one of the most productive that America has ever produced whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right or somewhere in between. If you looked at what they produced for this country in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s and even today. They are a healthy generation and they are living working longer than any generation we’ve ever produced. Because they want to and are still very good at what they do.

There’s an old American saying that when you are young you are more open to alternative views and lifestyles that they establishment sees as immoral and weird. But as you get older and mature you get more educated and realize that you have responsibilities for yourself and your family and people you work with or for and people who work for you. And there’s a limit to how much of a rebel that you can be. The Boomers were Hippies in the 1960s and 70s, but they also grew up and have become perhaps the most educated, productive, tolerant and open-minded generation that we’ve ever produced. And I give them a lot of credit for that.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviews Charles Kesler: The Grand Liberal Project

Source:FRS FreeState

What conservative historian Charles Kesler is talking about is American Progressivism. A political philosophy that’s government centric. And in the United States Federal Government centric, but there Are Progressive governors and other Progressives in state government that believe in a certain level of federalism. But the idea of American progressivism is a very collectivist political philosophy that’s about using government to make society better. 

That we need these government policies and government programs to make people’s lives better for them. Even if we need high taxes to finance all of these programs. "That if government has a lot of the people’s resources, then that money will be spent better. And those decisions will be made better if big government is doing these things better for us, than people spending their own money on their behalf and making their own decisions".

But the philosophy that I just described is not Liberalism. And is America’s version of Democratic Socialism. Where you mix in capitalism and the private sector with a large welfare state. To assure that resources are spread out equally that’s common in Europe. And in Europe this philosophy would actually be described as socialism. But in America with socialist and socialism having such negative stereotypes and so forth attached to them, Socialists in America tend to be called Progressives. 

But this is not liberalism because liberalism is about the individual. And progressive in the sense that government has a role to see that as many people as possible have the opportunity to live in freedom. But it’s not the job of government to take care of people. And it’s not the job of government to give us our freedom. But to see that the opportunities are there for people to get their freedom for themselves like through education and job training. A safety net for people who are out of work that empowers them to work their way back to being able to take care of themselves and so-forth.

When right-wing historians like Charles Kesler and others examine and write about liberalism or progressivism or socialism or communism, they tend to put all these philosophies into one pot. As if they are all the same thing and depending on how partisan or ignorant they are about liberalism and tend to look at liberalism as America’s version of communism or Islamism. That Liberals want to outlaw all individual freedom basically and make everyone dependent on the state and so-forth.

Liberalism is not about the state, but about the individual. That Liberals believe in individual freedom. But both economic and personal freedom, not like some right-wingers today when they are talking about individual freedom, they are mainly talking about economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. But that "personal freedom is dangerous because it empowers people to make bad decisions that are bad for society as a whole who has to pay for them".

Another thing about Liberalism and Liberals is that Liberals not only believe in individual freedom again both personal and economic freedom, but that individual freedom should be for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. Or even income level, that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in individual freedom in America. 

And that government has a role to see that these opportunities are there for everyone, but what people do with these opportunities is up to us. And not having a welfare state there to take care of everyone. And have everyone dependent on the state for our economic well-being. Liberals truly believe in individual freedom, but again for everyone, whereas today's so-called Progressives believe in the welfare state. To be there to take care of everyone mixed in with private-enterprise. 

Hoover Institution: Peter Robinson- Interviewing James Pierson: 'The Rise and Fall of Liberalism'

Source:Hoover Institution-  Author James Pierson, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, talking about his book: The Rise and Fall of Liberalism.

Source:FRS FreeState

"In Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, James Piereson asserts that, as the 1960s began, liberalism was  the single most creative and vital force in American politics and that the Kennedy assassination caused a split within this movement between its more traditional supporters and cultural activists that still exists today. Peter Robinson explores with Piereson how and why this happened -- how a confident, practical, forward-looking philosophy with a heritage of accomplishment was thus turned into a doctrine of pessimism and self-blame, with a decidedly dark view of American society."

From Hoover Institution

Again I separate socialism from liberalism. And the progressivism From Teddy Roosevelt in the early twentieth century all the way up through the 1950s up until John F. Kennedy, is progressivism in its best form and classical form and I would argue in its only form.

And the so-called Progressives of today that are part of the New-Left that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response in favor of the civil rights movement and the Great Society and of course against the Vietnam War, is a much different and more leftist movement.

The Socialist New-Left: People who tend to be against authority all together as it relates to law enforcement and national security and this movement got behind George McGovern for President in 1972 and Senator McGovern ran with them and lost in a landslide as a result.

So these are people who are called Progressives today or "Modern-Liberals", (a term I hate) but they aren’t either and I tend to call them Social Democrats or McGovern Democrats, McGovernites, Socialists, Communists in some cases, but they aren’t liberal in the Jack Kennedy sense or any sense at least from my perspective. Because they are not liberal, (to put it plainly) and tend to be illiberal. Because they tend to be against free speech and even property rights. They're so far to the left on economic policy and so anti-authority and rule of law when it comes to law enforcement and national security.

One of the reasons why the death of President Kennedy was so tragic was for both political and ideological reasons (from a Liberal’s perspective) because the 1960s was the decade that brought so much economic as well as personal freedom to so many new Americans. With the tax cuts of the early 1960s and the civil-rights laws of the mid and late 1960s, American women entering the workplace. And had Jack Kennedy survived and then been reelected in 1964 which of course we’ll never know, we probably are not involved in Vietnam the way we were. At least not invading the country.

And President Kennedy probably moves much more cautiously in Vietnam and we probably would’ve played a more of a supportive role there and not invading North Vietnam. And trying to wipeout the Communists on our own. So the Democratic South could govern the country. But of course we’ll never know this.

The 1960s was a great time for real Liberals not the New-Left because of the Cultural Revolution that brought so much freedom to new Americans as well as the economic freedom that came in that decade. But by the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the New-Left, it was a bad time for the Democratic Party.

Both sides of the American political spectrum have their centers and their cores. And the fringes that sort of give the Left and Right bad names and make them look bad as if the entire Left and Right is like that. And that’s what we saw in the Left in America in the 1960s and 70s. Where the Left in America was no longer made up of Liberals and Progressives. But the New-Left emerged of people who I would call Socialists. Some cases even Communists. Or Occupy Wall Street people of today.

The New-Left are people who do not see America as a great country, but a force for bad in the World. And want to try to make the country like Europe even though Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson never wanted to go that far. And some people who call themselves FDR Democrats today do not even understand Franklin and just look up to him because of the New Deal. And see him as their vision for creating some type of European welfare state and finishing the job of the New Deal and Great Society.

But in the 1990s America liberalism made a comeback with Bill Clinton. And the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party was no longer in charge. And Clinton New Democrats were and the Democratic Party once again became about opportunity and freedom for all both economic and personal. Rather than being about the welfare state and government dependence.

As well as a country that could not only defend itself, but would do what it took to defend itself without trying to govern the world. Bill Clinton brought American liberalism back to life and made it a governing philosophy again and perhaps saved the Democratic Party as well.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Richard Epstein: 'Crisis & The Law'

Source:Hoover Institution- fellow Richard Epstein, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, in 2009.

"Considered one if the most influential legal thinkers of modern times, Richard Epstein brings his libertarian views to bear on the current financial crisis --government incentives were perverse, so the actions of the private parties were perverse-- and rates the performances of George Bush and Barack Obama in their responses to the crisis.  He speaks to the importance of contracts and the constitutionality of the expo facto taxation on AIG executives and the Employee Free Choice Act embraced by President Obama.  Finally he speaks of his personal and professional dealings with Barack Obama when they were law school faculty mates at the University of Chicago."

From the Hoover Institution

I guess because of the way I look at the United States Constitution, I would be described as a Liberal Constitutionalist, who looks at the entire Constitution and doesn't pick out parts that I like and rail against the parts that I do not like, which is common among both the Far-Left and far right in America.  Both the left and the right pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they favor and then claim they are upholding the Constitution, but see things they do not favor and support amending the Constitution for the good of the country, however they would phrase that.

I like the Constitution as a whole and am not interested in eliminating any of the amendments, but I might add an official Right to Vote to it as well as update the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which would throw out most of these so-called Voter ID laws that are really voter prevention laws.

But there are parts of the U.S. Constitution that are my favorites, which is the real point of this post.  I'm going to concentrate on these because they protect our individual freedom and make us a liberal democracy.

What I really love most about the U.S. Constitution are the First Amendment, which guarantees our right to speech and assembly; the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees our right to privacy and protects our property rights, because it means that government can't come into our homes and businesses without what is called "probable cause" and cannot search our properties without a search warrant issued by a judge; and the Fifth Amendment, which again protects our property rights because government cannot take our property without  probable cause.

These rights allow Americans to live their own lives and associate with whom they choose just as long as they aren't hurting innocent people, and allows government to protect us from criminals and invaders but not to protect us from ourselves. As long as we aren't declaring war on the government or illegally leaking classified information, these rights give us autonomy over our own lives.  We should always remember this and not take them for granted. 

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

Hoover Institution: Video: Issues on My Mind: George P. Schultz: Drugs, The War With No Winner

Source:The FreeState

It’s good to hear a Republican and a Conservative, who worked for both President Richard Nixon, when the War on Drugs was declared and President Ronald Reagan, when the Drug War was escalated in the 1980s, like George Schultz. Listen to what Secretary Schultz says here. “We have forty years of experience and we know that the War on Drugs doesn’t work. That it’s a failure, that we have more people who use illegal narcotics than other developed countries and have higher rates of illegal drugs use than our competitors.” Now, George Schultz, was Secretary of Treasury for President Nixon and then Secretary of State for President Reagan. And even though he might be the best Secretary of State the United States has ever had, he’s not directly responsible for the War on Drugs.

But Schultz, was a very trusted member of both President Nixon’s and President Reagan’s cabinet and knew about the War on Drugs and saw reports about them. And is someone who is very interested in current affairs, especially as they relate to America. And has thought and researched a lot about issues other than economic and foreign policy. He knows about our high incarceration rate and how many of those people in prison are there for something relating t the War on Drugs. And that a lot of those people are there for simple usage, or possession. He knows what our narcotics issue was pre-War on Drugs and where we are forty years later.

So to hear someone with the depth of knowledge, intelligence and experience as a George Schultz, who was a cabinet officer in both Richard Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s administration’s, who also happens to be a Conservative Republican, say the War on Drugs has failed and he was part of two administration’s where the War on Drugs was pushed real hard, is very refreshing. And it is also very refreshing to hear someone of the background of a George Schultz, say we can do better. There are better ways and policies in how we deal with narcotics in America. That we shouldn’t be promoting narcotics usage, but at the same time we shouldn’t be holding people criminally responsible and sending them to prison as convicted felons, simply for using narcotics.

Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: The Sixties With Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley, From 1998

Source:The FreeState

The 1960s is a generation that I would’ve liked to experienced as an adult, but I come from one generation up, so that’s not possible. But it was really a revolutionary decade both politically and culturally with all sorts of change in America. With the civil rights movement, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, the Culture Revolution and what I and others call the New-Left in America. Which is furthest left at least as far as numbers and members than America had ever seen at least in the 20th Century. 

The 1960s was a decade of revolution and experimentation. Where people who grew up with parents that saw the world as black and white and right and wrong. With any other type of viewpoint being seen as crazy or, Un-American. You were on this side or that side and if neither side was good enough for you, you were an outsider. It was a decade where Boomers pushed it to the limits as much as possible. They finally felt free to live their own lives and not have to live under the umbrella of how their parents lives. And be able to live life the way they wanted to. 

And one of the interesting things about the 1960s was it was completely different from the 1950s which was somewhat stagnant and where Americans were supposed to be a certain way and live their lives a certain way. Just like their parents and grandparents and that was completely overturn by the 1960s where people were now allowed to be free and live freely and not be looked down by society for the most part. And the Baby Boom generation made that happen.

It is kind of hard to sum up a decade that had John F. Kennedy as President in 1961 and then assassinated almost three-years later when most people thought it was impossible that an American President could be assassinated, or an American would even attempt to assassinate a President. That also had the civil rights movement, LBJ's Great Society, the Vietnam War, the anti-war movement, the cultural revolution, the environmental movement, gay rights. And Americans finally coming out of their cultural coma and realizing or going "I'll be dammed! The government actually lies to their people". And I could go on, but I don't think I can do it. 

Basic Economics: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviewing Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton in 1999

Source:The FreeState

Milton Friedman, made the case that the economy deserves most of the credit for the economic boom of the 1990s. That it was really an economic expansion that started in 1983, when the economy broke out of the 1982-83 recession. But what he doesn’t mention is that was that we had a fairly bad recession in 1990-91 and we had mounting debt and deficits, that we were supposed to still be stuck with ten years later. President H.W. Bush, essentially inherited the recession of the early 1990s, with rising interest and inflation rates as well as unemployment. That he addressed in 1990 with the first of two deficit reduction acts. That included budget cuts, budget caps and tax hikes.

Which President Bush got killed for by right-wingers in the 1992 presidential election and one reason why he got a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan in 1992 as well. President Clinton, inherited a large debt and deficit in 1992, an economy that was growing, but barely, with low job growth, high inflation, interest and unemployment rates. And by the time President Clinton left office in 2001, the economy was booming, with 4.2% unemployment, a falling national debt and the first budget surplus since 1969. President Clinton, of course doesn’t deserve all the credit for this, but he did lay down policies that helped bring this about.

In 1993 alone, President Clinton got through Congress two foreign trade deals. NAFTA and GAT and a deficit reduction act, that had budget cuts and tax hikes on the wealthy. NAFTA and GAT allowed for more American products to be sold in Canada and Mexico, as well as more jobs in America to make those products. The Deficit Reduction Act helped to bring down interest and inflation rates, which lowered prices, so people had more money to spend. Which meant consumer spending went up, which led to higher economic and job growth.

The actual size of the Federal Government went down under President Clinton. Now the Republican Congress’s deserve some credit for that, but that process started under President Clinton during the Democratic Congress of 1993-94. It’s really the private sector that deserves credit for the economic boom of the 1990s. Business’s and workers, but President Clinton deserves credit as well. The economy did take off in the 1980s under President Reagan and the Economic Recovery Act of 1981.

But that the 1983 economic expansion lasted about six years from 1983-89. And the economy started to slide in 1989 and we had a recession in 1990-91. The 1990s was a different period, because information technology took off, creating millions of jobs in that decade. With all sorts of new tech companies, with the internet coming on-line in 1991 or 92, with cell phones becoming common at about this time as well.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviewing Charles Moore: The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher

Source:The FreeState

The situation that Margaret Thatcher inherited from Socialist Labor Party in Britain in 1979, is not much different from the situation that Ronald Reagan inherited from the Democratic Party in America economically in 1981. There were some differences politically, but both economies were in bad shape. High unemployment, low economic and job growth, both Thatcher and Reagan inheriting economic messes in 1979 and 81 respectively.

There were political differences, back in the 1970s. The UK Labor Party, was more of a Marxist Socialist Party, that believed in state ownership of the economy. At least to certain extents and there were British industries, that were owned by the U.K. Government. The U.S. Democratic Party, is made up of Liberal and Progressives and have Democratic Socialists. Progressive Democrats in the Party that believe in democratic socialism. Which is different from Marxism, but both parties have their big government supporters as it relates to economics and they were both in charge back then. But both countries were down and weren’t doing very well and were both looking for a change politically and both got it, with Thatcher and Reagan.

So in Britain, what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did and what the new Labor Party under Tony Blair continued in the late 1990s, but added their own touch to it, was bring more economic freedom to Britain. Privatized more British industries, cut taxes and cut spending and freed a lot of Brits to live their own lives. One thing I respect about the British Conservative Party, that unlike the Republican Party, is that they are a real Conservative Party. Not a Neoconservative Party. They truly believe in conserving individual freedom, not subtracting from it, or trying to tell people how to live their lives. The British Conservatives, didn’t bring in conservative economics, with authoritarian policies on Social Issues. They wanted to expand British freedom and give more Brits the ability to chart their own course in life, and not being dependent on the state for their lively hood.

That Thatcher Revolution, worked so well in Britain, that when Tony Blair was running and eventually elected Prime Minster in 1997 with the Labor Party, he did not run on Marxism. He didn’t try to convince Brits that capitalism doesn’t work and they need to go back to nationalizing British industries and return to the 1970s. What he did was to run on a different type of capitalism, that would expect Brits who were physically and mentally capable of working full-time, would be expected to be self-sufficient in life. And that even if you were unemployed and uneducated, that you would still be expected to work and be self-sufficient. And that the state will help you get the skills you need to be self-sufficient if you need it. Thats the legacy of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: Thomas Explains The Great Depression

Source:FRS FreeState

For all the great things that Franklin Roosevelt did as President of the United States. Leading America as we saved Europe from Nazi Germany, pulling the country out of the GreatDepression, establishing the America's version of a welfare state which is really more of a safety net and I'll get into that later, as well as saving American capitalism even though he was very progressive if not a Democratic Socialist on economic policy, its not the New Deal that pulled us out of the Great Depression.

Its really our involvement in World War II that did that. Because of all the money that the Federal Government borrowed to fiance that war and people we put to work in our war effort. With the draft and all of the resources that it took to fight that war and all of the company's that we put to work building our supplies to fight that war. And all of the people that the war took out of our workforce and were sent to Europe and other places to fight that war. Leaving jobs for a lot of unemployed workers at home.

Democratic Socialists, like to point to the New Deal and government spending that pulled us out of World War II. Well they are half right, because it was government spending, but not on the New Deal, but our military. Where you can make a pretty good case, that World War II is where our military industry was formed. Because pre-World War II, America had a pretty small military compared with size of our country and economy. But by the time World War II ended, we had the first, or second largest military in the world.

We were pretty close with Russia and President Truman and President Eisenhower made our military every bigger.  Countries like Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Britain were the military powers of the world pre-World War II. But only Russia and Britain was still a military power after World War II. Because Europe took such a huge beating in World War II. And America came in and saved their necks (to put it mildly) so they could rebuild. We saved Europe from Nazi Germany and then helped Europe rebuild themselves with the Marshal Plan.

What the New Deal did was save American capitalism, but it also hurt it I believe especially in its efforts to deal with poverty in America. And its not everyday, week, month, or year that I agree with former Speaker Newt Gingrich on anything. (Including the weather) But he's right at least about one thing, the New Deal and Great Society did create what Speaker Gingrich calls a "Culture of Dependency" letting people go on these anti-poverty programs indefinitely without empowering them to become self-sufficient. But the positives of the New Deal are that it created a safety net for American capitalism. For people who fall through the cracks in the economy.

It helped people on hard time sustain themselves until they started working again. Things like Unemployment Insurance and Disability and Welfare Insurance, as well as Social Security so people would at least have a floor in retirement that they could count on. Pre-Great Depression, America pretty much had no such thing as a safety net or welfare state. If people lost their jobs, or didn't have a retirement, they were pretty much at the mercy of their families, or charity to help them out and support them. So to that extent the New Deal has been very positive.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Charles Moore on Margaret Thatcher

Source:The FreeState

If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward neoconservatism and religious conservatism.

Neoconservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Neoconservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom.