American Thinker: Mary Anne Marcella: 'The Death of America'

Source:American Thinker

This post is somewhat challenging because it is going to be two parts. That by itself is not challenging, but one part is going to sound and be pretty negative and partisan. And the other part is going to be pretty positive and hopefully unifying and uplifting about why we are Americans and what brings us together. Which generally has nothing to do with religion, or ethnic or racial heritage, or the country from which our ancestors came. But the national values that we share as Americans.

The negative part first. There are those a major, but seriously shrinking faction on the Right people who I call Traditional Values Conservatives. Neoconservatives would be more accurate from a political point of view, but certainly conservative in a cultural standpoint in the sense that they want to conserve their way of life and how they grew and how America looked the way up until let's say the mid 1960s or so. And then of course went through dramatic national changes.

Traditional Values believers believe the country as it has become more diverse across the national spectrum and more tolerant of people who are not like them again across the national spectrum and more tolerant of different lifestyles, that the country as a result has been going downhill ever since culturally and politically. That their Protestant Anglo-Saxon way of life which tends to be deeply rooted in the South and rural parts of America outside of the South is under attacked as there are now a lot less of them. And a lot more Americans of other racial, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

What the Neo-Right calls "Traditional America" starts with the founding of our Federal Republic that grants so many constitutional and individual rights to Americans regardless of their racial, ethnic, religious or cultural background. But Neoconservatives believe those rights are just for them. "Religious freedom doesn't include Muslims because Islam is not a real religion". Would be an example of their bigotry. But that would be the modern version of it to go along with how they feel about "homosexuals are people who are immoral and not deserving the same rights as straights. Latinos are Un-American and not deserving the same rights and do not deserve to be in America".

I could include how our Founding Americans felt about Africans and the African slave trade in America. "Africans are not people and as a result should be treated like animals or property". But that might be to harsh for some to hear. The problem that the Neo-Right has had in America is they've lost almost every cultural battle this country has fought in the Cultural War mostly through the court system and is a big reason why we are so diverse as a country to go along with our immigration system. That we take people from all over the world regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality.

Now for the positive side. One of the things that makes America exceptional and yes I do believe in American Exceptionalism is that unlike most European and Asian countries America is not dominated by one race, ethnicity, religion or culture. And yet post Civil War and civil rights movement we've managed to live pretty well together as one country that is at least physically still together. Sure there are a tone of things that divide us, but generally not relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or even sexuality. What tends to divide us has to do with economic and educational status. To go along with political ideology, lifestyle choices and social status.

What brings Americans together tends to deal with our national values that most Americans share. The beliefs in individual freedom both economic and personal. Our beliefs in the Constitution and at least most of that document, not parts that get cherry picked for partisan political reasons. Our beliefs in freedom to go along with responsibility and tolerance of other Americans who don't share their political, cultural or religious beliefs. Our beliefs in education, opportunity, helping those in need. That is the only way a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people or so that is as racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse can function as one country without separating into several different new countries.

Source: Fox News: The O'Reilly Factor- Bill O'Reilly: 'The Left's Immigration Plan'

The Washington Post: Michael Gerson: The Tea Party Risks Scaring Away Voters

The Washington Post: Opinion: Michael Gerson: The Tea Party Risks Scaring Away Voters

I'm going to take you on a trip back in time to the mid 1960s and we'll work are way up to the early 1980s as well. Imagine had the Barry Goldwater classical conservative movement managed to take over the Republican Party during this time period. And today it becomes what we see with Senator Rand Paul, or they combine with his father former Representative Ron Paul and this kind of conservative libertarian movement took over the Republican Party. With the Dick Nixon's, Gerry Ford's, Ron Reagan, George Bush's who all had things in common with this movement, but who are perhaps not pure conservative libertarians, but able to work with these movement's to lead the party.

Imagine had the Conservative Libertarians taken over the GOP and essentially kicked out the Northeastern Progressives, or those Republicans become more like moderate Conservatives as we see with Mitt Romney and Olympia Snowe to use as examples. The Libertarian Party never gets up and running is ever formed in the early 1970s. Why, because there simply wouldn't any need for it. The Progressives in the Democratic Party would've continued to push the safety net and perhaps even for a welfare state which is even bigger. But the Republican Party wouldn't of helped them and instead would've pushed to reform current federal social insurance programs and decentralize them and send them to the states.

The Christian Right still comes into business, but wouldn't have the power that they do today, or have had the last forty years or so. Because again you have these Conservative Libertarians and moderate Conservatives from the Northeast and Midwest and even Mid-Atlantic running the party. The Christian  Right would've been left with a handful of seats in Congress in the Bible Belt for the most part. And probably treated by their Congressional Leadership the way the Progressive Caucus is treated in the House and Senate. As people you basically only talk to when you need their votes.

Another reason why the Libertarian Party would've never had gotten started is because again the Christian Right and the Neoconservatives aren't running the GOP. So the big government social agenda in the GOP is never put on the table in any big way as either part of the party platform, or into law. Even if this did happen, I'm not saying the Republican Party would be winning a majority of the African-American vote. The civil rights laws and all of those Southern Democrats bolting to the GOP as a result changed that forever. But maybe they get thirty or forty percent of the African-American vote. And the same thing with the Latin-American vote because you wouldn't consistently see Republicans who are tagged with either racial views or racists towards these groups.

Of course the Conservative Libertarians don't run the GOP. But they are certainly a growing and strong faction in the party today and I believe the GOP's best hope of appealing to Latinos and Millennial's in the future. And what you instead of Conservative Libertarians in charge are the Christian Right, Neoconservatives and Neoconfederates who love to talk about how much they love the Constitution. When at the same time they talk about how much they want to change the Constitution. Who take the Ron Paul anti-government views when it comes to the economy and public social insurance and almost anything that the Federal Government does that is not national security related as being unconstitutional. While they want to give the Federal Government more power as it relates to Americans personal lives.

The point I believe Mike Gerson was making in his column about the Tea Party is that they put the Republican Party in jeopardy with their anti-government approach because they have a habit of bashing public services that a majority Americans like and use everyday. And public infrastructure is a perfect example of that and the reason why Congress hasn't passed a highway bill yet this year is because the Tea Party in the House essentially believes the Federal Government has no business in funding infrastructure. Which makes Congress's job when it comes to legislating almost impossible, but infrastructure is just an example of that. The Republican Party pays a price for it because they look like people who can't get meals prepared and cars parked you know doing the basic business of government.

John Pilger: Video: George Wallace: The Most Powerful Politician in America [1974]

Was Governor George Wallace ever the most powerful politician in America? I have my doubts, but he probably was the most powerful Southern governor during his time as far as the amount of power he had in his state. The Kennedy Administration at least in the early 1960s didn't know how to deal with him because President Kennedy believed he needed the South and even Alabama to get reelected in 1964. But also wanted to pass civil rights laws that Governor Wallace was obviously against.

But the Johnson Administration knew how to deal with him which was by enforcing the Federal court orders and even doing it in public and making the Governor look weak by comparison. And of course that famous Lyndon Johnson treatment where he brings the Governor into the Oval Office and has Wallace saying that "if he stayed any longer LBJ would've had him coming out in favor of civil rights". Governor Wallace was a threat, but how powerful he was is at best an open question. Because the Federal Government whipped in every court battle.

CBPP: Commentary: Arloc Sherman: Policymakers Often Overstate Marginal Tax Rates

CBPP: Commentary: Arloc Sherman: Policymakers Often Overstate Marginal Tax Rates

I saw a video this afternoon of President Richard Nixon giving a speech to the country outlining his Welfare reform plan from 1969. In it he talked about the dangers of paying people more not to work than people could make in not working. I agree with that which is why I'm not only in favor of increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 dollars and hour and indexing it for inflation. But tying today's Welfare payments to that of what a full-time minimum wage worker would make  at today's $7.25 an hour minimum wage.

You tell someone on Welfare that they can not only make more money working than not working whatever the job is and you also tell them even if you do take a short-term low-wage job that pays more than not working and we'll meaning taxpayers will help you finish your education which includes credits for childcare and finishing their education including vocational training. You now have incentivize them to leave Welfare and reenter or enter the workforce. And for people who simply are on Welfare because they are uneducated and don't want to work they'll get kicked off of Welfare for simply being irresponsible, or their time limit will run out on them.

But again work should pay more than not working. So I'm not only about increasing the minimum wage, but I would propose and idea that was proposed by the great economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s. He called it the Negative Income Tax, my version of that would be would instead of cutting people's Welfare assistance once go to work you let them keep that up to the point that they are no longer collecting or making a poverty income. Whatever money they make from washing their neighbors laundry, or looking after their kids and doing other household chores, or cooking food for people you allow for them to keep all of that money plus what they collect from public assistance.

As well as going back to work with an official job again up to the point they are not longer collecting or earning a poverty income. Why, so we encourage people to work and go back to work and finish their education so they can finally get themselves a good job. Instead of saying "for whatever you try to do for yourself and that allows you some type of economic independence, we Uncle Sam or whatever government are going to penalize you in the form of some tax. To encourage you to stay on public assistance and not work at all so you become complete dependents on us the government".

Mises Daily: Andrew Syrios: A Brief History of Progressivism

Source:Mises Daily 

What is a Progressive? It depends on what you mean and almost who you ask. But whatever a Progressive is, they aren't Liberals unless the idea of what a progressive is means someone who believes in progress. But without some real ideological vision in how to achieve progress. So if that is the case than I would be both a Liberal because I believe in individual freedom, individual and equal rights for all and responsibility, constitutional law and rights that can't be taken away just through majoritarian rule. Limited government that protects people from predators, but doesn't try to run our lives for us.

But I'm also someone who believes in progress and that even government has limited role in seeing that progress is achieved for the people. To me that is what a classical Progressive I guess the Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt's, Lyndon Johnson's back in the day Progressives who believed in progress and using government including the Federal Government in a limited way to bring about that progress. But if you watch MSNBC now and read so-called progressive publications like The Nation, Salon, the AlterNet, TruthOut and now the new New Republic progressivism doesn't look the way I described it.

Lets say today's Progressives or a lot of people who are labeled as Progressives are really what I call Eurocrats. Social Democrats people who believe in social democracy and that "freedom economic and otherwise is essentially dangerous. Because it comes with so much individual choice and decision-making that can be overwhelming for an individual. So you need a government big enough especially at the federal level to ensure that dangerous even individual choices aren't made. Because when bad individual choices are made the society as a whole as to pay for those bad choices".

That is not Lyndon Johnson progressivism. President Johnson never wanted a government so big that it could essentially run Americans lives for them and outlaw and remove risk completely. He wanted to use government to empower as many Americans as possible to be able to live the American Dream. (For lack of a better phrase) And what I mean by that is that LBJ did believe in public social insurance and the safety net. But not use it to run people's lives for them, but to empower people in need to be able to help themselves. Today's so-called Progressives are much further left than that.

If you really are a Progressive you believe government especially the Federal Government has a role limited at that, but a major role in seeing that everyone has the ability to live well in life. And even live in freedom with the ability to take care of themselves. So you believe in things like like public financing for infrastructure and education and even health care. But you don't believe government especially the Federal Government should have a complete monopoly over these services. You believe in things like the safety net, but not having it so big that people no longer have to make economic decisions for themselves.

A real Progressive believes in public broadcasting, but doesn't believe government should own and operate all media. Just having an independent public broadcasting option for people to use as well. And if you are a real Progressive you are not a prohibitionist or a nanny statist. Someone who believes in outlawing personal choices that are dangerous. Like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and add junk food and soft drinks today. And if you are a real Progressive you believe in gun control to keep firearms out of the hands of predators and the mentally disabled. But not outlaw them from responsible individuals who use them for protection and have them in private hands.

Progressives, statists, and Communists aren't the same people with three different labels. Progressive are not only democratic, but believe in a certain level of individual freedom because they don't believe you can have a government big enough to run people's lives for them. But also because a government that big would be regressive and not serve anyone well. And that educated people tend to know what they need to do and have in order to live well and be productive responsible people. But you want government strong enough to ensure that everyone has a quality opportunity to live in freedom.

Richard Nixon Foundation: 'President Nixon Unveils the Family Assistance Program in 1969'

Source:Richard Nixon Foundation- President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) talking about Welfare Reform in 1969.

"On August 8, 1969, President Nixon addressed the nation on his administration's domestic program proposals. The focal point of his address and domestic legislative push was the Family Assistance Plan, a plan crafted with the help of chief Urban Affairs counsel Daniel Patrick Moynihan."  

From the Richard Nixon Foundation

What President Nixon is talking about here in 1969 became what is now known as Welfare to Work. The bipartisan law that Congress passed in 1996 that was signed by President Bill Clinton. The old Welfare system was based on subsidizing low-skilled adults who didn't have the skills needed to get a good job and support themselves and their families. But essentially left them in poverty without much of an ability to move up and get off of Welfare and move to the middle class.

What President Nixon is talking about here is to continue to subsidize people in poverty. But to empower them to be able to move out of poverty with things like education and job training. But also design a system where working regardless of the job pays more than not working. I believe in that as well which is why I support increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 dollars an hour and index it for inflation so it keeps up with cost of living. And then tie today's Welfare cash payments to today's $7.25 an hour minimum wage for a forty hour a week fifty-two weeks a year job.

You want people in poverty to stay in poverty than you encourage people not to work and pay them more not to work than they could make working with their current skills. But if you want people to actually get out of poverty, than you have to empower people on Welfare to get themselves the skills that they need to move up the economic ladder and get off of Welfare all together. Which is my approach and President Nixon covered some of that in this speech. 

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

The Washington Post: Catherine Rampell: 'Limousine Liberalism's Good Works'

Source:The Washington Post- Liberal investor and billionaire Warren Buffett.

"Is it hypocritical for a really, really rich person to object to rising inequality?

I’ve been thinking about this in light of the derision the Clintons are facing for charging six-figure speaking fees while pontificating about income polarization and the plight of the poor." 

From The Washington Post 

"What is LIMOUSINE LIBERAL? What does LIMOUSINE LIBERAL mean? LIMOUSINE LIBERAL meaning.

Limousine liberal and latte liberal are pejorative American political terms used to illustrate hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status; including calls for the use of mass transit while frequently using limousines or private jets, claiming environmental consciousness but driving fuel inefficient sports cars or SUVs, attacking income inequality while being wealthy themselves, or ostensibly supporting public education while actually sending their children to private schools."  

Source:Audio Pedia- Classical Liberals.

From Audio Pedia

I'm sick and tired (and that is putting it mildly) of hearing people especially rabid partisan right-wingers claim that Liberals hate the wealthy and people with money and hate capitalism and private enterprise. I mean for anyone who actually looks at who has a lot of the money in the country, a lot of those people are Liberals and someone of them even further left than that. I mean seriously what is a so-called Limousine Liberal? A wealthy Liberal, but a Liberal who also cares about the poor.

As a Liberal myself people should be able to make as much money as their skills and production will allow for them to make and what people are willing to pay them for their services. And that includes everyone regardless of political and ideological affiliation. Now what separates me as a Liberal from Libertarians and hardcore Conservatives is that I believe everyone should pay taxes based on how much they make and that includes the rich. You take advantage of the opportunities you were given living in this great country, you should pay for them as well so those opportunities are available for other Americans as well.

I don't have a problem with rich Liberals, but people who are supposed to care about the poor and the income gap, but who do little or nothing about it on their own. And hangout with and associate with people who they claim are the reasons for the income gap in America. Cheerleaders lets say for the poor who say they are on the side of the disadvantage, but don't do a damn thing about it that could actually help those people. And essentially attack the rich to further their own nest. Which I believe was one of the points that Catherine Rampell was making in her column in the Post today. That is where I agree with her.

Again as a Liberal economic freedom is great and we should all be able to make as much money as we are capable of making based on what we bring to the table economically and professionally. But economic freedom shouldn't be based on who you were born to or who your parents know. But it should be for everyone in the sense that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in economic freedom in America. And that doesn't come with higher public assistance checks, but with quality education for all starting at K-12 and even before that for all of our students. And empowering low-income adults to finish their education so they have the skills they need to get themselves a good job.

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