CNN: Bill Maher: ‘Every Modern Country is Quasi-Socialist. It’s Not a Dirty Word’

Source:CNN– Real Time With Bill Maher talking to Canadian talk show host George Stroumboulopoulos.

“Bill Maher was interviewed by George Stroumboulopoulos who has a show on CNN. Anyway Maher went on a socialist rant – pushing Socialism. He had just finished saying people are stupid and don’t understand the benefits of big government like Obamacare. At that point, George said there is an education impasse. Bill said that we should do Socialism since it works – let’s do what works. Um Bill Europe is trying to move away from Socialism because it caused crushing debt. Look at Spain, Greece, Portugal. Engalnd is trying to get away from Socialism.”

From  LSUDVM

I guess it depends on what you mean by socialist and socialism.

The classic definition of Socialist (and I guess this would be the Communist definition) someone who believes that the state (meaning the national government) owns the means to production of society. That means that private property, including small businesses and homes, would be own by the national government. But there’s almost no one left in the world (unless they’re hiding from the freedom fighters, after being kicked out of office) that believes that communism is a good government philosophy.

The more common definition of socialist, especially in the 21st Century, someone who believes the collective should be taken care of. That no one should have to go without the basic necessities in life to live well. And that all these services should be provided by the national government. Which is basically the definition of the welfare state. But that people get to own their own homes and the rest of their private property, including businesses, but things like health care, health insurance, safety net, employment benefits, infrastructure, should be provided by the national government.

Every country in the world has a public social insurance system. The American social insurance system is just a lot smaller, as far as percentage of its entire economy, because Americans tend to want to be able and to do more for themselves and tend to not like living off of government. So in that sense, I guess every developed country in the world, has some socialism in their economy.

Read Full Post »

Research Channel: ‘Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture in Social Justice’

Source:Research Channel– Reverend Jesse Jackson appearing at this lecture.

Source:FreeState MD

“An annual event during University of Pennsylvania’s celebration of the life and legacy of Dr. King; each year, it highlights a scholar of African descent who is committed to the field of social justice. The 2004 guest was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, in conversation with the Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, moderated by Dr. Tukufu Zuberi.”

From the Research Channel

Martin L. King was a true Social Democrat. Not a Marxist, or a Communist, but someone who believed in using government to redistribute wealth from the wealthy and use that money through government to provide for low-income people who lacked the basic tools to live well in America. Which in many ways is what democratic socialism is about, to see to it that a few people don’t do so well, while so many others live without the basic necessities.

Had Dr. King lived past 1968 and wasn’t assassinated at thirty-nine years old in 1968, the next stage of his movement would have been about poverty in America economic and social justice. And perhaps would have been the modern Bernie Sanders, or Henry Wallace of his generation. And perhaps we would have seen the Green Party emerged in the 1970s as a true Social Democratic Party that could compete with Democrats and Republicans.

Economically speaking, I see Senator Bernie Sanders as the Martin King of his generation. Depending on how you define generations and would Senator Sanders and Dr. King, be in the same generation, or not. But two men who are essentially anti-wealth. That being wealthy and economically independents are bad things in their view, when others go without. So in their view, you need a big government to take from the well-off, to give to the less-fortunate, so no one has to live in poverty.

Read Full Post »

CBS News: Face The Nation With Bob Schieffer: ‘The Confident Defeat That Wasn’t’

Source:CBS News– U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) appearing on CBS News Face The Nation, in 1972.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Democrats Sen. Hubert Humphrey and Rep. George McGovern appeared together on “Face the Nation” while they were campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. They both expressed confidence that President Richard Nixon was beatable. Of course, neither of them ultimately did.”

From CBS News

Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate talking to CBS News Face The Nation about Senator Hubert Humphrey and their presidential campaigns. The video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source: CBS News

The fact is there wasn’t any Democrat who could even beat President Nixon in 1972, or even give him a tough race, because of the disarray in the Democratic Party between it’s Center-Left and Far-Left. Similar to how the Republican Party is today. And there wasn’t a Democrat who could bring those two sides together.

But even without the emergence of the McGovernites that put all of their support behind Senator George McGovern in 1972, I think they would have a hard time defeating President Nixon. Because of the emerging Southern base in the Republican Party and that the Democrats hadn’t locked down the Northeast and West Coast, as well as big Midwestern cities as far as their base. African-Americans and Latinos, were still voting Republican in 1972.

Compared with the late 1960s at least, 1972 looked like a fairly peaceful and establishment friendly year. And when that is the case the party in power and that is the party with the presidency, tends to do well. Even if the young Baby Boomers and the broader New-Left in the Democratic Party felt differently.

By 1972, the Vietnam War was ending, America was negotiating with Russia and China and opening up a relationship with the People’s Republic of China. The country by in-large felt pretty good. The Great Deflation of the 1970s that basically hammered the American economy from really 1973 on, hadn’t happen yet. So when the country is like this they tend to feel fairly good and aren’t looking for a change in leadership.

Read Full Post »

Union Solidarity: Dr. Martin L. King- ‘On Labor, Wealth and Inequality’

Source:Union Solidarity– Dr. Martin L. King talking about what’s called economic justice in 1968.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on Labor, Wealth and Justice”

From Union Solidarity

Economic policy, is the part of Dr. Martin L. King’s message that I disagree with. And where he was lacking, because he sort of took this social democratic view that came out of the New Deal, or Great Society that judged what we were doing to help the middle class and low-income people based on how much we spent on them. The theory being: “That if we spend a lot of money to reduce poverty, that poverty will go away, because we’ll have all of these government programs to take care of people.”

I mean, if you listen to this video, you’ll see clip from one of his speeches where he says: “We now have the resources that we need to wipeout poverty”. You could spend a trillion dollars a year in America, or anywhere else to reduce poverty and right now the United States is not that far from that and you’ll still have poverty in this country, if that money is not being spent to empower people to get themselves out of poverty. Because government no mater what it spends, or any private organization for that matter, can’t get people out of poverty by themselves. The people in poverty have to do that for themselves. What government and the private sector can do is empower people to get themselves out of poverty.

I love both men (you know, platonically) but where I give Malcolm X an advantage over Dr. King is when it came to economics. Minister X’s message was about education and self-reliance when it came to economic policy. Economically, Minister X was closer to Barry Goldwater than Lyndon Johnson, or Franklin Roosevelt. He wanted to empower the African-American community to get themselves the tools that they needed to be economically independent, self-reliant in life, making it on their own.

I give Reverend King the edge when it came to the civil rights movement. Because without the message of non-violence, the civil rights movement would’ve never have gotten as far as it did, not even come close. Because this movement would’ve been seen as a bunch of thugs, criminals, terrorists by the so-called mainstream media. But taking it a next step forward post-civil rights laws of the 1960s, I give the edge to Malcolm X as far as what African-Americans should now do with the freedom they finally have under law.

Read Full Post »

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- Henry A. Wallace (1952)

Source:CBS News– Progressive Party candidate Henry A. Wallace, on the Longines Chronoscope, in 1952.

Source:FreeState MD

“”LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH HENRY A. WALLACE – National Archives and Records Administration 1951-12-28 – ARC Identifier 95964 / Local Identifier LW-LW-409 – TELEVISION INTERVIEW: Col. Ansel E. Talbert and William Bradford Huie talk with Wallace, former Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Agriculture, on critical areas of concern in the world, displaced Arabs in Middle East, economic “peace” assistance, aid federal spending. DVD copied by IASL Master Scanner Katie Filbert.”

From Public Resource

Henry Wallace, ran for President in 1948, when the United States essentially had four major presidential contenders: Democratic President Harry Truman, Republican Governor Tom Dewey, Dixiecrat Governor Strom Thurmond and Progressive Henry Wallace. And apparently President Truman a Democrat, even though he advocated what was called the Fair Deal, which was to build on the New Deal from the 1930s, wasn’t left-wing enough for Henry Wallace. So Wallace, ran for the Progressive Party. Henry Wallace was a Social Democrat t, or Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat and I mean small d when it comes to Democrat. Someone who believed in democracy obviously, but a certain type of democracy.

Henry Wallace, believed in democratic socialism or social democracy. Thats common in Europe and wanted to expand on the New Deal and go even further in guaranteeing health insurance and health care. To use as examples, college as well and using the Federal Government heavily, to produce an economy that was as strong and as fair as possible. Investing heavily in public infrastructure, Federal aid to Education, that sort of thing. And combined his economic socialism with social liberalism. Big believer in civil rights and equal rights for all. Way ahead of the Democratic Party in the 1940s and deserves a lot of credit for that.

I think what really separates Henry Wallace from mainstream Progressive Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey, has to do with foreign policy and national security. That would be the negative side, where I don’t believe Wallace took the threat of the Soviet Union and communism around the world seriously enough and perhaps even sided with them on some things.

Wallace’s positive aspect and I believe the best part of Wallace’s political legacy and what he had in common with Hubert Humphrey and where he separated from Roosevelt and Truman, had to do with civil rights and equal rights. Wallace and Humphrey, supported what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act that was finally passed by Congress and singed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. And Henry Wallace, deserves a lot of credit for that.

Read Full Post »

Norman Thomas vs Barry Goldwater: Socialism vs Conservatism (1961)

Source:Daily Kos– Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas: the George McGovern/Bernie Sanders of his generation.

“With socialism enjoying a boom right now, I thought it’d be appropriate to write a biography of the most prominent socialist during the mid 20th century. During his long career, Thomas moved the Socialist Party’s image from being a bunch of soapbox orators to an almost respected pressure movement on the left. Even into his old age, he was a tireless activist for social justice and a prolific writer throughout. The Thomas era of socialism was a testament to how social democracy evolved after the war and can teach today’s left a thing or two.

Thomas was born in 1884 in Marion, Ohio. He was the oldest of six children and his father was a Presbyterian minister. During High School, he was a paper carrier for the Marion Daily Star, a newspaper owned by none other than Warren Harding. After graduating, he attended Bucknell University, and left after 1 year after the fortune of an uncle of his allowed him to attend Princeton. After graduating in 1905, he decided to become a minister like his father. He attended the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was ordained in 1911. UTS was a bastion for the social gospel and Thomas would preach this at his congregation where he spoke out against US entry into World War I. This pacificism alienated the leaders of the Presbyterian Church of New York, and he was forced to resign.

220px-Morris_Hillquit_NYWTS.jpg
SPA Leader Morris Hillquit- Thomas’ political mentor
But as the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. Thomas became employed with the New York mayoral campaign of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit in 1917. This would be his gateway into leftist politics. After the First World War ended, he quickly moved his way up the hierarchy of the socialist movement, at a time when it was being hit hard by the Palmer Raids. He became an editor at The Nation magazine in 1920, co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1922, and would go on to help found the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the ACLU.

He also mounted several electoral campaigns. He ran for Governor of New York in 1924, Mayor of New York City in 1925 and 1929, State Senate in 1926, and Alderman in 1927. None of these were successful.”

From Daily Kos

“Socialist Norman Thomas debates Barry Goldwater at the University of Arizona in November 1961.”

Source:Joseph Hewes– Barry Goldwater vs Norman Thomas in 1961.

From Joseph Hewes

Senator Barry Goldwater and Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas represented the intelligent way for Conservatives (like Goldwater Republicans) to debate Socialists (like Bernie Sanders) today. They layout their visions and why they believe what they believe and why they disagree with the other side. While not questioning the other’s patriotism and morality.

Source:The Daily Journal– Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) was the face of American classical conservatism in Congress for 30 years.

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with, but what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism, not communism, or Marxism. But basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide.

Norman Thomas was debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom, pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

And Socialists today (even though they prefer to be called Progressives) share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary.

Norman Thomas and Bernie Sanders would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

Democratic Socialists believe you need, well a big government, according to the the (Democratic Socialist) big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector.

Socialists believe things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

Read Full Post »

MOX News: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- ‘Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger’

Source:Mox News– Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Michael Moore says Occupy Wall Street will only get bigger”

From Anon Saint

Wow! I’m shocked that Michael Moore one of the leading so-called Democratic Socialists in America, is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I’m not sure Mr. Moore has much credibility on this issue, bashing a governmental and economic system that he’s benefited greatly from. Fine, he sees a country that’s in a lot of trouble and wants to see us get through this and recover from it. I get that, but bashing a system that he’s benefited from, is hard to swallow. (Sort of like peanut butter or chocolate sauce on a hot dog)

Read Full Post »

Richard Nixon Library: Oral History- Tim Naftali Interviewing George McGovern

Source:Richard Nixon Library– Former U.S. Senator and 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee George McGovern, talking to presidential historian Tim Naftali, in 2009.

Source:FreeState MD 

“George McGovern recorded interview by Timothy Naftali, 26 August 2009, the Richard
Nixon Oral History Project of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.”

From the Richard Nixon Library 

“George Stanley McGovern, who rose from small-town roots in Avon and Mitchell to the highest heights of American politics, died Sunday morning at a Sioux Falls hospice facility from a combination of medical conditions associated with his age. He was 90.

Though he was known mostly for his unsuccessful 1972 presidential campaign, McGovern was more than that. He was an accomplished student and debater during his school days in Mitchell; a World War II bomber pilot decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross; a doctorate-level scholar; a history professor; the rebuilder of the South Dakota Democratic Party; a U.S. representative; director of the Food for Peace program in the Kennedy administration; a U.S. senator; an icon of the anti-Vietnam War effort; a lifelong crusader against the scourge of hunger; a United Nations delegate and ambassador; the author of 14 books; and, in his later years, an elder statesman who remained a sought-after speaker and commenter on issues of the day.”

Source:The Mitchell Republic– U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) running for President in 1972.

“Sen. George McGovern gives the victory sign to throng of about 20,000 persons assembled at Madison Square garden, June 14, 1972 in New York for rally in support to his attempt to win the democratic presidential candidacy. (AP Photo/Dave Pickoff)”

From The Mitchell Republic

George McGovern was someone with one hell of a political and professional resume, who represented South Dakota in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate as a Leftist Democrat in one of the reddest states in the union. And yet he represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years.

Mr. McGovern served as Director of the U.S. Food For Peace Program, who won the Democratic Party nomination for President in 1972, who rebuilt the Democratic Party almost on his own, by bringing in so many new Democrats, who thought the Democratic Party was still the Dixiecrat Party that didn’t welcome ethnic or racial minorities or women, and so-forth.

Senator McGovern benefited the Democratic Party by 1976 with Jimmy Carter being elected President in 1976, who was a Progressive Democrat from the South and not as far to the left as the national Democratic Party. George McGovern was a man who truly believed in public service, that it was about representing the public and not furthering your career financially.

George McGovern grew up in the New Deal era in the Democratic Party era, the Progressive Era of Franklin Roosevelt and thought this was the politics of the future. And something that he believed in and was the dominant political philosophy up until the late 1960s or so.

The problem that Senator McGovern had was that by the time he was a national Democrat and becoming a major contender For President of the United States, Senator McGovern was not a New Deal Progressive Democrat, but more of a Henry Wallace Democratic Socialist, during a time when the country was moving to the right on economic policy and when high taxes, Welfare, big government were becoming unpopular.Yet

When the country was moving right economically, the George McGovern and the Democratic Party was moving left, thanks to the New-Left and Baby Boomers of the 1960s and 70s. Which made it almost impossible for a McGovernite like a McGovern to win nationally and win statewide perhaps in most states.

The main difference between Barry Goldwater and George McGovern’s landslide presidential losses, is that Senator Goldwater was ahead of his time and the country wasn’t quite ready for his let’s call it conservative-libertarianism in 1964. At the heart of the Great Society era in the country.

But in Senator McGovern’s case, the country moved past his and LBJ’s progressivism and Wallace/McGovern democratic socialism. And instead we’re looking for fewer taxes and more economic development and growth in America.

What I call the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party, that’s different from the FDR or LBJ wing, was forming, but hasn’t had the power to nominate another McGovern Socialist to run for President in the Democratic Party.

The Far-Left of the Democratic Party tried with McGovern again in 1984, Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008. But none of these Far-Leftist Democrats, have come even close to being a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. And we are now seeing McGovern-Democrats running for President in social democratic third-parties.

George McGovern’s legacy for the Democratic Party, is that he expanded it. Taken it away from the right-wing Religious-Right of the South and giving the Republican Party a Christmas gift from hell. And turning the Democratic Party into more of a Northern and West Coast party. That relies on minorities and women, to be successful politically.

Read Full Post »

C-SPAN: Washington Journal With Susan Swain- Christopher Hitchens & Tom Davis (1996)

Source:CSPAN– British writer, columnist, author, political satirist Christopher Hitchens.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Hosted by Susan Swain. Rep. Thomas Davis and Mr. Hitchens talked about current issues including the re-election of President Yeltsin and issues pertinent to the Clinton and Dole campaigns. Credit to:CSPAN.”

From CSPAN

To put it simply: the best way to help poor people move to the middle class and become self-sufficient and not need public assistance for their daily survival, is to give them temporary financial assistance and child care, so they can survive in the short-term, yes, but to move them out of poverty, they need education to give them an opportunity to get their GED or go back to high school, as well as go to college like a technical school, so they can get the education and skills that they need, so they can get a good job to support themselves and their family’s. And then finally job placement, help them find a good job that they are qualified for. So they can support themselves and their family’s on their own and no longer need public assistance.

Along with deficit reduction and balancing the Federal budget, Welfare reform of 1996, is President Bill Clinton’s biggest achievement. It moved millions of people who would probably still be on Welfare Insurance today or working multiple minimum wage jobs just to barely survive today.

Had it not been for the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, millions of people who were on Welfare Insurance twenty years ago, now have good jobs today and some of them even own their own business’s or manage a business.

Then Governor Bill Clinton who made Welfare reform a big part of his 1992 presidential campaign, didn’t make a big push to pass a bill out of Congress his first two years. When he had a Democratic Congress, including a forty-seat majority in the House.

Even though President Clinton had good ideas on Welfare reform, like education, job placement, and child care, so these single parents could leave the home to go to school or look for work, his calculation was probably that he would never get the votes at least in the House, because the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party there would never go along with a bill that had time limits for Welfare deficit reduction, the crime bill, Family Medical Leave and of course the nightmarish debacle of health care reform. All things he passed in his first two years except for health care reform.

It took a Republican Congress for President Clinton to finally incorporate his ideas as well as Republican ideas to make it law. And it was by far the best legislation that a Republican Congress in modern times has ever passed.

What we tried in the 1930s and 1960s with anti-poverty programs, where you essentially just give low-income low-skilled people money and expect nothing from them, that the “cycle of poverty” would just go away on its own, clearly did not work.

Sixty-years later poverty was still a big problem in America which is why it was reformed. But in the 1990s we finally saw record reductions in poverty down to as low as 13%. One of those reasons being the economic expansion of that decade. But if you’re low-income and low-skilled, you won’t see the benefits of any economic expansion. Which is a big reason why Welfare reform was so important, because it empowered low-skilled people to get the skills that they need to get themselves out of poverty and into the middle class.

Read Full Post »