Democratic Socialist: 'Classical Liberalism and Fascism'

Source:Democratic Socialist- Communists vs Lady Conservative Margaret Thatcher.

Source:The New Democrat  

"Classical Liberalism and Fascism" 

From Democratic Socialist

According to Wikipedia: "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

To put it simply: Fascists believe that their beliefs and values are so superior to anyone else's, that people who disagree with them, their beliefs and values are not worthy of being considered and perhaps those people don't have a right to even exist. 

Fascists believe that any opposition to what they believe should not be allowed to exist. Generally one of the first things that authoritarians do when they come to power in a country is attempt to completely shut down the political opposition and put them in prison, if not just murder the opposition. And then they shut down any private media organizations that disagree with their regime and report negative information about the authoritarian regime. Noticed, I haven't labeled Fascists as right-wing or left-wing.

The only governing philosophy that fascism is about is complete destruction of any possible opposition to what the party in power believes in. And for Fascists who aren't in power but would like to come to power, they believe opposition movements to what they believe in and advocate, don't have the same rights to exists, speak, and believe, that they do.

Communism is a governing philosophy.

Democratic socialism/social democracy, is a governing philosophy.

Libertarianism is a governing philosophy.

Religious theocracy or religious nationalism (whether its Christian or Muslim) are governing philosophies.

And then go to the Center-Left with progressivism which is a governing philosophy.

Liberalism is a governing philosophy.

Conservatism/conservative-libertarianism, is a governing philosophy.

But Fascists, similar to Nationalists who are also Fascists, are on both the Far-Left and Far-Right, both in North America and Europe.

Communists who are on the Far-Left, don't believe political opposition to what they believe and advocate, have a right to even exist let alone speak out. 

Right-wing Nationalists who are cultural Marxists and Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and ethno-Nationalists like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, on the extreme Far-Right, believe that opposition to what they believe don't have a right to even exist, let alone speak out.

Now, liberalism according to Wikipedia:

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law."

In other word: Liberals believe in individual rights, as well as liberty and equality. Some of those individual rights are obviously Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, as well as Freedom of Assembly. Property rights and the Right to Privacy. 

Communists and even Democratic Socialists, tend to oppose most if not all of these liberal values which are reasons why they're not Liberals, but Communists and Socialists. 

Communists don't believe in democracy because they see it as a  threat to their regime and absolute power over society, even to serve the people. 

Democratic Socialists believe in democracy and even in the right for non-Socialists and even right-wingers to exist. But promote the human welfare and total economic equality, over property rights and individual freedom, both economic as well as personal freedom.

This is an important debate and discussion and debate especially in a time like now and in a country like America where political literacy (for lack of a better term) meaning knowledge of different political philosophies, are so low. Where people get labeled as Liberals by the media and by themselves even though they don't believe in Freedom of Speech (at least for people who disagree with them) don't believe in property rights, and in many cases don't even believe in personal freedom. And yet they get labeled as Liberals even though consistently promote illiberal values over liberal values and have illiberal tendencies instead of liberal tendencies.

Blue Dem Warriors: 'Liberals Want Everyone to Have The Same Freedoms & Opportunities'

Source:Facebook Blue Dem Warriors-

Source:The New Democrat:

This is exactly what liberalism is about and what Liberals actually believe. Quality opportunity for everyone that lead to individual freedom for everyone. A society where everyone has the individual freedom to manage their own lives. Not the freedom from personal responsibility to manage their own affairs. Not the freedom to not have to figure out your own health insurance, retirement plan, where to send your kids to school, how much you should work during the week, what you can eat and drink, say to other people, watch on TV, who to sleep with, what music to listen to, etc. This is the main difference from socialism or what so-called Progressives like to call progressivism and neoconservatism. The question comes down to who has the power. The government or the people.

You get to individual freedom through opportunity. You get to opportunity through education and economic development. Getting the skills that you need to get the good jobs and then selling yourself based on your skills to get that good job. That gives you freedom and ability to manage your own life yourself. Without government deciding for you how to get your health insurance, where to send your kids to school, how to plan your own retirement and how to spend your own money more broadly. And what you do with your own personal time. Individual freedom can only work through education and then later personal responsibility. So when people make good personal decisions they enjoy the benefits from that. When they make bad decisions they live with the consequences of that themselves.

You don’t need a big government big enough to manage everyone’s life for them if you have an educated society with the skills and freedom to make their own decisions. Government has a role to see that everyone has the opportunity to get the freedom that they need to live, in well freedom. But not hold people down, because they’ve decided that government should take care of those people instead. Or tax and regulate people to the extent that freedom is discouraged, because the people believe that government will take care of them. Or they won’t be able to enjoy their success once they get it. Government shouldn’t discourage people from being individually successful and put down individual wealth. But instead promote those things so we have more wealthy and successful free people. Which is better for everyone involved including government.

Timothy Taylor: 'States as The Laboratories of Democracy: An Historical Note'

Source:The New Democrat- U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Perhaps the most famous metaphor defending the virtues of US federalism is that states can act as laboratories of democracy: that is,  states can enact a range of policies, and can then learn from the experiences of other states. The phrase was coined by Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1932 Supreme Court case of... 

From Timothy Taylor 

U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis: "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." 

From the Legal Information Institute 

"Nick Gillespie (Reason.com) discusses federalism. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen- John Stossel talking to Reason Magazine editor Nick Gillespie.

From Liberty Pen

I guess one of the advantages of living in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people that has fifty states, is that it gives you this great opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t. And what works and where it works and what doesn’t and where it doesn’t work. That is the beauty of a Federal Republic. 

We’re still one country as Progressives and Social Democrats like to say, which is true of course. But within that country you have all of these states, counties and cities, that are not just there, unlike let's says the United Kingdom, which has a unitarian national government, but they have real say over their own affairs within their own jurisdiction.

Federalism, doesn’t mean that states have all the power and that the Feds are just responsible for national security, foreign affairs, trade, and the currency. And it also doesn’t mean that the Feds have most if not all the power. 

If we had one superstate with most of the power in the national government, we wouldn’t have a Federal system and wouldn’t be a Federal Republic. We would be a unitarian state and perhaps not even a republic. 

Federalism, simply defines the roles of the Feds, states and localities in what each level of government is responsible for doing. The Feds, are primarily responsible for national security, foreign affairs, but are also responsible for homeland security, interstate crime, and commerce.

The states and localities, are primarily responsible for what happens in their own jurisdiction. Infrastructure, education, law enforcement, regulating and developing their economies, like encouraging investment prosecuting predatory behavior (To use as examples) But the Feds have a role here in how these issues relate to the country as well. Not to run them for the states and localities and take over them, but to offer input and resources. And regulate interstate commerce and trade and prosecute interstate crimes. 

And under a federalist system like this, you get to see what works and what doesn’t and where. As it relates to education, social insurance for people in need, economic development, energy, criminal justice and a lot of other areas.

Federalism and the Federal Republic, is essentially locked in stone in America. I’ve argued in the past that what today’s so-called Progressives (Social Democrats, really) for them to accomplish what they want to do politically in America, they would need several constitutional amendments, if not rewrite it, or eliminate it. Because they would like to see a lot more power in America transferred from the private sector and states, to the Federal Government. As it relates to education, current social insurance programs and would like to create a superstate in America in the form of a welfare state that would be completely managed by Washington. But even people in their ranks like Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, aren’t looking to break up our federalist system.

Myself, I’m a Liberal Federalist, which means that I might not agree with everything that a state is doing, but as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights when it comes to their own laws and policies. 

So for example, if Georgia wants private school vouchers and passes that law, I’m not a fan of private school vouchers, but they are within their rights to do that. But if they passed a law that says certain people can’t go to certain public schools, because of their race, ethnicity, or religion, they would obviously be violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and perhaps the Georgia State Constitution as well.

We have a U.S. Constitution, that is like the official rule book for American government at all levels. And as long as government is following the rules of the rulebook, they are within their rights. And if the people don’t like how their government is playing (so to speak) they can always fire them and replace them with people that they believe will represent them better. That is where liberal democracy comes into play in our Federal system. Which is why I call the United States a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We’re not really one, or the other, but a free society and state that operates under both systems into one bigger system.

John F. Kennedy: Defining American Liberalism

Source:FreeState MD- U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy: Democrat, Massachusetts, accepting the 1960 New York Liberal Party nomination for President, as a Liberal Democrat.

Source:FreeState MD

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, “Liberal”? If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But, if by a “Liberal,” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say that I’m a “Liberal.” 

From the JFK Library

When then U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy after serving almost fourteen years in Congress (both in the House and Senate) one his first speeches that he gave after he won the Democratic nomination for president, in I believe the summer of 1960, was about liberalism. Because as a Northeastern Massachusetts Democrat he was being accused and I mean being accused as if being a Liberal is a bad thing, like being called a traitor or something, of being a Liberal and having a liberal voting record in Congress.

And Senator Kennedy gave a speech at the New York Liberal Party Convention in the summer of 1960. And what he did there was to define his liberalism and what liberalism is about and so-forth. And I’m paraphrasing here, but Senator Kennedy said something to the affect: “That if being a Liberal is about creating a superstate to take care of everyone so Americans no longer make decisions for themselves with all sorts of government programs to take care of them, or being soft of defense and not willing to do what it takes to defend the country, or being irresponsible with the taxpayers money, then I am not a Liberal.”

But then Senator Kennedy went on to say: “But if Liberal means someone who cares about the general welfare of others, someone who believes you need to be strong at home before you can be strong abroad, that freedom at home is just as important as freedom abroad and that all Americans should have access to freedom and not just the special few, then I’m a Liberal.” Now to interpret what Jack Kennedy said because today’s so-called Progressives use the term general welfare to mean big expansionist central government to take care of everyone.

Modern so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) see JFK to mean that JFK was a New Dealer, or Great Society champion who was a welfare-stater. Someone who wanted government to have all sorts of programs to take care of people.

The problem with that is what JFK said himself that if being a Liberal is someone who believes in creating a superstate to take care of everyone, then he’s not a Liberal. So it is his own words. The way I interpret what JFK said was that he wanted freedom to be available for everyone. And that government had a role, but not the only role, because JFK also believed in limited government.

In many of ways I like to look at myself as a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat. Not so much him as President, but his overall vision for America and what he believed individual liberty means and that it should be available to all Americans. Not the special few, or just for people of a certain race or gender.

That where government comes in is to assure that all Americans have access to live in freedom. At least as adults and be able to take care of themselves and not have to be dependent on government. Or private interests for their well-being, but the ability to live in freedom. Which is why my message of economic liberalism tends to be about quality education and job training for all who don’t currently have access to it.