Al Jazeera: Islamic Republic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Blames Sanctions For Iran's Economic Crisis

Source:Al Jazeera- Islamic Republic of Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Iran's president has denied claims that his government has caused the country's economic crisis. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the country's parliament that international sanctions are partly to blame. Al Jazeera's Soraya Lennie reports from Tehran." 

From Al Jazeera

"Al Jazeera English (AJE; Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, lit. 'the Peninsula', pronounced [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ]) is a 24-hour English-language news channel. It operates under the ownership of the Al Jazeera Media Network, which, in turn, is funded by the government of Qatar. It is the first English-language news channel to be headquartered in Western Asia.[3] Al Jazeera broadcasts in over 150 countries and territories, and has a large global audience of over 430 million people.[4]

Al Jazeera is known for its in-depth and frontline reporting, particularly in conflict zones.[5][6] It has been praised for its in-depth coverage of events such as the Arab Spring, the Gaza–Israel conflict and others.[7][8][6][9] Al Jazeera's coverage of the Arab Spring won the network numerous awards, including the Peabody Award."

From Wikipedia

Its President Ahmadinejad's and the rest of his administration's fault that the Iranian economy is in the shape that they are in. Because they are Theocratic Socialists and like most politicians authoritarian and otherwise, don't know how to run an entire national economy. 

Iran is a country of 75M people and physically the size of Saudi Arabia and Libya with first world people and resources and yet they are still a third world country because of their government. And the Iranian people need to wake up to that fact and do something about it.

M.D. Jones: The Progressive Era

Source:M.D. Jones- Perhaps a kid growing up during the Great Depression.

"A "Just the Facts" documentary about the Progressive Era."

From M.D. Jones

I might be the wrong person as a Liberal who is a true believer in limited government and someone who has what I would call at least a healthy skepticism of what government can do for the people with the people's money. Which is why I believe government should really only being doing what we need it to do for us and the people should have the rest of the power to live their own lives. And for the people who don't have the freedom to be self-sufficient, they should be given that power as well. Thats basically what I believe the role of government should be. And I also distinguish between liberalism and socialism, as well as progressivism.

And believe as a Liberal that liberalism is about the people and protecting freedom for the people. And expanding freedom to people who don't have, but deserve it and need it. And socialism to me is about what government can do for the people with their money, rather than what government can do for the people so they can take care of themselves and make their own decisions.

And with Socialists you tend to get we need government to do these things for the people as well as new things and that capitalism needs to be scaled back. So government can have that power to take care of the people. So thats why I call myself a Liberal rather than a Libertarian or Socialist.

I was in a debate in the summer of 2011 (on Facebook of all places) about what progressivism is. And I was making or trying to make the case for why I'm a Progressive. Not in the sense that I see that as my ideology. But that I see it as someone who believes in advancing the ball down the field and moving forward. That progressive comes from the word progress.

And that you could be on the left where I am, or on the right, but you are a Progressive. Even if thats not your political philosophy if you believe in progress. I agree that my definition of Progressive is not the popular definition that progressivism is not just about progress.

But that progressivism is a real political philosophy based on what government can do for the people with their money. And that government needs to be big enough to deal with the issues that so-called Progressives don't trust the private sector to deal with. In summary, things that would be considered social services. Education, health care, health insurance, retirement, to use as examples.

Again I might not be the right person to label and define Progressivism in America. And actual Progressives should try to figure out this for themselves and how to define and build their own movement. But to me at least the way forward both politically and governmentally. Progressives should essentially be Center-Left Progressives. Especially as the country is becoming more liberal-libertarian as a country and less socialist. That we like our taxes down and our freedom up both economic and personally.

And we want government to do for us what we can't for for ourselves. So the Progressives who could compete with this growing mindset is that we believe government should try to make life  better for everyone. Especially for people who are snuggling, but that should be in a limited sense. Not in a socialistic sense that government has all the answers and that people the world is too complicated for people to do their own decision-making. But government when managed well can also make positive contributions in the areas of social services as well. Like in education and health care, to use as examples.

Progressivism at it's best has given America the and contributed to creating equality in America as far as equal rights and equal justice. And economic development in the areas of infrastructure and free trade.  Governmental protections like the regulatory state to protect consumers and workers from predators. Progressivism at it's best is what FDR was which was pragmatic and figuring how government can help people help themselves and do what we need government to do. But not with some big government philosophy that government should try to do everything for everyone.

Dan Dimaggio: 'How Can We Build the Socialist Movement in The 21st Century?'

Source:Twitter Dan DiMaggio.

“It is easy for good to triumph over evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia.” – Kurt Vonnegut

For the past seven-plus years I have devoted much of my life to effort to build a socialist movement in the United States. As a member of one of the many tiny socialist groups on the U.S. left, I have organized dozens of anti-war, labor solidarity, immigrant rights, and other rallies and campaigns. I have toured the country to speak at college campuses about socialism. I have set up numerous study groups and conferences and written and edited hundreds of articles for socialist publications. Most people might say, “Dan, you’re crazy if you think that socialism can be achieved in a country like the United States!” But despite the challenges, I hope to continue doing this for the next 50 or so years.

Lately, though, I’ve started to wonder just how the &*^$ a viable socialist movement can actually be built in the U.S. I’ve been grappling with this question for much of the last year as I attempt to overcome a funk rooted in my sense that the current organizational forms of the socialist movement, to which I and many others have given so much of our time and energy, are a dead end. Recently it seems like every time I try to raise a finger to help the movement, I am overcome by a crippling sense of the futility of it all.

My paralysis does not stem from pessimism about the possibilities for social change in the U.S. Rather, it is rooted in frustrations with the current methods of organization dominant in the socialist movement, methods which make a difficult task even harder – if not impossible. I can’t shake the feeling that despite our best intentions, we are wasting resources by taking roads that lead to nowhere. It doesn’t help that the main form of organization – tiny, competing groups divided by marginal differences – is out of tune with the content of our aims – “the full material and spiritual liberation of the toilers.” I’ve come to feel that all the heroic effort in the world cannot invest inherently barren forms with meaning.

This piece is my attempt to stimulate critical thinking about the way forward for the U.S. socialist movement. I hope that it will be of interest to practicing socialists as well as other progressive activists, because I think that a healthy, attractive socialist movement can help contribute to the rebuilding of a broader and more powerful left. I realize I am not the first person to say what is written below, and there is much that remains unexplored and unanswered. But I hope it will lead to a productive and collaborative discussion that might open new possibilities for anti-capitalist organizing." 

From Louis Proyect

The American Prospect: Matthew Duss: 'Ending the Mindset that Got Us Into Iraq'

Source:The American Prospect at The White House.

"The Hagel pick makes Obama look far less timid than he did during first-term nominating battles—and far more likely to follow up on his big 2008 foreign policy promises.

President Obama's announcement yesterday of his nomination of former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense is important in a couple of ways. The first is that by following through with a candidate who faced one of the most intense negative pre-nomination campaigns in recent memory, the president signaled that is shaking off some of the caution that characterized his first term, and is prepared to undertake a bolder political course.

Indeed, the opposition to Hagel already seems to be weakening in the face of an overwhelming outpouring of support for the nomination now that it has been announced. According to a former Democratic Senate staffer I spoke to, this was to be expected. "It's highly unlikely that the White House would've made this nomination without conferring with the Senate leadership first," the former staffer said. "So the Republican caucus is going to have to make a decision: Do they want to be seen as a party who voted against an enlisted man war hero with shrapnel in his chest, who the armed forces will love? Are they really going to oppose him over a few comments that will probably be swatted down during hearings anyway?"

The second way the Hagel nomination is important, one that has even more significant implications for U.S. foreign policy, is that Obama may be preparing to pursue one of the more ambitious goals he articulated as a candidate for president. Back in January 2008, when the Democratic primary contest between Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hilary Clinton was still raging, Senator Obama took the opportunity during a debate to explain his opposition to the Iraq war. "I don't want to just end the war," he insisted, "I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place."

Many foreign policy progressives remember that line with great fondness, as it encapsulated much of what we wanted to see accomplished as well: An end to a reflexively hawkish unilateralism that favored military force at the expense of international diplomacy and consensus building, where being wrong meant never having to say you're sorry, provided you always err on the side of more war.

Describing his vision of U.S. foreign policy in remarks at the Center for American Progress in May 2008, Hagel struck a very similar tone. "The world does not want an America that imposes, that dictates, that lectures, that preaches, that invades nor occupies," he said. "I think the world does want a clear-thinking America that will lead with a consensus of purpose. That's what we've done most of the time since World War II ... we can do that again. That's what the next president, in my opinion, is going to have to do."

One of the main charges we've heard from Hagel's hawkish critics is that he is "out of the mainstream." On MSNBC this Monday, Senator John Cornyn said Hagel's views on Iran and the Middle East "strike me as Senator Hagel being out of the mainstream, and I believe just wrong when it comes to protecting the national security of the United States." Appearing on CNN this past Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham told host Candy Crowley, "Quite frankly, Chuck Hagel is out of the mainstream of thinking, I believe, on most issues in foreign policy," citing Hagel's support for "directly negotiat[ing] with Iran."

But opinion polls over the last several years have consistently shown that, when it comes to Iran, as well as to broader questions of U.S. military force, the American people are more with Chuck Hagel and the president, not with their hawkish critics. Unlike conservatives, who-as if trapped in Iraq-era amber-have mocked and criticized the president's efforts to negotiate with Iran almost every step of the way (as well as ignored the evidence that those efforts have proven to be essential in forging a strong international-sanctions coalition) Americans are broadly supportive of diplomacy as the most important tool in the U.S. national security toolbox, and exceedingly wary of more costly and unnecessary military interventions. The fact of the matter is, here in the future of 2013, it's Hagel's hawkish critics who are out of the mainstream." 

From The American Prospect

Joe Swanson: 'Using The "Nuclear Option" for Filibuster Reform Endangers Cooperation'

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

"Congress may be a mess, but allowing a simple majority to override the rules of the Senate threatens our democracy. 

In recent years, Congress has achieved several unprecedented failures. Since 2007, an estimated 391 filibusters forced cloture votes. Compare that to only 49 cloture votes between 1919 and 1970. In the 112th Congress alone, members of Congress have accomplished the passage of a mere 219 bills, many of which were housekeeping measures such as naming post office buildings or extending existing laws. This output has set the record as the least productive Congress in record-keeping history, including the 80th congress in 1947, infamously known as the “Do Nothing Congress.” In addition, they have won the reproach of the people with a 10 percent approval rating earlier in the year, the lowest approval rating Gallup has reported in its history. These statistics not only document the abuse of the filibuster and its consequences, but also demonstrate that the reasons behind our legislative gridlock reach beyond the filibuster or even Senate rules.

Our lawmakers have lost the ability to compromise. While the filibuster was once a tool designed to increase the space for debate, it now has the polar opposite effect. However, changing the rules may only exacerbate the inability to compromise. If done through fundamentally uncompromising partisan political tools, the very goal of reforming the filibuster to increase debate and the functionality of the Senate will both be at risk.

Filibuster reformers have so far offered three solutions. First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed eliminating the filibuster on the steps necessary to go to House-Senate conference and has given his support to Senator Tom Udall’s proposal to eliminate the filibuster on the motion to proceed. Senator Jeff Merkley has also authored the “talking filibuster” proposal, which requires senators seeking to filibuster to debate the issue they are blocking.

If our goal is to center the Senate’s focus on debate rather than mindless obstruction, the first two proposals are common sense and moderate changes that get us there. They neither seek the destruction of the filibuster nor obstructionism. Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University, notes that eliminating the filibuster on the motion to proceed would make it easier for the majority to set the legislative agenda and bring bills to the floor for debate. But it wouldn’t stop the minority from filibustering a bill’s final passage. Rather than eliminate obstructionism, “it might shift it and put focus elsewhere.” This change in focus would be a shift toward debate, thus cultivating the Senate’s true purpose.

Though the “talking filibuster” proposal’s attempts to return the filibuster to the days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is intuitively appealing, it comes with several pitfalls that would need to be resolved in the final proposal. For example, one of the fundamental problems in the proposal is that it does not take into account the possibility of the existence of a minority greater than two or three senators. Today, our senate has become subject to such partisanship that most filibustering minorities carry around 40 votes, if not more. Therefore, under the current provisions of the “talking filibuster,” filibusters would, as Richard A. Arenberg puts it, “become merely a scheduling exercise.”

Though reforms are absolutely necessary given the unsupportable gridlock currently choking our legislative process, and the reforms suggested by Senators Reid and Udall are moderate and viable, the manner in which these reforms will be enacted should be the focus of any reform efforts.

Unfortunately, there is talk from the leadership in the reform movement of the use of the constitutional/nuclear option. The use of this option would eliminate the need to speak to, or compromise with, any senators in opposition to the reform, because the nuclear option would only need 51 votes to change the rules (as opposed to the two-thirds majority vote that would be needed to change Senate rules on any other day than the day the Senate opens in the new year). According to Udall, reformers already have the 51 votes needed to impose the nuclear option. Not only will the neglect of nearly half of the Senate further aggravate partisan tension, many in opposition fear where the nuclear option may lead the Senate.

If the nuclear option is used at the beginning of the 113th congress, it will stand as a dangerous new precedent. Many claim the move could fundamentally change the Senate, an institution designed to protect the rights of the minority, into a body annually altered to create the roads necessary for majorities to pass legislation while minimizing any need to compromise with minority parties, thus creating a tyranny of the majority.

If the nuclear option is not used, then reformers must find a 67-vote majority to change Senate rules. However, many would ask how they could possibly find the 67 votes if a majority often cannot even scrape together 60 votes to file cloture. The answer is simple: senators would learn to compromise as they have in the past.

In 2005, former President George W. Bush’s presidential nominations were subject to heavy filibustering and, just as today, obstructionism became so damaging it came to the point that Republicans were threatening to reform the filibuster via the nuclear option. To avoid setting this dangerous precedent, senators created the “Gang of 14,” seven Democrats and seven Republicans who came together to negotiate. They produced a signed agreement whereby the seven Democrats would no longer filibuster judicial nominees except in “extraordinary circumstances.” In return, the seven Republicans would not vote to enact the “nuclear option.”

It is worth noting that in 2005, many of the statements surrounding the argument seemed to have flip-flopped as the minority in 2005 now stands as the majority in 2012 and vice versa. Therefore, reformers threatening to utilize the nuclear option should understand that they will be playing by the same precedent when they become the safeguards of minority rights.

The obstruction in 2005 may be the closest example we can cite of a debilitating gridlock that nearly resulted in the utilization of the nuclear option to reform the filibuster. However, the current state of uncompromising politics that has plagued our legislative branch is unprecedented. As David Waldmanpoints out at Daily Kos, the entire argument surrounding filibuster reform in 2005 addresses an entirely different aspect. Moreover, in January 2011 an attempt to curb abuse of the filibuster and avoid the nuclear option through a “Gentleman’s Agreement” between Senate majority and minority leaders Reid and McConnell quickly fell apart. This all demonstrates that the chances of any compromise, and especially one that will amount to a 67-majority vote, are very slim. Nonetheless, the Senate must take that chance.

We must begin to reward senators belonging to the minority who maintain the ability to compromise, even if they are few. There are currently no proposals that suggest the complete elimination of the filibuster, so even if reform is enacted, Democrats are still going to have to work with Republicans, even if only to achieve a successful cloture vote. Therefore, reformers cannot burn bridges as they would with the nuclear option. Breaking a filibuster can be a matter of persuading only one or two senators. With Democrats on the brink of a 55-vote control of the 113th Senate, only five Republican votes are necessary. Perhaps refusing to use the nuclear option would lead to the political capital necessary to persuade these Republicans and set a precedent of compromise and cooperation.

Thankfully, talks have already begun between Senate reformers and opposition leaders to avoid the nuclear option. Senators from both sides, led by McCain and Levin, have recently offered a counter proposal that would last two years and give the majority leader two new methods to block a filibuster on starting debates, going to conference with the House, and some presidential nominations.

Though Senator Merkley is not satisfied with the counter proposal, claiming, “The heart of the current paralysis, the silent, secret filibuster, is not addressed by the Levin-McCain proposal,” the offer demonstrates the signs of bipartisan support and openness to reform needed to render the nuclear option unnecessary. In exchange for not going nuclear, both sides should agree to work together to make formal, reasonable, and viable rule changes that will curb filibuster abuse and reestablish our Senate’s paramount ability to compromise." 

From Salon Magazine

The Nation: 'What Executive Actions Should President Obama Hand Down?'

Source:The Nation- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"In this era of Congressional intransigence, Obama should be encouraged to exercise his constitutionally mandated authority when it comes to a wide range of needed changes. What executive actions would you like to see him to hand down?

What do the successful “Mini-DREAM Act” policy and last year’s executive order capping student loan payments have in common? They didn't require the approval of Congressional Republicans.

And what do finally ending the War in Afghanistan, directing the EPA to regulate carbon and methane emissions, and ratcheting down the War on Drugs have in common? They wouldn't require the approval of Congressional Republicans.

Progressives should take note. In this era of Congressional intransigence, Obama should be encouraged to exercise his constitutionally mandated authority when it comes to a wide range of needed changes. Although the expansion of executive power, particularly after 9/11, has led to a number of dangerous policies–and we do not wish to see a further consolidation of such authority–there is a time and place for the president to issue executive orders that seek to realign the country with its values and with the needs of Americans.

A presidential executive order, briefly defined, is an action taken by the president that carries the force of law. It can be used to establish a commission–such as the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force ordered in December; to impose sanctions on a country–such as Iran; or to revoke previous executive orders–such as President Bush's 2007 authorization of enhanced interrogations. Other executive actions include directing federal agencies to enforce certain rules, or making appointments to said agencies." 

From The Nation

The Nation: Rick Perlstein: 'Why I Am A Liberal'

Source:The Nation doesn't always believe in moving forward.

"It is liberals who have been at the forefront of struggles for freedom and liberty.

This past October, I participated in a debate at North Carolina State University sponsored by the Libertarian group Young Americans for Liberty. The YAL debates join a libertarian, conservative and a liberal. I held down the liberal pole. Why two positions to right of center and only one to the left? Good question, given that I find the potential breach within the the Democratic coalition—between, you might say, Keynesians and austerians, Krugmanites and Obamaites—more profound and potentially more portentous than that between conservatives and libertarians within the Republican coalition, but that’s an issue for another post. For this one, though, my inaugural post, the first of my thrice-weekly missives I’ll be blasting your way here at The Nation, you get a manifesto: my opening statement at that debate.

Richard Kim, the editor of this site, asked me for a few lines about what I’m going to be writing about here. I wrote back, “I’ll be interpreting contemporary political developments in light of their historical context. I’m especially interested in educating folks on the left about the organic continuities in right-wing thought and action—since the 1960s, since the 1920s, even going back to the eighteenth century. Too often we act as if the forces we’re fighting came about only the day before yesterday.” But first, before I get into all that, here are some “priors,” as the philosophers put it, some thoughts about where I’m coming from and why, the very best brief statement I could muster, for an audience of mostly conservative Southern college students about why I am a card-carrying liberal, and why they should be to.

A “liberal.” Yes, I’ll own the designation, not, as many on the left do, preferring the identity “radical,” disparaging “liberal” as a synonym for all that is anodyne, weak-kneed, not really leftist at all (see the classic statement by Phil Ochs here). I own it in part for the reason that liberalism, done right in this all-too-reactionary nation, is always already radical; for the reason that what most of the people putting their lives on the line to make left-wing political change around rest of the world—in Iran, say, in India, in Greece—are fighting for is liberalism; because a politics not merely of tolerance but of recognition—radical recognition—of those “different” from contingent cultural norms also is liberal, properly understood; and because frankly most of what I think is worth doing to create an economically just society is pretty damned liberal, too. If it was good enough for Franklin Delano Roosevelt to call himself a “liberal,” saying stuff like this (start reading at the part about “our resplendent economic autocracy” and “the individualism of which they prate”), it’s good enough for me.

But enough. That’s a digression. Here’s the post. I hope you find it helpful. Hold onto it for Thanskgiving next year when your wingnut uncle asks you how a nice person like you can be a stinking rat-bastard liberal. Maybe you can make him one, too.

In the 1930s, a congressman named Maury Maverick defined liberalism in three words: “Freedom plus groceries.” That’s how I define it, too. Liberalism is a both/and philosophy. There is no freedom without groceries. There are no groceries without freedom. What people call “capitalism” and “socialism” are actually one and inseparable. It’s a virtuous circle.

Consider healthcare. We all of us—libertarians, conservatives and liberals—want a growing economy. And we all agree that a growing economy requires entrepreneurial dynamism.

So ask yourself this: In a country in which health insurance isn’t guaranteed, how many millions of Americans with great ideas find it impossible to become entrepreneurs because they’re terrified to leave their job, because then they would lose their health insurance and ruin their lives if they get sick?

Now, in response to something like that, you’ll hear my fellow debaters repeat a curious fallacy, a crushing intellectual failure. They’ll act like only governments have the power to deprive citizens of freedom.

Consider, however, a corporation like Walnart, which had $447 billion in revenue this year, bigger than the gross domestic product of all but seventeen of the world’s nations. But according to libertarianism and conservatism, Walmart can only produce liberty. It can never curtail it. Even if they fire you for no reason at all—and by law there’s nothing you can do about it.

Conservatives and libertarians somehow believe that you are freer if an entity bigger than the economies of Austria, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates is simply left alone to act against you in whatever way it wishes. Only liberals know how to make you freer on the job, which is where most of us suffer the gravest indignities in our lives.

Liberals, in fact, make you freer everywhere. Look at liberty’s greatest historic advances: ending slavery. Giving women the vote. Outlawing legal segregation.

Each and every time, the people at the forefront of advancing those reforms—often putting their lives on the line—called themselves liberals.

Each and every time, people who called themselves conservatives announced that those reforms would unravel civilization.

Then—each and every time—once the reform was achieved and taken for granted, and civilization didn’t collapse, conservatives claimed to have always been for it, even holding themselves up as the best people to preserve it.

It happens with economic reforms too.

Let me quote what some conservatives said, once upon a time, about a certain bill pending before Congress:

“Never in the history of the world has any measure been so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people.”

“…Invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as…to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the head of our descendants.”

“…Sooner or later will bring the abandonment of private capitalism.”

The bill they’re talking about was not Obamacare but Social Security. Which conservatives now say they’re the best people to preserve. That’s how they roll.

It’s happening now with same-sex marriage. Watch Fox News. Two years ago they brayed it would quote-unquote “destroy the family.” Now, they hardly mention it. Just you wait: ten, twenty years from now, conservatives will say they were for it all along. And that it is conservative. Just like they now say about Martin Luther King Jr., whom in the ’60s they called a Communist. (Did you know that when he was assassinated conservative leaders said he had it coming, that it was his own fault? Strom Thurmond said, “We are now witnessing the whirlwind sowed years ago when some preachers and teachers began telling people that each man could be his own judge in his own case.” Ronald Reagan said it was just the sort of “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break.”)

What a childish way to be in the world. It’s cowardly. But that’s conservatism. Meanwhile, liberals will push for the next frontier for justice, and the right will figure out some way to call it the end of the world.

So in conclusion, I ask you, as young people parsing out your own political identity: Which side would you prefer to join? The side of the cowardly? Or the side of the courageous?" 

From The Nation

In reading Rick Perlstein's entire piece for The Nation (which is not a closeted Socialist publication) there's just one line in there that I agree with him on: "It is liberals who have been at the forefront of struggles for freedom and liberty." 

What Rick Perlstein really is ideologically (besides being a closeted Socialist) is a Democratic Socialist. He's someone who believes that every American is not just entitled to every basic necessity in life, but that it's the job of government to make sure that everyone has exactly what they need to do well in life and that those things should be provided for by the national government, as part of an economy that's still primarily run by private individuals. 

Here is a more accurate definition of Rick Perlstein's politics: 

"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a multi-tendency, democratic socialist, and labor-oriented political organization in the United States.[7] After the Socialist Party of America (SPA) transformed into Social Democrats USA, Michael Harrington formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC).[8] The DSOC later merged with the New American Movement to form the DSA.[9] The organization is headquartered in New York City and has about 80,000 members. It has members in the House of Representatives, state legislatures, and numerous other local offices." 

From Wikipedia

My definition of a closeted Socialist, is someone who talks and thinks like a let's say Democratic Socialist/Social Democrat, but who calls himself a Progressive or Liberal, even if they a lot of what they believe is actually illiberal (meaning not liberal) or regressive. (Meaning not progressive) 

I'm not saying that Rick Perlstein is illiberal or regressive, necessarily. But when you think that every American regardless of economic status in life, is automatically entitled to a good living in this country, even without working at all and entitled to all the basic necessities in life, even if they don't even want to work, let alone work at all, you are no longer a Liberal, but a Socialist.