Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Saul Alinsky: Mobilizing The Poor (1967)


Source:Tapa Talk- Saul Alinsky talking about community organizing.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When William F. Buckley met Saul Alinsky, one of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s biggest influences.

The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor-- mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag- out from start to finish.
SA: I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around." 

From Tapa Talk 

"William F Buckley engages community organizer Sal Alinsky regarding his actions and guiding philosophy. Liberty Pen
Source:Liberty Pen- community organizer Saul Alinsky on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1967. They talked about Mr. Alinsky's philosophy on community organizing.


What I got in from this discussion from the few moments that Saul Alinsky got to talk about his own personal philosophy (even though this is about a fifteen-minute video) is that Mr. Alinsky was saying that: 

"Democracy that of course it is not perfect, is the best political system on the planet. But that democracy needs to work for everyone and not just be there for people who have money, or a lot of money. That everyone should have power and the ability to live in freedom. And that freedom shouldn't just be for people born to wealth and even just for people who create their own wealth."

Mr. Alinsky I believe sounds very mainstream to me and values that I believe Liberals, Progressives, Socialists and perhaps even Conservatives can all agree on. But the only question being what is the best way to make that happen so we don't have a country with very few wealthy people and a lot of poor people. But where where a lot of people are at least successful with money in the bank and not living paycheck to paycheck and struggling just to pay their bills. Whether they are rich or not.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Watch Mojo: Top 10 Walter Cronkite Moments: JFK, Vietnam, Watergate

Walter Cronkite was and still is the standard for broadcast news because of his knowledge of the news and what it meant, but also how he carried himself. He was always the man in charge at his CBS News desk, the man you turn to when there is some type of crisis. The man you know won't fold under pressure and always know what to do whatever the situation is. Sort of like a great general in battle or a great head coach in sports who is not replaceable and still missed today.

Bedford TV: CBS News Evening News: Iranian Hostage Crisis - December 26, 1980


Source:The New Democrat

Looks like at least from this short film that the American hostages in Iran were taken care of. That they weren't being starved, or forced to wear awful looking prison uniforms and held under brutal conditions. That they were being held like white-collar inmates would be held in America in a minimum security prison. Just based on this little film the hostages looked like they were in good shape and given the opportunity to tell their families that.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

TruthOut: Gar Alperovitz: Is Worker Ownerships a Way Forward For Market Basket?

Source: TruthOut-
Source:The New Democrat

Employee cooperatives which is really what this article is about is a good socialist alternative to private corporations that are run by a CEO and have a Board of Directors that represents the stockholders. But where the employees below management and even lower management like people who run factories and offices do not have much of a say in how the company is run. And do not in a lot of cases collect the benefits of the company's success other than pay, benefits and promotions. Because they don't own any part of the company themselves. Unlike management and the Board.

What employee cooperatives are, are business's where the employees have a financial stake in a private company other than their pay and benefits. Because they own stock in the company and as stockholders they have representation in management and on the Board and have a say in who runs the company including the CEO, Chairman and the management heads behind them. And allows for workers to move up financially and do well not only in the company, but make real good money for them self as well. And gives them a lot of incentive to do as well as possible for the company.
Source:Evergreen Cooperatives

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Moyers & Company: Bill Moyers Interviewing Ta-Nehisi Coates - Facing the Truth

Source:The New Democrat

One of the problems and not the only problem, but one of the main problems with reparations for African-Americans, or any other group of Americans is that we would be requiring not asking, but requiring Americans of all races to pay for the evils and horrors that English-Americans for the most part did to African-Americans. Requiring Americans of all races including African-Americans and even successful middle-class and wealthy African-Americans to pay for the evils of English-Americans and what they did to African-Americans for what three-hundred years now.

Friday, August 8, 2014

The New York Times: Paul Krugman: Inequality is a Drag

Source:The New Democrat

If you are familiar with my blogging you know that I'm not a redistributionist in the sense that I believe the way to close the wealth and income gaps in America is to take from the rich to give to government to take care of the poor. What I want to is to expand economic opportunity to the poor and low-end middle class so they can be successful as well. And not need public assistance at all and not become dependent on public assistance as part of their income.

So that is just one issue where I disagree with Paul Krugman on. I believe in economic growth that everyone feels and benefits from with a middle-out approach. Not trickle down which obviously doesn't work, or wealth redistribution. But empowering people in need to get the tools that they need to live in freedom and not have to be government dependent. And you accomplish those things by empowering at the bottom and near bottom through education and job training so they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job.

We saw the benefits of the middle-out approach during the Clinton Administration where we had low unemployment during most of the 1990s. High economic growth from 1994 for the rest of the decade. And with Welfare to Work educating and training low-skilled adults on Welfare so they could get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and get off of public assistance all together. You expand the pot so more people can take out of it and you'll encourage more people to be successful. You redistribute from the current pot and you encourage fewer people to be successful on their own.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

The Nation: Mike Konczal & Bryce Covert: 'The Real Solution to Wealth Inequality'

Source:The Nation- if you are a Socialist, you probably hate George Washington for multiple reasons.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Both Republicans and Democrats want to solve economic insecurity by giving people more purchasing power. There’s a better solution. 

With this issue, we’re inaugurating “The Score,” a monthly feature about the economy by Bryce Covert and Mike Konczal.

The wealth controlled by the top tenth of the top 1 percent has more than doubled over the past thirty years in the United States, approaching levels not seen since the 1920s. The left’s two recent intellectual blockbusters—Thomas Piketty’s bestselling Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “The Case for Reparations”—published by The Atlantic—indicate the profound uneasiness with this trend.

Wealth is the ownership of the productive economic elements in society, such as land and corporations. The wealthy control the direction of the economy, and they claim an increasing share of what it produces. But as their influence increases, they avoid being held to the same standard of accountability under a system of democratic politics, while those of us without wealth find ourselves vulnerable." 

From The Nation 

"Chris Matthews on Redistribution of Wealth" 

Source:Jan Helfeld- interviewing political columnist Chris Matthews.

From Jan Helfeld

Before I explain why I disagree with the wealth redistribution argument when it comes to the income and wealth gaps in America. I'm first going to be (excuse my American English) an asshole about socialism and the authors of this piece from The Nation. Granted The Nation is nothing if not provocative and for that is always worth reading. And thank God (well actually our Founding Fathers) for our First Amendment Freedom of Speech and that the state doesn't control our media. Even though some on the far-left have advocated for nationalizing the media this country.

But about this latest piece from The Nation from Mike Konczal and Bruce Covert. For you Seinfeld fans and people familiar with this show I'm going to take you back to season four of that series. The Gay Episode (for lack of a better term) when a college reporter overhears Jerry and George pretending to be gay (no offense) and pretending to be boyfriends. And Jerry and George finding out about this and confronting the reporter and strongly telling her " we are not gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that if that's who you are". Well that is how I feel about Socialists in this country and I'm going to explain that.

Even as late as 1993 when that Seinfeld episode went on the air there were plenty of Gay-Americans who were still in the closet for obvious reasons. Most of them having to do with bigotry and ignorance about homosexuality. Well then and now we probably have millions of Americans who are stuck in the Socialist closet because they are afraid to let Americans know they are Socialists. Because of all the negative stereotypes that still remain in this country about socialism. With it constantly being linked to communism and other authoritarian philosophies.

What too many Americans still do not understand even with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union is that Socialists tend to be democratic. And if you look at Europe as well as America Socialists tend to believe in a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise to go along with a robust welfare state that they believe should provide the basic human necessities. The reason why Socialists get called Liberals or use the liberal label for themselves (which is an insult to me as a Liberal) or Progressives is because of how unpopular the word Socialist is still in America. So they constantly advocate for socialist policies and programs, but go with the liberal or progressive label instead.

Now as far as the piece on The Nation. Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert are essentially arguing for a social democratic or socialist economic system. Not state controls the means of production, which is different. Just most of the money that is produced by the private sector to finance their robust welfare state. That would be in charge of the pensions, health care, college financing and perhaps education in general. And taking those services out of the private sector completely to be controlled by the U.S. Government.

As I've argued many times before the problem with the American economy is not that we have too many rich people. But that we have too many poor people and lower middle class people that if they were out of work would qualify for public assistance because of their lack of savings. Where government can make a real contribution here is to empower the people at the bottom and near bottom to get themselves the skills that they need to get a better job and make more money and obtain economic security. You empower people to be able to take care of themselves and live in freedom, they generally will if they have strong character and strong core of values. Government doesn't need to do that for them.