Salon Magazine: Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Crackpot

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

It depends on what you mean by progressive, to sort of paraphrase what Bill Moyers said about, “it depends on what you mean by left-wing.” If you mean left-wing is somehow out of the political mainstream in America, well again how left are you talking about? Center-Left, Far-Left, somewhere in between? If you mean by Progressive, that the job of government is not to manage the lives of everyone and take care of everyone. But instead have a healthy social insurance system that people can use when they need it and have enough money when they retire and guaranteed health insurance, properly regulate the private sector, but not try to run and tax it to the point, that government essentially owns it, then yeah, that’s pretty progressive and very mainstream. Center-Left American politics.

But, Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress, is exactly that. And yes, Socialists are considered mainstream in anywhere in Scandinavia and Britain and France as well. But those countries are very different from America ideologically and even Canada and Germany as well. Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were all supporters of the American economic system. They didn’t put it down, or say America should be more like this country, or that country.

TR, FDR, Truman and LBJ, liked the American private enterprise capitalist model. But also understood that in an economy with a very large private sector, you’re going to have winners and losers. As well as predators who make money from hurting the innocent. And that you needed a government to help people who fall down in the private enterprise system. As well as a regulator to punish and prevent predatory behavior. This right here is the American progressive economic model. Doesn’t sound like Scandinavia, where you have an unitarian national government essentially responsible for the well-being and economic welfare of the entire country.

Bernie Sanders, who I have a lot of respect for, simply for his candor and honesty and even a few issues we agree on, like infrastructure investment, says America should look at Sweden and we should become more like them. If ever Senator Sanders became President Sanders, would move America last the social insurance safety net model, in a private enterprise system. And create a superstate, where the Federal Government would assume the responsibility and take over for the states and individuals when it comes to our well-being. He wouldn’t nationalize the economy, but nationalize certain functions of the economy that he doesn’t believe should be left for private companies and individuals. And tax and regulate other companies to the point that would become essentially public utilities and have to have the country’s best interest at heart.

The Progressive Democrat, the Teddy Roosevelt’s as well as Franklin and Harry Truman’s and LBJ’s, aren’t extreme. Center-Left and on the Left, but not extreme. When you move further Left, you get to the Socialists. Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists and move further left and you’re looking at the Marxists and other statists on the Left. And they represent the Far-Left in America, even if they are as mainstream in Scandinavia, as Liberals and Conservatives are in America. Bill Moyers, is right in the sense that progressivism isn’t extreme in America. But democratic socialism, when you’re talking about a superstate there to take care of everyone and meet everyone’s basic necessities in life, is pretty Far-Left, at least in America.

Salon Magazine: Joan Walsh: 'White Progressives Racial Myopia: Why Their Colorblindness Fails Minorities and The Left'

Source:Salon- the presidential and vice presidential nominees for the Green Party in 2016? Actually, the Green Party wouldn't support and all Caucasian ticket. I just thought I would throw it out there. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong crusader for economic justice now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has serious civil rights movement cred: he attended the historic 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a quarter million people changed the country’s course when it came to race. It would be wrong and unfair to accuse him of indifference to issues of racial equality.

But in the wake of his picture-postcard campaign launch, from the shores of Vermont’s lovely Lake Champlain, Sanders has faced questions about whether his approach to race has kept up with the times. Writing in Vox, Dara Lind suggested that Sanders’ passion for economic justice issues has left him less attentive to the rising movement for racial justice, which holds that racial disadvantage won’t be eradicated only by efforts at economic equality. Covering the Sanders launch appreciatively on MSNBC, Chris Hayes likewise noted the lack of attention to issues of police violence and mass incarceration in the Vermont senator’s stirring kick-off speech." 

From Salon 

"U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tells Thom Hartmann why he decided to run for President of the United States in 2016.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

Source:Thom Hartmann- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

From Thom Hartmann

Joan Walsh mentioned in her piece, that Bernie Sanders attended Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 I Have a Dream speech. Sanders, was a college student at this point. And she also suggests that Senator Sanders not making race and so-called racial and class issues not a part of his presidential campaign is some how a mistake. 

But, what is Dr. King’s Dream? A society where his children wouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He wanted a race-blind and color-blind society. Dr. King, is a hero of Senator Sanders and their politics, especially on economic policy are very similar. Dr. King, would be called a Democratic Socialist today as well. And perhaps would even embrace the label like Senator Sanders.

This is going to sound strange, given that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and all, but he’s the voice of reason, or Moderate on the New-Left in America. Senator Sanders, presidential campaign won’t be about racial and class issues. But building a society where all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, however else they were born, can succeed in America. 

You don’t get to a racial and color-blind society if you’re always race conscience and judging people by race and color. And automatically assuming they look at the world in a way, because of their complexion and how they were raised. You get to a color-blind America by not judging people by their race and not always focusing on it. But instead judge people, as well, people, as individuals. Which I know is a radical notion for the Far-Left in America.

Bernie Sanders, similar to Barack Obama in 2008, who was criticized for the same thing by the Far-Left in America, is running for President of the United States. Not to be the President of this leftist group, or these group of Americans, or this section of America, or that one. And you only accomplish that by bringing, especially Democrats in the primaries behind you and to your campaign. Not by playing class warfare and having this group on your side, while you kiss off other Americans. Barack Obama, doesn’t win Indiana and North Carolina, or Virginia in 2008, by running as the African-American President. And telling Americans: “Its our time! Time we elect an African-American president and I’m that candidate!”

As much as the Far-Left in America says they love Martin King, they simply don’t understand him, or agree with his dream. They’re not looking for a colorblind and race blind America. But to continue that, but do it differently and instead of having African-Americans be judged by their race from redneck and preppy Caucasians, have minorities and so-called Progressive Caucasians, judge Caucasians they disagree with by their race. And blame all of America’s troubles on so-called White bigots and White bigotry. 

But again Bernie Sanders is running for President of the United States. And wants to create America where all Americans can succeed and do well. And not fail or succeed, because of how and where they were born.

Chris Hedges: 'Karl Marx Was Right'

Source:Truth Dig- Karl Marx is for Socialists, what Anglo-Saxon-Protestants think Jesus Christ is for them.

Source:The New Democrat

I’m really tired of this old debate between capitalism and socialism, as if they are two competing ideologies. That they are complete opposites of each other, when they’re not. The opposite of a capitalist, would be a Marxist, or a statist. Someone who is completely against private property and private rights, other than maybe when it comes to personal property and one’s homes and transportation. But that the central state is in control and owns and runs the rest of the economy. And there are very few countries left with economic systems like that. North Korea, a country that can’t even feed itself, is one of the very few countries left with a state-owned command and control economic system.

Socialism and capitalism, are not complete opposites of each other. You can be both. Senator Bernie Sanders, everybody’s favorite Democratic Socialist now, is a Socialist. But he’s also in favor of capitalism and believes in property rights. But what makes him different from, gee I don’t know a Conservative, or a Liberal even, is how much of a role he would give the Federal Government. Senator Sanders, would still leave most of the American economy in private hands. But have government take over what Socialists like to call the basic necessities of life. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, retirement and perhaps a few others. With the private sector still producing all the transportation, technology, housing, food, agriculture, entertainment, to use as examples.

Chris Hedges, is a Democratic Socialist, but he’s also a capitalist. He’s an editor at the private democratic socialist publication TruthDig. He doesn’t work for the government, or work for some state-owned enterprise and I don’t think he ever has. He’s worked in private sector journalism in one form or the other his whole career. And is also an author and has made a very good living and built a very good career for himself in the American private enterprise capitalist system. Same thing with private filmmaker Michael Moore, who also likes to put down American capitalism. But Moore has used the same system that he says he doesn’t like to become a millionaire from the films he’s made.

It’s not a matter of whether you have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not. At least for most of the world and all the developed world now. But role for government do you have in that private enterprise system. Especially the central state and how big of a central state do you have and what exactly do you have it doing. What services does it provide for the people and at what cost to the people. Which is called taxation and also how big of a regulatory state do you have to oversee the private sector in the economy. But it is no longer a debate between the capitalist and the Socialist, because the Socialist will also most likely be a capitalist as well. But socialistic in nature. The real debate is what type of capitalist private enterprise system that you have.

The New York Times: Peter Wehner: 'Have Democrats Pulled Too Far Left?'

Source:The New York Times-

Source:The New Democrat

Peter Wehner, who normally writes for the neoconservative Commentary Magazine, who I read on a regular basis, including Wehner, because they do write interesting, provocative pieces and even intelligent and accurate pieces, is simply dead wrong here. Is Barack Obama to the left of Bill Clinton? Probably, but they essentially believe in the same things and govern fairly similarly as far as the policies that they push. Remember, the last minimum wage increase before Republican President George W. Bush, happened under President Bill Clinton. And President Clinton, is supposed to be this Centrist Democrat. Not Barack Obama.

Do they use different rhetoric and does President Obama talk more about income inequality and the need to do things so more Americans can climb up the economic ladder. Probably, but Bill Clinton as Governor in Clinton when he ran for president in 1992, talked about the same issues. Also, income inequality, was a bigger issue in 2009 and throughout the Obama Administration, then it was during the Clinton Administration. Who had eight years of economic and job growth. Never had a recession at any point in his presidency. The Clinton economy, was simply stronger than the Obama economy. President Obama, inherited the Great Recession, for crying out loud. So he had a much bigger hole to fill than anyone at least since Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The Democratic Party, perhaps has moved left, if you look at where the party is now on the War on Drugs, criminal justice reform, perhaps civil liberties in general, same-sex marriage and perhaps a few others. The Democratic Party, does have a Democratic Socialist wing in it. The Far-Left flank of the party, but the question has been have they’ve been growing, or are they just more vocal now. Thanks to the internet, social networking, blogging, smart phones and everything else. I would argue that they’ve always been in the Democratic Party and that their numbers are about what they’ve been since the 1970s. The McGovernite wing in the party has been there at least since 1968. But you could go back to when Henry Wallace ran for president in the 1940s.

The leadership of the Democratic Party in and out of Congress looks fairly similar to where the party was in the 1990s. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is from San Francisco. And yes they are further left than the country as a whole. But she also leads the Democratic Caucus in the House. That includes Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists, but also New Democrat Liberals and FDR Progressives and whats left the Blue Dog Coalition in the House. And she is one of the most effective leaders not just in Congress, but in the country as a whole at representing her party and caucus and communicating with all of her factions.

I mean if you look at where the country is on economic opportunity, the War on Drugs, civil liberties, criminal justice reform, same-sex marriage, personal freedom issues in general, climate change and I could go on, the Democratic Party represents the country as a whole very well on these issues. It is not so much that the Democratic Party has moved left in the last twenty years, but that the country has. As we’ve become younger and more liberal and libertarian on these issues. Which is something that the Republican Party that has moved right since Ronald Reagan, has to figure and adjust to. If they want to remain competitive in the future.

Salon Magazine: Simon Maloy: Bernie Sanders: How The Socialist Brings Out Socialists True Colors

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

“Hey, Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and so am I! I just didn’t have the balls to admit it when he did. And I didn’t have the balls to admit it before he decided to run for president. Even though Bernie has been in Congress for now twenty-four years, including the last eight in the Senate.”

That is the main effect that a Bernie Sanders presidential campaign will have on the 2016 presidential race. People who up until now called themselves Progressives, or even worst, at least from my perspective Liberals, even though they represent the Far-Left in America, will now call themselves Socialists, or Democratic Socialists. Because, that is what their leader calls himself and they share his politics.

Actually, even though Senator Sanders is the only self-described Democratic Socialist in the U.S. Congress and I emphasize self-described. He’s fairly moderate and mainstream to people who will be supporting him. He might even be moderate and mainstream to a lot of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which he’s a member of, with most of the CPC members being in the House. I bet most of the CPC members in the House couldn’t get elected statewide. To use as an example, they need gerrymandered districts to keep getting reelected. Senator Sanders, represents the Socialist Republic of Vermont, as its called, but we’re still talking about an entire state. Not just part of one.

But, I wouldn’t support a Democratic Socialist for president, unless it was Bernie Sanders, or Mike Huckabee, or Rick Santorum. I could see my wallet and money running for the hills without me. Looking for new ownership, if they heard I was voting for Bernie Sanders for president. But I’m glad he’s running for president. Because it will give Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party the opportunity to admit to who they are and own the socialist label and stop running from it. And say, “Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist and so am I. I’ve always been one and just didn’t have the balls to admit to it. Because of the negative stereotypes that comes with socialism in America.”

Keith Hughes: What is a Socialist?

Source:Keith Hughes-

Source:The New Democrat

I’m only interested in two types of Socialists when it comes to this post, at least. The Democratic Socialist, take U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, to use as an example. And the Socialist Liberal, take Professor Noam Chomsky, to use as an example. Someone who is as liberal as me on social issues. That the individual is exactly that when it comes to their own personal affairs. And doesn’t believe we need big government to tell us how to live. But where the Socialist Liberal separates from me has to do with economic policy and foreign affairs. That the Socialist Liberal believes the role of government, especially the central government, is to take care of people. The Liberal, just wants everyone to have the freedom to take care of themselves. That government has the responsibility to see that everyone can do that. But not manage their economic affairs for them.

And that is basically where the Democratic Socialist and Socialist Liberal are on economic policy. A central government big enough to make sure that everyone is taken care of. That all of our basic necessities are met and that the central government should provide these services for us. With a private enterprise system to finance all of these government services for us. Financed through high taxes and big regulatory state to see that the private sector is meeting the needs of the people. And not just to maximize profits. Which is what democratic socialism and social democracy are. Not run the economy, but to see that everyone’s economic needs are met.
Source:Keith Hughs

AlterNet: Valerie Tarico: 'I Am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice'

Source:Away Point- Valerie Tarico writes for the AlterNet.

Source:The New Democrat

"I believe that abortion care is a positive social good. I suspect that a lot of other people secretly believe the same thing. And I think it’s time we said so.

As an aside, I’m also pro-choice. Choice is about who gets to make the decision. The question of whether and when we bring a new life into the world is, to my mind, one of the most important decisions a person can make. It is too big a decision for us to make for each other, and especially for perfect strangers.

But independent of who owns the decision, I’m pro on the procedure, and I’ve decided that it’s time, for once and for all, to count it out on my 10 fingers." 

From the AlterNet 

"On the evening of January 22, 2014, just after the March for Life, Live Action President Lila Rose debated Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL, on CNN's Crossfire. 

When presented with a "gotcha" clip of herself on the Glenn Beck Program, Rose affirmed her conviction that children conceived through rape do not deserve the death penalty for their fathers' crimes.  Further, Rose said on Crossfire, "[a]bortion doesn't un-rape a woman.  An abortion just adds more violence on top of that first violence that she endured." 

Source:Live Action- in The Crossfire. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

From Live Action

Reading this piece by Valerie Tarico, reminded me of a conversation that I was in about three years ago on Facebook (of all places) that was about abortion. And after I tell you about this conversation, you’ll know where my position is on abortion and choice when it comes to abortion. We were talking about abortion, obviously. But what made this discussion interesting was that we were both in favor of keeping and having abortion be legal. That the woman should make the call when it comes to her own pregnancies.But where we differ has to do with public financing of abortion. 

I’m against public funding of abortions because I don’t believe taxpayers should be forced to finance someone else’s abortion. Especially if they view that as murder. Which I don’t, but only to save the life and health of the mother, or if she was raped. 

The person I was talking to on Facebook about abortion, said that he supports public financing of abortion, but for fiscally conservative reasons. So taxpayers don’t have to support someone else’s kids that the parent or parents can’t support. He supports public funding of abortion to prevent low-income women from having additional babies while they’re still poor. I told this person that they sounded pro-abortion to me. And that I’m pro-choice, which is very different. The person said that they were pro-abortion.

As far as Valerie Tarico’s piece in the AlterNet. She compared abortion with knee surgery. She said she’s pro-abortion like she’s pro-knee surgery or supports chemotherapy or cataract surgery. Even though these procedures are completely different. 

To state the obvious and perhaps Valerie Tarico needs this stated: you don’t end pregnancies and future babies and children being born when you get a knee surgery, or get your eyes fixed. That’s what you do with an abortion. A woman ends her pregnancy and as a result she’ll never have a baby from that pregnancy as a result. Unless the woman was raped, she didn’t have to become pregnant in the first place. She chose for that to happen, along with the father together. And she can choose to end her pregnancy as well.

Pro-choice whatever the issue and freedom of choice just doesn’t cover abortion. So if you say you’re pro-choice on abortion and perhaps homosexuality, but you support big government and the state when it comes to marijuana and other drugs, perhaps even alcohol and tobacco and now sugar and salt, like with some paternalistic nanny statist leftists today and add gambling and pornography and certain types of speech as well, your belief in freedom of choice is very limited really to just one or two issues. While you would have a big government there to stop people from making all sorts of other personal choices that you disapprove of. Even if they aren’t hurting anyone with what they are doing.

See, that’s the beauty of liberalism, liberty, liberation, liberalization, freedom in general. (Deal with it right-wingers and leftists) The ability for individuals to make their own decisions even if they’re making a decision that is potentially harmful, especially if they don’t know what they’re doing and others don’t approve of. But then also have to deal with the consequences of their choices including the financing of them, so we can’t pass the cost of our own decisions on to others, especially if those decisions are bad. But also so we aren’t financially endorsing bad decision-making in this country. And that is the difference from being pro-choice on multiple issues and publicly endorsing the decision-making of others.