The Daily Beast: Michael Kazin: The Radical Left - Always a Bridesmaid

Source:The Daily Beast: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Michael Kazin that the New-Left, lets say has always been the bridesmaid in the Democratic Party. George McGovern in 1972, would be the exception to that, where the New-Left got exactly the presidential candidate that they wanted. But where the Democratic Party is smarter than the Republican Party, is the Democratic Leadership knows how to use their radicals to get them to vote for their mainstream Center-Left establishment candidates. 2008 and 2012 with Barack Obama, are perfect examples of that.

Where the New-Left, thought they were getting Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader ideologically, they instead get someone more like Jack Kennedy in Barack Obama. Whereas the Republican Party will go out of their way to make it clear to their Christian-Right and Neoconservatives that their candidates are just as stuck in the 1950s as the people the Far-Right rather have representing the party. John McCain, in 2008, Mitt Romney, Mr. Northeastern at best a Moderate-Conservative Republican, depending on which Mitt you’re talking to. Are good examples of this from the GOP.

The term radical, is not necessarily bad. It just means you’re out of the mainstream in the time and place that you happen to live. Which is where the New-Left has been in America since it was created in the 1960s. America, is not Scandinavia ideologically, or anything else and never has been. We like our Constitution, we like our property rights, we like our federalist form of government, with most of the power not being centralized with the national government, unlike in Scandinavia. We like all of our individual freedom. Including the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech. Which even includes the right to offend. All things that the New-Left in America has been against at point, or another.

It’s hard to win politically in a country, when you represent something that is completely different from what the country is use to and what they want to keep. Where you’re literally running to remake the economic system and trying to convince hard-working middle class workers that they’re simply under taxed and need big government to take more of your money from you to serve you. Where you literally want to get rid of the Constitution and rewrite it, or simply not bother to replace it. And be able to do everything that you want through majority rule and referendum.

The New-Left, is part of the Democratic Party to a certain extent, because they need the Democrats and to a certain extent the Democrats need them. Not because ideologically even though at times they may have similar goals, are very different ideologically. Where the New-Left, ideologically would be better off in the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party and perhaps even the Communist Party. But are smart enough to know that if the bolt the Democrats for a Far-Left third-party they’ll lose their place in one of the major parties in the United States. The New-Left, are the bridesmaids of the Democratic Party. They come close, or at times look that they are, but in actuality simply get used by the Democratic Leadership time and time again.
Source:HNN Editor

Jason Sokol- 'How a Young Joe Biden Turned Progressives Against Integration'

Source:POLITICO Magazine- U.S. Senator Joe Biden, D, Delaware: in 1974-75.

Source:The New Democrat

"Forty years ago, a contentious battle over racial justice gripped Capitol Hill, pitting the nation’s lone African American senator against the man who would one day become Barack Obama’s vice president. The issue was school busing, a plan to transport white and black students out of their neighborhoods to better integrate schools—and at the time the most explosive issue on the national agenda."

From POLITICO Magazine

"National History Day 2011 documentary about the forced busing in Boston in the 1970s."

From MGANS

Source:MGANS- Documentary on busing from the 1970s.

Just to give a little background on Joe Biden the current Vice President of the United States and a six term U.S. Senator from Delaware before that: he would be described today as a New Democrat, or what I like to call the real Liberals in the Democratic Party. And a moderate New Democrat at that. He grew up part of a generation that loved and admired John F. Kennedy and is a big fan of him. He’s to the right of myself and a lot of other Liberals in the areas of criminal justice and civil liberties, War on Drugs, to use as examples.

So this idea that he would be in favor of what really is forced busing, when you’re talking about taking middle class kids out of good schools and forcing them to go to inferior schools just to make those schools more racially balanced, would be hard to believe. Joe Biden, has always supported and believed in a strong public education and education system. His record in Congress and as Vice President indicate that. I mean first we had forced desegregation from the Far-Right, where Caucasian and African-Americans were separated because of race. To then forced integration from the Far-Left to try to equalize and make up for the forced desegregation.

When what we should’ve been doing all the time is allowing for parents to send their kids to the best public school that is for their kid. Instead of having to send their kids to school based on where they live. Which would’ve meant kids from low-income communities being able to go to good middle class schools and get themselves a good education. And then as adults no longer having to live in low-income communities with high crime rates and everything else that people rather not have to live with. And with kids leaving low-income low-performing schools, school districts would’ve been forced to better fund their low-performing schools and get better results out of them.

I’m not a mind-reader obviously, but if I had to guess the goal of Senator Joe Biden when it came to public education in the 1970s for all Americans regardless of race, was to have a system where everyone would be able to go to a good school. Where low-income kids wouldn’t be forced to go to low-income schools. Where middle class kids, wouldn’t be forced to go to bad schools. And if I had to guess and not play a cynic here that is why he was against forced busing in the mid-1970s. 1974 and 75 is where forced busing happened in the Northeast and other places in the country

Robert Gordon: The Fight That Changed Political TV Forever

Source:POLITICO Magazine with a look at The Best of Enemies film.

Source:The New Democrat

What this is about is the debate between Conservative Libertarian writer and publisher of the Center-Right publication The National Review, William Buckley and Socialist, or Social Democratic writer and author Gore Vidal. They were brought on as part of ABC New's coverage of the 1968 Republican National Convention and also went on to debate each other the Democratic National Convention that year as well. They were brought in by ABC News to offer contrarian views of what was going on at those conventions. Bill Buckley, was supposed to represent the Right, or the Republican point of view. And Gore Vidal, was there to represent the Left, I guess the entire Left and the Democratic point of view.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should if you're familiar with American politics today. Because that is now how its done, whether the coverage comes from the broadcast networks, or the cable news networks. You have a moderator which back then for ABC News would've been Howard Smith and today depending on which network you'll have that network, or news division's lead anchor lead their coverage of the conventions. And they would have several reporters there from their team to report what is actually happening. And then have an analyst from each side to tell people what they believe this all means. But that was not how it was done back in the late 1960s. Where you would have two people who are ideologically completely different debating what is going on.

But what happened at ABC News at the 1968 RNC was not CNN Crossfire of today. Howard Smith, was there to moderate and lead the discussion between Buckley and Vidal. But the problem is Buckley and Vidal were in separate rooms as Smith and you could barely hear, or see Smith during this debate. If you're familiar with Howard K. Smith, you know he wasn't some who was short on words and opinions. He had an opinion on practically everything. From things that he was very informed about like politics, to things where he wasn't that informed on like sports. But when you have a debate between two of the sharpest and quick-witted people at least in politics, but the media as well and perhaps in general and they don't even respect yet like each other, it is very hard to get any word in edgewise.

So what happens in 1968 at the RNC between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal is what we saw with Crossfire in the 1980s and 90s. Essentially a free for all without a moderator. Where the two debaters would make their points, but also listen to the other side. They would debate and moderate the same discussion at the same time. With poor Howard Smith acting not much more as a presiding officer at a U.S. Senate session, or something. Perhaps signing autographs, or catching up on paperwork. And really just serving a ceremonial role. But that debate because of the two men who were involved and what they were talking about and the year that it happened in 1968, made for great TV. And changed how politics would be covered on TV in the future.

Judith Solomon: Medicaid at 50: A Critical and Evolving Pillar to U.S. Health Care

Source:Center On Budget & Policy Priorities. President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) signing Medicare into law in 1965, with President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) at his side.

Source:The New Democrat

Medicaid, is a very important health insurance program for people in poverty including the working poor, but also people who are disabled and senior citizens. The fact that it is also for seniors, I believe shows a problem for Medicare. Since Medicare is supposed to be for our senior citizens. But that might be for a different topic. But Medicaid is critical, but as long as we have it we need for it to be financially sustainable meaning affordable and the best way to do that is to pay for it. And no longer have this system where the Federal Government tells the states that they must have this program and only gives the states less than half of what they need to actually run the program. Without a revenue source to pay for their share and leaving the states to figure out how to pay for the rest.

If you are familiar with this blog, you it is against corporate welfare. And part of that welfare is business's getting away with not paying for their employees cost of living. The fact is if you're a cashier at a fast rood restaurant, or a grocery store, you're an essential employee. Because your employer can't do business without you and your fellow cashiers. And cashiers would just be one example of that. Good luck running a nice sit down restaurant without waiters and cooks. Or stocking a grocery store without stockers. Running a pizza joint without cashiers, cooks and drivers. And there are plenty of more examples like that.

So what I would do is what I would do with all public assistance programs and make them financially self-sufficient. Instead of having hard-working middle class taxpayers not only have to figure out how to pay for their health care and other life essentials, but have to pick up the tab for low-income workers have employers cover their employees Medicaid, public housing, food assistance, etc. Or give them an option and say you don't want to pay these payroll taxes on your employees, give your employees the money to pay for these life essentials instead. And I would happy to cut taxes on business's in exchange. But the idea that big employers who make a lot of money, but don't share much of that success even the basics like cost of living and instead pass those costs onto hard-working middle class taxpayers, is insulting.

Again, I would do this with all of our public assistance programs, but since this is about Medicaid, this is how I would reform it and make it financially not just affordable, but self-sufficient. Tell employers that they need to cover their low-income workers. Either through Medicaid with a payroll tax, or provide private health insurance that is just as good as Medicaid. Again, instead of allowing big for-profit employers the ability to pass their employees cost of living onto hard-working middle class taxpayers. As well as give low-income workers the option of taking either Medicaid, or private health insurance that their employer would cover part of that is just as high quality.

Rick Cooley: 'No Nukes'

Source:The Political Carnival-

Source:The New Democrat

Before we talk about eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth, which I would go along with as long as it's not just the United States that does that, but everyone else involved who currently has nuclear weapons, or is trying to develop them, lets first lay out who currently has nuclear weapons. This should be very helpful for people who are lets says a bit left of center and not quite center-left in America. Social Democrats who tend to be against the use of force, well for anything at least as it relates to governmental policy.

America, Britain, France, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, all currently not just have nuclear power, but own nuclear weapons. Brazil, Japan and South Korea, have considered getting nuclear weapons. Iran, would like to have them. Libya, Iraq and South Africa, gave them up, or they were taken away from them. Two of the countries that are on the current nuclear weapons list are social democracies and tend to be a bit left of center politically than the United States. Britain and France.

Yes Britain and France that are two of most social democratic countries in the world when it comes to their form of government and economic systems. And yet they both use nuclear power for their energy needs and for their national security. Nuclear power, something that Social Democrats at least in America, are not fans of to say the least and would want to see outlawed in this country. See, most countries at least in the developed world, tend to look at foreign affairs and national security from a real-world perspective . It's great to live in Utopia and be govern by idealism on Fantasy Island. But when you live in the real-world where most of the rest of us live, you have to do what it takes to defend yourself from the worst possible threats.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power, at least from democratic oriented countries are not intended to destroy other countries and kill people. And people can throw Japan and the nuclear bomb being dropped by America there all that they want. But the facts are we did that to end that war. To prevent a hundred-thousand America soldiers from being murdered in the next battle there. And whoever coined the phrase war is hell, sure as hell knew what they were talking about and probably experienced some of that hell for them self. What that means is that in war sometimes you have to do things that come with horrible consequences to prevent worst things from happening. Like your own people being killed.

Nuclear weapons, again when they are possessed by democratic countries are designed for self-defense. But more importantly they are designed for preëmptive defense. "You do not want to hit us, because we can blow you away if you do." Again America, hit Japan with the bomb in World War II, but no other power with nuclear weapons has used them since. Because no one has been dumb, or crazy enough to call that play yet, because they know what will happen in response. When all the other nuclear powers come to the table and say, "we're ready to give up our nuclear weapons and we'll stop making them if you do the same." Then the United States will be ready to do the same thing. As we should, because of horrible consequences that come from using nuclear weapons.
Source:Secular Talk

Jim Morrison: The Bad Boy of Classic Rock

Source:The Doors- The Lizard King Jim Morrison.

Source:The New Democrat

Jim Morrison aka The Lizard King, is the bad boy and frontman of classic rock and blues rock. I’m not interested in heavy metal and punk rock, where I’m sure you’ll find guys who got into more trouble and perhaps had even bigger addiction problems. Curt Cobain and Axel Rose come to mind damn fast for me. But, the heavy reliance and influence of black leather that you saw at least in the 1980s and 1990s especially with the leather jeans, boots, jackets, came from Jim Morrison. Which just to my point about how big a deal The Lizard King is when it comes to rock and roll and not just classic rock and blues rock where he made his biggest impact. But again heavy metal when you’re talking about wardrobe with the leather jeans, boots and jackets. That Jim Morrison made a staple of his wardrobe in the late 1960s, when almost no one else outside biker culture was wearing at all.

I don’t know of a frontman that meant more to his band than Jim Morrison. Not to take anything away from Ray Manzarek especially, who was great on the keyboards and also had a great singing voice. And Robby Krieger was an excellent guitarist and John Densmore could play the drums. But The Doors are famous because of Jim Morrison, but Morrison wouldn’t have needed The Doors at least the group that was put together to be famous and successful. How many other rock frontman at least from that generation, had the intelligence, the wit, the writing ability and then throw in the style that The Lizard King had. In an era where frontman looked somewhat preppy except for the long hair and looked like hippies, I mean we are talking about the late 1960s after all, Jim Morrison is wearing a black leather suit. Skin-tight black leather jeans, that would be called skinny leathers today. With a black leather suit jacket, an Indian concho belt and black suede and leather boots.

Jim Morrison not just put leather jeans on the map in rock and roll, but leather period. To the point that Elvis Presley starts wearing a black leather suit in the late 60s and early 70s. John Kay, from Steppenwolf has his own Lizard King outfit. With a leather vest, black leather jeans and an Indian belt. The hard rockers of the 1980s Kiss, Motley Crew, Guns N Roses, as well as heavy metal bands like Skid Row, are all wearing leather jackets and leather jeans. But much more casually than Jim Morrison and wore biker jackets and t-shirts with their leathers. Morrison, again was a rebel and did his own thing and did it so well that he made it so cool and had others following him. To the point that there are countless Doors cover bands and Jim Morrison covers. With the Jim Morrison figure always in his black leather and concho belt and at times with the black leather jacket.

But with The Lizard King, it’s not just his leather rock and roll fashion. And the fact that perhaps no other man has ever wore a black leather suit better. Or the fact that thousands of women went to Doors concerts to check the man out every night and to see what he would do on the stage next. But it was also his music and the fact that he and The Doors did their own thing and made their own music and to a certain extent sung about the times the 1960s, but did it their own way. Morrison, especially didn’t want to fit in some place, but instead create his own place that was even different from his own band members from again how he carried and presented himself on stage. And then see if others would follow him. The Baby Boom Generation, the 1960s rockers who made it big in that decade, lost three great stars. Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. But I’m not sure as great as Jimi and Janis would’ve been even combined would’ve they’ve meant more to rock and roll than Jim Morrison. The Lizard King was one in a kind and great at simply being himself as an entertainer. And we haven’t seen anyone as good, or similar since.
Source:Fame Music

Grit-TV: Richard Wolff: Bernie Sanders & Socialism

Source:GritTV talking to Socialist Professor Richard Wolff.

Source:The New Democrat

I guess I look at socialism like I look at conservatism. Not that they are similar, but that both have two competing factions in them. With conservatism, you have Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians and you have Libertarians. And lets leave the Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives out of this for the purpose of this piece. And with socialism, you have the Marxists, who are way out in left field. And is an ideology that has almost no power in the world now. And then you have the Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who not just believe in socialism and a democratic form of it, but believe that for socialism to be as effective as possible, you must have a sufficient private sector and private enterprise. To generate the revenue needed for the socialist state to thrive.

And Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters and before him lets say George McGovern in the 1970s, Norman Thomas in the 1960s, Henry Wallace in the 1950s and 1940s, all of these men are Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who are very democratic in nature and even believe in a level of both personal and economic freedom, but who believed that you needed a welfare state-run by government to see to it that no one was left behind. That everyone was taken care, that there was a social insurance system for people who go through tough times in the private enterprise economy. And to take care of people who are disabled and who simply can’t work at all.

In a democratic socialist system, you would have some industries that are nationalized as well. In the areas that Socialists believe everyone needs to have and be able to use at an affordable rate. Things like health care, education, health insurance, pension, energy, banking to use as examples. But by in the large the economy would be in private hands. People would not just own their own personal property, but could start their own business and run their business. You would even see large private business’s. Including automakers, telecommunications, media, manufacturing, all small and local business’s. But they would all be subjected to high taxes and regulations to see that no one has to go without. These being the differences between socialism and statism.