Posts Tagged ‘Center Right’


Source: The Aspen Institute– Columnist David Brooks

Source: The New Democrat

If you just arrived on Planet Earth yesterday and were an adult and two of the first things you observed were supposed to be what it means to be a Conservative and Liberal and what conservatism and liberalism are supposed to be, you would probably think Conservatives are simply bigots who hate anyone who isn’t of European especially Anglo-Saxon background, who isn’t a Christian especially a Protestant and who isn’t male. That conservatism is simply an authoritarian bigoted political philosophy that is about conserving everything in society for Europeans especially English-Europeans in America and especially Protestant males.

And that Liberals are simply statists. In some cases democratic, but in many other cases communist who believe European-Americans are all bigots, unless they come from the Northeast or West Coast and were educated there as well. Who hate European-Americans again unless they come from one of the coasts and were raised there. The Northeast and West Coast, that is and believe the role of government is to take care of non-Europeans in America and to punish Europeans for being successful.

That Liberals are supposed to be people who believe that anyone who doesn’t look at the world as they do are basically idiots who need to be babysat by government. That freedom is dangerous and it only gives people the freedom to make mistakes. That free speech is only the freedom to offend non-Europeans. That capitalism and property rights are selfish. That even education and self-inprovent are dangerous things, because it means that people would be able to obtain the power and freedom to live independently and be able to think and act for themselves.

Now, I just gave you a pretty good idea about what conservatism and liberalism aren’t. What it doesn’t mean to a Conservative and what it doesn’t mean to be a Liberal. The anti-conservative views when it comes to conservatism and the illiberal views when it comes to liberalism. Now, how about what it actually means to be a Conservative and what conservatism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal and what liberalism actually is.

I agree with David Brooks about one thing which seems to be a common theme when I hear him speak, at least about public policy and philosophy. That conservatism is about conserving tradition and a certain way of life in America. Which is different from saying that the role of government is force a way of life on the rest of the country and force everybody to basically live as straight fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals. Which is what Christian-Conservatives who today are basically Christian-Nationalists believe, that the problem with the America is personal freedom and individualism and that Americans shouldn’t have the freedom to live their own lives and have their own lifestyles.

My personal view of what it means to be a Conservative in the political sense, comes from Mr. Conservative Senator the late Barry Goldwater. Who said that he wanted big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, and classrooms. He wanted big government out of our personal and economic affairs. He believed in limited government and federalism and that the role of government was to protect Americans from predators both foreign and domestic, but not try to protect Americans from themselves and punish Americans for their own personal decisions. And that a big role of government was to conserve the U.S. Constitutional and our constitutional rights. Not conserve some fundamentalist Protestant Christian way of life and to force everybody to live under the same religious and cultural values.

For me as a Liberal, defining Liberal and liberalism is very easy for me. A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal democracy what some people might call classical liberalism, but what I just call liberalism and liberal democracy. That government should be limited and there to defend our constitutional rights and civil liberties, including our property rights. That everyone in America is the same at least in the sense that no one is better simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender and that everyone has the same civil rights and are all entitled to the same equal and constitutional rights. Liberals believe in limited government, the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, individual rights. A safety net for people who truly need it, but not having a government big enough to manage people’s lives and to force everyone to live equally from an economic standpoint. Socialists believe in forcing equality on everyone. Liberals believes in quality opportunity for everyone, which is different.

Now, if you just watch Fox News and MSNBC, you might think Conservatives are from Mars and Liberals are from Saturn. Two completely different planets with very little if anything in common. Thousands if not millions of miles way ideologically. But if you look at the American political spectrum Conservatives are on the center-right and Liberals are on the center-left. Ideologically they’re political opponents ( not enemies ) but have the most in common ideologically of any two political factions on the American political spectrum. With the Socialists ( both democratic and communist ) and the Christian-Nationalists, having the least in common. Conservatives and Liberals both believe in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, our federal form of limited government. But differ when it comes to government’s role in the economy and national security. But don’t live in two on two different planets ideologically. As much as Fox News and MSNBC may disagree with this.

The Aspen Institute: David Brooks- On Conservative and Liberal Values


Read Full Post »


“Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s…”

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s and 1980s, there is no Reform Party USA today. Why, because what is the Reform Party and what’s the point of it? The Reform Party is what the Republican Party use to be and what they believed in. Before they recruited the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right out of the Democratic Party and into the GOP. They use to believe in fiscal responsibility, economic freedom, strong but limited national defense and foreign policy that’s not designed to police the world and they were tolerant or federalist on social issues. Not believing that the Federal Government or government in general, should be used to tell how Americans should live their own lives and make their personal decisions for them. That was the GOP of the 1960s that Dwight Eisenhower essentially created in the 1950s, that Tom Dewey tried to create in the 1940s. That also had a growing conservative-libertarian wing in it led by Barry Goldwater and others.

If Donald Trump takes down the Republican Party in November and they lose the House as well as the Senate and he decides to take his movement with him and perhaps launches a new third-party and perhaps some nationalist party, the Reform Party could become relevant for the first time since Ross Perot launched this movement in the early 1990s. Along with the Libertarians and this is how the Republican Party could become a national party again that can win the presidency, because it would have the members and voters, to compete for the presidency and not need gerrymandered House districts to hold a majority in the House. Or low turnout elections to win a majority in the Senate, because again they would have the voters to be able to compete with Democrats everywhere. Or perhaps the GOP dies and the Reform Party emerges as the new Center-Right party in America. And brings in Libertarians and Northeastern Conservative Republicans.

The Reform Party, to me at least represents the Republican Party when it wasn’t owned by the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. A party where the Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right European-American nationalist groups, didn’t feel at home in. Because it was a big-tent party that welcomed African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Jewish-Americans, women, Catholics, immigrants, etc. Where it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and yes even Barry Goldwater. Not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, David Duke, Donald Trump, or the Tea Party. A party that could not only competed in the Northeast with moderate-conservative Republicans, but in the Midwest and the West with Conservative-Libertarians and even California, but in the South as well. And could win high turnout elections, because it had the members and voters to compete everywhere with the Democratic Party. That is no longer the case for the GOP today.

Read Full Post »


Source: C-SPAN

Source: C-SPAN: The Contenders- Ross Perot Preview

Ross Perot not that he ever had a real shot at being elected President of the United States, but his style of politics and what he believed in and the people he represents and spoke for and represents how Independent Center-Right political candidates can get elected in America. And I put Ross Perot on the Center-Right in American politics because he is a true fiscal Conservative who believes in fiscal responsibility, not running up debt and deficits.

Ross Perot believes in limited government and that everything that government does has to be limited to what we need it to. Not do not what we want it to do and that all government including entitlement programs have to be efficient and affordable. But someone who was tolerant to moderate on social issues. Who didn’t push those issues and didn’t believe the Federal Government should be involved in them in most cases and would probably leave the states to deal with them.

He was sort of an Eisenhower or Ford Republican whose philosophy was based around accountability. And limiting government to doing the things that we need it to do and do those things well. Who represents roughly forty percent of the country and how people of this mindset could do well in the future especially if they put together one party that represents this whole movement.

Read Full Post »


Attachment-1-152Source: Charles Wheelan: The Centrist Manifesto: Is this Realistic?

I’ve written a couple of blogs over the last few weeks about Independent third parties. And what do I mean by Independent because anyone who is  not a Democrat or Republican politically is technically an Independent. But I’m not talking Independent so much in a party registration, but Independent in an ideological sense. Voters who do not fit in well in the Left or Right boxes. The voters I’m talking about probably lean right in a political sense. But aren’t very partisan and aren’t crazy about the Republican Party, not far enough to the right to be a full-time Republican. Perhaps even like some Democrats, but certainly not far enough to the Left to be a full-time Democrat either. These voters tend to be fiscally conservative but in a pragmatic sense. That they want good government that is clean but also limited. Not trying to do everything for everybody, but there to do the things that we need it to do. And have the resources to do those core things, but spend them wisely and effectively.

The voters I talk about tend to be tolerant to moderate on social issues. They do not think about them strongly and do not like intolerance and discrimination especially through law. But probably not liberal or libertarian either. The voters I’m talking about are basically the Perot voters. Who represent something like forty percent of the country who also decide all of our presidential elections as well. And you put this coalition together and you have one hell of a third-party, a center-right party that is interested in problem solving. And would work with Democrats whenever they can and would always be looking to work with members of other parties if they were ever in power and if the Republican Party doesn’t wake up and goes off a political cliff, you could see this Independence Party that I call it step up and replace the Republican Party as the center-right party in America.

Where I differ with Charles Wheelan, who by the way I just heard of last night and why I’m blogging about this now and I would to read his book as well, is that I think we are talking about the same voters, but he’s talking about purely centrist voters with no real ideological affiliations. I’m talking about fiscal Conservatives who probably use to be Republicans. Or perhaps Blue Dog Southern Democrats who are fiscally conservative and not interested in social issues for the most part except as it relates to civil rights and civil liberties. And perhaps are liberal there or even conservative in the classical sense that government and society shouldn’t be able to discriminate against people based on things that have nothing to do with whatever they are doing. Work and housing to use as examples and do not fit in with the Religious-Right in America.

I’m a Liberal Democrat and probably always well be unless Democratic Socialists take over the Democratic Party. But I do not like the two-party system as a Liberal because it leaves out people simply because of their political views. It is Un-liberal democratic in the sense that it leaves people out because they are a bit further to the Left or Right. Than Democrats and Republicans tend to be or are in the center and are not comfortable being a Democrats or a Republican. Which is why I would like to see the two-party-system abolished and replaced with something more democratic. We need a multiple-party-system that includes Liberals, Progressives and Conservatives of course. But we need something that includes Libertarians on the Right and Socialists on the Left. And Neoconservatives on the Right and perhaps even Communists, Nationalists and Theocrats on the way Far-Left and Far-Right. So we are all represented in America as voters.

You create this multiple-party-system by simply outlawing gerrymandering from the Right and Left that all House districts that are drawn up by the states have to accurately represent the states political affiliations, rather than drawing up districts to simply give Republicans and Democrats better opportunities to win and these districts would have to be approved by a Federal Election Commission made up of Democrats, Republicans and Centrists.

We need universal ballot access that all of the parties are represented on the ballots in all. Federal elections Congress both chambers and the presidency and vice presidency.

We need universal polling that all party nominees for Federal office get polled so a media organization can’t just poll the Democrat and Republican or poll them together. But they have to poll the Libertarian, the Independent from the Independence Party I was talking about. As well as the Constitutionalist and Green or Democratic Socialist that is running as well. So all of the party nominees for office would get ID nationally. As well as in the state and districts that they are running in.

What I’m talking about is easy to put on paper and would work if it were ever to get into law. And if it were ever to become law we would need runoff elections as well. Because it would be very difficult to get fifty percent or more in one round of voting. But it is very difficult to pass especially without a major grassroots movement similar to. Immigration reform because Democrats and Republicans are still in power.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: