Mises Media: James Ostrowski: The Illiberal Progressive Mind

Source:The New Democrat

James Ostrowski, had the best line in this video, when he said that, “we should stop calling Progressives, Liberals, because they are not.” I would argue that todays so-called Progressives, even people who claim the label, because perhaps they don’t like the word Liberal, because they don’t want to be associated with Center-Left Democrats, or because of how successful right-wingers have made the label seem unpopular in the last fifty years, or perhaps are smart enough to know that they are further left than American Liberals, are not that Progressive either. They believe in progress, but are so government centric that they have more socialist or statist views with their politics.

Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in Congress, is not a Progressive. He’s a Democratic Socialist and proud of that. He even believes in capitalism and private enterprise, but wants government especially the Federal Government to be big enough so that everyone can do well in the private enterprise system. And not just people who were born to wealth.

A true Progressive, believes in progress and that government should be used to improve the lives of everyone and that everyone can succeed. But doesn’t want government so big that the individual becomes dependent on it and stops trying to take care of them self and live in freedom.

The Progressive, believes in things like public education, infrastructure, civil rights, equal rights, a safety net for people who truly need it, but not big enough to manage people’s lives for them. They believe in a big centralized government even, which is what we got from FDR and LBJ. But not to replace the private enterprise system and eliminate certain functions of the private sector. But go hand in hand and have an insurance system for people who don’t have access to a lot of the services that wealthier people can get in the private sector.

The Democratic Socialist, wouldn’t outlaw private enterprise in America. But have the Federal Government takeover basic human services in the country. And not have the private sector involved in them any longer. Things like education, health care, health insurance, childcare, retirement, banking and energy even. As well as big regulatory state to make sure the private sector is behaving properly and in the interest of the country.

The Progressive, wants everyone to be able to succeed on their own and have access to the tools that they need to make that happen. Government comes in especially for the people who can’t access those resources through the private sector.

The Democratic Socialist, believes the role of government should be there to take care of everyone. That government should be big enough to meet the needs of the people. That certain aspects of society shouldn’t be for-profit at all and can’t be trusted with the private sector. Like the examples that I mentioned before. And that is where government comes in to see that everyone’s needs are met and have a private sector big enough to be able to finance all of this government for the people. This Democratic Socialist ideology, is that ideology that Senator Sanders and his supporters in and outside of the Democratic Party supports.

CBS Sports: NFL 1982-NFC Wildcard-Atlanta Falcons @ Minnesota Vikings: Full Game

Source:CBS Sports with this 1982 NFC Wildcard Playoff between the Atlanta Falcons & Minnesota Vikings, at the Minneapolis Metrodome. Last playoff appearance for both franchises for a long time.

Source:The New Democrat

A very interesting matchup of two pretty different, but pretty good teams in the 82 Falcons and Vikings. The Falcons of the late 1970s and early 1980s, were a power running football team. With a strong offensive line and very good running backs in William Andrews and Lynn Cain and added Gerald Riggs in 1982. That had a good strong-arm quarterback in Steve Bartkowski. Who could go deep to wide receivers Alfred Jackson and Alfred Jenkins. And on defense, they had what was called the Grits Blitz. Very similar to the Chicago Bears 46. But they did it out of a 3-4, but like the Bears would rush and blitz everyone on their defense.

The Vikings, no longer had their dominant Purple People Eater Defense. But they were solid on defense and still had a very good offense. That was now led by quarterback Tommy Kramer instead of Fran Tarkenton. That would throw the ball a lot and throw the ball to everyone with their possession passing Spread Offense. And then could run Ted Brown, Tony Galbreath and Darin Nelson out of the backfield. So this was a matchup of a power football team in the Falcons on both offense and defense. Against a more finesse but tough Vikings team, that could beat anyone in the NFL.

CBS Sports: NFL 1985- Minnesota Vikings @ Chicago Bears: Full Game

Source:CBS Sports with this 1985 Vikings-Bears regular season game at Soldier Field.

Source:The New Democrat

I think at least and I bet a lot of Vikings and Bears fan agree with this, but I believe this is one of the most under appreciated rivalries in the NFL. It is not the Bears-Packers rivalry, or the Vikings-Packers rivalry, but it is at least as good the Packers-Lions rivalry, which use to be a very good rivalry at least. I don’t know if there are two better teams that better represent the old NFC Central, or as ESPN’s Chris Berman called it the NFC Norris Division, play better than the Vikings and Bears. Both teams, are traditionally tough and physical on defense and come right at you on offense. And both teams love to play in cold weather and won a lot of big games in cold weather.

The 1985 Vikings, were a lot different from the traditional Vikings teams that we saw in the 1960s and 70s and the late 1980s. They no longer had the great defense or running game that they could count on. They were a pass first and almost pass all the time team. And the running game they got was from their passing game. And defenses having to respect their passing game a lot. Tommy Kramer, was a very good if not a Pro Bowl quarterback, but not the type of quarterback that could put his team on his back and lead them to championships on his own. He needed a good running game and defense to play their part as well. And the Vikings from 1983-86, missed the NFC Playoffs four straight seasons. Which never happened again until the 2000s. The Vikings missing the playoffs at least four straight seasons. And a big part of that was they no longer had that great defense and running game to complement their powerful passing game.

Teams like the 85 Vikings, played into the Bears 46 Defense perfectly. The Bears were always going after the quarterback with their defensive line and blitzes. And probably blitzed 90% of the time. And if they didn’t have a running game to have to worry about and giving up a big running play on a blitz, it meant they could blitz all the time and attack the quarterback every single play. Remember, the 85 Bears were 18-1 including playoffs and Super Bowl. The only team that beat them in 85 were the Dan Marino Miami Dolphins. The Dolphins had Dan Marino, but they also had a very good offensive line, that could pick up their own man and pick up blitzers on the same play. And they also had 4-5 really good and quick receivers. And could spread the Bears out on defense. And had enough of a running game to keep defenses honest. The Vikings, weren’t that good of a football team.

CBS Sports: NFL-1985-Week 11-Chicago Bears @ Dallas Cowboys: Full Game

Source: CBS Sports- Bears @ Cowboys 1985.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In honor of Free Game Friday the NFL presents the 1985 Chicago Bears dominating the Dallas Cowboys on Thanksgiving."

From CBS Sports

Going into this game, it is no wonder why CBS Sports had their top broadcast duo of Pat Summerall and John Madden call this game. Great matchup at least on paper with perhaps the two best teams in the NFC in 1985. The history of the two great franchises and the members of both clubs that worked with the other team, or was from Chicago or Texas, or played there. Like Mike Ditka, who was a long time assistant coach under Tom Landry in Dallas. And then of course of how dominant the Bears were in 85, 10-0 at this point going up against a Cowboys team that was still very good, at least as far as talent. That dominated the NFC and NFL in the 1970s and was still one of the better teams in the league at this point.

But when you don’t protect your quarterback, you don’t protect your punter and get punts blocked and turn the ball over the way the Cowboys did in the second quarter that led to 17 points and 24-0 halftime Bears lead, horrible things happen to you. The student’s teams beat the hell out of the teacher’s team in this game. The Bears played on completely taking your offense out of the game. And beating the hell out of your quarterback and runners with their 46 Defense. That dared teams to throw deep against them. And if your receivers didn’t get open quickly and your quarterback didn’t get rid of the ball quickly, horrible things happened to you. Huge sacks and turnovers. That Bears the offense could score from and many times that season the Bears defense did the scoring.

It was already pretty clear that Cowboys at this point in the 1980s had started stagnating, if not in decline. With the San Francisco 49ers, Redskins, Bears and New York Giants already taking steps up to becoming the new powers in the NFC. And they all had great games against each other in that decade. But this 44-0 ass kicking by the Bears in 1985 was sort of that tipping point and perhaps final nail. That the Cowboys not only were not the main power in the NFC, but several teams had passed them. And the Cowboys were no longer a team that was expected to go to the Super Bowl or even NFC Championship. But a team that making the NFC Playoffs, or winning the NFC East was a good year for them. When in the 1970s and early eighties that was expected of them.

Ross Ruffing: Ron Paul- The 10 Principles of a Free Society

Source:Ross Ruffing- Ron Paul.

Source:Ross Ruffing

I'm going to start off this post not trying to sound partisan in an ideological sense which is different than being partisan in a party sense, but Social Democrats (lets call them) not all, but a good deal of them have the sense that democracy is about voting and majority rule. That if fifty-percent or more says this is what we should be doing a country state, country, etc then thats Democracy. So if fifty- percent of the country plus one, or more says free speech is dangerous and therefore it should be outlawed, or gun rights, or religion, whatever the case is, privacy and property rights are also good examples, then the majority should rule and these rights, or just one or some of them should be outlawed to protect the will of the people and so-forth. And that things like requiring a two-thirds in both chamber's of Congress to amend or eliminate parts of the U.S. Constitution are somehow undemocratic.

And that the U.S. Senate which happens to be the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress is somehow undemocratic, because it requires super majorities to pass certain things like treaties as well as constitutional amendments. This might be a form of democracy, but it's not liberal democracy it's what's known as majoritarian democracy, which is different. People tend to forget that Adolph Hitler became Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany by democratic means. By majority vote or his party had the most members of in the Federal Parliament there. But anyone on a two-month drinking binge knows that Adolph Hitler was no Democrat and certainly not a Liberal Democrat. He was simply smart enough to know that he could come to power in Germany and pass his racist Nazi agenda through majoritarian democratic means. What liberal democracy is, it's about individual rights, freedom and constitutional rights for the individual.

And that these things always have to be protected and respected under law, even when and if they were to become unpopular, or with a large minority of people who believe they should be thrown out. Liberal democracy at it's core is individualistic, that we the people are entitled to basic rights that can never be taken away from us as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. Liberal democracy goes to the heart of why I'm a Liberal Democrat and a big part of what I blog about. That we the people are entitled to life, freedom, property rights, that we are able to keep what we make and produce. At least a large percentage of that and be able to keep what we obtain in life and that we can live our own lives as we see fit, as long as we aren't hurting any innocent people with what we are doing. And for me at least it starts with the First Amendment. And then goes to right to privacy, which also covers property rights and every other right thats guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution. Thats what it means to live in a liberal democracy, not majoritarian or social democracy.

CBS Sports: NFL 1985-Week 15-Chicago Bears @ New York Jets: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat

A great week 15 matchup even though it was an inter-conference matchup between the Bears and Jets. The Bears were 15-1 in the 1985 regular season and the Jets were 11-5. The Jets, Los Angeles Raiders and perhaps the Cleveland Browns were the top three underachievers of the NFL in the 1980s, at least in the AFC. You could argue that even though the Bears won Super Bowl 20 and won an NFC Championship and played in three NFC Finals in the 1980s, they or the Raiders were the biggest underachievers of that decade.

Because as dominate as the Raiders were in 1985 they almost looked mediocre at least in comparison for the rest of that decade. The Raiders won two Supers Bowls in the 1980s. But continued to have great talent throughout that decade and yet were barely a playoff team after they won Super Bowl 18 in 84. But the Jets were just as good talent wise as the Raiders and Bears on both offense and defense from 81-82, until 86. And only played in one conference championship. When they lost to an inferior Miami Dolphins team in 1982. This was a great matchup on paper, but a battle of underachievers, in the Bears-Jets.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- 'Penn Jillette on Indiana RFRA: 'You're Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex'

Source:Reason Magazine- Comedian Penn Jillette, on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, talking about Indiana's gay discrimination law.

Source:The New Democrat

"These people are not being asked to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. They're being asked to sell flowers and cake to people….Now, I'm a libertarian and an atheist, so I'm kind of fighting myself on this. I don't like the government involved with telling people what to do and I certainly want people to have religious freedom–because the only way that people who don't have religion are going to have freedom is if people who do have religion have freedom. But all the same, we have to be careful we don't get crazy in the hypotheticals. We are not talking about forcing people to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. We're asking that maybe they can treat people the same as other people and that does not seem unreasonable. It's OK, I guess, but goofy to be against gays, but it's not OK to be against people who simply want to…use your services as a business. "

From Penn Jillette at Reason Magazine

Source:CNN- Comedian Penn Jillette, on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, talking about Indiana's gay discrimination law.

"CNN's Don Lemon,  Alliance Defending Freedom's Kristen Waggoner, ACLU's Rita Sklar and Comedian Penn Jillette discuss Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

From CNN

This whole so-called religious freedom law debate which is really what this isn’t about, but about creating some new right for people who are let's face it, are homophobic and hate homosexuality, is not about expanding religious freedom, or protecting religious freedom. It’s about creating a right for people who are so against homosexuality to the point they view gays as second-class citizens and not deserving of the same rights as straits, to discriminate against people simply because they are gay.

When business’s go public and are open for the public, they are exactly that. Whose the public? It’s all of us and all of our races, ethnicities, and yes even sexualities. If you don’t want to serve the public, then open a private club and have it open for private membership only. And with your club you could only allow Christians, or Anglos, or Caucasians in general, or men, or straits of whoever you want your club to be open to, to serve. But if you run a store or a restaurant or some other business that is open to the public, then that is what you are. And you can’t deny service to people simply because you don’t like their race, color, ethnicity, or sexuality.

Protecting gays equal access to America is not about creating new rights for people. Since they already have the same rights as straits anyway. Fundamentalists Christian men aren’t being told that they have to bang men, or go to jail! And fundamentalist Christian women aren’t being told they have to bang women, or go to jail! If they want to continue to believe that gay sex and homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal, but people banging their cousins, or aunts, or uncles is perfectly legitimate and if anything should be expanded, then they are more than welcome to continue to believe in those things. And be looked down upon as the ignorant idiots that they are. But a public business can’t deny access to people simple because of who they are.