See Progress: The History of Progressivism

Source:Progressive Party-

Source:The New Democrat

In this piece I'm going to layout what progressivism is and what it isn't and also why I believe Hillary Clinton is the Progressive Democrat running for president and why Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Socialist, whose running for president as a Democrat as well. When you think of Progressive, you should think progress and someone who believes in progress. Moving the ball forward, making things better and yes using government and giving government a role in creating that progress.

But not the only role and you're not taxing people so high that they no longer have to take responsibility over their own lives. Like when it comes to health care, health insurance, education, childcare, pension, housing, whether to join a union or not, or personal freedom choices. Like what to eat and drink, how to spend your money, how we communicate to people and what we say in public. Progressives, helped write the U.S. Constitution and created the American Federal Republic. They didn't oppose it. The Progressive Era of the early 20th Century was about creating a public safety net for the United States, to go along with everything that we already had as a country. Not to completely remake America into some social democracy, or some socialist state.

Socialists, meaning Democratic Socialists and Progressives aren't the same people with two different labels. Lyndon Johnson and Bernie Sanders, aren't the same political animals. Senator Sanders, is much further left than President Johnson ever was. Especially on economic policy, but national security as well. Not to say that Senator Sanders doesn't believe in national defense and wouldn't defend the homeland, but President Johnson was a strong anti-Communist and Cold Warrior. And would never call for the deep budget cuts in defense that Bernie favors. Progressives, created the National Security State. Progressives, created the tools like the United Nations, NATO, Department of Defense, CIA and other agencies, that helped win the Cold War. Socialists, have opposed these things from the start.

The political core of a Progressive is someone who believes that everyone in society should have a quality opportunity to succeed as best as they can. That economic success and freedom shouldn't be tied to the income level of one's parents, but to the individual's work, education and what they're able to create for themselves based on what they invest in society themselves. So Progressives, believe in public education, public infrastructure, a public safety net for people who truly need it. Freedom to Assembly, Right to Organize and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as a whole. But Socialists would go much further than that and want a society where the individual isn't so responsible for their own lives. And where the central government assumes a lot of that responsibility. So no one has too much, or too little, in their view.

Again Progressives, aren't Democratic Socialists and Progressives believe in things like personal responsibility and a strong national defense. That America can't police the world by ourselves, but that we have to play our part. Socialists, tend to be more isolationist and dovish, soft on defense would be a way of putting that. Scandinavia and Canada, are good examples of that. Whereas America, Germany, France, tend to believe in internationalism and working with their allies and even using military force when they believe it can make a positive difference. France, is a big part of the coalition against ISIS right now in Syria and bombing ISIS right now and Germany is also part of that coalition. So the Progressive, doesn't blame society when people do horrible things. They hold person who committed the horrible acts responsible. The Socialist, might say that society is to blame here and give the criminal a pass.

The reason why Hillary Clinton is the Progressive running for president, because she believes in both progress. But also governing and when it comes to our government with checks and balances and separation of powers and divided government, she knows that you can't always have everything your way and that most times you won't. That you have to work with the other party to move the ball forward and make things better. To accomplish progressives goals and live up to your progressive values. Progressives are realists and govern from realism. The Socialist would probably say that moving the ball forward is not good enough. If people still live in poverty, don't have health insurance, are unemployed, aren't getting a good education, etc. And the reasons for this is that government is big enough and doesn't have enough responsibility in these areas. Which is where Bernie Sanders tends to operate from. He being an idealistic Socialist against the Pragmatic Progressive in Hillary Clinton.

Bernardo Santos Carmo: Judy Garland With Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin (1962)

Source:Bernardo Santos Carmo- Frank & Judy. 

Source:The Daily Review

"Judy, Frank and Dean Martin in this memorable 1962 show." 

From Bernardo Santos Carmo

You're going to have a harder time finding three better singers and really performers when you're talking about Judy, Frank and Dean, performing together on the same show, then Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. That is how big Judy Garland was and the amount of star power that she had that she could bring in those two great performers. The two top stars in the Rat Pack that she was friends with and worked with. 

I emphasize performers here, because Judy, Frank and Dean, were more than singers. They were all great singers as well, but they were entertainers. Dean Martin, an accomplished singer, actor and comedian. Frank Sinatra, the Chairman of the Board, The Voice, perhaps the singer of all-time, as well as an accomplished actor and someone with the comedic wit and timing of a great comedian. Judy Garland, accomplished singer and actress, who also had a great comedic wit and timing. You put these three together and also throw in that they're friends and you have a great show. 

Economic Policy Journal: Walter Block: 'Why This Push Toward Milton Friedman?'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- Professor Milton Friedman.

Source:The New Democrat

"Dr. Walter Block responds to an inquiry from  Sadaf Hussain of the Centre for Civil Society, New Dehli...

From the Economic Policy Journal

Source:Sidewinder- Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

"A student poses a series of question on based on Friedman's notion that people should pursue their own self-interest. The student points out that he'd read that Friedman had previously come out against disaster aid for victims of a flood in Pennsylvania. Friedman corrected the questioner and noted that he did not come out against private aid for flood victims but instead was against the Federal Government providing discounted flood insurance in advance to home purchasers which motivated people to build houses in areas where they otherwise would not have been able to obtain insurance privately. If not for the discounted insurance, it's likely many of the flooded houses would never have been built in the first place as it wouldn't have been in peoples self-interest."

From Sidewinder

I don't agree with Milton Friedman on everything once you get part the message of maximize freedom for everyone as long as they aren't hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. Which I agree with him on probably 99% of the way. I support the safety net as an insurance system, but only for people who truly need it and to be used to help people get themselves on their own feet and off of the safety net all together. And here's another area where I agree with Professor Friedman on. Even though he wouldn't have created the New Deal and Great Society, he said that as long as we have a public social insurance system it should be used to lift people up and not keep them down. That people on Welfare should be looking for work and be able to earn money on the side while on Welfare.

I basically look at my politics from the standpoint as a Classical Liberal (not Libertarian) who is influenced by Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Martin O'Malley today and other what are called New Democrats. (The Real Liberals in the Democratic Party) People who believe success in life shouldn't be determined on whether you have wealthy parents, or not. But the quality of your parents and the opportunities that you create for yourself based on what your parents gave you and what you created for yourself. That the success of the individual should be determined based on the quality of their parents, community, education and at the end of the day what the individual does for themselves. Did they complete their education, find a good field for them and made the best out of that, that they could. Not whether their parents are wealthy, or not.

Milton Friedman is part of my political influence. Part of my political package that I use to voice my own politics and views. That it's not the job of government to take care of people, but to protect our freedom. Now my role for government while still very limited is a bit bigger than Milton's, we look at a lot of things the same way. That individual freedom, success, wealth and even extreme wealth, are actually good things. And that the problem is not that we have rich people, but that we don't have enough rich people and too many people in poverty. And where I differ with Milton is that I believe an effective limited government can be used to see that everyone has the access to the tools that they need to create their own freedom. Education, infrastructure, economic development, a safety net again for people who only need it, but is used to expand freedom and not government dependence. But I believe Milton and I share most of the same goals when it comes to freedom in America.

Liberty Pen: Ted Ralls- We Get The Politicians We Deserve

Source: Liberty Pen-

Source:The Daily Review

To sound like George Carlin, we get the politicians that we deserve. Most if not all of us have voted for someone who has been elected to public office. And for those of us who haven't who you might be able to set up a small club and hold your meetings in a bathroom. Those people probably don't bother to vote. Or vote for losers, or vote for good people in a jurisdiction that has a lot of idiots or crooks. So if you voted for a crook even an oil slick crook, whose fault is that? The crook who knows they are a crook and is just doing what they normally do until they're caught? Or the good person who should know better than to vote for crooks and let their dog eat their homework before they voted?

I at least would argue that voters are always responsible for who they voted for. For anyone who voted for George W. Bush twice for president and now sees him as the worst president in their lifetime, they only have themselves to blame. For anyone who voted for Barack Obama twice for president and now see him as some weak moderate, or even worst. You had opportunities to vote for Dennis Kucinich and Jill Stein in both elections and instead went with the establishment Democrat. Crooked politicians (as if they're any other politicians) don't get reelected over and over because they have guns to all of their constituents heads. They're not Saddam Hussein, or some Marxist who says, 'Vote for me, or go to jail, or even die.'

Crooked politicians, stay in power by buying off their constituents and and taking a hell of a lot of money from groups that don't have the politician's constituents interests at heart and many times what they're protecting goes against their constituents interests. But the crooked politician always has to run for reelection to stay in power. And if they have a smart educated constituency they risk losing. Because someone steps up and says, 'I can beat this bastard and get the support to do it.' And the crook can get voted out. But as long as voters still use, 'the dog ate my homework' excuse and don't bother to do their homework before they decide who to vote for, crooks will continue to get elected and reelected and not be held accountable for their crookedness.
Source:Mass Tea Party

The American Thinker: Tom Trinko: Returning Power to the People

Source:Slide Player- Federalism is a decentralize form of government.

Source:The New Democrat

I'm both a Liberal and a Federalist and for people who have stereotypical views about what Liberals and liberalism actually are and is especially on the Right, that might sound like someone who says they believe in both a federal republic and theocracy. Well which one do you believe in, the federal republic or theocracy? Because they are two different things. But liberalism and federalism, actually go together. Because they both believe in the notions that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Especially big centralized power like in government, or in national multi-national corporations, to use as examples. Federalism, says that you have a Federal Government for a reason. To deal with national issues that affects everyone. And then let the states and localities deal with the issues in their jurisdictions.

Federalism, doesn't say that you shouldn't have a Federal Government and that there isn't much if any role for the Federal Government. This isn't a libertarian philosophy even though Libertarians tend to support federalism. It just lays out exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. We need a national defense. we need a national foreign policy and diplomatic relations. We need to regulate interstate commerce when economic crimes are committed by the same people in multiple states, to use as examples. You obviously have to collect revenue for your Federal Government. You need to prosecute and police interstate crimes. The Feds, have to fight and prosecute terrorism. You need a national infrastructure system so you know that people can drive from state to state.

But that the states and localities need to be able to handle the issues that go on their own state. Dealing with local crime, education, building their own roads, dealing with their homelessness and poverty issues, collecting their own revenue, regulating their own economies, etc. Not that the Federal Government doesn't have a role here, but that they shouldn't be in charge here and telling the states and localities, 'this is what you need to do here.' Without providing the resources to pay for what the Feds want to do. Where the Feds can and should come in is helping communities especially struggling communities, deal with their issues. And not just the government's in these communities, but the private sector, non-profits to deal with poverty, lets say. So everyone has a real shot to overcome these issues which are a national concern.

Federalists, just say that government needs to be limited to exactly what we need it to do. And that includes the Federal Government especially in a huge country with all of our land and people which is what America is. And that power needs to be decentralized and spread out. Let Wisconsin and Colorado, to use as examples figure out how to educate their kids, fight crime, deal with poverty and others issues in their states. Leave the Feds to deal with issues that we must have it doing. Like foreign policy and defense, terrorism, but interstate commerce and crimes, regulating the environment and energy policy, would be other issues. As well as assist local communities and states both in the public and private communities, deal with tough issues that they're struggling to deal with.
Source:Harold Orndorff

All About Judy: Judy Garland- The Jack Paar Program (1962)

Source:All About Judy- Jack Paar and Judy Garland on The Jack Paar Show.

Source:The Daily Review 

"This interview is a fan favorite. Judy was in great shape, relaxed and very funny. We can also see what a great storyteller she was when she talks about growing up in vaudeville, her days at MGM and her live concerts. She sings "Little Drops of Rain", "Paris Is a Lonely Town" and "Mewsette", from Gay Puree."  

From All About Judy

Before GetTV started playing reruns of The Judy Garland Show on every Monday night starting back in October, I had heard of her, but didn't know much about her. 

I thought Judy Garland was an actress from the 1940s, or something and didn't have much if any idea who she was. That is the advantage of these great classic TV and movie networks is that it gives people such as myself who didn't start watching TV at all until the early 1980s a chance to see what entertainment, Hollywood and what life was like before I was born. 

Today the Millennial Generation, who are all about now and everything before that is old school to them, which is bad to them doesn't seem to grasp. But because GetTV plays The Judy Garland Show I now have a good idea who she was.

Judy Garland, was a hell of an actress, singer and comedian. She was good and funny enough to perform with, well Jack Paar. But Johnny Carson, the Rat Pack with Frank Sinatra and many other great performers. 

Judy was adorable, she was very lively, very funny and loved doing her job. She was probably a singer first, but she was a good actress and she was very funny and could make people laugh and also had one of the best and cutest laughs you'll ever see. As you see in this video on Jack Paar. 

The whole thing about these studio executives who didn't see her as attractive, I don't get that at all. Was she Sophia Loren or Marilyn Monroe, or Lana Turner? Of course not, but most women and even entertainers are not. She was very cute, pretty, and very good at what she was. Which is one of the best and most versatile entertainers of all-time.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Rodney Dangerfield (1981)

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Mr. Everyday Man Rodney Dangerfield.

Source:The Daily Review

Every time I hear Rodney Dangerfield talk about his wife I think of the sitcom Married With Children and the marriage between Al and Peggy Bundy. They have two kids as well and that might be the only reason why they stayed married. To hear Al Bundy (played by Ed O'Neal) you would think you were listening to Hot Rod do his standup routine about his wife. But replace Mrs. Dangerfield with Peggy Bundy. They make so many cracks about their wives you would have to think they were drunk when they got married and had kids together. Otherwise why would a sane sober man marry and have kids with a women he doesn't like and isn't attracted to. Unless he's an idiot.

The 'I get no respect' routine is what made Rodney Dangerfield a star. And then add the wife bit and that makes the routine ever better. Because now Rod can say he doesn't even get respect from his wife. Again, how believable this is, you can decide for yourself. Maybe the only reason why Mrs. Dangerfield stayed with Rod is because she rather be with an overweight unattractive successful man, than a handsome well-built loser who can't even hold down a job as a burger flipper at a fast food joint. I mean how hard is it to flip burgers anyway. But perhaps you would have to ask Mrs. Dangerfield that yourself. And she also might show also show you how flip charcoal, I mean burgers as well. But you take away 'I get not respect', what does Hot Rod have going for him. But he played it as well and as long as anyone could.