Liberals Failed at Talk Radio But Succeed at TV Talk & Comedy

The founders of America were Classic Liberals, Conservatives, which is different then today's Modern or Social Liberals. The most cited European Classic Liberal is John Locke, book Two Treatises of Government published 1689. He established the right to have and own property and natural rights of life and liberty. Other classic liberals include Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, Hume, Kant, and Smith that introduced spontaneous order, without direction of the state. His key insight is that because of self-interest no exchange will take place without both parties gaining and society is generally better off.

 

Rousseau is a the father of Social Liberalism and included in the list of Classic Liberalism. Rousseau believed that man is naturally good, and flourishes when he is free. However, man is corrupted by society and held in chains by this corruption and by social constraints. How an inherently good man could be so easily and thoroughly corrupted was never explained. If man molds like soft clay by social engineers, how can he be naturally good? Contradiction for which neither Rousseau, nor his liberal heirs have explained.

 

Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are the political products of social liberalism. Democratic socialist try to balance contradictory world view, natural goodness of man and man's easy corruption by society. Democratic socialist look to government programs, leviathan size government, to break the chains that hold down man. However; the leviathan government foster special interest, corrupting society, creating new chains. Democratic socialism is chasing its own tail.

 

World War I and II, the great depression, and Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc. mass murders shocks liberals and their faith in the goodness of man. Is the reason liberal talk radio having to answer listeners that call up fail because if man is not good, shatters the beliefs that government driven society is progressing towards breaking the chain holding man back. They can not control talk radio as they do on TV talk and comedy shows.

 

Conservatism, Parliamentary Democracy, and Federalism are the political products of Classic liberalism. Far less contradiction of their world view exist. Self-interest driven free market and rule of law has created leviathan government foster special interest, corrupting society. But leviathan size government suppresses spontaneous order, without direction of the state.

Comments

Riley Brown Added Mar 12, 2018 - 10:56am
I have been annoyed at the more liberal among us who scream about the unfairness of conservative talk radio shows, while ignoring the bias in liberal TV shows. 
 
They have frequently tried to silence the conservative talk shows, or demand they provide equal time to liberals, but never conversely offer the same in their own liberal shows.
 
Both sides selectively omit what doesn't support their own missions, but from where I sit I think the Liberals omit much more than the conservatives. 
 
I find BBC news is often much more fair and accurate than our own TV new stations like CNN ABC and NBC.  I do some traveling to other countries and other countries people who watch CNN often tell me they become convinced it toast and as good as thrown out of office over things like the Russia Scandal.  I always suggest they listen more  to BBC because they have far less political bias.
 
CNN, ABC, and NBC are really Democratic news stations working to promote the Democratic agenda.  Fox was promoting the Republican agenda, and Trump isn't really a Republican so I don't know who promotes his agenda.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 12, 2018 - 12:07pm
Riley B., politically correct speech, Democratic news stations present opinion, blocking all but those speakers that support their views, taking down status, no religious symbols, etc.  all go back to the point of the article that with this world view: >>How an inherently good man could be so easily and thoroughly corrupted was never explained. If man molds like soft clay by social engineers, how can he be naturally good? Contradiction for which neither Rousseau, nor his liberal heirs have explained.>>  Can explain or defend the center of your world view then what is left is deny conversation to begin with, politically correct speech is born.
 
Fox do have major hosts that promote Trump: Hannity, Dobbs,  Ingraham, and Pirro.  I think only Wallace promotes the liberal wing of the GOP which is all the leadership.  The rest are piece meal for and against with the against said softer due to the owners.  
 
The GOP is not even close to conservative except when a conservative president is in office and the years Gingrich was speaker.  Why do you think Obama's programs were funded for 6 years when the house could have pulled the purse strings closed.  The winner for government shut downs goes slightly to the conservative GOP even with a significant media bias.  Control spending to slow up the exploding debt would have I think been supported by the voters.
 
Some think the GOP leadership is liberal.  I am not sure about that but I am sure that the GOP leadership  >> Self-interest driven free market and rule of law has created leviathan government foster special interest, corrupting society.>>  Why else would a GOP Congress put forth ObamaCare lite from both houses when they have been promising for 7 years to oppose national health care.  Simply put they are corrupt and choose money over their honor.
 
Even the strongest politician will fold under the relentless pressure of those in the beltway cartel punishing them for not joining in to feed at the trough of special interest, the swamp.  Leviathan size government continues to grow because the politicians and bureaucrats always want more and the special interest are willing to give more.   No incentive to return to an even playing field on their end, but the consumers and lower levels of government are paying the price.  They have an incentive to even the playing field.  
 
The same dynamics existed in the colonies and from experience they found that when they called for a convention to discuss and fix problems that they all shared, or at least shared core components, then the solutions that were acceptable to most and not totally rejected by all would be found.  It only took when the issue was brought up by Mason two days, at the end of the convention to incorporate a know working approach to the amendment drafting process.
Dave Volek Added Mar 12, 2018 - 12:19pm
It is interesting at how this media demographic formed. I wonder if there is any connection between cost of production (radio is much cheaper than television) and the political bias.
 
For some strange reason, my wife tunes into CNN. While I concur they have a liberal bias, they often put on an opposing talking head to give both sides of the story.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 12, 2018 - 12:36pm
Dave V.  TV talk shows choose their guest so they can pick and choose.  They occasionally get fooled and get questions put forward by the guest and host the embarrass liberals.   
 
Most talk radio shows take guest within a range of 90% to 20% of the time they are on the air.  Screening does skew the public guest but guest have lied to get through the screeners quit often if they screen to findly.   It would be impossible for a world view that contradicts reality to survive when the audience and even a small portion of that audience know and can present contradictions to the host.
 
Dave my wife and mother in law put on liberal TV talk shows so I have see lots of them.  They are very selective to put on moderate opposing view people.  They only want to suggest that they are not skewing the conversation.  They intend to skew it and succeed when you have 100% control of the panels content.
Dave Volek Added Mar 12, 2018 - 3:24pm
Thomas
 
Yep. The media doesn't want to be accused of being biased, so it puts out the "other side" from time to time. How representative of that talking head is of the other side is a little suspect.
 
But I would say contrary heads on CNN represented their ideology quite well and were not embarrassed by the moderator. But that would only be about 10 interviews a year, so I'm not a great anecdotal source.
 
I'm not quite understanding your second paragraph. We do have a few right-wing talk radio shows in Canada. Any liberal/progressive guest is heading for their own crucifixion on these shows, so most liberal/progressive thinkers refuse to go on these shows. So its conservative audience is reinforced that it has the truth because the lefties are too scared.
 
Talk radio is not a solution to bettering democracy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 12, 2018 - 4:02pm
I didn't read the whole exchange, but damn, of course talk radio is a solution to bettering democracy. Hello?!? People shall have a say, shall broadcast where neutral people can be swayed.
 
I think it speaks length that Germany does not have talk radio and that the number of radio channels are few and music-only to avoid people getting their voices heard. (The frequency range of the medium wave is no longer licensed. All broadcasting, TV and radio is controlled by the state)
Dave Volek Added Mar 12, 2018 - 4:37pm
Benjamin
 
I don't think talk radio is helping democracy directly because neutral people will not listen to it, let alone people who oppose the radio show host's ideology. Talk radio's ability to influence people in a different direction is very limited.
 
However, there are some indirect benefits. It does give a voice for certain demographic who believe they don't have a voice in the media. Radio is fairly cheap to get that voice out there.
 
However, there could be a price to be paid to let that voice go free. It's one thing to placate a demographic to have its right to free speech. It's another thing for the leaders of that demographic to use their voice to inflame its members to do some awful things. I can see why the German government might be reluctant to open up the radio channels. But it might be a mistake to let these feelings fester for too long. Time for the sciences of psychology and sociology to figure out the better path.
 
 
 
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 12, 2018 - 4:48pm
Time for psychologists and sociologists is UP (I'm quoting the highpriest -> Oprah). Get off our backs!
 
No this is silly. I WANT to hear the bloody jew-hating imams. I'm sick and tired of everything being covered up. I'm sick and tired of all the lies! TIRED of IT!
 
The last three days multiple Turkish mosques and culture centers have been set ablaze across Germany. Everybody could tell that the Kurds were litting them up. Yet, the media pretended until today that 'right-wing' extremists are behind it. Screw them! Today they had to admit that probably socialist Kurds, affiliates of the terror group PKK are behind it.
 
AND still this will be registered officially as right-wing extremism because the target were Muslims.
 
Wash and repeat: Yes, SOCIALISTS set fire  and the government officially registers it as right-wing extremism. ENOUGH!!!
Dave Volek Added Mar 12, 2018 - 5:11pm
The last three days multiple Turkish mosques and culture centers have been set ablaze across Germany. Everybody could tell that the Kurds were litting them up. Yet, the media pretended until today that 'right-wing' extremists are behind it.
 
Not good at all!
 
I don't have a good answer to this dilemma. Total free speech might have resulted in a different yet violent outcome. There's no easy solution. Mistake was to let so many immigrants at once; western society can only absorb a few at a time.
 
 
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 12, 2018 - 5:18pm
No, total free speech never leads to violence. But I tell you something: If the left does not change its attitude to free speech their will be more Breiviks and as peaceful as I am (actually I am) I might be supporting of it. LET UP!
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 12, 2018 - 5:29pm
The citizens protested the German government for letting in so many Muslims.  And that has happened across the EU.  Doesn't matter what the state says.  Reality is the people are less safe and they know it.  The state never can hid the truth. Talk radio is listened to when people realize something is wrong.  And fake talk radio will be quickly identified and rejected.  It rings hollow to even the dumbest people experiencing reality.
 
China and the USSR couldn't do it until they take lives.  I presented the British ambassador's diplomatic cable shedding new light on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.  According to the document, written on June 5, 1989 — just over 24 hours after the mass killing — the death toll was at least 10,000.  Quiet as a tomb since for another generation or two.  https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/27842-declassified-cable-death-toll-at-tiananmen-square-was-at-least-10-000?tmpl=component&print=1
 
Dave V.  no one can be neutral when a leviathan government foster special interest, corrupting society, and divides society into classes with barriers and different laws for each.  Tyranny is not neutral.  Consider apartheid, who was neutral?  Only tourist. 
 
Democratic Socialism requires that they take over the country through the ballot box like Hugo Chávez; 62nd President of Venezuela: 14 April 2002 - 5 March 2013.  Once a Democrat Socialist gets control of all the levers of government then the nation converts to Communist Socialism as his successor is now doing,  Nicolás Maduro.  That is what has happened since the late 1800s on every continent.  The drop in oil happened before the nation was totally converted over.  What is left is the end of a rifle barrel to achieve conversion.   
 
You see Dave V.  you and the vast majority of the people want to believe that man is naturally good, and he will flourishes when he is free from the chains of the present government. 
 
The problem is that these word come some from men that will say anything to get power. 
 
They will say what you Dave want to hear. 
 
They will promise the world and put on a mask the see to show that they will actually succeed. 
 
But power is a filter that removes those most likely to actually move toward breaking the chains. 
 
If  man were GOD then utopia of social liberalism could be achieve. 
 
But man is soft clay, weak and will alway serve in own interest at the expense of others. 
 
That is what classical liberalism conclusion is  Dave.  That is what the Smith's key insight into economics and the other philosophers insight int government tell Conservatives.  Not as pleasant a message but one that does ring true. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 12, 2018 - 5:47pm
Ben G.  The Chicoms tried to stop free speech and the only way they succeeded in 1989 Tiananmen Square was to pulverise 10,000 human bodies into mush, burn the mush in piles and wash the blood down the storm drains.   The truth always ring loud and clear and is only silence by death.     
 
Ben G.  you see all the welfare and other goodies given out doesn't hide the  reality.  The people that caused  World War I and II, the great depression, and Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc. mass murders shocks liberals and their faith in the goodness of man.  All came to power by presenting a mask of breaking the chains of the common man that bound them to the present tyrants.  The grass is not greener no matter what Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Castro Chavez, etc. say the chains are actually thicker and heavier. 
 
The British have the Magna Carta, Charter of the forest,  Henry Campbell Black's law principles, and others including Locke, and Smith.  America put it all together in the Declaration of Independence.   Both boil down to Life, liberty, and right to accumulate property, and a uniform moral based rule of law, Law of Nature, common law.   Obtain that an you have obtained the means of having the goodies.  And people will be generous enough to provide for those less fortunate.   The chains will be as light as they can ever be.          
ChristianRepublic Added Mar 12, 2018 - 6:55pm
Excellent, man.
 
 
 
ChristianRepublic Added Mar 12, 2018 - 7:45pm
I haven't read all the comments so pardon me if this is a duplicate, but talk radio is dominated by Conservatives because it is unfiltered and immediate. TV and movies are under strict control by their nature, whereas radio exposes Leftists to withering criticism.
 
I was JBS pointman in a major city, and before the repeal of the marvelously misnamed Fairness Doctrine, we owned talk radio in that town. Two major all-talk radio stations. We had very limited access to TV (but I managed to meet Oprah twice in studio).
 
The hosts were mostly committed Leftists, with a few +-conservatives, so we would stage ambushes with several of us calling one show, very well prepared to confront the host and his guest, if he had one, on the topic at hand. It was glorious. It was live. It was truth. The Leftists wilted every time.
 
The JBS has a speakers bureau that sent speakers around every quarter or so, and we would get ech one on as many radio shows as possible: Gen. John Singlaub, Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov), etc. Our church also had a radio talk show and sponsored appearances by conservative notables, Everett Sileven, Dr. Paul Cameron, and more. The funny thing is that when our conservative speaker took a call from a Leftist he destroyed him, and when we called in to Leftists, we destroyed them. It's live, it's immediate, and truth will out.
 
This is not an ad for the JBS, it's just to say that you not only have access to radio, even if you're just calling in, but you can use radio in a coordinated fashion, and the nature of the medium almost guarantees victory for informed, passionate  Conservatives.
Dave Volek Added Mar 12, 2018 - 7:54pm
Thomas and Benjamin
 
From the tone of your responses, I'm getting that you two would enjoy shutting down the free speech of the political left. The world would be a better place without their propaganda, right? 
 
Maybe American media was filtered during the Tienanmen Square riots, but we Canadians got quite a bit of news of the massacre. CBC had lengthy reports in the days before and after the event. I recall reports that there were almost several army divisions squaring off against each other--almost getting ready for a civil war. Later it was revealed that some factions of the Politburo were supporting the protesters. Toronto Globe journalist Jan Wong had a front row seat to the killings. There is no doubt that thousands of people were killed. I don't see any political left from the west trying to suppress this news--and its eventual history.
 
You see Dave V.  you and the vast majority of the people want to believe that man is naturally good, and he will flourishes when he is free from the chains of the present government. 
 
This only works for those citizens who benefit from the wealth of society. By and large, the common people of the west--prior to 1940, lived a very subsistence life. They held crappy jobs that barely paid the rent and food for their family. There was little luxury in their lives. Many died before they reached the age of retirement. Life was not good. You might be able to convince the people that because they are "free," they should be happy with their life situation. But it's hard to keep up morale when there's very little hope for bettering one's life or their children's life. So Thomas, when you offer the above statement, I assume that you are only speaking for the upper class.
 
They will say what you Dave want to hear. 
 
They will promise the world and put on a mask the see to show that they will actually succeed. 
 
I would say this is a good reason to consider to Tiered Democratic Governance. Both the political left and right lie to the people to become elected. It's time to end all this lying to gain power.
 
 
But power is a filter that removes those most likely to actually move toward breaking the chains. 
 
I grew up in a "working poor" family. I got my education because the government paid for it. My father, who didn't really value education, would not have found the money to put me through school. It was Canadian socialism of the 1960s that broke the chains for me. The free market would have put me as a farm worker or child coal miner.  
 
So Thomas, please sell all this libertarian freedom stuff to the son of the working poor.
 
And people will be generous enough to provide for those less fortunate. 
 
With the recent tax cuts to the rich, we will soon see how generous wealthy America really is. I estimate that maybe 10% of the tax cuts will find their way into the coffers of various charities--even after the spin-off effects make their way through the economic cycle.
 
-------------
 
And just to be sure, I'm no fan of Chavez and Maduro. But they are a product of a social economic system before their time. Venezuela was a great country if you were rich. But it was terrible for the poor.
 
The poor, rightly or wrongly, chose another path.
 
I think Venezuela should adopt Tiered Democratic Governance as well.
 
-------------------
 
As for free speech, there is a danger when it is suppressed. And there is a danger when it is allowed. Maybe offended parties need to enforce more defamation laws to better ensure that free speech is also truthful speech. 
 
I don't have an easy answer to this dilemma. If we have to resolve it through an ideology, I would say total free speech is better than very controlled free speech.
 
Doug Plumb Added Mar 12, 2018 - 8:10pm
re "Conservatism, Parliamentary Democracy, and Federalism are the political products of Classic liberalism."
 
That's the Greeks and Romans. They had everything figured out but often not well articulated or expressed in minimal terms. Then Kant came along.
John Locke and the rest were readers, nothing more. They understood Latin and Greek and must have read the Romans. Locks blank slate idea was wrong. Rousseau is descriptive, so was Machiavelli
 
re "Far less contradiction of their world view exist. Self-interest driven free market and rule of law has created leviathan government foster special interest, corrupting society."
 
They hid the science of jurisprudence and political science from us, making us think that these aren't sciences at all and that if you were well informed, your opinions would be better than someone else's. But it really is as scientific as chemistry or physics. If we all learned the law "they" would be running for the hills.
Doctrines carefully hide the reality of law and money, giving us the possibilities of vast corruption - a perfectly watered garden with pure sunlight every day from which all kinds of seeds of corruption would naturally grow.
  I agree that the commies tend to be TV watchers and conservatives tend to be listeners. Neither are readers for the most part and reading is much better - the only way to understand things.
  I'm sure that you will agree that Aristotle and Plato are indispensible.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 12, 2018 - 8:11pm
Benjamine re "No, total free speech never leads to violence. "
 
You and I totally agree on so much...Free speech is how you fix everything.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 12, 2018 - 10:10pm
Dave:
From the tone of your responses, I'm getting that you two would enjoy shutting down the free speech of the political left.
 
This is by far the most stupid thing you've ever written and you know it.
Jeff Jackson Added Mar 12, 2018 - 10:33pm
Nice article Thomas. Yes, I read, and still have the texts with Locke, Rousseau, and those fellows. They were a huge influence on the founders of the U.S. While everyone has a bias of some kind, the liberals have tried to silence Rush Limbaugh time and again, they just can't stand the perspective that he brings. The same for the president, who, if they could, they would impeach, because he doesn't take their agenda. It seems, from my experience, that the left wants to silence those who disagree, much like the Chicoms and Putin. Yet, we have people in the U.S. praising the Chicoms and Putin, who have been, in my opinion, indoctrinated to the point that they will not listen to anything that disagrees with them.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 12, 2018 - 11:40pm
ChristianRepublic, not surprised that JBS took on the liberals. JBS is the generations that took on the Natzis', Japan, and Chicoms. When your life is on the line then using words in comparison is a piece of cake.
 
Dave V., actually the goal of politically correct speech is to shut down free speech, your confused. Talk radio promotes the oppose. Without free speech it would not exist.
 
From your response it seem that you understand Liberalism quite well. That is because you are a liberal >> You see Dave V. you and the vast majority of the people want to believe that man is naturally good, and he will flourishes when he is free from the chains of the present government. >> You have to be talking about Canada in the 1940's. 
 
America had to limit immigration because the demand was beyond the capacity of the nation to absorb them. By that I mean learn about America and become citizens. My grand parents came in this wave and your description doesn't match the one I have.  They voted with their feet to come to America.  My wife's ancestors had funeral parties for those that were going to America because all the ties to them would be broken.  Since most could not right little communication would occur. 
 
My daughter got her phd in history on the subject of farm labor during this period. They choose to be migrant farm hand in America rather then stay in their native nation.  So live was not as bad as you try to imply. They were used by American farmers but obviously since they voted with their feet to come to America rather then stay at home. Migrant farming was a better life. Education of the children was not ignored and our hospitals treated them. Obviously moving around make both difficult.
 
I was not trying to sell libertarian since I am not a libertarian. I am pointing out that liberalism world view is unattainable and they use the approach of the Wizard of Oz approach to be anointed the master mind, Smoke and mirrors.
 
Dave have you washed the wax out of your ears, companies have given bonases and other thing to employees. The key is to increase the percentage of people working which is happening, that Dave has always resulted in increasing the income of workers. So Dave V. the tax cut is working.
 
So Dave V. is Venezuela people better off before Chavez or today under Maduro? I do not think there is much of an argument. Now that doesn't mean before was great but Democratic Socialism turning into Communism is worse.
 
Dave V. so the corrupt government officials shall be the judge. >>> Maybe offended parties need to enforce more defamation laws to better ensure that free speech is also truthful speech. >> The best way to get free speech is to allow for rebuttle. That is exactly what talk radio lets happen and it is exactly what TV talk shows surpress by selectively choosing guests. 
 
Doug P. the founders read the classics so know about the Greece democracies and Plato's Republic. They and the Romans taught them that a pure Democracy and a Republic without limits on power will turn into tyranny over time. I agree >> Free speech is how you fix everything.>>
 
Jaff J. yes liberals want to silence opposition.
 
William Stockton Added Mar 13, 2018 - 12:36am
Thomas,  The reasons for conservatives dominating radio is as follows:
 
1) Talk radio is an intellectual corner of media.  The cult-left is the tyranny of the weak and stupid.  Intellectualism had long been abandoned for low IQ voting, low IQ talking points like skin-color, sexism, racism, lowering the arguments to the lowest common denominator (stupidity).
 
2) Media, in TV and movies, is dominated by an Elite-left society.  They have mastered the art of presentation with flashing lights, crying empaths, emotion milking, beautiful people.  But this is dying . . . too slowly, however.
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 13, 2018 - 5:00am
good article Tom. thanks
Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 5:04am
But really the USA and its system of laws is more Christian than anything.
 
re "They and the Romans taught them that a pure Democracy and a Republic without limits on power will turn into tyranny over time."
 
  The Roman system is alive and well today, despite whatever caused the collapse of the Roman empire. The Justinians wrote our laws in 500 AD. I would bet the Roman empire collapsed due to complexity alone, but I'm no historian. Maybe it was the lead in the pipes. Our system is our laws and they are Roman.
  Aristotle says the system always decays into tyranny over time and that as we move down from philosopher king, through monarchy and Republic to democracy, the system becomes less stable as we move in this direction until despotism, one stage after democracy. Aristotle wrote that when Greece was the power, not Rome.
  All Kant really ever did was clarify Christ in the end.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 5:06am
re "The cult-left is the tyranny of the weak and stupid.  Intellectualism had long been abandoned for low IQ voting, low IQ talking points like skin-color, sexism, racism, lowering the arguments to the lowest common denominator (stupidity)."
 
Agreed - anything to create conflict. Anything to divide and conquer. An ex KGB operative that defected in 1983 explains it on Youtube in a three hour lecture.
 
Dave Volek Added Mar 13, 2018 - 7:11am
Thomas
 
Both the politically left and politically right use political correctness to silence their opponents. Both sides believe that their stance is so righteous that intimidation techniques are justified. And when an opponent can be intimidated into not speaking any more, that becomes a sign of victory: the opponent was unable to defend himself.  Shouting opponents  off the stage is not a sign of a superior stance.
 
A few companies making announcements of using their tax cuts socially responsibly is not a trend. We should be able to get a result in a couple of years. My hypothesis is that 10% of the tax cuts will find their way into charities. Rich Americans are not that generous.
 
I'll give you a point for Venezuela. The poor Venezuelans of today are probably worse off than they were 25 years ago. But how did Venezuelans get to today's state? Please explain to your average Venezuelan of 1990 that their life was good even though they could not afford to send their children to school or to get treatment at a hospital. When many citizens are living in a state of destitution, that is a recipe for populist leaders like Chavez to flourish. Chavez did not come out of thin air with fast talk and lofty promises. 
 
In a like manner, USA is going through a similar process. Many Americans feel there is not much opportunity to advance any more. Many of these have parked their faith in Mr. Trump--and I don't think he is going to deliver for them. The next populist leader is likely to come from the left. 
 
If you don't want this populist leader, please tell us how you can convince these Americans that they living a good life right now. Pretend you are a politician!
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 13, 2018 - 8:26am
Thank you William Stockton, Burghal Hidage, and Doug Plumb. Doug, Rome stated out as a republic and ended with military dictatorship. It created the welfare state and found out that to keep the mob happen welfare has to increase because the mob comes to believe it is a RIGHT. (maybe you can explain the last paragraph.) They also had open borders. Is that complex? Yes America is on the same path.
 
Dave V. your saying that talk radio doesn't exist. >> Both the politically left and politically right use political correctness to silence their opponents. >> 
 
Yes time will tell the effect of the tax cut, however; history suggest that the increase in people employed and growth in GDP come hand in hand with tax cuts.
 
Castro, Chavez and many others have promise the vision of the Liberal world view and all have turned into totalitarian states with death the means of silencing their opponents. You can make all kinds of excuses for why they made that choice.
 
The belief that money grows on trees makes about as much sense as >> that man is naturally good, and flourishes when he is free. However, man is corrupted by society and held in chains by this corruption and by social constraints. How an inherently good man could be so easily and thoroughly corrupted was never explained. If man molds like soft clay by social engineers, how can he be naturally good? Contradiction for which neither Rousseau, nor his liberal heirs have explained.>> As a liberal maybe you can explain why people believe that they do not have to work and wealth can be taken from others just because they have more?
 
TexasLynn Added Mar 13, 2018 - 10:00am
Thomas, really good article... sorry I'm coming in late to the thread.
 
The reason liberal talk radio fails is simply free market forces... specifically market saturation.  The left owns well over 90% of everything we hear, see, or read.  Conservative thought adopted AM radio as a little corner of reason in the wilderness.  When the left saw this they immediately wanted to corrupt it, and make it theirs as well.  BUT the problem they run in to is that 90% market saturation.  If (practically) every newspaper, magazine, TV station, Cable News, local news, etc... is already pushing a product why buy the same thing from a new source?  They are trying to sell ice to Eskimos who have already bought a tanker load of ice.
 
To put this in better perspective, Rush Limbaugh (early in his radio career) responded to liberal calls for "equal time" on radio by explaining.  "I don't need to give the left equal time... I Am equal time."
 
I will respectfully disagree with one assertion in your article; "mass murders shocks liberals and their faith in the goodness of man".  This is not true because the left psychologically disassociates all these things from their cause. 
 
To them, Hitler wasn't a socialist.  To them, Stalin and Mao were not communists.  They are right... to a point; but they fail to see that tyranny and death of millions IS often the result of social liberalism (socialism and communism).  Tyranny and death are like a virus buried deep into the social liberal system waiting for their chance to emerge and become dominate.
 
I will finally add that Classic Liberalism does not see man as good or evil... but as flawed.  Thus, his base nature must be checked and balanced for freedom and prosperity to flourish.
 
Again… good article… thanks
Dave Volek Added Mar 13, 2018 - 11:15am
Thomas
 
Please explain to someone in a dead-end job, barely paying the bills to keep his house together, with little chance of advancement for him and his family, why his nation works so well for him.
 
If our system of governance doesn't address the needs of that demographic somehow, eventually that festering sore is going to pop open.
 
 
 
 
Stone-Eater Added Mar 13, 2018 - 11:33am
Thomas
 
Maybe you haven't noticed: We have stopped to use the terms Liberals or Conservatives here in Europe because we know that the only criteria is the ones who are ruthless to get money and the others are more genuine.
 
-isms are a method to canalize and divide people and keep them from seeing the fact that basic desires are not bound to ideologies.
 
In that sense I'm a liberal conservative with lilbertarian sympathies living a progressive life, my favorite writers are Chomsky and Marx and I love Monty Python movies while praying to the sun LOL
Mike Haluska Added Mar 13, 2018 - 11:44am
The reason for the disparity is simple:
 
Conservatives are out WORKING during the day and can't watch TV.  When they are home and can watch they overwhelmingly tune out the network programming and tune in Fox News or One America.
 
Liberals are intellectually lazy by nature and flock to such TV fare as Oprah, Jerry Springer, The View, network fake news, etc.  
Bill H. Added Mar 13, 2018 - 11:58am
It's been a while since your last Hate Rant Drive-by, Mike!
You forgot to include Brietbart and InfoWars, Ohh!, and now the National Enquirer.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 12:27pm
re "Both the politically left and politically right use political correctness to silence their opponents."
 
Other than with the JQ, when has a rightie used PC as a weapon? Or were you referring to the JQ? (Jewish Question)
 
@Thomas re last sentence, I'm assuming you mean this:
 
"All Kant really ever did was clarify Christ in the end."
Do you not agree ?
  Kant was a master Christian Scholar and scholar of law. No law book that I've seen in the past year (about 6 front to back) hasn't quoted him and discussed him. His philosophy while academic is also very spiritual toward the Christian side of things: "Christianity is the best map of human consciousness". To paint him as an atheist is to misunderstand him or to misguide.
  He did clarify belief vs fate. But when you read the stuff he says about science, I wonder what he would think of science today. I suppose that he would think that people do not understand the limitations of science, as he did back then. He said "Darwin has promise", not that he was a Darwinian or had critically considered Darwin's ideas.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 12:36pm
re "Please explain to someone in a dead-end job, barely paying the bills to keep his house together, with little chance of advancement for him and his family, why his nation works so well for him."
 
He lives in a land, especially in Canada, that has the common law. He does not know about this so thinks the whole system works against him but does not realize that freedom brings enemies and that to have rights, he must know them (maxim of law). He has the worlds library and nearly all theaters at his fingertips. He will not go hungry, get thirsty, or be cold.
He is free to travel. He is free to learn about his rights and the courts are available for him to excercise those rights. I think "never before in history" is a good way to express it.
There is no way that the West could be over run with monkeys if its population bothered to learn about law.
Dave, In airplane terms, you want to shoot down a supersonic jet with built in built in hot tubs and replace it with something Leonardo De Vince would have built.
This "West is bad and needs to be torn down" is leftist propaganda 100%. If I HAD to restrict speech in one way and could not do otherwise, I would restrict a statement like this and make it the equal of what anti semitism is today.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 12:39pm
re "Liberals are intellectually lazy by nature and flock to such TV fare as Oprah, Jerry Springer, The View, network fake news, etc."
 
For the aggregate, Mike is right about this. I haven't met a die hard Liberal in person that has ever read a serious book on political science, except on the web. You'll meet lots on the web, some, although misguided, do read.
You can listen to conservative radio while you work.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 12:44pm
@Thomas re " the founders read the classics so know about the Greece democracies and Plato's Republic. They and the Romans taught them that a pure Democracy and a Republic without limits on power will turn into tyranny over time."
 
That is inevitable, but there is no better system. It falls apart when the people don't maintain it. Any system would. To have a garden you have to pick the weeds. People don't garden, as Aristotle would put it. They are busy with cake and circus.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 13, 2018 - 1:07pm
Bill H -
Nice try at dodging, but what did I write that isn't true???
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 13, 2018 - 1:11pm
Doug:
Aristotle says the system always decays into tyranny over time and that as we move down from philosopher king, through monarchy and Republic to democracy, the system becomes less stable as we move in this direction until despotism, one stage after democracy.
You actually confuse Aristotle with Polybius. Here is the full explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis
 
Dave V:
Both the politically left and politically right use political correctness to silence their opponents.
Please, stop the all sides do it gas-lighting! Yes, Joy Behar was mobbed because she said something which was misconstrued as anti-Christian (She is actually a religious Catholic). But for any such case you find at least 10 cases when the left bullies around on a weepy PC basis. But believe me whenever conservatives do it, I hate it with passion. There is a recent case of whining about Denis Yücel because he wrote an article ages ago praising the Decline of Germany (It was a JOKE).
Dave Volek Added Mar 13, 2018 - 1:24pm
Doug
"Both the politically left and politically right use political correctness to silence their opponents."
 
While things can be a little testy on WB, I'm not sensing a lot of PC here. However, I have been in pubic meetings and social situations where my perspective were not wanted and I was silenced by social pressure to keep silent. Both the right and left are pretty good at this.
 
He lives in a land, especially in Canada, that has the common law. He does not know about this so thinks the whole system works against him but does not realize that freedom brings enemies and that to have rights, he must know them (maxim of law).
 
Unfortunately many people in the poor or working poor economic class have very little concept of this philosophy and history. Their reality is "I don't have a good paying job". In the past, we have bought them off with more prosperity--and the economy could afford to give them some prosperity.
 
While they still have considerable freedom, they are not seeing it. And even with that freedom, there is not a lot of upward mobility. Some is imagined, but some is real.
 
So my question here is: how we deal with this demographic in a way that they will positively respond to?
 
 
--------------
 
Your airplane analogy is interesting. I prefer to turn around such that we are currently driving a car from the 1930s. It is breaking down and hard to keep on the road. It is time to buy a new car.
-----
 
Mike
 
You are the first to have a reasonable explanation of why talk radio and TV networks evolved into their biases.
 
I would add that many conservative thinkers have the ability to have a radio on while working. They can tune in while driving  a truck or working in their shop. The more liberal occupations don't have this freedom. 
 
 
 
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 13, 2018 - 1:38pm
Bill's still smarting from being unseated as the most interesting man in the world. 
 
My sympathies Bill H -  that new guy they picked just doesn't carry it off
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 13, 2018 - 1:39pm
Television is a passive medium - perfect for incurious minds
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 13, 2018 - 1:39pm
personally I preferred the radio when they played music
Bill H. Added Mar 13, 2018 - 2:04pm
Mike - Does your entire existence revolve around "Liberals" versus "Conservatives"?
What a bubble to live in! I suspect you are one of those who would never have a true friend who you might consider as a "Liberal". Do you make sure that everyone your wife (if you are married) invites over for a party or dinner is a "Conservative" first? Is your TV box's home channel Fox News? Is it set to skip CNN and MSNBC during tuning?
Ohh, and do you cringe when you pull up next to a Prius at a stoplight? Do you constantly email your friends "facts and links" from ERW sites? If your neighbor installs solar panels, will you cease talking to him?
Just in case you need some additional fodder, Check out this list to make sure you are covering all bases, my friend!
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 13, 2018 - 2:09pm
I would add that many conservative thinkers have the ability to have a radio on while working. They can tune in while driving  a truck or working in their shop. The more liberal occupations don't have this freedom. 
 
Wow! elitist much? 
 
One supposes that liberals must be engaged in activities which require total attention to what they are doing. I guess that makes sense. Lying does require a certain degree of attention to detail in order to remain credible.
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 13, 2018 - 2:12pm
what other liberal occupations are there, I wonder?
 
Washington Post/NYT columnist, film producer, university professor (now there is a strenuous one!) .....I know there is more. Are they listed like that on job boards? NCNA ( no conservatives need apply)
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 13, 2018 - 2:15pm
Dave V. in answer to your question >>Please explain to someone in a dead-end job, barely paying the bills to keep his house together, with little chance of advancement for him and his family, why his nation works so well for him.
 
If our system of governance doesn't address the needs of that demographic somehow, eventually that festering sore is going to pop open.
 >> Government is responsible for protecting the nation and enforcing common laws.  You liberals have chosen to give government the responsibility of spoon feeding and wiping  posteriors.  Declaration state >>unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. >> Parliamentary government has I am sure a similar directive.  
 
What I do know is that a thriving economy will give that person the best opportunity to better himself than an economy burdened with paying for social programs that are not part of the responsibility of government.  So if that person is pursuing happiness then he will take responsibility to leave the dead-end job and take a better job.  He will have to do things to get ready.  But a thriving economy will provide the opportunity, and a malaise economy that FDR, Carter, and Obama had during their terms will not.   You just do not like the free enterprise approach to addressing the needs.
 
Stone Eater,  Europe has a problem with conservative because what is Europe 'conserving?'   In America it is the a government based on the Declaration of Independence.  Righting the Constitution is preferred, to continue with the Declaration >> Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.>>
TexasLynn Added Mar 13, 2018 - 2:35pm
Dave >> The more liberal occupations don't have this freedom.
 
Can you explain to me why this is the case?  What liberal occupations prevent listening to the radio?  It's certainly not office jobs.  As an IT guy everybody and his dog in the office have some kind of streaming radio.  And this is not new technology... it's been around for a long time.
 
Dave >> Please explain to someone in a dead-end job, barely paying the bills to keep his house together, with little chance of advancement for him and his family, why his nation works so well for him.
 
I think the more appropriate question to broach with such individuals is "why is it (your nation and its system) NOT working out so well for you.
 
Everybody likes to think that they simply didn't win the lottery of life.  Something, anything, happened to put them where they are OTHER THAN something they did or chose.  Rarely is that ever the case.
 
Early pregnancy, drop out of school, work ethic, substance abuse, embraced victimhood, pissed at the world, abusive relationships... (the list goes on)?
 
Identify those issues and especially identify if they still exist... then identify steps to rectify or remove them.  I don't think any amount or form of help will succeed until the actual problem is identified.
 
As for the systems Bill mentioned...
 
Social Liberalism seeks equal outcome (usually in shared misery) for the non-ruling class.
 
Classic Liberalism seeks equal opportunity for all and only seeks to correct imbalance in that.  Levels of injustice often exists in such a system… but imbalance in outcome is not one of them.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 13, 2018 - 2:48pm
Doug P.  I can see why I know nothing about Kant.  Looked him up, so I am picking and choosing.  Wikipedia as a long article and read pieces. He said, "The presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was then a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams... ."ref  Critique of Pure Reason, A811 (1781, Riga; second edition 1787)  by Immanuel Kant   He attaches Morals with reason where the Declaration defines it as the law of nature, above reason or reason tested over decades since man had to express it.  I do not see Kant fitting into protestant theology.  
 
Doug P. and Benjamin G., the founders came up with Federalism and Checks and balances and enumerated limited power which were not present in Rome or Greece.  Representatives in the house addressed the public forum democracy of Athens.  We get to choose them only at select times, every 2 years.  The Senators chosen by state government was the check on forming factions.  Obviously slavery was a faction that existed already.  But rivalry was anticipated to keep down factions.   Division of power and limited power was unique.   Without limited and enumerated power tyranny I agree will alway develop. 
 
That is the problem with the executive branch which employed the 'efficient' business organizational approach used by the Robber Barons of department made up of experts that handled the creation of laws, the enforcement of those laws, and the adjudication of them also. 
 
Not exactly division of power, limited power, and responsible to the voters and state legislatures.   When Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive all choose to ignore the law as written in the Constitution you can not blame the founders or the citizens because they also are being ignored. 
 
 
Dave Volek Added Mar 13, 2018 - 3:01pm
Lyn
 
I guess my experience is different. There weren't too many radio listeners in my forays of downtown Calgary. I can't see teachers or nurses having a radio in their workplace. Non-profits? My experience these managers are also pretty busy to have some extra noise in the background. 
 
I used to do a lot of driving. I enjoyed the radio listening. Farmers too. 
 
There is a lot of truth to it to your comments. But often people make bad choices because their reality is dysfunctional. If a teenage girl gets pregnant, often there is less than a nurturing home environment. Same for substance abuse. And of course, we have pop culture inflicting its values on youth.
 
If people are not ready to take responsibility for their lives, throwing money at them won't help much. But sometimes giving a hand up can help a few people a lot.
 
If I were have an ideology, I would say that there are times governments should let people make their own decisions. And there are times we need to take collective action, but through proper democratic processes. I believe the TDG will strike a better balance than our current system(s).
 
 
 
 
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 13, 2018 - 3:02pm
Tom,
Kant was a huge influence in the development of our legal understanding. I would also think that Doug is right that he might have had a religious influence.
 
Rome did have checks and balances. The Roman institutions were clearly defined and were restricted in their powers (equivalent to what you call enumerate powers). Before the military coup of Julius Cesar the Republic of Rome was actually quite impressive.
TexasLynn Added Mar 13, 2018 - 3:22pm
Dave,
>> If people are not ready to take responsibility for their lives, throwing money at them won't help much.
 
On this we agree.
 
>> But sometimes giving a hand up can help a few people a lot.
 
Absolutely... but I'm not much on the government fulfilling that role; mostly because they are at best inefficient at it and at worst (the actual reality) incompetent at it.  In regard to the subject, I want government to concentrate on maintaining a level playing field and let loose those who are good at giving a hand up... philanthropic and religious groups.
 
>> But often people make bad choices because their reality is dysfunctional.
 
Granted there are outside factors; horribly families, horrible friends, accidents...  But most of what we have here is a sick society with sick values.  Do I want government performing social engineering to try and fix what it doesn't like?  I don't think so... I don't trust them.  Much of the current social sickness is enabled and encouraged by government policy... not despite it.
 
By the nature of mankind, there will always be degrees of unfairness and sickness in society.  That law is as natural as gravity.
 
>> And there are times we need to take collective action...
 
I agree, but government doesn't always have to be the driver of said action.  In fact, it would be best if it were not.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 13, 2018 - 5:05pm
Dave V. the problem of government taking action is that they always do it in a huge way.  So the failures are also huge.  They think they can determine problems and fix them before the program starts or shortly after it starts.    There is no history of man that shows a government actually fixing any program before it causes great harm.
 
The reason is part of human nature that Adam Smith pointed out.  "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." ... "an individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private interest, "which was no part of his intention."" 
 
Dave V this is the best scenario of a politician or beaurocrat actually wanting to serve the public interest.  But government is making a broad decision that doesn't fit those effected and it can only choose a limited number of private interest that actually do or provide services to accomplish the goal. 
 
The reason the free market is efficient is that individual providers and customers try out hundreds of solutions for the one government implements.   Even if the government option is in the upper ten percent, the best ideas, then it is only one of many.  Still a very low likelihood of being one of the few best.   Spontaneous order lets those that provide and use the solution in effect screen out all but the best.  And it happens with relatively few people being effected adversely.  The message goes out quickly to not try the worst ideas.   And the Best can be different for groups that have different needs and the primary need trying to be solved. 
 
Welfare through private organization occurred around the nation before the 1890 and the state starting to take over welfare.  The most  The best welfare programs for niche areas are state funded private approaches.  Instead of one state run approach the state can easily manage funding dozens of village private programs.  They can drop or demand changes and they will occur quickly or the state will drop that private program. 
 
The state can not end or alter the huge programs it runs.  And the bureaucracy resistance prevents even failed programs from ending.  So problems exist for years and even decades.   It took twenty years to end government funded housing discrimination against blacks. and only the civil right marches caused the change, force upon government.
 
I have cited this article and put in text from it before but it is the clearest explanation why government can not actually help your person in distress.
https://wichitaliberty,org/economics/friedman-the-fallacy-of-the-welfare-state/
   
Dave Volek Added Mar 13, 2018 - 5:31pm
Thomas
 
I think you and I have been down this path before, so it would be pointless to comment on much of your post. But you have a rather profound comment:
 
And the bureaucracy resistance prevents even failed programs from ending. 
 
I've been on the periphery of social programs for about 20 years in Alberta. One thing I can say for sure is that they are always changing their nature. Old services are getting axed; new services are being introduced. I sometimes understand the changes, but sometimes I wonder. But that does not matter, I'm not in charge of making those decisions.
 
If changes to social programs are often being made in Alberta and other provinces, there must be some legislation behind those changes. Either the original legislation allows the minister to make some discretionary changes or an amendment actually goes through the legislature. 
 
If we Canadians can make changes to our legislation when it is found to be lacking and you Americans cannot, then that is saying something of governments.
 
BTW, government departments are constantly be shuffled. When workers are displaced from the old department, the better ones can find employment in other departments. The ineffective workers, who can't be easily fired, are just given a severance package.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 13, 2018 - 5:54pm
Dave V. they your lucky because FDR started programs are going strong in America.  Aid To Dependent Children,  alternate name should be the destroyer of two parent families or creator of welfare queens.  
Dave Volek Added Mar 13, 2018 - 6:50pm
Thomas: We started similar programs in Canada at the same time. Prime Minister Bennet lost the election on the platform that the free market will cure the Depression. Mackenze King took over and instituted many New Deal type civic projects. No Hoover dam, though.
 
Dave Volek Added Mar 13, 2018 - 7:02pm
Lynn
 
I'm not seeing how 50 or so philanthropic agencies can be more efficient and meaningful in delivering social assistance than one or two centralized agencies run by the government. 
 
But you can prove me wrong.
 
Americans have been given a massive tax cut. If they take 50% of those savings and donate them to their favorite philanthropic agencies (maybe create new agencies), let those agencies figure out who is in need and deliver the services. If the "private" philanthropy does a good job, various governments can walk away from providing social assistance.
 
I was in Trnava, Slovakia in 1993. A massive building was being returned back to the Catholic Church in its restitution process. I asked my friend: "What did the Catholics do with that building before the communists confiscated it?"
 
He said that it was the local hospital for the sick, elderly and mentally ill. It was the school to teach the children. It was the hostel for travellers. And if someone was a little short of cash, the Catholic Church also owned some farmland and small factories where an itinerant worker could get a day's wages. In essence, the Catholic Church was the social agency in Trnava.
 
You guys have the tax cut to fund a similar project. Show the world that you can do better than government. More action, less theories!
 
 
Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 7:04pm
Thomas Re "He attaches Morals with reason where the Declaration defines it as the law of nature, above reason or reason tested over decades since man had to express it. I do not see Kant fitting into protestant theology"
Kant was in fact a protestant. Back then, by nature they meant "mans nature" and under God.
Benjamine Re "Aristotle says the system always decays into tyranny over time and that as we move down from philosopher king, through monarchy and Republic to democracy, the system becomes less stable as we move in this direction until despotism, one stage after democracy.
You actually confuse Aristotle with Polybius. Here is the full explanation:"
Its in Aristotle's The Politic. The 600 page book is written to describe the process of political evolution from Monarchy to Despotism.
Benjamine re" I would also think that Doug is right that he might have had a religious influence."
I have had agnostic influence growing up and I come to religion only through the path of reason. I haven't been in a church ten times in my adult life.

Doug Plumb Added Mar 13, 2018 - 7:16pm
All of Kant's subsequent writings to the first Critique were written to clarify the first Critique, and they do that very well as Kant learns to better explain his ideas.
Mark Hunter Added Mar 14, 2018 - 3:52am
I remember awhile back when the left tried to shut down talk radio. I don't remember the right ever trying to shut down the entire entertainment and mainstream media industry with its heavy left leaning, but I'm sure some of them would like to.
TexasLynn Added Mar 14, 2018 - 1:41pm
Dave,
I don't see the agencies in the government doing such a bang up job.  Waste, fraud, incompetence...
 
>> If the "private" philanthropy does a good job, various governments can walk away from providing social assistance.
 
Ok... :)... you realize government never walks away from anything it gets it's hands on.
 
>> You guys have the tax cut to fund a similar project. Show the world that you can do better than government. More action, less theories!
 
Charity is a personal thing.  One does not ring a bell with one hand as you give with another.
 
It doesn't matter how good we do... because with the government agencies it's not about doing good.  It's about control, power, and money.
Dave Volek Added Mar 14, 2018 - 3:04pm
Lyn
 
When I wrote the first version of my book in 2000, a wise commenter said: "How do we go from here to there". The second version had a transition process, which has been enhanced in third and fourth version.
 
I personally don't think welfare in the USA is as bad as you say it. After all, there are still millions of Americans working at minimum wage jobs.
 
But if you want to change things from government-run programs to philanthropic programs, how do we go from here to there?
 
If we cut off social assistance, I then ask:
1) what about the people who starve to death
2) what about the people who couldn't afford health care to cure some minor ailment?
3) what about the people who turn to petty crime to make their living?
4) what about the people who turn to the streets to violently protest?
 
We need a plan to prevent a lot of this social upheaval. This is why I suggest the tax breaks are a good reason for philanthropic organizations to get some funding from citizens who believe governments need to get out of social assistance.
 
If these organizations can do a great job, there will be lots of political will to abolish the government agencies. Their union contract should have a severance clause.
 
It's all in your hands to make things happen----as far as I can see!
 
BTW, I ran into an article where the Mormon Church is doing a lot of this social assistance in Utah. Good for them, I say!
Mike Haluska Added Mar 14, 2018 - 3:46pm
Bill H -
I have friends and associates from all backgrounds, political beliefs, etc.  If you came to my home for dinner you would be welcomed and have a great time.  Like everything else there is an appropriate time and place for everything.  
 
The type of person I have the most difficulty dealing with are those that don't apply their standards (liberal, conservative, religious, etc.) equally to everyone.  It is disturbing to me that there are laws for the people and another set for the Clinton's. 
 
If it was discovered that President Trump was doing favors for certain nations after they made huge "donations" to his "charitable foundation", the mainstream media would be calling for his head.  The Clinton's have been pulling this bullshit for decades and NOBODY in the mainstream media ever questions them. 
 
If the FBI thought I had Top Secret documents on my home computer, they wouldn't ask me nicely and then give me 10 months to turn them over - AND allow me to pick and choose which documents I surrender.  They would simply kick my door in at 4:00am and seize my computer, papers, etc. - just like they did with Paul Manafort.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 14, 2018 - 4:20pm
The reasons government never walks away from anything government gets its hand into:  
 
One reason on may list is campaign donations from public sector unions.  They sent a clear message to the politician, do not reduce employment of our union. 
 
Special interest pay big money to get advantages over competitors, usually small ones and consumers.    That means they need a lot of Tword smiths and a bureaucracy to enforce the regulations.  They squeeze everyone in the end since everyone must get strong armed.   The IRS is one of its biggest squeezers.  Basically it takes a big leviathan government to to squeeze the money out of the lobbyist. 
 
This goes way back even before The Great Depression, caused by lobbyist getting tariff, on goods from Europe recovering from WWI.  Europe countered with Tariffs that choked off farm exports,, and area recovering.  WWI cause a boom in farm exports and the farmers borrowed money to get equipment to fill the need.  The sudden choking off hit them hard.   The Federal Reserve was chartered to prevent runs on banks.  It came to be as a concession to government made to banks to bailed them out of money problems.   The crony bankers made a self interest decision to force small bank out of business.  Government already prevented diversification of banks.  The counter tariff dried up loan payments and depleted cash reserves resulting in runs on small rural banks, Three waves occurred before FDR was elected.  He just closed the banks during the bank Holiday giving the crony bankers a win and putting them in his pocket.
 
Liberalism need crony capitalist to succeed and bankers are the best cronies to have.  They see that when Socialism, ak Communism, eliminated capitalist it created a death spiral.  Took the USSR 80 years to reach bottom.  China was on its way swirling toward collapse when Nixon reached out our hand for us.   The leviathan government created in the last century by our democratic socialist has placed us into a death spiral.  FDR, LBJ, Carter, and Obama were the most effective in increasing the swirling rate. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 14, 2018 - 4:47pm
Dave V. >> But if you want to change things from government-run programs to philanthropic programs, how do we go from here to there?>>  Reagan show the approach that works.  Decrease unemployment or looking at the other have of the glass increase employment.  Increasing employment decreases the cost of welfare and increase revenue.   And how do you start to increase employment.  Improve the environment of those that have money to invest and improve the amount of money in pockets that can purchase goods and services.   Simple decrease government spending that raise prices and reduce tax rates.  
 
Dave V.  that is exactly what Canada did and the effect is predictable.  Ireland and even Sweden improved the business climate by the above two things and reducing regulations.  It is of course relative to what previously existed and to the changed of the countries that import and receive your exports.  
 
Now when businesses are making money as we see their is more philanthropy.  And not just the top 1% but it goes all the way down the wealth chain.  Churches and organizations the have members with more money in their pockets give more.  And if people know that government will not step in except as a last resort then they are more likely to step in.  This is the history of philanthropy in the 1800's in America when it had a robust economy.  
 
America standards for welfare and private philanthropy as been well above the level of people starving to death.  And the same is true for any industrialized nation.  So Dave do not tell us that this is a problem.  When starvation has occurred it has been for other reasons that prevented help.   Health care welfare is full of potholes in America that are generated by the leviathan government that can not fill them because it is a leviathan and to a leviathan they are minor issues.  A Tank doesn't even feel a pot hole.
 
Finally you talk about petty crime and street violence.  The response of big leviathan government is what we seen in Ferguson and Baltimore.  The leviathan big government just didn't care that individual's property was destroyed.  They didn't enforce the law and provide enough people and equipment to enforce it.  When government has an attitude of not caring which Chicago has had for decades then petty crime and street violence will occur.   When NY city put the broken window principle into effect crime and murder dropped to lows not seen in a decade.  It has risen since the policy has been defined as not politically correct.
Dave Volek Added Mar 14, 2018 - 4:54pm
Thomas
Read the article more carefully. I said:
 
If we cut off social assistance, I then ask:
1) what about the people who starve to death
2) what about the people who couldn't afford health care to cure some minor ailment?
3) what about the people who turn to petty crime to make their living?
4) what about the people who turn to the streets to violently protest?
 
Right now, social assistance is preventing these things from happening.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 14, 2018 - 5:00pm
Mike H
 
"If it was discovered that President Trump was doing favors for certain nations after they made huge "donations" to his "charitable foundation", the mainstream media would be calling for his head.  The Clinton's have been pulling this bullshit for decades and NOBODY in the mainstream media ever questions them. "
 
This is obvious and predictable given the two- tier system where elites demand certain a conduct only upon their political enemies. Hypocrisy  is not a word that can be used in politics without confusion. 
 
The media is biased. Period. 
Pardero Added Mar 14, 2018 - 10:45pm
Thomas, et al,
I see a lot of reading and education displayed here. Not just that, it is also likely that I'm the dumbest guy in the room.
Some of you quote the great thinkers and it all sounds reasonable. Dave Volek makes good points.
Have some of you considered that in all the great thinkers brilliance, that they also lived in ages of horrific squalor and misery? Have you considered that they probably had to kick street urchins out of their way as they moved about down town?
I hear talk of private groups and churches taking the place of "leviathan welfare state". When church membership was 70 or more per cent of the population, how could there have been so much squalor?! Churches can take over the burden with a much smaller membership?! No matter how eloquent and erudite the prose of those great thinkers, they missed a hell of a lot. 
I don't know a lot of people that would accept that laissez faire law of the jungle.
Likely, Venezuela is better than a Dickensian London, but not a hell of a lot.
From what I have seen here, those great classic liberal thinkers FAILED. Their words gave us a Dickensian London. 
TexasLynn may have made the point that gov interference is part of the problem. Once, dependable workers doing ordinary jobs were the backbone of the country. Because you have all found success, those with less ability, intelligence, even motivation can expect a life of squalor, even if they have no bad habits, expensive or otherwise? Survival of the fittest. Law of the jungle. 
It is just as bad as a socialist saying " we are just not socialist enough" when I hear a free marketer say " the markets aren't truly free" is the reason for squalor.
My conclusion is that great thinkers of history were not quite great enough. Their answers are no better than the ancient Greeks who could lay about philosophizing while their slaves toiled and were not part of that so called democracy.
Dave Volek makes the most sense here. But thank you all. I have been convinced that I am a socialist because I reject your Dickensian Londons.
Bill H. Added Mar 15, 2018 - 12:01am
Agreed in many ways, Mike-
There has certainly been these issues in the past, but it is the past and retribution serves no positive purpose. I really believe that Trump started out on the wrong foot with the media when he first started bashing them early in the campaign. He has been trying his best in the background to eliminate most of them since, and they know it.
No surprise that they lambast him. He chose to put himself in this position.
Rumor is that as soon as a few FCC broadcast ownership regulations are modified or changed by his new FCC guy, Trump will actually have his own news channel. It's closer than you think.
Dave Volek Added Mar 15, 2018 - 11:42am
Padero
Thank you for your commendation. In my younger days, I was a  socialist, then a libertarian, then I got involved in party politics to my attempts to change the world. I think all three gave me some good experience to formulate my current philosophy.
 
I was libertarian until I figured out that my working poor family background would have meant that I would have not likely attained much of an education in a libertarian society. Hence I would not have been able to read and comprehend libertarian books, which then would have meant I would not have been libertarian in the first place. I had to abandon this ideology when I figured out this paradox.
 
I have said this before: There are situations where governments need to let individuals make their own choices; there are situations where governments (with due democratic process) should undertake collective action to better society.
 
Western democracies have created a certain balance of capitalism and socialism. I'm not sure we are capable of finding the best balance, and I think with the TDG we can do much better.
 
 
 
 
TexasLynn Added Mar 15, 2018 - 12:37pm
Pardero,
I appreciate your point that we (mankind) have never achieved the elimination of poverty (especially globally).  But I think one of our great mistakes (especially from a leftist perspective) is that we can solve that problem.  That we can achieve some type of utopia.  From my perspective, it's not possible.  We lack the ability because to achieve this we must overcome our basic nature on a global level.
 
THAT is the fatal flaw of socialism.  It's based on bad math, bad science, bad assumptions.  A socialist society is great!  Just as great a Middle Earth, Narnia, and Never Bedtime Land. :)
 
I am indeed blessed and have found some modicum of success, but it's because I have worked my %^& off my entire life, and for the most part made decisions that paid social and economic dividends.  While I would be considered upper-middle class today, I assure you I didn’t start out at that level.
 
If you want to help the most people for the long term, instill that type of mindset.  Not what we do today... you have lost the lottery of life... it's not your fault... it's the man, it's the system keeping you down.
 
The one system that has gotten the closest (in my opinion) is a capitalist democratic republic.  General prosperity is the best we can hope for.  "A rising tide lifts all boats."  Will it work perfectly for everybody?  No… no system will?  I’m looking for most good done… not equal good done overall.
 
The "poor" in the Western Civilization are much better off than the poor throughout history.  And if you take the poorest of the poor (the homeless, etc.) there is almost always some mitigating factor (mental health, substance abuse).
 
Globally, the vast majority of poverty is caused by evil men, oppressing, and looting from those they rule.  If we were serious about helping these people we would start by providing the means of overthrowing these evil men.  No progress will ever be possible with them in place.  I say, "provide the means" because freedom is not something you can just hand someone.  If they don't care enough to take it for themselves; it won't last.
 
So, are we ready for that?  Based on the bitching and moaning about imperialism... I don't think so.  And I'm not so much in disagreement with that.
 
But let's start with Venezuela.  As long as Nicolás Maduro Moros is in power, it's not going to get any better.  He (and Chavez before him) are looting the country in the name of Socialism.  They disarmed the populace (which is one the first thing socialist dictators do).  Are we ready to rearm that populace?  Are we ready to blockade the nation?  Are we ready to really apply the pressure it will take to give the Venezuelan people a chance at freedom?
 
No... we're not.  But we can wring our hands and wonder why we are failing and why they are in such misery and why we can't send them a sandwich when we have so much.
Pardero Added Mar 15, 2018 - 1:00pm
Dave,
Thank you.
 
TexasLynn,
My bitterness was not directed at you. We both have a bit of a jaded eye for those that continue the behavior that put them in a predicament. We both believe that there are some in a predicament through no fault of their own that could benefit from a temporary helping hand. We may differ on the means. 
There was a time that a regular hearty men's breakfast at the Baptist Church kept me from losing too much muscle mass, that was necessary for a low paid but physically demanding job.
TexasLynn Added Mar 15, 2018 - 1:31pm
Pardero,
I didn't take your comments personally. Thanks.
 
I think we're in much agreement with a little difference in perceived degrees and effective means of resolving the problems.
 
I'm glad to hear about the work of the particular Baptist Church. THAT is the kind of help the churches should be providing. We've all had our crosses to bear, some more than others.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 15, 2018 - 1:46pm
Bill H - your statement:
 
"Rumor is that as soon as a few FCC broadcast ownership regulations are modified or changed by his new FCC guy, Trump will actually have his own news channel. It's closer than you think."
 
That will never happen - President Trump doesn't need it.  It would "level the playing field" somewhat since the Democrats already "own" National Public Radio and TV, paid for by conservative tax dollars!
 
If the mainstream media was actually an objective source of news and not the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, President Trump wouldn't be going around them with Twitter and calling them out for what they really are.  The credibility of the mainstream media is at an all-time low for good reason - they stopped reporting the news and started trying to make the news.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 15, 2018 - 2:03pm
A great exchange Dave, TexasLynn, and Pardero and it happens that your just had a conversation that would occur on talk radio and not on talk TV. Why, TexasLynn stated it as well as anyone >> THAT is the fatal flaw of socialism. It's based on bad math, bad science, bad assumptions. A socialist society is great! Just as great a Middle Earth, Narnia, and Never Bedtime Land. :) >> To hold a socialism view of the world and have the tunnel vision to miss it's failures requires rejection of any alternative which results in politically correct speech and thus failure at talk radio.
 
Great men are still men so we will get a distribution cure. That is why we can get opposites like Charles Louis de Montesquieu 1755- 1704 and a Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778 or Martin Luther 1483-1546 and Hieronymus Emser 1478-1527. The first of these pairs believed that no man is better then another and the second of these pair believe that man can be divided into classes of intelligents and other skills. I am saying this without having done significant study of the men but of the resulting action of mankind that applied there world views. The world view following the first pair created America the second created today's Venezuela. The first created Christianity foundation and the religions of the reformation and the second created Islam.
 
I guess we are placed in a position of choosing. I suggest that we look for the extreme applications of different world views in history to get the clearest picture of what taking one to its full and final conclusion leads to.  I put America and England as the first member of the pair examples and USSR and Chicom as the second member of the pair examples over the period of the 20th century.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 15, 2018 - 3:39pm
sorry Montesquieu 1689- 1755
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 15, 2018 - 5:18pm
TL:
 
"THAT is the fatal flaw of socialism.  It's based on bad math, bad science, bad assumptions.  A socialist society is great!  Just as great a Middle Earth, Narnia, and Never Bedtime Land. :)"
 
Have to agree here 100%
 
 I always add that people who can run an economy and produce  commodities are vastly different from those who are leaders in socialism. The USSR had decades of 'study' on how to run their system and with full control tried to make their communism  work without much outside interference for 74 years and the system collapsed anyway. The reason may be as simple as efficiency. 
 
Capitalism tends to shed its incompetents and promote  those who  perform well in business while socialism seems to promote political types not based on how well the government or economy is doing. 
 
TS
 
"I guess we are placed in a position of choosing. I suggest that we look for the extreme applications of different world views in history to get the clearest picture of what taking one to its full and final conclusion leads to.  I put America and England as the first member of the pair examples and USSR and Chicom as the second member of the pair examples over the period of the 20th century."
 
Agreed here but who chooses? Democracy does not seem to identify good leaders in many cases [USSR, PRC, Cuba, NOKO, Venezuela, most countries in Africa. 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 15, 2018 - 7:10pm
JFK Dem, The chooses were for educational value to understand the effect of each world view and not intended to emulate them.  The choices are the best examples I could think of that cover the same period of time.  Apples to apples as close as one can get when you can not control the experiment of different world view's long term effect of having a world view and implementing it.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 15, 2018 - 7:12pm
As you can see I tried to pick contemporary philosophers and  theologians for the same reason of showing that like today both world views are popular with different groups of people. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 16, 2018 - 10:02am
TS
 
"The chooses were for educational value to understand the effect of each world view and not intended to emulate them."
 
 
agreed. But an 'understanding' of data or  history is frequently distorted by our filtering system:
 
"“If you are wearing rose-tinted spectacles they will colour every aspect of your visual experience. You may forget that you are wearing them, but they will still affect what you see. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) believed that we are all walking around understanding the world through a filter like this. The filter is the human mind. It determines how we experience everything and imposes a certain shape on that experience. Everything we perceive takes place in time and space, and every change has a cause. But according to Kant, that is not because of the way reality ultimately is: it is a contribution of our minds. We don’t have direct access to the way the world is. Nor can we ever take the glasses off and see things as they truly are. We’re stuck with this filter and without it we would be completely unable to experience anything. All we can do is recognize that it is there and understand how it affects and colours what we experience.” – Excerpt from rel="nofollow">A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton."
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 16, 2018 - 11:18am
JFK Dem, I agree that we all filter which is why >> Charles Louis de Montesquieu 1689- 1755 and a Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778 or Martin Luther 1483-1546 and Hieronymus Emser 1478-1527 >> could have large following, be opposites and contemporaries.  That is why liberals and conservatives today are contemporaries.   
 
But the facts of the governments or citizens as a society actual actions can not be altered unless one is deceiving themselves.  Once both sides accept the facts then the analysis can be totally different.  They can reach different causes and solutions.  And that is a area of conversation.
 
We have had two examples that I can remember where liberals ignore the facts because they disagreed with their world view that they want to promote and get the rest of us to believe.  Michael Brown, 'hands up do not shoot,'  and ParkLand HS 'NRA responsible for Nicholas Cruz obtaining a gun and for 17 people being killed by an military weapon.
 
No discussion can occur so long as the facts are not agreed upon.  That is the situation in the last two decades in America and I believe in Europe also.