Barack Obama

For Republicans, a Democratic Policy Playbook

The Party of Lincoln should take a page from the Party of Roosevelt and Kennedy.

|

Republicans thinking about an agenda for the future may want to borrow some ideas from an unlikely source—the Democrats of the past.

Bill Clinton's welfare reform and North American Free Trade Agreement. John F. Kennedy's tax cuts. President Carter's deregulation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's World War II resolve. Put them together and update them for the current moment, and they are the beginnings of an effective policy program for Republicans in Congress or seeking the White House in 2016. What's more, talking about them as Democratic ideas could help Republicans capture crossover voters while also reminding them how far today's Democrats have shifted left.

The two most effective Republican politicians of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, both realized this. When Reagan accepted the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, the Gipper quoted FDR's 1932 acceptance speech: "For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that government—federal, state, and local—costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching. As an immediate program of action, we must abolish useless offices. We must eliminate unnecessary functions of government."

In the final two weeks of George W. Bush's successful re-election campaign in 2004, Bush cited Roosevelt in 24 speeches, and Kennedy in 17. "The party of Franklin Roosevelt, of Harry Truman, of John Kennedy is rightly remembered for confidence and resolve in times of war and hours of crisis," Bush said in Dubuque, Iowa. "Many Democrats in this country do not recognize their party anymore."

As Bush and Reagan appreciated, talking about Democrats favorably—at least those of previous generations—is good politics for Republicans. It provides reassurance and emotional comfort for those voters who aren't in the habit of voting for the GOP. It also serves to distinguish Democratic politicians of the past from those of the present. As Reagan said during a campaign stop in 1984 in Warren, Michigan, "Whenever I talk about Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy, my opponents start tearing their hair out. They just can't stand it. Well of course they can't, because it highlights how far they, the leadership today of the Democratic Party, have strayed from the strength of the Democratic political tradition."

For today's Republicans, though, recovering policy ideas from the Democrats of the past has the potential to be much more than a campaign-season rhetorical ploy. High-quality policy substance is available for the taking in the areas where Democrats of years past deserve genuine credit for policies that brought America growth, security, and opportunity.

President Clinton's North American Free Trade Agreement, together with the tariff reductions he won through GATT/WTO negotiations, have been described by his former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers as "the largest tax cut in the history of the world." They've translated into lower prices on imported goods for American consumers.  After Clinton, prodded by a Republican Congress, followed through on his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it," caseloads declined 60 percent. Child poverty fell. Millions of Americans went off the dole and entered the workforce.  

Kennedy's supply-side income-tax cuts were such a success at unleashing robust economic growth that they were models for Reagan's and George W. Bush's. Real, after-inflation economic growth was 5.8 percent in 1964, the year the tax cut went into effect; 6.4 percent in 1965, and 6.5 percent in 1966.

And let's not forget even Jimmy Carter. Carter's not as popular as Kennedy or FDR. His domestic policy accomplishments are more obscure. But Americans who get packages from FedEx, fly on low fares on Southwest or JetBlue, or buy goods delivered by train or truck are reaping the benefits of Carter's successful effort, as he put it in a 1978 speech, to "get the regulatory agencies and government agencies' nose out of the private sector's business and let our free enterprise system work in the United States." Today's Republicans like to say President Obama is another Carter. On foreign policy, there are parallels. But with the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and a series of other laws deregulating air cargo, trucking, railroad freight, and even to some extent banking and energy, Carter rolled bureaucracy back, in sharp contrast to Obama.

For all that progress, there is plenty of unfinished work. Carter deregulated transportation, but freeing health care from overbearing government control is a job for some future president. Roosevelt and Truman defeated the Nazis in World War II, but the current war against what some call Islamofascism is yet un-won.

Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush cut taxes, but today, thanks to President Obama and Congress, the top federal long-term capital gains rate stands at 23.8 percent, which is higher than the 19.5 percent that Kennedy proposed back in 1963.

Clinton reformed one welfare program—Aid to Families With Dependent Children, now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. But other welfare programs have yet to be reformed. Government spending on food stamps, for example, has more than quadrupled since Clinton's last year in office. And the Social Security disability program has become so bloated and perverse that even The New York Times' liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof discovered, reporting in Appalachia, parents pulling their children out of literacy classes out of fear that if the children learn to read, they'll lose their $698-a-month checks for having an "intellectual disability."

If Republicans don't pick up this banner, maybe some Democrat will arise who appreciates the brighter moments in the history of his or her party. The ideas are there in the past, just waiting for a politician with the imagination, vision, and ability to resurrect them. As John Kennedy himself said while campaigning for Congress in 1946: "We, in this country, need to do battle for old ideas that have proved their value with the same enthusiasm that people do for new ideas."

NEXT: Kid Suspended for Selling Pepsi from His Locker Takes His Business to the Streets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A libertarian magazine publishing an article saying that the Republicans should look to FDR, WTF?

    1. Stoll is talking about thinking big in terms of reform, not about making government bigger.

      1. You Know Who Else thought big in terms of Reform?

        1. Sir William Wallace?

          1. H. Ross Perot?

      2. He said FDR’s ‘resolve’ defeated the Nazis. A load of shit. His resolve went about fucking up everything as much as possible in order to aggrandize the state. His reform was shit too. There is no defense of FDR, at all.

        1. why don’t you grow up and then get back to us

          1. Why don’t you make an actual argument, and then throw yourself from a bridge to compensate the universe for all the stupidity you created.

            1. al you posted was uneducated
              uninformed nonsense,
              go back to school, child

              1. Turd.Burglar.

                1. aww, another faux news kid,
                  isn’t that cute?

                  1. Hi Mary! I mean me!

              2. joshrendell|9.22.14 @ 6:04PM|#
                “al you posted was uneducated
                uninformed nonsense,”

                Actually, it was a fairly accurate critique of that POS FDR.

                1. I love coming here and reading
                  you school kids idiotic posts

                  1. You can’t even post a grammatically correct statement and you dare criticize us as “school kids”? Our troll quality has diminished substantially.

                    1. I can tell you an intelligent person
                      can see both sides of an issue
                      trust me, you’ll never have to worry
                      that someone will mistake you for
                      an intelligent person

                2. no it wasn’t, you goobers try
                  to rewrite history and you are
                  LOUSY at it

                3. if you were homeschooled
                  you ahould have gone to another home

                  1. Hey Josh, you rub yourself off to Japanese Americans being put in concentration camps?

                    1. Pretty sure josh is either some drunk/stoned troll or a confirmed lefty ignoramus.
                      I beat on asshole/craig, commie-kid and Tony, but draw the line at josh.

                  2. The troll is all indignant. Hilarious. If it ever learns to craft and type a correct sentence, watch out!

        2. *He said FDR’s ‘resolve’ defeated the Nazis. A load of shit. *

          FDR had the “courage” to institute the first peace-time draft in American history and the “resolve” to send a trillion dollars worth of American materiel to the Soviets & Britain.

          He also had the “courage” and “resolve” to fight until the last man in the Red Army and to sacrifice half of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

          1. half an obsolete WW1 navy
            there are those that say
            the japanese did themselves wrong
            by encourging us to modernize
            our navy

            1. joshrendell|9.22.14 @ 6:07PM|#
              “half an obsolete WW1 navy
              there are those that say
              the japanese did themselves wrong
              by encourging us to modernize
              our navy”

              What was that about going back to school? WIH does that word salad mean?

              1. wow, concepts really are a little
                more than you can handle, I ses

        3. I’m not a fan of FDR, and I doubt if Stoll is, either. I took this piece to mean the GOP needs to think big and have a clear message, which FDR certainly did. As opposed to the current GOP, which is mush-mouthed, anti-Tea Party, and whose message for November seems to be “We aren’t Democrats, but don’t hate us.” That’s not enough.

          1. Think big? What the fuck does that really mean? If policy proposals need to be of a scale matching FDR to qualify, I assure you that is a most unlibertarian outcome.

            What play exactly, is the GOP supposed to borrow from FDR? Should they be promoting utilitarianism at the expense of principles? My tiny brain cannot fathom what play one should possibly borrow from FDR. Unless you’re an evil fuck who gets off on slavery and carnage, then FDR is the greatest.

            1. I don’t think you are getting it. Stoll is not advocating big new government programs, but thinking big about making government smaller. How about a vastly simplified federal welfare program, devolved to the states? A flat tax? Getting rid of some government departments? Cutting federal taxes on corporations to lure them here instead of Ireland or the Bahamas? That kind of thing.

              1. but thinking big about making government smaller

                Okay but how is that a play from FDRs playbook?

                How about a vastly simplified federal welfare program, devolved to the states? A flat tax? Getting rid of some government departments? Cutting federal taxes on corporations to lure them here instead of Ireland or the Bahamas? That kind of thing.

                So the question remains, which page of the FDR playbook should the GOP read in order to do all those things? “think big” isn’t a strategy, it’s not a philosophy, it’s an ambiguous quip.

              2. dumping welfare money on the
                states is a sure way to make sure
                the people who need it, won’t get it

                a flat tax rewards the wealthy
                and taxes everyone else..duh

                1. dumping welfare money on the
                  states is a sure way to make sure
                  the people who need it, won’t get it

                  I suspect California would be pleased as punch to have more money to spend on their own welfare programs rather than Mississippi or New Mexico.

            2. slavery and carnage? I hope you
              don’t consider yourself educated

              1. I fear you do.

          2. anti-tea party is the same as
            anti-stupid

        4. Hey man, it takes a lot of resolve to stuff a hated minority into camps.

  2. So Ira, are libertarians now rooting for the party of GWB? Is this Koch brothers donation day, by any chance?

    1. I see you have taken the “open your mouth and remove all doubt” approach

    2. Worse than that, libertarians rooting for Republicans rooting for Democrats.

  3. I think that in a sense, Reason is correct. A lot of conservative beliefs are liberal ideals from the past, and quoting well-known liberals might help the GOP gain votes.

    1. until someone points out to the
      unducate base who is being quoted
      then there will be hell to pay
      for republicans

      1. Mary, this new puppet is one of the worst ever. Get back on those meds!

        1. I think you should take your
          own advice, goober

          1. Turd.Burglar.

  4. And let’s not forget even Jimmy Carter. Carter’s not as popular as Kennedy or FDR.

    You in an understatement competition or something, Ira?

  5. Fact Check.

    Party of Lincoln?

    Lincoln was the dude who wiped out “States Rights” and nullification and was the representative of the BLUE URBAN NORTHEASTERN STATES!

    Most of my “libertarian” friends rate Lincoln as worse than Hitler.

    So which is it?

    1. He is 2.3 units of Hitler away from full being full Hitler. Ira Stoll doesn’t know what he’s talking about and not all libertarians are of the same mind on all issues. You know, like it is for everyone aside from your state fellating hive-mind.

      1. libertarians are the lunatic fringe
        for a reason

        1. Spoken like a good Tory circa 1778.

          1. tory?? being anti-wacko is being tory?

            1. Being me is being Mary!

              1. so far, no glimmer of intelligence
                from you

                1. so far, no glimmer of intelligence
                  from you

                  So far, still trying to punish society for your daddy issues.

    2. my “libertarian” friends

      [Citation Needed]

      1. Well, my suspicion is that citation would be needed for “my…friends”.

      2. “[Citation Needed]”

        Like my buddies from Idaho and folks like that…

        1. And your girlfriend in Canada?

        2. craiginmass|9.22.14 @ 6:52PM|#
          “Like my buddies from Idaho and folks like that…”

          Asshole, can you post without lying?

    3. “Most of my “libertarian” friends rate Lincoln as worse than Hitler.”

      Asshole, can you ever post without a lie?

      1. Well obviously he’s talking about his friends from Liberia. Or perhaps he meant his “libelous” friends.

        1. Or perhaps he just lied again. He’s good at that.

    4. Lincoln eliminated the federal government’s competition of owning/indenturing people. Lincoln was a bad President. Though it would have been interesting to see what Reconstruction would have looked like under him.

      And according to Goucher College’s Dr. Joyce Baker, Lincoln was a homosexual. Keep in mind Goucher is a progressive liberal arts college that at one time recently had a war criminal on its staff.

  6. A bit OT, but can anyone recommend a good book on the history of the progressive movement in the U.S.? I’m particularly interested in learning more about the strategy and tactics they employed to gain and grow power over the last 100+ years.

    1. I think Thomas Sowell does a great job of that in “A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical origins of political strugges”, although he calls it the unconstrained vision, not progressivism.

      1. I’ll look into that. I don’t want something academic, that won’t inject ideology or judgement into it.

        1. (ignores the troll with the third grade insults)

          He definitely injects ideology into it, but he has a ton of information to back it up. In that sense I’d say it’s decidedly un-academic in style. His philosophy is based on the knowledge he has accumulated and not vice versa.

          1. his opinions are totally bias
            but you agree with them so
            they must be facts, right?

            1. I’ll let you
              know when mary
              learns how
              to write in
              adult sentences

              1. that would be too much for you
                to grasp, goober

                1. You learned to type. Good for you. Goober.

      2. thomas sowell is a jackass

        1. Takes one to know one, right buddy?

          1. Well, at least he didn’t use racial slurs like most of his other progressive buddies would have. So, progress?

            1. I love the way goobers take
              sowell’s opinion as fact
              just like they do watchig faux news

              1. I like goobers!

              2. Mary, Mary, Mary. Don’t you realize that when you combine a “new” manic poster that has nothing to offer except insults and then go and use “goobers” on top of that you totally give yourself away? I was pretty sure I recognized your mania above but now I am certain. Sad really.

                1. I usually have this kind of fun
                  at the foxnews website, it seems
                  you kids like to come here and
                  make believe your grownups

                  1. Sure, Mary, like we have not painfully learned your style.

                    Kind of doing your usual schtick with only small modifications isn’t going to fool many. Your mention of fox news is another obvious give away.

                    Perhaps you could find some other obsession, like eating glass or underwater welding?

          2. okay, guess that means your one too

            1. Make an argument so that it may be casually obliterated by the second stupidest person on this thread.

              1. I can tell by your handle your
                a few cards short of a deck
                you must be a libertarian

                1. God, why the fuck are you guys even trying to argue with this idiot? It’s just pissy temper tantrums and name-calling, he’s can even string together a good dose of inane delusional bullshit like Craig.

                  1. *He can’t even string together. Fuck my phone.

                  2. you wouldn’t understand anything
                    more complex, goober

                  3. what do you expect? you fox news
                    kids come over here trying to
                    make believe your grownups

                  4. nothing of intelligence in your posts
                    look in the mirror

              2. you’d have to gain intelligence
                in order to have an intelligent
                conversation with you

                1. josh reading into a mirror again

                2. Now ‘Fox News Kids’ is a bit of an improvement, closer to inane delusional bullshit territory. But again, I’m going to have to mark you down for just repeating tired cliches about maturity or intelligence.

                  Look at Craig’s work in some other threads, he sometimes manages to throw references to Atlas Shrugged and starving children together in the same sentence. He’s trolling at a Tenth Grade level, this is sad in comparison. You’re not going to get the Jensen P. Koch Scholarship for Bullshit with that attitude mister.

                  1. I haven’t seen much of anything
                    that vaguely resembles intelligence
                    on this thread, so what the hell
                    I might as well have some fun
                    with childish fools

                    1. Again, poor attempt. You need to actually argue something beyond ‘ur dumb and a child cuz I say so’. I gave you plenty of material to work with and you didn’t even mock my weekly cheque from the Koch brothers. Work on the fundamentals, and get back to me next week.

                      You take care of yourself, Mr. Rendell.

                    2. It is Crazy Mary Stack, not anyone else. She is certifiably “Bat shit insane”. That is literally the diagnosis given her by numerous doctors. “Bat shit insane”. Pity the poor pathetic creature.

                  2. “Look at Craig’s work in some other threads, he sometimes manages to throw references to Atlas Shrugged and starving children together in the same sentence. He’s trolling at a Tenth Grade level,”

                    Disagreed.
                    Asshole is trolling at ’70s liberal arts bachelors degree level.
                    ‘Hitler is horrible, the USSR was bad, but not too bad, korparashuns are nasty, etc’. The product of profs who got through school on various welfare schemes:
                    Gov’t ‘education’, end-to-end. Pathetic.

        2. Basic Economics is one of the most influential books I ever read, and it really is not controversial or ideologically tilted. OK, maybe a little, but not very much, and what little you might find doesn’t detract from the, well, basic economics that it teaches. And it is well written to boot. Have you read it? If not, I recommend it.

          1. I get the feeling that josh isn’t very well read at all.

            1. I have no doubt I am better
              uducated than you..like all
              fox news viewers, you need to stop skipping school

              1. You can’t form coherent sentences, let alone claim to be educated. I’m going to use some big words here, so get your mommy if you need help with them: what you’re doing is called projection. You are projecting or transferring your own inadequacies (in this case, a severe lack of education) onto others in a pretty lame attempt to feel superior.

                It really doesn’t work when your typing style resembles that of an inbred ten year old.

                1. it’s a bummer when someone calls out
                  your stupidity, isn’t it?

                  1. Generally speaking, while trolling you should be doing your best not to prove your opponent’s point. This is just pathetic, dude.

                    1. my opponent doesn’t have a point
                      he’s not smart enough

                2. you actually used a word with more
                  than two syllables, I’m impressed

              2. “uducated” is the new retarded

              3. I am better
                uducated than you

                Clearly.

          2. onlt because you agree with
            whatever OPINIONS he spouts

            1. “onlt” is the new “retarded”

    2. {rubs hands together}

      Mein kampf

      Mwa-hahahaha

      1. Huh. Not often you see socialists or progressives admit their ideological similarities to Nazism/fascism.

        1. hey, airhead, hitler was on the
          right, that where fascism is

          on YOUR SIDE

          1. your side is where
            retardation reigns

            1. you have no defense, your on the side
              of hitler, live with it

              1. “you have no defense, your on the side
                of hitler, live with it”

                They are on the side of ANY authoritarian, which means kochsucking as of now. But, yeah, they must cream their pants over the russian oligarchies and would have prayed at the feet of Krupp (Hitler’s arms maker) as well as the other corporate success stories (John Galts all) in Germany.

                1. So tell me, Craig, would you agree with this quote?:

                  It is rotten and dismal that a world of so many hundred million people should be ruled by a single caste that has the power to lead millions to life or to death, indeed on a whim…This caste has spun its web over the entire earth; capitalism recognizes no national boundaries…Capitalism has learned nothing from recent events and wants to learn nothing, because it places its own interests ahead of those of the other millions. Can one blame those millions for standing up for their own interests, and only for those interests? Can one blame them for striving to forge an international community whose purpose is the struggle against corrupt capitalism? Can one condemn a large segment of the educated…youth for protesting against the greatest ability? Is it not an abomination that people with the most brilliant intellectual gifts should sink into poverty and disintegrate, while others dissipate, squander, and waste the money that could help them? … You say the old propertied class also worked hard for what it has. Granted, that may be true in many cases. But do you also know about the conditions under which workers were living during the period when capitalism “earned” its fortune?

                2. Turd.Burglar.

                3. Craig, have you actually read the German Worker’s Party platform? Any version really, from the 1920s to the 1932 edition, doesn’t matter really. They decry free market capitalism as an evil institution (often tying it into Zionism) and state that only through their ‘middle way’ of nationalism and socialism can we be lead to the glorious future. Sound familiar?

                  1. Jensen|9.22.14 @ 7:34PM|#
                    “Craig, have you actually read the German Worker’s Party platform?”

                    Asshole claims to be middle aged, and there’s no reason to suggest he’s not. And it’s likely that his ‘education’ stopped whenever he graduated; reading since then seems to be limited to various lefty rags.
                    So if he didn’t get it in school and it’s not on some lefty rag or site, he never heard of it.

                  2. “Craig, have you actually read the German Worker’s Party platform?”

                    I have read much about the Freikorps, which were the bullies and thugs who shot and killed and beat up all the trade unionists and socialists of Germany in that time…..

                    “Numerous future members and leaders of the Nazi Party had served in the Freikorps, including Ernst R?hm, future head of the Sturmabteilung, or SA, Heinrich Himmler, future head of the Schutzstaffel, or SS, and Rudolf H??, the future Kommandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp”

                    C’mon, don’t rewrite history! It’s clear that the Nazi’s were right wing authoritarians tied in with corporate oligarchs. They were so strongly anti-communist that they basically killed them on sight. The very idea of workers not being happy with their lot in life or not stepping in line was unpatriotic.

                    Germany was about giving up your personal needs for those needs of the state. The state, “big daddy” would make sure you were happy and well fed and worked as long as you toed the line.

                    Free market capitalism? No, that wasn’t their thing. They were more Koch-like where they wanted the existing captains of industry to be closely tied into the state as a means of power. That’s become the very definition of Fascism. Corporate/State collusions…because they (Kochs,Krupps, etc.) DO know what’s best for you and me, and besides…they employ people and create things.

                    1. craiginmass|9.22.14 @ 9:58PM|#
                      “I have read much about the Freikorps, which were the bullies and thugs who shot and killed and beat up all the trade unionists and socialists of Germany in that time…..
                      […]
                      C’mon, don’t rewrite history! It’s clear that the Nazi’s were right wing authoritarians tied in with corporate oligarchs

                      Yeah, asshole:
                      “Lenin on “Reactionary” Trade Unions
                      Chapter Six of “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder
                      by Thomas Riggins / November 28th, 2012
                      One of the most difficult questions facing any socialist movement is its relation to the trade unions. Modern day trade unionism is an integral part of the capitalist system.”
                      http://dissidentvoice.org/2012…..de-unions/

                      “Free market capitalism? No, that wasn’t their thing. They were more Koch-like where they wanted the existing captains of industry to be closely tied into the state as a means of power.”
                      Asshole, can you ever post without lying? You are a pathetic piece of shit.

                    2. craiginmass|9.22.14 @ 9:58PM|#
                      “I have read much about the Freikorps, which were the bullies and thugs who shot and killed and beat up all the trade unionists and socialists of Germany in that time…..”

                      Asshole, you’d look a lot less of an ignoramus if you’d read at least Figes if you want to preserve some minimal sympathies for the left, Pipes if you’d like honesty.
                      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb…..ds=russian revolution&sprefix=russian+rev,stripbooks,175
                      Both make it clear that Hitler was nothing other than Lenin’s progeny. Same lies, enemies, temporary allies, same assholery in general, like, oh,…

                4. craiginmass|9.22.14 @ 6:55PM|#
                  “They are on the side of ANY authoritarian, which means kochsucking as of now.”

                  Asshole has this problem: stupidity.
                  To asshole, “up” = “down”, such that “leaving people be” = “authoritarian”.
                  Asshole is more than willing to use gov’t thugs with guns to force people to avoid his idiotic concept of “authoritarianism”, and is stupid enough not to understand the level of stupidity required for such imbecility.
                  Asshole is PROUD to be so stupid!

                  1. “Asshole is more than willing to use gov’t thugs with guns to force people to avoid his idiotic concept of “authoritarianism””

                    In other words, he thinks rich people who don’t pay their taxes should go to jail. Shrugs. Count me in with the coppers and Feds on this one.

                    1. american socialist|9.22.14 @ 8:16PM|#
                      “In other words, he thinks rich people who don’t pay their taxes should go to jail.”

                      So you make up lies in the hopes somene bleeves them?
                      Your stupidity puts you in the same league with asshole.

                    2. “In other words, he thinks rich people who don’t pay their taxes should go to jail. Shrugs. Count me in with the coppers and Feds on this one.”

                      Translation: What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, and I’m going to take it, but somehow I’m not the greedy one.

                5. So tell me, Craig, which of the following points are NOT your expressed preference?

                  Therefore we demand:

                  11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

                  12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

                  13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

                  14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

                  15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

                  16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

                  1. cont.

                    17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

                    18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

                    19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

                    20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

                    Care to guess where these came from? Hint: It’s related to this thread.

                    1. “We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.”

                      This sounds like right wing authoritarianism…as does most of the other stuff.

                      “Strong leader to cleanse our nation” is the construct of authoritarians. I don’t see much in there about food stamps, welfare, helping the disabled, etc.

                      OF COURSE any society wants people who work and actually do things (the trades) to flourish – the fact that Germany wanted a middle class doesn’t point toward anything…..

                      The theme here is the same as Reason and other Kochsuckers – “as long as you give the big boss dittos and stay in line, you can live and work for us – but God Forbid you talk about human rights..and you are OUT”.

                      Ae groups like the ACLU more right or left? Let’s pretend you know the truth and say left. Well, what would Hitler have tbought about the ACLU?

                      And therein lies the answers. Hitler, like much of the authoritarian right in this country, hated gays – wanted women to breed for his glory (and not be big in the workforce, etc.), disliked creative arts such a jazz (Jews and blacks do that stuff), etc.

                      You are weaving quite a tangled web- the John Birch Society and the Kochs (financiers of this propaganda) all formed due to their anti-communists – right along with their German friends!

                      Next thing you’ll tell us is that because Germans had 10 toes they were lefists!

                    2. craiginmass|9.22.14 @ 10:09PM|#
                      “OF COURSE any society wants people who work and actually do things (the trades) to flourish – the fact that Germany wanted a middle class doesn’t point toward anything…..”

                      Keep grasping those straws, asshole
                      What a pathetic collection of lies, half-truths and just plain ignorance.
                      Asshole, read on the Russian revolution per above, and then “Wages of Destruction” at least before you *EVER* try to lecture someone on the Nazis being ‘right’.
                      They weren’t; they were the same slimy creatures you love so much. I know it comes as a shock to one so abysmally ignorant; maybe you should learn something before you put your foot in your mouth, asshole.

                    3. “read on the Russian revolution per above”

                      Well, I guess the similarity between commie haters is striking – those being the Germans and the John Birch Society/Kochs/Libertarians in that they point to the Soviet Union as being a REASONing for their righteous authoritarians.

                      Hint: I could give a shit about the failed Russian states of history. They suck and always sucked and probably will suck just as bad now that they are Capitalists.

                      The banners of murder have been carried by many groups, peoples and religions…left, right, center.

                      However, the point stands. Most historians and reasonable people (IMHO) will read the Hitler years and Fascism as a RIGHT WING movement.

                      “The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be.”
                      WOW, that sounds like 100% libertarian, eh?

                      “Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Roderick Stackelberg places fascism?including Nazism, which he says is “a radical variant of fascism”?on the right, explaining that “the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be.”

                    4. This sounds like right wing authoritarianism

                      Where “right wing” may refer to any number of mutually incompatible and contradictory ideologies that resemble something you dislike. If you just started referring to everything you dislike as zionist the unintentional self-parody would be complete.

                    5. “Where “right wing” may refer to any number of mutually incompatible and contradictory ideologies that resemble something you dislike.”

                      Not really. It’s generally what we call conservative today – i.e. a return the greatness which existed at some former (usually fictional) time as well as belief in a strong leader to take us there.

                      That’s quite simple. Perhaps the free PDF on Right Wing Authoritarianism will help some of you understand how y’all demonstrate it here?

                      http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

                      It’s quite a good read…or even a quick scan.

                      “Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? ”

                      “their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank and file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?”

                    6. Craig, please explain how the Holocaust dovetails with the NAP.

                    7. The Naval Auxiliary Patrol and the Holocaust have absolutely no relationship.

                    8. Derpity Derp Derp derp! At least you managed a post without a lie. So that’s a positive.

                6. It’s funny that you, despite being able to form complete sentences, still manage to be more stupid than Mary Stack.

                  1. That was aimed at craiguphisownass.

                    1. I figured. 🙂

                7. They are on the side of ANY authoritarian, which means kochsucking as of now.

                  LOL–as if you proglydytes can actually function without wanting to pass a law on everything that doesn’t cover the space between a person’s sternum and their knees.

          2. Indeed. The National Socialists. The folks with leftist economic policy and ultratraditional social policy. How could a group of economic conservatives and social liberals not immediately identify with that? Derp.

          3. Josh, please dovetail Nazism (especially the Nuremburg laws and the Holocaust) with the NAP.

    3. Not about the hx of the movement, and not about the US, but a kind of inside look at the turn of liberalism from old style to “liberalism” is L.T. Hobhouse’s Liberalism, a short paperback that was remaindered a lot ~30 yrs. ago. Gives you the sense of how a century ago some people could be persuaded that the new “liberalism” was just an extension of the old.

  7. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s World War II resolve

    His resolve justified ALL manner of state crimes and usurpations. His crimes against human liberty remain with us to this very day in form of haunting logical fallacies and crusty old government bureaucracies.

    Roosevelt and Truman defeated the Nazis in World War II, but the current war against what some call Islamofascism is yet un-won.

    Arghhhhhhhhh. I don’t know how to even begin with you. The US defeated the Nazis quite in spite of FDR, not because of him.

    FDR also acquiesced to the enslavement of eastern Europe for more than a generation and there was no reason to make the concession aside from his status as a fellow traveler to the communists and fascists.

    I thought you were better than this Mr Stoll. I would expect this kind of nuance from a public school social studies teacher.

    1. I hope that wasn’t your idea of
      an intelligent post, what garbage

      1. Again, it takes one to know one, doesn’t it buddy?

        1. I’m not your buddy, goober
          you don’t have enough brains

          1. You going to make an actual argument or just attack other arguments because you don’t understand the words?

            1. his tinfoil hat is on too tight
              guess you have the smae problem
              it’s a shame you kids didn’t
              pay attention in history class

            2. oh, I undersatand the words
              stupidity runs rampant on the right

              1. oh, I undersatand the words
                stupidity runs rampant on the right

                Unhinged craziness seems to run rampant on the left.

    2. *The US defeated the Nazis quite in spite of FDR, not because of him.*

      Well, FDR did arrange to send them all those trucks and cans of beef. And yet, the Russkies still dragged artillery behind horses and oxen all the way to Berlin.

  8. Abolish the IRS.

    Universal school choice (by denying federal education grants to States that don’t do it — hey, you said to take a page from the Democrat playbook)

    That’s two off the top of my head.

    Maybe something radical about health insurance/health care reform.

    1. hey, airhead, how will you have
      federal grants without an IRS?
      the stupid never ends with you people

      1. One gets the feeling you couldn’t think your way out of a wet paper sack.

        1. we know commmon sense is too
          much for you people

        2. His parents could have saved the world a ton of stupid by letting him play with a plastic bag.

      2. Why I suppose you wouldn’t have ‘federal grants’. It would truly be the end of civilization.

        1. not suprising, your response
          makes no sense

          1. Not surprising your
            attempt at haiku falls flat
            like leaves in autumn.

            1. so you fantasize on my posts??
              why am I not surprised?

              1. This doesn’t even make sense. F- trolling. Would not recommend.

              2. joshrendell|9.22.14 @ 6:24PM|#
                “so you fantasize on my posts??
                why am I not surprised?”

                What a day! Asshole, commie-kid and a brand new raving fucking idjit!

                1. your the fox news viewer, not me
                  goober

                  1. I like goobers

          2. Oh look, Mary Stack is back and off her meds once again. Joy.

          3. Turd.Burglar.

            1. that’s about all your brain could
              come up with, too

              1. I like turds

      3. Oh yeah, well, instead of having the Internal Revenue Service administer DOE funds to the States as we currently do, we could use the remnants of Healthcare.gov to do it. Just go to the website and click-click-click, you’re done!

        1. so your a fan of single payer
          glad you came to our side

          1. The side of terminal retardation.

          2. The ACA and healthcare.gov aren’t single payer. You can’t even properly take your own side in a delusional argument with the voices in your head.

          3. I like single payer. Each single person pats the market price of their single bill.

  9. Ira Stoll; at least he’s not Steve Chapman or Sikha Dalmia.

  10. Isn’t a little ironic that at the same time that republicans are being told they should embrace Bill Clinton’s legacy, Clinton himself is publicly rejecting his own legacy in most of his speeches these days? What does tell you about the current American left and how politics have changed recently?

    1. is that what you heard in your
      fantasy world?

    2. It tells me more of what I already know about the finger-in-the-wind Clintons than about the American left, which is now calling the Clintons corporatist oil-loving neocon sellouts and begging Liz Warren to run.

      1. …and “how”

  11. Wow. Jack Frapp is jsut not gonna like this one bit! LOL!

    http://www.marystackisoffhermedsagain.de/rp

  12. Holy shit. This thread has the worst trolling I have ever seen at H&R. Wow.
    It does have a Mary flavor to it.

    Mary, take your meds honey. You can do better than this.

    1. I’ll take a memo goober

      1. I like goobers!

        1. me too two to!

          1. hi me!

    2. if you don’t want trolling,
      don’r come back

      1. bye mary

    3. I don’t know; even Mary is usually more coherent than this.

      Playing with it is kind of funny, though. It just keeps making own-goals and doesn’t even realize it.

      1. Are we sure its sentient? It seems to be a lot of word salad with anon bots spelling.

        1. Good point. I’ll bet the guy who wrote the Thomas Friedman Op/Ed Generator is behind this. On an off hour when he had nothing better to do.

      2. wow, you people take stupid to a whole new level

  13. Whenever I talk about Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy, my opponents start tearing their hair out.

    I started tearing my hair out because those prezs were really awful for the country & world. Kennedy’s the only one I lived thru, but in retrospect Truman must’ve been scary-bad. He demonstrated how little it takes to propel a hack all the way to the White House.

    1. “Truman must’ve been scary-bad. He demonstrated how little it takes to propel a hack all the way to the White House.”

      Need I mention your hero GW Bush?
      That was the final straw…..although we could have had Palin a hearthbeat away also…..

      The Right in this country certainly has given us some fine Grade B Movie Actors, Fake Texans who were dry drunk and corporate hacks. Need I mention Harding who virtually sold out the entire government to his corporate lackys and set in motion the fleecing that became the Great Depression?

      1. craiginmass|9.22.14 @ 7:00PM|#
        …”Need I mention your hero GW Bush?”…

        Asshole, can you post without lying? Please cite on post where anyone claimed GWB as a hero.
        Can you do that, asshole?

      2. Thank God we had FDR and Johnson to give us $100TT in unfunded Ponzi schemes. Yay!! We am winning!!

      3. The strawman in craig’s head just got BTFO. Sick burn bruh!

      4. Need I mention Harding who virtually sold out the entire government to his corporate lackys and set in motion the fleecing that became the Great Depression?

        Boy, it really kills you that the 1921 recession didn’t turn into a depression on his watch, doesn’t it?

        1. “Boy, it really kills you that the 1921 recession didn’t turn into a depression on his watch, doesn’t it?”

          Actually, it was quite a bit like the Recession which has just ended. Even in modern times with virtually instant communication it took from 2000 to 2008 just for it to build up. I remember talking to some people in 2008+ who were still in denial and telling me that the foreclosures were no big thing.

          Harding is very famous for the corruption of the entire Federal Government. How long do you think it took for all the conservative policies of the 1920’s to come to full fruition?

          Here are some notes on the subject:
          http://www.sparknotes.com/hist…..ion1.rhtml

          “Harding’s election meant big bucks for big business. The anti-trust gains made by Wilsonian progressives went out the door as a new age dawned for fat-cat tycoons and good old boys in the Republican Party.”

          “Conservatism flourished under Harding as the president distributed rewards to big business and limited benefits for average American workers”

          Sound familiar? Yes, the Great Depression was the result of similar conservative policies…as the recent one.

          Sorry, but facts matter. Giving the country to the Oil industry didn’t work out then and didn’t work out for GW. This makes it ironic that you are all Kochsuckers.

          1. Actually, it was quite a bit like the Recession which has just ended.

            Actually, it wasn’t.

            Harding is very famous for the corruption of the entire Federal Government.

            Yes, because it was as pure as snow before then. I guess you never heard of Ulysses Grant.

            Sorry, but facts matter.

            Indeed. Too bad you’re so short of them.

            This makes it ironic that you are all Kochsuckers.

            Nobody’s interested in your oral fixation, craig.

      5. Craig – can you find a post by anyone here claiming to be libertarian that likes or liked GWB?

        1. “Craig – can you find a post by anyone here claiming to be libertarian that likes or liked GWB?”

          If you are gonna sit here and tell us most folks here didn’t vote for GWB, I have some swampland in Florida for you!

          Denial after the fact is fruitless.

          I know lots of folks here state they just LOVE those SCOTUS justices who appointed him!

          Let’s stop fooling ourselves. I voted Nader in 2000. Who did y’all vote for? Really Really??

          1. In 2000 I was homeless, did not have an address and did not vote. In 2004 I voted for Bednarik. When W’s dad ran for re-election in 1992, my first year eligible, I voted for Perot.

            So you wish you could take your Elizabeth Warren vote back?

            1. I’m a Perot voter myself…..

              Let’s not fool ourselves. The Koch’s aren’t spending billions on this site, cato, AFP, tea parties and all the other crap to get folks like Perot voted in.

              They are not having confabs and inviting and partying with the conservative SCOTUS members because they want libertarians in power.

              They want Republicans in power who can deregulate everything so they can have 70 Billion instead of 60 Billion. Period.

              Or, more accurately, they don’t even know what they are doing but need a hobby because they have too much money and time on their hands. Instead of playing SimEarth, they make up a real one with all of you as pawns.

              IMHO, of course!

              1. I take it you stand by your Warren vote then.

  14. Nixon’s more to thank than Carter for deregul’n. Not any great insights Nixon had, but he inaugurated a bunch of commissions, most of which reported only after Nixon had left office, that recommended regul’n, and Congress actually went along. The changes just happened to take place mostly while Carter was president, although Selective Service was eliminated under Nixon & reinstated under Carter. Unfortunately Nixon rejected one other commission report that recommended decontrolling marihuana.

    Crediting Carter for the deregul’ns then is like crediting Bush for the fall of the Iron Curtain. It so burned me when he made that nomination speech taking credit!

    1. Nixon was pretty awful on price controls and the WoD. And don’t get me started on fast breeders vs. molten salt reactors. Don’t think I can give him credit for anything at all.

      1. Quite unintentionally, Nixon did give society a strong reason to openly distrust government.

        But of course it lasted only as long as it took those out of power to gain power before they rethought that one.

        Oh, and didn’t he get us out of Vietnam?

        Aside from those two things, yeah – bad on economics, policing, federal control, etc, etc. Truly a bad president even if you ignore the whole impeachment/resignation thingy.

        1. “Oh, and didn’t he get us out of Vietnam?”

          I think we got tossed.

          1. I recall the senate voted to stop funding the “non-isolationist humanitarian action that included a military component” (aka war).

    2. Nixon is responsible for OSHA. I have never heard of any Nixonian deregulation.

  15. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but shame on nearly all of you.

    You allowed what could have been an interesting debate about political strategy, no matter how disingenuous, collapse into arguing with a poorly coded adbot. It hijacked the entire thread and most of you played right into it’s hands. A shit ton of posts and almost no real debate…it won.

    1. Erasmus vs. Luther|9.22.14 @ 10:26PM|#
      “Sorry to be a wet blanket, but shame on nearly all of you.”

      And I’m sure you have a solution to this right in your hip pocket, right?

      1. A solution to what? The debate as to why would republicans use dated quotes to show todays’ democrats that they’re hypocritical ass hats and only regurgitate the quotes of their heros when it’s convenient? Politically speaking, why wouldn’t they? I’m confused as to what your objecting to.

        If you’re bitching about my criticism of allowing the thread to be hijacked by a brainless adbot, well, guilty as charged. I clicked on to this link’s comment section hoping to take in some intelligent discourse. Instead, I got a lot of snarky, pointless responses to a brainless fucking idiot. What’s the point of responding to such drivel?

        I realize personally attacking those who deviate from the Libertarian viewpoint is all you’ve got, but with that guy, what’s the point? You can’t use logic to argue with a blatant troll. The only point of it posting was to deflect from the substance of the article. Most of you played right along and destroyed the original point.

        As far as trollbot is concerned, mission accomplished. Don’t be an useful idiot.

    2. “A shit ton of posts and almost no real debate…it won.”

      Proof positive that libertarians are so easily fooled. Look over there – not here! Wow….

  16. Crediting Clinton for the concept of NAFTA is pretty disingenuous considering the negotiations, which began in the mid/late 80’s, were finalized and the agreement signed by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico and USA a couple months before he took office. All he had to do was not veto congress’ approval of the agreement. Which to his credit he did, over the objections of the economic-illiterate wing of his party. NAFTA wasn’t exactly his brain child though. He had no part in its proposal or negotiation.

    1. Not disagreeing with you, just adding more info:
      Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.”

  17. my neighbor’s mother makes $71 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her income was $20367 just working on the internet for a few hours. navigate to this website……….

    http://www.Works6.com

  18. “The Party of Lincoln” in 1860 supported the “American System” economic agenda, which included the total elimination of State sovereignty, resurgence of central banking, regionally unbalanced protectionist tariffs, fiat currency, Hamiltonian crony capitalism, “imperial glory” through a large standing army and foreign military adventurism, a centrally-planned economy, the civil rights protection racket embodied in the never-ratified Fourteenth Amendment (which ultimately led to “incorporation doctrine”), genuine corporate welfare (not the “tax subsidy” kind) through “internal improvements” pork and federal tax on incomes.

    The Party of Lincoln thus gave us every element of the present, Omnipotent Federal State and the federally-controlled public ‘education’ system, which teaches only one aspect of Lincoln’s presidency – SLAAAAAAVERY!!!! – and which has thus prevented all substantive dissent against the Leviathan Lincolnite State.

    This centralized authority made european socialists’ job easy: they needed control over only a single lever of power here in the U.S. in order to achieve their ends.

    We’re living the endgame of that process: slow progression toward USSR-style collapse and balkanization into individual States. The only alternative to our current path is a complete dismantling and re-establishment of the federal government by the States which created it, limiting it to its original, constitutional size, scope & authority. This isn’t likely to happen, unfortunately.

  19. A thoughtful piece, but all the Tea Party types are just gonna look at this and see “Cave… capitulate… Democrat-lite… be a squish… sell out…”

    At this point to them, even acknowledging the other side has some good points is considered apostasy.

    1. I think that’s why Ira Stoll added the point about common ground and those quotes showing how far left the Democrat Party has gone.

  20. People have been pointing out the Democrat Party’s past policies for a long time and it doesn’t seem to sway anyone. For example, Republicans point out that Democrats continually blocked civil rights acts for decades before 1967. They also point out the Democrats’ association with the KKK. Nobody cares because, now, the Democrats are the ones promising the moon. They are overselling and under-delivering. In politics, only the selling part matters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.