Friday, June 2, 2017

American Conservatism and Liberalism



American Conservatism and Liberalism
Modern American Conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism and liberal internationalism. Liberty is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider individual liberty, within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice.[1][2]
American conservatism originated from classical liberalism of 18th and 19th centuries, which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.[3][4]
Historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since the 1790s. However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s.[5][6][7] The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, though some Democrats were also important figures early in the movement's history
Conservatives generally believe that government action is not the solution to such problems as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies, that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that give special advantages to people who belong to groups that have been historically discriminated against. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special benefits to people on the basis of group identity and oppose it as "reverse discrimination".
Conservatives typically hold that the government should play a smaller role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose high tax rates and programs to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work. However, conservatives usually place a strong emphasis on the role of private voluntary charitable organizations (especially faith-based charities) in helping the poor.
As conservatives value order and security, they favor a small but strong government role in law enforcement and national defense.


Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It is characterized by social liberalism,[1] and combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.[1] The term "modern liberalism" in this article refers only to the United States. In a global context, this philosophy is usually referred to as social liberalism.
The American modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare. Important social issues today include addressing inequality, voting rights for minorities, affirmative action, reproductive and other women's rights, support for LGBT rights, and immigration reform.[2]
Modern liberalism took shape during the twentieth century, with roots in Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. American liberals oppose conservatives on most issues, but not all. Modern liberalism is historically related to social liberalism and progressivism, though the current relationship between liberal and progressive viewpoints is debated.
The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract.
Also the philosophies of Hegel, Rousseau. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the politics of Robespierre, von Bismarck, Mussolini, Lenin and others
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 defined a liberal party as one,
"which believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls—to ensure to the average person the right to his own economic and political life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[11]
Keynesian economic theory has played an important role in the economic philosophy of modern American liberals.[12] Modern American liberals generally believe that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, in order to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[12] They also value institutions that defend against economic inequality. In The Conscience of a Liberal Paul Krugman writes: "I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it."[13] Liberals often point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[14][15] They believe liberty exists when access to necessities like health care and economic opportunity are available to all,[16] and they champion the protection of the environment.[17][18]
Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party, as modern American conservatism is typically associated with the Republican Party.[19]

Herbert David Croly (January 23, 1869 – May 17, 1930) was an intellectual leader of the progressive movement as an editor, political philosopher and a co-founder of the magazine The New Republic in early twentieth-century America. His political philosophy influenced many leading progressives.
Croly was one of the founders of modern liberalism in the United States, especially through his books, essays, and a highly influential magazine founded in 1914, The New Republic. In his 1914 book Progressive Democracy, Croly rejected the thesis that the liberal tradition in the United States was inhospitable to anti-capitalist alternatives. He drew from the American past a history of resistance to capitalist wage relations that was fundamentally liberal, and he reclaimed an idea that Progressives had allowed to lapse - that working for wages was a lesser form of liberty. Increasingly skeptical of the capacity of social welfare legislation to remedy social ills, Croly argued that America's liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms involving workplace democracy.

Liberalism and Radicalism both reject the wisdom of the past, as enshrined in the institutions of the past, or in the morality of the past. They deny the legitimacy to laws, governments, or ways of life which accept the ancient evils of mankind, such as poverty, inequality, and war, as necessary—and therefore as permanent—attributes of the human condition. Political excellence can no longer be measured by the degree to which it ameliorates such evils. The only acceptable goal is their abolition. Liberalism and Radicalism look forward to a state of things in which the means of life, and of the good life, are available to all. They must be available in such a way that the full development of each individual—which is how the good life is defined—is not merely compatible with, but necessary to, the full development of all. Competition between individuals, classes, races, and nations must come to an end. Competition itself is seen as the root of the evils mankind must escape. The good society must be characterized only by cooperation and harmony.





Executive Orders on Alien Restrictions



Executive Orders on Alien Restrictions

I’ve not been a big supporter of either EO-1 or EO-2 concerning restricted entry to the U.S. of aliens of certain countries.  EO-1 was admittedly ill-conceived even by Trump’s minions.  EO-2 was more legalistically robust and established the principle that the executive branch had the constitutional right to exclude aliens from this country that they considered terrorists, or dangerous or inimical to the country.

The countries involved in EO-2 are Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. Practically speaking, there were no deaths resulting from terrorist activities by citizens of the six countries involved, and only 28 peripheral , non U.S. terrorist related activities since 9/11.  The above does not include the recent Manchester, England suicide bomber with ties to Libya who killed 22 and injured 120, mostly young girls.  This has introduced an emotional component into the mix, but does not alter the main points questioning the efficacy of EO-2 on statistical and pragmatic grounds.

Notwithstanding the efficacy, the Fourth Circuit Court immediately negated EO-2 based on their interpretation of Trump’s anecdotal statements during his candidacy, and the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the action, 10 democrats to 3 republicans, illustrating the political nature of the decision. 

The Congress has given the president of the United States “very broad discretion” when it comes to immigration.  Section 212(f) of the immigration law, states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 

So the question is: Can the federal circuit courts, particularly the fourth and ninth circuits, legislate and interpret from the bench in spite of existing law and precedents, based on anecdotal and non-legal pronouncements, and based on the politics of the judges?  Or will constitutional and congressional law pertain?  SCOTUS may or may not hear this issue, and not until October, 2017 unless it gets accelerated.  The issue has gone way past the efficacy and practicality of EO-2.  It has now become the delineation powers among the three branches of government.


Ray Gruszecki
June 2, 2017

Populism, Fascism, the “Resistance” and the Media



Populism, Fascism, the “Resistance” and the Media

The presidential election of 2016 is long over and the beltway and media circus reaches an unbelievable crescendo.  The Trump contingent are like “The Gang that couldn’t shoot straight”, spewing out poorly thought out executive orders and attempts to govern that don’t work, coupled with what seem to be out and out lies.  The democratic opposition or “resistance”, as they like to be called, have slowed meaningful government to a crawl in response to what only can be seen as inability to accept the losses that they projected and crowed about so loudly as winning in November.   In the meantime, thousands of important government jobs remain unfilled due to either executive inaction or democratic congressional “resist, obstruct, deny’ tactics.

The two political parties call themselves democrats and republicans.  Other epithets are “liberal weenies’, “snowflakes”, or “fascist pigs”, “misogynists”, etc.  But what are our two political parties truly?  They certainly are not democrats and republicans in the conventional sense.

It has become fashionable to throw words like “fascist” or “conservative” or “liberal”, or “democratic socialist” into our conversations and writings without knowing what these terms really mean, nor their derivation and history.  Only an actual look at the defunct “isms” fostered by the philosophies of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Mussolini, Hitler and others can adequately provide background.  Jonah Goldberg made an in depth study in his book “Liberal Fascism”.  Two quick points – fascism and communism both promote revolution and totalitarianism; both fascism and communism are basically socialist in nature.  German fascism was called “national socialism”.  It was only the degree of socialism that varied between fascism and communism.

Trump has co-opted the Republican Party to accept his populist, largely libertarian and yes, liberal, views.  He has sprinkled it with some conservative precepts like anti-abortion, pro second amendment, God and country rhetoric, but further examination shows him to be primarily a populist reflecting the views of his largely disenfranchised, non-elitist, middle country  constituency.  

The democrats, or other side, or resistance, can only be classified as liberal fascists.  They are fascists because they promote a form of corporatism that “knows” what is good and right for everybody, and allows no dissenting voices.  One just needs to look at the Italian and German movements of the early 20th century to see the parallels.  These liberal fascists even use black shirted, violent rioters to break heads and quiet dissenting voices. Recent riots at Berkeley, Columbia and Middlebury attest.

David Brooks’ “Bobos in Paradise” takes a pretty thorough and sometimes humorous view of how our coastal elitists became elitists or “Bourgeois Bohemians”.  This is largely our liberal left resistance. While proclaiming that they are the party of equal rights and a kinder, gentler society, our current liberal left  in fact are the party of secularism and identity politics, proposing, among other things,  special rights for minority groups, including illegal (and criminal) non-citizens to ensure their absorption into the fold.  They twist true legal equal rights for all people into a perverted definition of bigotry and throw epithets like “fascist” at the Trump supporters, whose only sin seems to be populism and love of country (notwithstanding the ineptitude of the “Trumpists” thus far.  To these liberal fascists, the term “fascist” is applied to anyone who does not agree with them.

And the polarization continues.  From the congress to the media to the supermarket, we are
vituperatively divided.  Not as bad as times past.  Our Civil War division and our civil rights and anti-Vietnam 1960’s come to mind.  But our current division is pretty bad because these are not just debating points.  There is an actual hatred on opposing sides that eats at the fabric of our republic and results in stupid actions by our supposed leaders.  It also erodes our media to the point that rather than cable and local channel news, we have instead opinion, mostly from the left.

As an elderly “student” at a local college, I qualify for digital subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post.  In addition I read Reuters, USA Today and other balanced, left and right news sources.  I also watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and local news.

I consider myself a fair and honest person, and as such, I cannot in good conscience, consider that any media outlets other than Reuters, USA today and Fox honestly report the news.  It is obvious after watching CNN and reading the New York Times that I am being exposed to left wing opinion rather than balanced news.  CNN is particularly egregious in this regard.  They are almost a full time running commercial for the obstructionist left wing.

Ray Gruszecki
May, 2017

Thoughts on Internet of Things and Security



Thoughts on Internet of Things and Security

Is your smart TV reporting on you to the NSA, CIA, FBI et al?  Is your refrigerator monitoring you?  Is Alexa doing more than playing music and turning on lights?  These would be considered ludicrous questions until recent revelations from Wikileaks reported and leaked procedures showing that The NSA and CIA had developed methods to exploit features in not only these but in many other, internet connected devices.  The Wikileaks revelations point up that such breaches of security are not only possible, but actually prevalent in our world of the “internet of things.”  This is not a conspiracy theory.  This is reality!

I’m not a cyber security expert, but I have worked in the field and have some fundamental expertise around computers and networks.  I also have explored the world of hacking to determine what is possible in this realm.  I cite several simple examples that don’t require complex computer code or other procedures as follows:  1.) I can hide and encrypt myself from prying eyes by accessing the internet using an external flash drive that I can carry in my pocket,  on any computer without leaving a trace.  2.) I can access unsecured or poorly secured internet connected devices of all types, all over the world.  Theoretically I could have accessed that DNC server if it were as unsecured as they say.  Podesta’s email server with “password” as the password would have been easy pickings.  So would Hillary’s email server in her basement if it wasn’t properly protected.  So would a power plant or major factory be easy to access if not properly protected, and not set up with just default passwords as many are .

The above does not require a PhD in cyber-security.  It doesn’t even require coding skills.  All it requires is a basic knowledge of computers, networks and systems, and some common sense and research skills.  This knowledge is available to curious researchers like me, as well as those with more nefarious ends like dealing dope, gun running, hacking the DNC, etc.  My point is that this is not esoteric or hidden information.  It is readily available with a little knowledge and perseverance.

It is worthy of note that if an old, slow curiosity seeker like myself can go about 70% of the way to completely hacking and affecting various world systems, what can the NSA, CIA, the Russian SVR, the Chinese PLA Unit 61398 and others with massive government resources accomplish in this regard.  While not advertised in the past, all countries have cyber warfare groups that are actively hacking the computer and network resources of other countries.

The whole issue of information security in our government and society has been brought into question by these recent leaks of information from our supposedly secret government agencies.   It’s no wonder that President Trump talks about his phones at Trump Tower being tapped.  It’s certainly easy enough to do.  If we don’t get a handle on all of this soon and stop the leaks of confidential information, the security which is supposed to protect our country and infrastructure will become as porous as our southern border has become over the last 30 years.  We simply cannot afford to be as exposed as we may be in the process of becoming to enemies like North Korea, Iran and others.

These links pertain.





Ray Gruszecki
April 7, 2017