Women didnt even have legal rights in the United States until pretty recently. My question is like two workers have the authority for example to take over . Do they have the authority . Yeah why not . They built the plant and they made the products and they did the work. Why should they be tools rented by some bank or somewhere else . That is the way our institutional structure happens to be as formulated but it doesnt mean its legitimate. When you talk about authority youre asking questions about legitimacy do people have the right to run their own lives or do they have to be sort of the tools in the hands of foreign masters . Will you now that is a question of legitimacy not authority. You mentioned the civil war and there is ample evidence by now that there were dairy significant slave initiatives in the civil war and there is more to say about that a lot more so take the american revolution. To a large extent that was a revolution carried out in order to maintain slavery. If you look back at the history around 1770 in britain the legal system was he getting to undertake strong condemnations of slavery. That was the somerset case in 1772 were slave owners from United States brought their slaves with them to angle and. One of them escaped and his owner wanted him back. Its my property and it went to court and went to lord mansfield famous jurist who ruled slavery so odious that was a term he used that it cant be tolerated on english soil. It could be tolerated in the colonies but thats another story but not on english soil. The United States, the founders of the country were almost all slaveowners and they could see the handwriting on the wall. If the colonies remained under british rule, probably these laws would apply here and they would lose their property. That was surely a significant element of the revolution and it runs right to the present. I mean right to this moment the civil war is still being fought. Simply take a look at the electoral maps. Save the map of the election of 2012 red states and blue states. Its almost identical to the civil war. Its a confederacy which now call themselves republicans. They shifted names and the rest which was the north. Its a large part of the motivation behind the effort to shut down the government is just revenge. We want to shut down washington and win this war finally. The United States never developed class parties like labor parties. They didnt amount to much but elise they were something. The u. S. Never have been. Its always had sectional parties and its a reflection of the civil war which never ended. It hasnt ended in the prisons and elsewhere. Its a very deeplyrooted thing in society and hard to extrapolate. I hope you all will join me in thanking noam chomsky once more. [applause] thank you all so much for coming. There are books available in the back. This spill announces the opening of thanksgiving day at the 27th annual sale. This universal declaration of civil rights made well become the international magna carta of all men everywhere. The equal rights amendment when ratified poe be an instant solution to womens problems. Im trying to find my way through it and trying to figure out how best to be true to myself and how to fulfill my responsibilities to my husband and my daughter and the country. What they may not imagine looking at the white house from the outside is that its actually a very normal life upstairs. I try to bring a little bit of Michelle Obama into this but it at the same time respecting and valuing the tradition that is americas. A few months ago in the materials of war it went up. Above the clamor of heavy cranes along a thousand docks warships awaited corvus held up by the labor shortage the call persisted, that was the call for help at going in the detroit area when women began to respond. Anything within their strength that man could do for uncle sam. Listen to the wings overhead. Your sisters are singing. It is the song of women, american women on the warpath. Next fred siegel talks about his book the revolt against the masses how liberalism has undermined the middle class. Mr. Siegel is a history professor at the cooper union for the advancements of science and art in new york city. This is an hour. [applause] thank you. If you dont mind im going to sit rather than go to the podium. Ive had a few Health Problems and i would just as soon not test myself. Thank you for coming tonight. In thinking about the problem of liberalism i have to start off with a simple problem. Most people including most people who think they have studied the subject have a very weak idea of the history of liberalism whether it be on the left or the right. There is an idea that you started with progressivism, you move done to no, im teasing. [laughter] you started with progressivism. He proceeded to the new deal and then you went into the Great Society as a continuous flow. The trouble is its simply not true. Most progressives did not become new dealers. Very few republican progressives you have to remember progressivism was a bipartisan movement. Very few republican progressives became new dealers and not surprisingly enough im on the democratic regresses the group most likely to become new dealers were social workers, lowly social workers and they saw what they wanted and what they hoped for in the new deal. Part of the reason for this is their is a kusair him around world war i and has to do with personality. Personality of Woodrow Wilson. A great deal has been written about the personality of Woodrow Wilson but in my opinion not enough. He had an extraordinary effect. But before i get to Woodrow Wilson i just want to lay out the broad argument and then i will come back to wilson. When we think of liberalism today top and bottom coalition we associate with barack obama. This began not with progressivism and the new deal but whether the wake of the postworld war i disillusioned with american society. Most americans were happy to get back to the harding years the subject of braun alices new book but that was not true of intellectuals. And it was not true of writers of fiction. Those people, let me people that im referring to. H. G. Wells, h. L. Mencken Sinclair Lewis and randolph bruin. My suspicion is most of the people in the room dont know who Randolph Warren is. After you read a book i hope you will have a better idea because he has an enormous and i mean enormous impact on the 1960s. Many of the ideas of the 1960s are his ideas. H. G. Wells as you all know you think of him as the writer of great science fiction. Wells was an enormous political influence on both sides of the atlantic. He met with Teddy Roosevelt. They talked about his fictions. He met with president taft. He met with fdr repeatedly. He was the worst to be reckoned with. Sinclair lewis if you are over 50 you are ready know who he is from the novels main street and it cant happen here. Which is still, are still part of the Political Landscape of america. And mencken. Many of you know or expect all of you know who mencken is that you probably dont know that rankin was the most influential liberal of the 1920s. You dont know this because in the 30s he was enormously hostile to fdr and he was cast into perfidy. But in the 1920s no one and i say no one was more influential among liberal thinkers. Young advanced thinkers on the campus todays equivalent of the Creative Class god help us. No one was more influential than mencken. Like communism fabianism and fascism modern liberalism was a Vanguard Movement born of a new class of politically selfconscious intellectuals. Let me repeat that because it may sound odd. Like communism atheism and fascism was a Vanguard Movement born of a new class of politically selfconscious and righteous. Im not suggesting that liberals are fascists communists or fabians. None of the love. Im saying there are great similarities end there created by the vanguard of intellectuals. Critical of mass democracy middle class capitalism liberals despise the individual assessments pursuit of profit as well as the conventional individual selfinterested or suit of success. Both of which thrives in the 19th century in new york. Snobbery is not new to liberalism but the actual history of liberalism will be new to most readers. Liberalism like his rivals including communism fascism and fabianism emerged as part of the 20th century response the newly emergent worlds mass politics and mass culture. Like fascism and communism and i should add here fabianism liberalism strongly influenced by their writings of nietzsche. The first book in america written about nietzsche was written a h. L. Mencken. The first book on George Bernard shaw and american was written by the same man, mencken. Mencken made shah famous in america before shot was famous in england. I wont go into shock today just suffice to say he plays an Important Role in the book. What people found appealing in nietzsche was the sense of his call for new aristocracy. Old aristocracy aristocracy crumbled under the impact of modernization. He wanted a new aristocracy and h. G. Wells writing if you remember was full of this. Remember he is calling for the new samurai. He is calling for this new elite to run their world. He never really stops and he has picked up, when youre reading al gore and i hesitate to mention his name here but when you are reading al gore on Climate Change you are reading h. G. Wells. Core solutions to Climate Change are well Solutions Creating a global governing body. The set of liberal and emotional attachments that political libido and we emphasize that phrase the political libido of liberalism coalesced in the wake of world war i and its anger and repudiation of progressivism and Woodrow Wilson. The very term liberal in its modern usage was coined by writers intellectuals who define themselves by their hostility to the middle class and were listed progressives. And you hated prohibition. I suspect many of you are aware of that prohibition was not the product of rightwing cranks. Prohibition was the product of repressiveism. It was a way of preserving peoples paychecks. And progressivism was a movement of social uplifting. It wasnt just about dollars and cents and reducing bosses him. It was about uplifting america. The new deal breaks with all of that area and the new deal begins when roosevelts first act is to appeal prohibition. Which briefly sets roosevelt and mencken off on the right foot. [laughter] mencken was a great drinker of german beer. The best short summary of what liberalism is came from the once canonical literary. Just for my knowledge how many people today know who burn in perinton is . Very few. He was once a very widely known a year and i suspect those of you raising your hand are historians. Anyone who is not a historian raising your hand . One person. Michael you are an historian. You cannot escape that. Harrington said the following in the late 20s. Rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class and yes he used that term. He insisted and the artists and scientists will erect a civilization and become what civilization was in earlier days the thing to be respected. This alienation from american life, the sense that america was the worst of all places was essential to liberalism and its inception. In the 1950s in a brief moment when liberals reconciled with America Lionel trilling noted that quote for the first time in history of modern american on flecha Life American is not to be conceived of as a party the stupidest nation in the world. This novelty soon pass. [laughter] just a brief word to break up the narrative. Crowley was the founder of the new republic. Sometimes you have heard this phrase im sure in college from some dimwitted professor. He wanted to achieve hamiltonian ends. Excuse me wanted to achieve jeffersonian ends by hamiltonian means. He had no use for hamilton or jefferson. He was a francophile of the first order. His parents were part of the quasicatholic quasiscientist religion of comps the french thinker, and he was one of the first to be baptized in kantian faith, whatever that was. Its not entirely clear. His mother by the name of jennie june was an early feminist and his father in this unhappy marriage was a futurist. He saw kantian future and crowley himself had always admitted he was basically a francophile. He wanted to make america more like france. Depending on whats going on whether a lot of you agree or disagree with that. In other words, what he was hoping for, what brooks saw in wells was hope for clarity. A semisecular, in some deep sense, religious group whose underlying values would define the country, and im not going to get into it today, but if you think about members of lbjs cabinet or ph. D. Es, how many come from the universities, theres a famous moment when John Gardener supposed by jokingly had a faculty meeting, saying, welcome, faculty. Thats what it was, literally, not just metaphorically. Now, the book by wells, let me try those same two people again. The book by wells that had the most influence was not the time machine, which is what he talked to Teddy Roosevelt about, but where we all are destined to become either beasts or loci was a small book called anticipations, anyone familiar with the book . Okay, not even our two. [laughter] this was a fascinating book. Let me just read a little bit about it. The book explained wells was defined to undermind and destroy moo monogamy, faith in god, and respectability all with cars and electrical heating. Thats exactly right. For many young americans, wells writing were a passport. Now, what all the peoplemented was a secular priesthood. Including born. Secular priesthood that was this is words, sets aside slobbingly americans. Born and making it in particular were german, and world war i. Make it right, atlantaic calling for german victory, and he writes an article, which is never published to his every lasting luck calling for the german conquest of america. The proof exists somewhere in the making connection letters wrote to oath people. Ill come back to it in a bit. Let me turn here to 1919. We fought a war. Prohibition has been imposed. During the war, theres a good deal of repression. Worlds war i is egg ugly. American leftist, people like sister crystal, who are part of the pass vies groups who visit the washington were enamored at Woodrow Wilson, and youll see others enamored of Woodrow Wilson. Well get to that. They see him as one of them, and he sounds like one of them. Hes opposed to the war, many of the same grounds they are. He doesnt want to see european imperialism triumph. He studied socialism. Hes not a socialist. He studied socialism. He sees in American Progress vism and american form of socialism. But in the years of 1918 and 1920 were traumatic. In 1916, many left and embraced wilson as a form of a leader. By 1919, heavers seen as one whose rhetoric despised as mere mum ri. The 14 points, message of good luck to the republic of labor unions, the ussr, and warning to the allies their treatment of russia would be the acid test of their good will, intention, and unselfish sympathy, and mentally impressive to us explains matt eastman. Speaking for many leftists and progressives. This was the extraordinary moment, extraordinary moment when russias war connoisseur, referring to the now famous con cement of the fellow travel. Its wilson who is the model for coining the term fellow traveler, and using that term later, its not true, but for a time, this appears to be the case. The metaphor based on the belief that the american president shared a critique of imperialism and hope for reform in less capitalist u. S. This could sound like the 1980s who still thought russia was going to catch up and wed converge, but theres no reason to did over old garbage. Liberals with those progressives would renamed themselves so to repudiate wilson. Ill repeat it. Liberals, progressives who renamed themselves so as to repudiate wilson. The word liberalism who wrote whitman in 1919, was introduced to the american politics by a group in 1912, and wilson democrats from 19161918. The new liberalism was a decisive cultural break with wilson and progressivism while the progressives inspired by faith and democratic reforms as the wounds of industrial civilization and power politics. The newly selfdefined liberals saw the American Democratic ethos as danger to freedom at home and abroad. Sound familiar . A society at large, not just the bible belters, blaming for their sub geek gages. Although writers prospers as never before, they feel oppressed as never beforement you all met people like this. Not here in washington. If you come a few hours north, and you attend a dinner party, i guarantee youssef mejri bump into those people. They always refer to most americans as the herd. This very my mentor, had the good sense to repudiate this. Heres brooks talking about coney island. The new Popular Culture broadway shows, movies k baseball, he said, were all makeshifts of dispair, proof that america was a joyless land. This takes a leap to think coney island and baseball represents joylessness. Maybe if you spend time with alex rodriguez, but that would be a long time in the future. Brooks compared the United States to a, quote, prime evil monster concentrating on the appetite of the moment, knowing nothing of its own vast body, encrusted with pair sites, half indistinguishable from the slime in which it moves. Half indistinguishable from the slime of which it moves. Its not a positive picture. [laughter] these writers wrote the chronicle, and united in one crew saiding army by the revolt as they understood it, and in the exciting years, 1919 and 1920, they seize power in the literary world like russia. They seize power. Thats exactly right. Lets go back if we can to Woodrow Wilson, the seizure of power. Wilson understands an attempt to impose uniformity in the midst of war, the antigerman hostility, you know, banning sauerkraut, you know all the specifics of this. This could be avoided, and empowers people to impose just that, a frightening uniformity on the country. If theres anything good about liberalism, and i think there is. I dont want to push it too hard, theres two things. Concern with conformity, although very most often liberals are the most conformist people imaginable, but in principle, concern with conformity, and liberals creating the aclu, had good moment, and even most are bad, and civil rights. Many supporters, including the american protective league, are cracking down on german institutions and cracking down on all sorts of disacceptability, and so africanamericans criticizing lynchings were denounced excuse me prussian sympathizers, much as denounce ing 20 years later. Now, i mentioned the love affair with prussian germany, love affair, and the love affair was not a a nice man. He was very sorry, George Bernard shaw liked each other. One was a meeting shaw was a very strange man. They understood they worked the same side of the street. They both hate the angloamerican culture, and for making this led to a p reason prussian shaw led towards stalin. Heres talking about the aftermath of the war. I, too, like the leaders of germany, had grave doubts about democracy. It certainly dawned on me, somewhat to my surprise, that the whole body of my doctrine i preach is fundamentally antianglosaxoing n, as if i had a spiritual home at all, its in the land of the ancestors. When world war i started, i was whooping for the kyeser, and kept it up so long there was not any freech speech left. Unfortunatelily, he suffered a price. Columns repressed and presented himself as a martyr. Most of whats written about him today ignores all of this. Let me jump ahead. Anyone want to talk about the scopes trial later . If so, ill stop and talk later. Interested in the scopes trial . [inaudible] im the boss, okay. Ill pick up the trial now. Most of what you read about the trial is not true. It was not written on a town, not persecuted, and the town put imup to the case as a way of promoting the town. It seemed like a good idea. Bring tourists. This was classic promotional promotionallism. Ryan, William Jennings brian, thats not a pompous ass or a fool. William Jennings Brian debated george os bourn, the president of the notch rail museum in new york, and he read. Brian had failings, especially with evolution. Brian was, race aside, not particular, but a decent man. When henry ford had antisemitism, brian repudiated it. He was a methodist who went to a presbyterian service, generally open and decent man. Let me jump ahead now. Any historian that you know of that you would think of the second ill throw the question over. Any his historian you know thatu think of the second . Very famous historian. Think about the kennedy assassination for a minute. [inaudible] a good guess. [inaudible] no, no. Another good guess. Richard hostead. He was the second. Remember supporters were no eve of this at all. Excuse me, brian supporters. They were all no, we had no support for this at all. Read brian in american political, you think you read it all over again, but as a historian. Let me stop there and pick up in the kennedy assassination and liberalism a little later. Outrage over killing belgium civilians and sinking of the lose tannian. He wrote another piece of work, and he was a fellow germman american, quote, no compromising future of the men of german blood and, quote, good, quote, right thinking. Hes sarcastic. We must stand against them forever and do the damage we can to them and the democracy. If you come across this in the writings, let me know. I rarely find it. In the 1920s, mike gold, you know, the famous fellow for jews without money declared him the nations greatest political influence. He faded in the 30s and attackedded head, and that was not going to fly. In the 30s, the accolades still hated the biewj way see. You couldnt throw a stone in a communism mass meeting excuse me, couldnt through a stone in the mass meetings noted Lincoln Stephens in 1936 without hitting someone who sometime in the past hardly agree with the bit ire assault on everything that was typically bosh way. Theres a continue newty between the appeal in the 20s and communism in the 30s. Let me turn to the writer more than anybody else encapsulates liberalism, and thats sinclaire louis. I spent you read main street, and if not, it cant happen here. Asian americans saying louis was bernard, who was a mentor to arthur, and louis was borns writing, turned into novels. His midwest issue student, was stalked with symbols of business domination. He goes on. They fixed the image of america, and for the world in the next half century. Thats exactly right. He was the First American to receive the pulitzer prize, few if you read the writings today, youll find them not appealing. He was not a good writer, and he knew it and drove him crazy he got the pulitzer prize. It was not a favor. Now, main street caught the world opposed post war literary disillusion with america. Its about two adults, faithful husband, suffers because her fellow citizens of gopher falls are just excuse me, gopher prairie, just too dull beyond words. They dont have party in pajamas or read the best new writings, and just venn issues, and shes tortured by this. The look is enormous. Mark shore, one of louis biographers, one of the best biographers, described the book as an event in american history, not just a novel, but an event in american history. Hes right. It marked it was a demarcation point in american culture. Twelve years he wrote babbit, he, too, oppressed by being successful. Twelve years later in 1934 after his wife, Dorothy Thompson was in europe looking at the rise of fascism sorry, confusing louis writes the novel about the rise of fascism in america. It cant happen here. Im sure most of you have read it. If you have not, its worth reading, not because its written well. Its not. Just because its so interesting because the themes of it are still alive today. It cant happen here. Its marvelous because it turns out equivalent of the black shirts and brown shirts are the rotary club meetings. [laughter] sound ludacris . Read sinclaire louis. Its the conformity he says at rotary meetings, moose meetings, elks, all the meetings essential for making democracy, that in the present day we mourn the passing because we bowl alone. All of that was for sinclaire, the base. Now, he hadnt the faintest clue what he was talking about. He couldnt think politically. Didnt think well socially, but he was very good at capturing a political mood. Like most, he paid little attention, he was max eastman, paid no attention whatsoever to prussians. Was not their concern. When hitler came along, resentments op german racial purity and eugenics, popular among american liberals, louis stepped in by suggesting the loathing for main street was recon personal injurylated in europe. Described as one of the most important books in america, published in the time with the American Population was 127 million, and quickly sold 123,000 copies. Opening just prior to the 1936 president ial elections, the play of can cant happen here drew 400,000 viewers in four months. It was a sensation. Reissued periodically, cant happen here, happened, part of every intellectuals required reading. I read read it at 14. It was part of every young intellectuals by word, and readers of the 2004 novel, the plot against america read in the bush years recognize the plot of can cant happen here, the plot, and i love reading philip for the most part, but this is one of the worst novels. It just does not work. In this case, lindberg takes the country over. During the second term of yornlg w. Bush, new american law brought out a new printing, and newspaper columnists and bloggers and pundits draw on the Books Authority take over, bush saw as yet another down home strong man, never specified the first one. Some of you know, an unchallengeable revelation for some people, even today, pointless to argue. Although, i sometimes bring it up just to annoy people. This one element of it cant happen here that relates to the present. He never specifies, and what he implies is whats needed a al gar ky of good people. , you know, not so different from the new samurai, and i dont know how the people are selected, these good people are selected, but you have to replace democracy with an ole ology gar ky of good people. How its done, he doesnt have much to say. When you read or listen to people around the Obama Administration similar to the view of the world, with one important difference i will not go into now, ill pick up in questions and answers. Let me stop with that. Ive probably gone on. What time is it . Oh, good, we want on too long, sorry. Thank you. [applause] im intrigued by capitalism, its a persistent threat, and i wonder if it is because capitalism stands for a source of power that does not recognize what the intellectuals sell which is their intelligence or is there how would you explain it . What, you know, capitalism does recognize source of influence. The writings of f. Scott fitzgerald explodes in the 1920 s. They were richly rewarded by the society they dispias. It has to do with the following. They suggest their vote is no more important than anyone elses vote. Did back, theres much i admire and much i dont, admiration for the french revolution of 1831 and 1848 do not stand up well; however, mills argued for multiple ballots for people like themself, that they are not compelled to vote like ordinary people. This is long standing. Its talking about low information, and its not a visible question. You know, i think now in the hometown voters, and i know the people are elected by a record low turnout. The turnout had not been that low since before women could vote. Its not as if there was a great fusion of enthusiasm. The city now is entirely in the hands of low information voters. Its not that thats a problem, but thats not the problem intellectuals talk about. Just this point on intellectuals and capitalism. Its not jigs capitalism that intellectuals dont like, but democracy. Its democracy. Whether it be the love affair of intellectuals with kyeser, certainly not a lovely fellow, and curious, anyone read the british historian . May not be wellknown in america, but hes very good on seeing how much of hitler and nazi was anticipateed. This has not been discussed, and part of the reason its not been discussed is that the kind of view of the world is simply triumph. The 20s were a horrible time. Society redeemed in the 30s, and we best just understand that. Michael, the washington examiner, congratulations, fred. Thank you. One name you mentioned different from the others, and i wondered whether they paid attention to him at all or saw him as an opponent. You mentioned she was a frank file and im not really up to date on my comp, but i have the feeling that hes Something Like the opposite of what tokeville with some reservation admired in the america in the 1830s. Exactly right. What he wants is socialism imposed by a central power. He wanted central extreme central, and thats what liberalism represented no use whatsoever, considered him beneat the considerations, and i dont rem anyone read it today unless you are interested in this. Its very interesting. Its kind of socialism because that premarks, and a great deal of what survives socialism let me just pop over to hd wells. You wouldnt be well aware of this because little is written about it because a great admirer of utopian social experms, new harmony was something studied closely. The colony, upstate new york, studied closely, and wells socialism, the rise in part from the socialists, and wells, you know, he came an american, and the father was a crook tier, never made a living, thought about moving to america, and very nearly did so. Wells thought he had one leg, one leg in america. Was unknown to the people, wasnt important, and had he been read, would have. Seen hopelessly. You know, its all about how the they are sub miewn, not metaphorically. Its the attitude picked up, and sometimes in the case, literally. Hi, im tom curry, and i had trouble fitting what i thought was my understanding of liberalism and progressivism in with some of what you said. You used the phrase, some of the people had a sense that america was the worst of all possible places, Something Like that, and if you think about what happened a few years before the period you talked about, you know, Woodrow Wilson signed into law against child labor, struck down, and then in the new deal, it was child labor ban. Its not that liberals and progressives it was incapable of being redeemed. They thought it was capable of being improved, and, i mean, your view, it seems, think back to humphry, never said it was utterly contemptible, but wanted to improve it. He was against affirmative action theres none of those in america today. Liberal long ago. You missed a point in the argument that theres a break in liberalism and progressivism. Progressives believe america is redeemed, and they very much believe in america. Liberals break with that over wilson. They see in wilson, embodiment of progressivism and want to break with it, nothing whatsoever to do with the massive american society. They are not progressives. Thats all i can say. I hope you read the book. [inaudible] who are they . They are just the people who i described. They want they want a new aristocracy to govern the land. Not to reveal contempt for the people, clinging to guns and religion, but at times, its all about forward and improvement and blah, blah, blah. The term progressive came to use because the term liberal was sump a pa seniortive because the world died off and replaced by the George Mcgoverns and much worse. I would be describing the president as a liberal, and when he belongs to reverend wrights churnlings, one of the things he preach against is middle classness. Preaches against middle classness, avoid middle class virtues. How do we get to be middle class about the virtues . Explain this to me. Contemporary liberalism ill leap, closing chap r chapters in the book anticipate elections in the new york city. Im not promoting the book that way. No one will then read it. The election of new york city put into power every major office, people very close to Service Employees and international union. Sciu and 1199 and Health Care Workers combined. Deblasio, the new mayor, new speaker of the counsel. Both worked for iciu at 1199, and you can go on down the list. One of the ways liberalism changed is that when lost the american majority, and i talk about this in the crisis of american liberalism, it was in the wilderness, and it discovered a new middle class. Public sector unions. Public sector unions like liberals because, like liberals, they want to extract from the state. Private sector unionists, one of the key i dont know how many people follow governor christie with no interest in defending governor christie. The way governor christie succeeded to the degree he has is by working with the president of the state senate, steven swanson, head of the steel Iron Workers Union because as a private sector unionist, he wants a vile economy, and new jerseys economy is dead in the water pretty much. He opposed private sec sore unions, but like 1199 want is they want extraction. Thats what Governor Walker was dealing with in wisconsin. Theres no interest in growing the economy at large. If you can ship if you can show me where obamas policies have been designed to grow the economy at large, i want to know about them. So liberalism becomes a deeply connected, and recreates itself in a sense by bringing Public Sector unionists, and acor is closely connected to acisu. Its not going Voter Registration anymore, but they are an effective voter turnout operation for liberal democrats. What are the end goals of liberalism, this new aristocracy, was it to have socialism without voting when they are in control of all the resources, sort of communism without any party . Im not quite sure. They dont like any threats, it seems like, capitalisms bad, democracys bad. Religions bad. I guess global warmings good because they think they control it. Im not sure where they want to get. Well, i couple years ago, joel and i wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard talking about the tendency to rule through executive order, and well see more of that, especially if he loses this upcoming election. We are going to see some really nasty conflicts. Hes going to try to govern without congress. Obama, and my wife, who i can now criticize sitting in the front row is from chicago. People from chicago have a lot to answer for. [laughter] they knew obama was a fraud way back when. When jan, my sisterinlaw, like my sister, the parties in chicago, and all these people who knew obama, former tax attorney, who knew knew him rather well, and i asked him, what are the accomplish. S, whats he done . Nothing, absolutely no qualifications, no reason so i said, why are you supporting him . This is going to be good for chicago. Money will be coming in here. Why should i oppose this . Thats the chicago way of thinking, for which i criticize my wife heartedly. [laughter] what hes done is bring chicagostyle politics to america, america at large. Whats good for the machine, good for people who paid the machine off, so hes not opposed to all capitalists, just those paid off. You know, here im not speaking as a historian, but flapping his lips. Gangsterism. I wouldnt call it gangsterism, but its not appealing either. [inaudible] woodrow willon is a a pivotal figure, but you didnt recount the agents of his that liberals found. Prohibition was one. Another was the ban on german use of germman language, use of german foods, and wilsons toller raps of the attorney general, a. Mitchell palmer, the american protective lead, repressed germanamericans, and there were fights in the streets of american cities, milwaukee, chicago, between germanamericans and polishamericans and nongermanmens. It was ugly. What they disliked about wilson was this repression. Not necessarily from the executive office, but accountabilities by the executive office. [inaudible] sure, as many as you like. One in the far back. And the front row too. Yours can be the last. Okay. Im pete chase. Referring to one the answers you gave earlier tonight, you said that what liberals dispias is in particular democracy. I guess because it empowers the average guy in a way they find deplorable. Im having trouble scoring that with calls on the left. Its always for more democracy. I mean, the 17th amendment, the calls for the abolition of the college, seems like on the left, calling for more direct democracy, and im having trouble squaring it. Stick with the word directings thats crucial. They want more direct democracy to create a centralize the society so when you control the center, you control the society. They are opposed to republicanism, small r. Selfgovernment on local levels k responsibility on the the state and local
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.