PBS: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff Interviewing Richard N. Smith: Looking Back at The Life & Politics of Nelson Rockefeller

Source:PBS- Presidential historian Richard N. Smith's book, about Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Source:The Daily View

"A politician who self-described as having a “Democrat heart with a Republican head,” Nelson Rockefeller would be something of a political anomaly today. Biographer Richard Norton Smith, author of “On His Own Terms,” joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what distinguished the four-time New York governor and former vice president."

From PBS NewsHour

Richard Smith nailed it when he told Judy Woodruff and she asked him about how  to describe Nelson Rockefeller’s politics with Smith saying that Nelson was a Progressive-Conservative. Which I know sounds like an Oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or hot ice, the Cleveland Browns NFL franchise. (Not to pick on Cleveland)

And I prefer the term Progressive Republican like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Newt Gingrich. Someone who believes in government action to create progress but who puts limits on government to doing only the things that government should be doing. Like helping people in need help themselves.

Nelson or Nellie wasn’t a hardcore Conservative or Classical Conservative, Conservative Libertarian. As Richard Smith said Nelson disagreed with Barry Goldwater who did almost by himself put conservative libertarianism on the map in American politics, on almost all the issues.

But Nelson was a Conservative similar to Teddy Roosevelt in the sense that he believed in conserving what worked well in America like our Constitution, diversity, and individualism, and yes our environment. But he also believed in using government to again create progress and make things better.

A true Conservative in a political sense believes in conserving. Which has nothing to do with bigotry, national defense, property rights, to use as examples. But someone who believes conserving what works well and what makes society strong.

And yes, Conservatives tend to believe in conserving those things that I just mentioned, but generally conservatism in a political sense is about conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights.

Not using government to force people to live in a certain way because those are the religious and moral values of some faction of believers. Nelson Rockefeller was a Conservative in that sense. But he also believed government could play a limited but constructive role in seeing that progress was achieved and that society could be better.

Theodore Roosevelt: 'Let Us Remember'

Source: AZ Quotes- One of Theodore Roosevelt's best quotes.

Source:The Daily View 

"A quote from "Citizenship in a Republic" (speech, 1910) by Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (1858-1919). Music & recitation by Charles Belfor. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

From Charles Belfor

Source: Charles Belfor- Theodore Roosevelt, certainly was The Man in The Arena.

It seems to me from this Theodore Roosevelt quote that he was arguing for both a progressive income tax and national service. A progressive income tax where Americans are taxed based on their ability to pay taxes.

The more money you make an earn on your own, the more in taxes that you would pay. For people in poverty they would pay the less if any in income taxes and people in the middle would pay a moderate level of income taxes. Which is the income tax system that America has right now, if you exclude the tax deductions and benefits that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals greatly. While middle class Americans other then being able to deduct their home mortgage interest and their state sales taxes, as well the child tax credit, tend to pay the U.S. Government (or Uncle Sam) what they owe by law in taxes. I believe it's safe to say like it's also safe to say that it snows in Minnesota in January, that Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t be a fan of the modern American income tax system.

And then you look at the TR quote where he’s saying that as much that has been given must, much will be expected in return. Again, I believe he’s arguing for progressive taxation there, but he’s also arguing for national service and public service.

That its a real privilege to live in and be born in America and we simply have the advantages that a lot of other people if not most people who are born and raised in other countries which is why we have the economic as well as personal freedom that we do, that we should be expected to give back to the country, because so much has been given to us. Not just in taxes but in public and national service to make the country a better place. Whether its military service, foreign service, law enforcement, becoming teachers, or volunteering for charities , that we should give back because so much as been given to us.

As strange as this might sound there is a lot of TR in the wealthiest and most successful of American families. The Bush Family has always believed in public service. The Roosevelt’s obviously, the Kennedy Family, the Rockefeller Family, the Carnegie Family, and many others. These great families believe that other Americans who didn’t grow up with the same advantages as they did and perhaps didn’t have any advantages at all, believe that the underprivileged deserve an hand up to help them have a better life in America.

And not just through public policy, but through private charity and other non-profit organizations that serve the needy in America. Which is also a major part of Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy.

BBC Newsnight: Emily Maitlis- Interviewing Kurt Anderson: 'On Donald Trump and Fantasyland'

Source: BBC News- Kurt Anderson, being interviewed by BBC News, in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Donald Trump won the US presidential election in 2016, Kurt Anderson was halfway through a book that he would title Fantasyland. It put the birth of fake news and false claims into a wider historical context. Kurt Anderson argues America has long been a place where renegades and freaks came in search of freedom to create their own realities. Emily Maitlis spoke to him in Washington."

From BBC Newsnight

Donald Trump and Fantasyland? Donald Trump is Fantasyland! Donald Trump is the President of Fantasyland! The United Donald of Fantasyland is the country that he presides over where facts don't matter and even exist. "If Donald Trump says it, it must be true." According the citizens of Fantasyland which is a fairly big country. Roughly 60 million people give or take voted for Donald Trump for President in 2016. If there was an amusement park called Fantasyland, Donald Trump would run the place. Well, he would probably just own it and instead hire someone who knows what they're doing run the place for him instead.

About 46% of the vote, voted for Donald Trump for President. Not talking about Lebanon or some other country that might have an authoritarian government but is so small as well as poor that it doesn't represent much if any threat to even its neighbors, let alone people around the world.

Fantasyland is a country where everything that Donald Trump says especially about himself, of course is true. Because again we're talking about Fantasyland where everyday is a marijuana high. Where facts don't matter. If Donald Trump had to operate in the real world, take Planet Earth to use as an example, he would fail miserably because he would have to deal with truth all the time. Which is generally bad about him because lack basic human values: Like commonsense, maturity, character, decency, and unfortunately I could go on but I'll spare you.

Albert Einstein once said about the truth that: "whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." Donald Trump is a man who can't even admit the simplest mistakes that he's made in life. Like falling asleep one night on his phone when he was in the middle of tweeting something around 2AM. Or claiming that he had the largest crowd size ever for a presidential inauguration with the National Park Service, that was only in charge of the event contradicting the President of the United States hours later.

Donald Trump simply a man because of lack of knowledge as well as honesty, who mentally doesn't operate in the real world. Says and sees things about himself and others that simply aren't there. In some cases he's simply lying, which of course is not uncommon with politicians, but in other cases he simply doesn't know any better.

When you lose touch with reality or simply deny it and Donald Trump who is only the President of the United States unfortunately qualifies on both scores, you can't be trusted. Because you're dishonest and irresponsible. Anyone who trusts a dishonest person is asking to be screwed by that person: "I'm an idiot because I trust you, do your worst to me." And the same goes with an irresponsible man who sees pigs flying in the air, three-million Americans voting illegally with absolutely no evidence to back that up.

I don't enjoy saying these things about the President of the United States and have never been this harsh about any President including President Richard Nixon. But to quote Khaled Hosseini: "better to get hurt by the truth, than comforted with a lie." The only way people can self-improve is to first know where they're at fault. The only way Donald Trump could ever become an even decent President is to operate in the real world. And stop making things up and seeing things that simply don't exist.

Liberty Counsel: Newt Gingrich Q&A- 'Why Do You Admire Theodore Roosevelt?'

Source: Liberty Counsel- Newt Gingrch, talking about his Theodore Roosevelt Progressive politics, back in 2012.

Source:The Daily View

"Open Q&A Session with Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich at the Aloma Church in Winter Park FL. Hosted by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel on Saturday January 28, 2012."

From Liberty Counsel

A lot of members of the Tea Party, sound like Libertarians on economic policy, even if they are Big Government Republicans when it comes to social policy and would like to outlaw a lot of personal activities including what people do in their own homes and privacy. Former Representative Michele Bachmann, former Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Scott Walker come to mind, Phyllis Schlafly from back in the day.

Newt Gingrich even though he has many things in common with the populist blue-collar wing of the Tea Party that now backs Donald Trump 100%, he's not a Big Government Republican when it comes to either economic or social policy. He doesn’t want government taxing and regulating private business’s to the point where they’re essentially public utilities that are owned by shareholders.

But Newt is not a Libertarian either or even a Conservative-Libertarian. He believes in a big strong national defense and strong law enforcement, as well as low taxation and regulation. But he does believe in limited regulation not to run business’s, but to protect consumers and workers from predators.

Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican and so is Newt Gingrich. Where they differ on the issues, is anyone’s guess. They both believe in a strong America both economically, but also militarily and believe America can be positive force working with our allies around the world. And they both believe that government has a limited role in helping people achieve success for themselves.

Neither one of them are Liberal and certainly in Teddy Roosevelt’s case, not a Conservative. But both believe in using a limited government to help build a better America by empowering people to take control of their own lives. And seeing that America is as strong and safe as possible. This is why they’re both Progressives and both Republicans.

James Michl: The O'Reilly Factor- Glenn Beck: Talking To Bill O'Reilly About Newt Gingrich

Source: James Michl- Bill O'Reilly, giving Glenn Beck, The O'Reilly Finger, talking about Newt Gingrich. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Glenn Beck on the Factor Newt G. Progressive"

From James Michl

I just have a flat disagreement with Glenn Beck on what a Progressive is and also find myself on this weird planet if not universe, where I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I wasn't sure I could agree with Bill O'Reilly about current weather in Miami or how many states are part of the United States, because Bill is wrong about so many things.

But O'Reilly is right about Newt Gingrich at least in the sense that what was a Progressive in the early 20th Century about being someone who is about progress and using government to help create that progress and what's supposed to pass as a Progressive today (like the Cleveland Browns trying to pass as an NFL franchise) , are two completely different things.

According to Glenn Beck a Progressive and a Socialist, are the same thing. Hell, why not add Communist and say being a Communist is the same thing as being a Progressive. Even though most of the Communist ideology is regressive with how authoritarian it is and all the rights and freedom that people would lose if Communists were to some how come into power even though democratic means.

Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive. Bernie Sanders, Socialist. The Progressive doesn't want a government dominated society where most if not all of our social benefits and economic security, is provided by government and financed through our taxes. The Democratic Socialist at least, doesn't want government completely in charge of society. But our individual freedom and personal income, would be much more limited if Democratic Socialists were to ever come to power.

Newt Gingrich is obviously not a Libertarian, or a Nationalist, has some things in common with the Christian-Right, but doesn't roll with them on all their policies. Not a Conservative-Libertarian either, but he's a Progressive in a conservative sense. Someone who believes in using government to create progress, but through conservative free market principles.

For example: instead of just having people on public assistance just stay there and give them some money, Newt would say that those people should be looking for and getting work, as well as education so they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance at all. As a condition of receiving that taxpayer funded public assistance. With is very different from a Libertarian who says that government shouldn't be involved in public welfare at all. And a Socialist saying that government should guarantee a basic income for everyone with no conditions.

For perhaps the first time in my life I find myself in agreement with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I don't even drink alcohol, let alone use illegal narcotics but it feels like I'm on some high and seeing things that shouldn't be there. Like Donald Trump being President of the United States. Wait, that actually did happen.

But O'Reilly's idea of a Progressive is inline with Teddy Roosevelt's, as well as mine. That progressivism is about progress. That the first eight letters in the word progressive is actually progress. And that being a Socialist is about socialization and using government to solve most if not all the problems in the country. With Glenn Beck believing that Progressive is another word for Socialist. Someone who believes in big government. Even though a Socialist is lot more ideological than a Progressive would actually ever be.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about Alabama Judge Roy Moore.

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill reacts to the latest sexual assault allegations against Judge Roy Moore and others in his Real Time monologue."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

I'm not from Alabama and have never even actually spent a day in Alabama, but I get two things out of this story: One, that this behavior (assuming Roy Moore is guilty) is actually normal and if Roy Moore wasn't running for the U.S. Senate, maybe it wouldn't have become news. I mean, you had Republican leaders in that state saying what Moore is accused of are gifts from God and natural acts. I'm paraphrasing, but thats pretty close.

That if Moore wasn't the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate that this story would have never come out. The women wouldn't have come out because no one in Alabama including the media there, would have taken them seriously, let alone bothered to look into the allegations. Once Roy Moore not just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate and then won the GOP nomination, is when this story became a national story.

The Senate is part of Congress obviously and a Federal institution and not many people more powerful in the country than a U.S. Senator. And not many institutions covered more closely than Congress, because of how important it is. Which is why you had a Washington Post reporter covering an Alabama Senate race in Alabama and the women going to The Post to talk about their allegations. Now, if Roy Moore was running for State Senate in Alabama representing Gadsden, Alabama, then this story wouldn't be a big deal. Again, we wouldn't have heard from the women because they wouldn't have been taken seriously. And again, to go back to Alabama as a state: this behavior seems to at least be acceptable to the Christian-Right there. Which is more of a religious cult than anything else.

The other thing that I get from the Roy Moore story is that this is Alabama. Anyone left to wonder why Alabama is seen as a backwards, redneck, neanderthal, state that was in a statewide coma during most of the 20th Century and would only come out of their coma to prevent African-Americans from exercising their constitutional rights as American citizens. So of course a lot of Alabama is not aware of what has been going on in America in the last ten years or so, let alone the 20th Century, because they still believe America is in a pre-civil war area. And that women should be nothing more than servants to men. So why not teenage girls being servants to men and their sexual needs. At least this is the perception of Alabama and not just for Washington, or New York, or San Francisco, but Atlanta and a lot of the state of Georgia which is a neighbor of Alabama.

Andrew Kaczynski: Newt Gingrich- 'I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican'

Source: Andrew Kaczynski- Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich: being interviewed on CSPAN, in 2008.

Source:The Daily View

"Newt Gingrich, in footage from 2000-2009, talks about being a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. Follow me on Twitter for more great political videos."

From Andrew Kaczynski

This video is about the 2012 Republican presidential primaries when Newt Gingrich was doing well in December, 2011 and January, 2012 and even won South Carolina in January. And was a real threat to defeating the so-called Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination. Mitt only won 1-3 of the first three primaries which was New Hampshire which of course is in his backyard and represents his own progressive Northeastern brand of Republicanism. Which is ironic since the Romney Campaign went out of their way to label Newt Gingrich as a Progressive, because Mitt Romney up until he decided to run again for president in 2007 and then again in 2011, was essentially a Progressive Republican himself.

I would label Newt Gingrich’s politics as a Conservative Right-Progressive, who believes in using government to achieve progressive goals through conservative principles. Using government to reduce things like poverty, but through conservative policies. Things like requiring work and education for people who are on public assistance. So they can improve themselves while they’re on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance, living in Public Housing, so they no longer need those public benefits and can become self-sufficient. Conservatives wants fewer people in poverty and on public assistance as well, but instead of saying we’re just going to eliminate those programs, Newt’s approach was to instead using those programs effectively so people would no longer need them because now they can get themselves a good job.

Newt’s politics are conservative and believes in things like low taxes, low regulation, strong national defense, strong long enforcement, fiscal responsibility and not running high deficits and debt, but he also believes in limited regulations and needing at least some taxation so we can fund the things that government should do. Including an effective safety net for people who truly need it, but use it to help people become self-sufficient and no longer need public assistance at all. Instead of saying that government should do practically nothing other than national defense, homeland security, law enforcement, foreign affairs. Which is more of a libertarian approach to government.

College Humor: 'Visiting Home is Weird On Thanksgiving'

Source: College Humor- The one day where we get to see the people that spend the rest of the year not even talking too.

"Visiting Home Is Weird On Thanksgiving"

From College Humor

Source:The Daily View

To paraphrase the great Johnny Carson: "Thanksgiving is that one day a year that we spend visiting our relatives that we hate. And then discover why we don’t see them very often and just once a year." Hate, might be too strong of a word here. (Key word might be) Or at the very least worth debating if it's too strong of a word in this case. I don’t actually have any relatives that I hate (that I know of) and my family is relatively small even if you include both of my in laws.

Thanksgiving is that one day a year where we can be proud of the fact that 1/2 Americans are obese, because one of the major activities during Thanksgiving is of course not just eating, but seeing how much you can eat before you break the chair you’re sitting on or literally lose everything you’re eating. And not because the food is bad but because you overindulged. Perhaps the number one motivation for actually seeing those relatives that you spend 364 days a year pretending you don’t even know, because you know at least the food will be good and more importunely it will be free.

Not to make too much about Thanksgiving because it is literally that one day a year where we can celebrate eating, which just happens to be one of my favorite holidays. As well as little things like being thankful for what we have and thank our military personal for the great job they do protecting our country so we can celebrate holidays like Thanksgiving. But there reasons why all of us have relatives and even close relatives like siblings and even parents that we not only not see very often, but stay away from and not even communicate other than maybe email and its not just because of physical distance. Some of that distance is personal as well.

Relatives might be that only group of people where you have so much in common with those people physically and as far as DNA and everything else and yet you seem so different from them personally. And end up socializing more not just with your friends, but your coworkers and even clients, because personally you’re more in touch with those people, than you are with people who have the same face, or eyes, or hair, like your parents and siblings, or even grandparents. And its not because you’re a bad person or your relatives are bad people. Well, in most cases thats true, but because no one knows you better than your siblings and parents. And they probably know you better than anyone else.

Our relatives know all of our strengths and weakness and we know all of their strengths and weaknesses as well. We know each other so well and like the Americans that we are we tend to focus on the things about people that we don’t like even to the point that we try to change people that are close to us to make them more like us or more acceptable to us. And tend to forget about the things that we have in common with the people that we’re supposed to love like our relatives. And we end up driving each other crazy and go a year or years without seeing each other.

Thanksgiving gives us an opportunity every year to be thankful for what we have and not dwell on what we don’t have. And an opportunity to discover our relatives again and hopefully see why maybe we should get together more often in the future.

Andrew Kaczynski: Brian Lamb- Interviewing Newt Gingrich in 1999: 'Theodore Roosevelt-Robert La Follette Tradition'

Source:Andrew Kaczynski- Newt Gingrich, being interviewed by C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, in 1999.

Source:The Daily View

"Newt Gingrich, speaking to CSPAN's Brian Lamb in 1999 on his time as Speaker, when asked about his ethics violations investigation of other politicians coming back to haunt him, says he comes out of the "Theodore Roosevelt-LaFollette Progressive tradition of reform."

From Andrew Kaczynski

This might sound at least borderline crazy at least for hyper-partisans, on the Right who see Democrats as immoral criminals and terrorists, who all deserve to be locked up and hyper-partisans on the Left, who see all Republicans as nothing but ignorant fundamentalist neanderthal bigots, but there is such a thing as Progressive Republicans and reform republicanism, which is what Newt Gingrich has always represented in his 20 years in the House of Representatives and his post-Congressional and political activist career.

Again, progressivism is not socialism and is not even liberalism. And its the least ideological of all the political ideologies in America that it barely qualifies as an ideology. The definition of s Progressive in a political sense is someone who believes in progress and making things better and using a limited government to help create that progress. So a Progressive on the Right like a Newt Gingrich, is going to be different than a Progressive on the Left. Someone like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Sherrod Brown today is currently a U.S. Senator from Ohio.

Progressives right or left, are different from Conservatives, because Conservatives believe in conserving the status quo when it comes to government. And that current society and the way of life is already great and doesn’t need improvement. Progressives always believe things and society can be better. That things and life aren’t always good or bad, but they can always be improved. That progress can always be made.

So someone like a Newt Gingrich can be a defense hawk and believe in a strong national defense and law enforcement strong enough to protect the innocent from predators, believe in fiscal responsibility and that government shouldn’t run high deficits and debt, that taxes and regulations should be low for everybody. But that there should also be a safety net for people who truly need help in society, but to use that safety net to help improve people’s lives. Not just give  them cash in the short-term, but help them improve their lives so they no longer need public assistance in the future. Newt is one of architects of Welfare Reform that became known as Welfare to Work in the mid 1990s. If he was a hard-core Conservative-Libertarian, he wouldn’t believe that there should even be a government Welfare program or public assistance at all.

Being a Progressive is not about being pro-big government or anti-government all together. Or being for a big strong national defense, or almost no national defense at all. Or someone who believes in freedom, or believes in statism. Being a Progressive is about believing in progress and believing that government can serve a useful purpose in making things better for everyone in society. But progressivism is not very ideological at all in how that progress is achieved.

GBTV: Glenn Beck- 'On Newt Gingrich, Teddy Roosevelt & Other Progressives'

Source: GBTV- Glenn Beck, talking about Progressives.

Source:The Daily View

"Glenn Beck on Newt Gingrich, Teddy Roosevelt and other Progressives."

From GBTV

I agree with Glenn Beck on one thing with his little rant here. Newt Gingrich, is a Progressive but on the Right when it comes to progressivism. Newt believes in using government through conservative what’s called free market principles to solve problems that Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, and others on the Left believe should be solved. So by that definition House Speaker Paul Ryan would qualify as a Progressive. Republican Senator Tim Scott and perhaps Senator Marco Rubio, would qualify as Progressives as well. AEI President Arthur Brooks, again under this definition, would also qualify as a Progressive.

Where Glenn Beck goes off the rails and gets lost in Fantasy Land, perhaps on a week-long meth, alcohol, or marijuana high, with absolutely no sleep, is when he compares progressivism with all sorts of statist philosophies. All sorts of collectivist ideologies that put the interests of the state over the individual and believes Big Government should treat all of the people as its little children who aren’t capable of making the most basic fundamental decisions for themselves.

And in that sense even democratic socialism as it relates to economic policy and to a certain extent personal freedom social issues and trying to prevent people through government force from being involved in unhealthy personal activities, certain parts of democratic socialism and certain Democratic Socialists who aren’t Communists, qualify as statists and collectivists.

The real big government statist collectivist ideology, that Glenn Beck seems to be talking about, is actually communism. Progressives both on the Left where Progressives tend to be now (and that means Center-Left) believe in a limited government to use to help improve society so more people can succeed in society.

Things like education and job training for low-skilled workers and for kids who come from low-income families.

Expanding infrastructure to low-income communities and incentivizing companies to invest in low-income communities and hire low-income people so they can work instead of collecting Welfare..

As well as basic financial assistance for people who fall on hard times.

These are the things that Progressives believe in that government can do to create progress and help people in need from an economic standpoint. This is not a big government socialist or statist approach to governing in America. But a pragmatic limited government progressive approach, that perhaps even a  Conservative-Libertarian like a Glenn Beck could support.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano: 'How Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom'

Source: Reason Magazine- Libertarian lawyer Andrea Napolitano, talking to Reason about Theodore Roosevelt.

Source:The New Democrat

"The radical change in the relationship of the federal government to individual Americans was ratcheted up greatly in the Progressive Era," argues Judge Andrew Napolitano in his new book, Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.

The first decades of the 20th century saw an assault on individual liberties that was both unconstitutional and unprecedented in American history. From crackdowns on freedom of speech to the seizures of vast swaths of land, Judge Napolitano shows how the policies of two presidents from opposing parties laid the groundwork for a century of ever-expanding federal power.

Judge Napolitano is chief legal analyst for Fox News, a syndicated columnist, and a Reason contributor (read his archive here). He recently sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about his latest book and discuss the relevance of the Progressive era - a time of prohibition, military expansionism, and vilification of wealth - to today's political struggles."

From Reason Magazine

Libertarians which is what both Nick Gillespie and Andrew Napolitano are, (not that there's anything wrong with that) understanding of the U.S. Constitution, is very different from every other political faction.

Every political faction in America except the Socialists on the Far-Left and the Christian-Nationalists, Alt-Right racist terrorists on the Far-Right, generally support and believe in the U.S. Constitution. But Conservatives and even Conservative-Libertarians, now believe that government and even the Federal Government, has some role when it comes to the safety net and public welfare in the country. They believe that these programs should be run by the states and local government's and be block granted to them. But Progressives, Liberals, and Conservatives, all now support some role at least for the Federal Government when it comes to the public welfare and a regulatory state.

So course the Andrew Napolitano's of the world are going to disagree with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and other Progressives, when it comes to the general welfare clause and commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. There are Libertarians who believe taxation is theft and don't see America as like a club with hundreds of millions of members that we are all part of and have to pay dues (meaning taxes) in order to keep our membership in that club. So of course Libertarians are going to see the Square Deal which gave us the regulatory state in America, the New Deal, which gave us the safety net in America, and the Great Society, which expanded the safety net in America, of course Libertarians are going to see these programs and agendas as unconstitutional.

Progressing America: Theodore Roosevelt- 'The New Nationalism'

Source: AZ Quotes- Theodore Roosevelt: talking about what he called The New Nationalism.

Source:The Daily View

"This is not the speech of a conservative republican.  In this speech, Theodore Roosevelt lays out plenty of the progressive agenda, which we are stuck with today.  The text of the speech can be found here: Teaching American History 

From Progressing America

Source: Progressing America- Theodore Roosevelt: talking about what he called The New Nationalism.

What Theodore Roosevelt was advocating for in what he called The New Nationalism, was what became The New Deal in the 1930s. Which is what became the American safety net. Progressives don’t believe in blowing up capitalism, they simply want to make it better so it benefits more Americans. Unlike Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debbs who also ran for President in 1912 and Senator Bernie Sanders and other Socialists (whether they call themselves Socialists or not) today.

Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism was the political platform that he and his Progressive Party ran on in 1912.

Unemployment Insurance for American workers who are unemployed.

A minimum wage for all workers.

A national pension system for all workers that they could collect from when they retire.

A national health care program that would cover both health care and health insurance for Americans.

Most of these proposed programs became part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda in the 1930s. Pre-safety net in America if Americans fell on hard times, they either had to take care of their problems themselves, or get friends or family to help them out, or rely on private charity. If they still couldn’t get their issues taken care of, then they were essentially screwed, or out of luck. (If you want a softer term)

What became the New Deal in the 1930s and then later the Great Society in 1960s, did was to guarantee financial help and assistance for any American who fell on hard times and needed financial assistance in form form. Neither Teddy or Frank Roosevelt, wanted to blow up the American capitalist system and replace it with a socialist system. But instead make American capitalism better and make it work for more Americans.

Progressive People's Coalition: Teddy Roosevelt- 'Progressive Party Declaration'

Source: Wikiwand- Progressive Era Progressives.

Source:The Daily View

"Part 1 - 1912 Progressive Party Declaration by Teddy Roosevelt"

From New Progressive Voice

Source: New Progressive Voice- Theodore Roosevelt: the Father of the Progressive Party.

Where I agree with Doris Kearns Goodwin and her book about Theodore Roosevelt, is that Teddy Roosevelt was a much better political leader as President of the United States, then when he left the White House and decided to run for President again in 1912. I would disagree with Doris Goodwin that Teddy was a Centrist as President. As President he was an actual Progressive  who not only believed in progress, but believed in using government to help create that progress. But he wasn’t a Socialist and instead put limits to what government should try to do for the people.

But once TR left the White House he moved further left and became more ideological, more idealistic, and more romantic. And started advocating for things that simply were never going to happen. Like making it easier to amend the U.S. Constitution so it kept up with the times. As a lot of Social Democrats in America advocate for instead of guaranteeing a basic set of fundamental constitutional rights that make it almost impossible for us to lose. Socialists would want the majority to rule at all times.

What makes progressivism at its best and makes it work well when its practiced in its classical form, instead of people who are much further left and more ideological and prefer to be called Progressives because of the social popularity of that term, or don’t want to be labeled as lets say Socialists and even Democratic Socialists, because of the negative stereotypes of those terms, is what progressivism effective is the pragmatism of it and that Progressives believe in the United States, our Constitution, and form of government. Progressives aren’t interested in breaking up our form of government and governmental system. They don’t believe individual freedom and individualism, are dangerous selfish things, but that instead they want to use government to expand individual freedom so more people can benefit from those things. Not just the wealthy and people born to wealth.

I and Doris Goodwin, believe that Teddy Roosevelt moved away from those progressive pragmatic mainstream principles of his time as President from 1901-09 and by the time he decided to run for President again in 1912 and was no longer in the White House, he became more of a left-wing social democratic activist. That perhaps would have been comfortable running as part of the Socialist Party with Eugene Debbs back in 1912. What made both Roosevelt’s (TR & FDR) great President’s, was their knowledge, intelligence, progressive values, but also their pragmatism. And didn’t say that government had to do this or that, but instead looked for the best solution to all problems. Whether that meant expanding government or not.