C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- A. Scott Berg: Woodrow Wilson

Source:C-SPAN- historian Scott Berg, talking to CSPAN's Brian Lamb, about President Woodrow Wilson.

Source:The Daily View

"Our guest is Pulitzer prize-winning author, A. Scott Berg. He discusses his latest work, the newly released biography of President Woodrow Wilson titled, "Wilson." Berg points out that 2013 is the 100th anniversary of Wilson's inauguration as the nation's 28th President."

From CSPAN

I agree with Scott Berg as far as how consequential President Woodrow Wilson was. “We must create a world safe for democracy”, is the most famous and important quote of the Wilson Presidency. That is the foreign policy in one way or another that America has used and been a part of since his presidency, except for again perhaps Donald Trump who is more of a Nationalist and not so much interested in working with our allies when it comes to foreign policy. And when America does act in foreign affairs and national security, President Trump and his Administration tends to do it alone.

Almost every President since Woodrow Wilson has had their own version of this liberal internationalist policy that is about promoting, protecting, and defending, democracy around the world.

President Franklin Roosevelt and then later President Harry Truman, were our strongest liberal internationalist hawks. World War II being the perfect example of that where America conquered Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and knocked out those authoritarian regimes that were replaced with democratic government’s and democratic constitution’s.

President Dwight Eisenhower was perhaps our most cautious liberal internationalist President and believed in limited usage of our military power. And understood the importance of having a strong military like our other President’s, but understood perhaps the limits of American power and that we couldn’t do everything ourselves as a military power. Probably the most anti-Neoconservative President that we’ve had.

John F. Kennedy perhaps being the strongest anti-Communist President that we’ve had and strongest cold warrior that we’ve had as President as a liberal internationalist.

President Lyndon Johnson tried to literally wipeout communism in all of Vietnam and using almost exclusively American power to do that.

President Richard Nixon was  a strong anti-Communist himself but was the great negotiator and believed the best way to defeat communism and authoritarianism in general, was to open authoritarian regimes up to Western culture and freedom.

President Jimmy Carter was a strong liberal internationalist and anti-Communist himself as President, as well as a World War II Naval veteran, believed that communism wasn’t the only threat to freedom and human rights. And gave his best speech as President in 1977 about the importance and need for human rights and freedom and that communism wasn’t the only opponent of those things.

President Ronald Reagan, believed that America should no longer try to live with the Cold War, but win it by ending it. President Reagan, obviously didn’t win the Cold War and defeat the Soviet Union by himself with all the President’s I just mentioned going back to Harry Truman, all having a major role there. But President Reagan hated communism so much and the system that Russia had that it had to be defeated and eliminated and replaced with a more responsible governmental system.

President George H.W. Bush, saw a world post-Cold War where America would be able to trade and work with all of our new European allies and even ben able to work with Russia to keep the peace in Europe and protect democracy there, but also protect and defend democracy in other parts of the world. Like in Asia and Africa. The 1991 Gulf War wasn’t America against Iraq, but America, Europe, and even Arabian countries, against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

It took President Bill Clinton at least two years to develop his own foreign policy as President, but the Balkans in Southern Europe and the wars going on there is where you finally see the Bill Clinton Doctrine as President. That America wouldn’t stand by and watch authoritarian regimes try to wipeout ethnic groups and ethnic minorities in their own countries. And because of this foreign policy the Communist ethno-Seriban State of Yugoslavia, is no longer in existence.

And we now see democratic peaceful countries in the Balkans. And President Clinton worked with Europe and this was a American/European campaign against Yugoslavia. First during the Bosnian/Serbian conflict in Yugoslavia and then later in Albanian Kosovo.

President George W. Bush is where you see a break from America’s liberal internationalist foreign policy doctrine. He was a Neoconservative as President with the 9/11 attacks being the ignitor to this new right-wing authoritarian unilateral foreign and national security policy. The 2003 Iraq War as basically America and Britain, against Iraq because America didn’t like Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Saddam was brutal to his people as President of Iraq, but never before had we eliminated another dictatorial regime simply because we didn’t like them.

President Barack Obama, gets I believe most of his best marks as President in foreign affairs especially in his first term. You can say what you want about Libya today but America and Europe working together, with both France and Italy, having major roles there, stepped in to that civil war and crude the Quadafi Regime in Libya. Not just because we didn’t like the regime there but because the Libyan Military was about to crush 100,000 people in Benghazi and we not stepped in the Libyan Military would have massacred 100,000 of their own people simply to protect the Quadafi Regime.

Woodrow Wilson was obviously a flawed President and was a racist as President who believed that European-Americans were superior to African-Americans, simply because of their race. And was a s supporter of the Jim Crow segregationist laws of the South and these are horrible aspects of the Woodrow Wilson Administration.

But you’ll have a real hard time finding a President who had more of  an impact on America as they relate both to our economy with the Federal Reserve, the progressive income tax, and and support for workers rights, as well as foreign policy and national security, than President Woodrow Wilson.

I don’t believe we become the world superpower without President Wilson, at least not as soon as we did without him. And he deserves a lot of credit for these policies.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Monologue- 'Banana Republicans'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on Banana Republicans.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Bill recaps the top stories of the week, including the House GOP's controversial decision to release "The Memo."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Watching CNN yesterday afternoon as I was working ( of course ) they were obviously covering the release of the Devin Nunes memo and they had Robert Baer on who was a career CIA intelligence officer before he retired several years ago that Donald Trump probably sees as some Marxist-Communist member of the so-called Deep State. Communists working for the CIA is about as common as Muslims and Latinos voting for Donald Trump in Alabama.

But that being said, Bob Baer was on CNN yesterday talking about the memo and he called it a piece of trash. Now, if he was part of HBO's special coverage of the Nunes memo or Showtime, he probably would've called it a piece of shit, because that is exactly what it is. All it is, is Trumpian talking points about the FBI and broader intelligence community in America and this conspiracy theory that Donald Trump and his supporters have that the intelligence community is out to get President Trump.

When Bill Maher calls these Trump supporters of the House Banana Republicans, he ain't lying. These House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee ( of all places ) see themselves now as defense lawyers and operatives for the White House.

These intelligence reports and in Representative Devin Nunes's case the ( Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee ) unintelligent memo that a seventh grader could've edited for their parents and found real holes in it, is nothing more than RNC/White House talking points. That says you have to back Presdent Trump at all costs even if it makes you look like an idiot, or worse a liar, worse than that a corrupt defense lawyer.

This is not one of those partisan squabbles that you see all the time in Washington especially in Congress with Republicans and Democrats looking like they're fighting each other and accusing each other of cheating in a pickup basketball game or at recess. This is a Republican inter party squabble between House Republicans teaming up with the White House, against the Republican led and mostly Republican intelligence community. Washington Republicans vs. the CIA and FBI.

Representative Devin Nunes who has one of the most important jobs in all of Congress as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is nothing more than a hack defense lawyer for President Donald Trump. Nunes is a man that the House of Representatives is supposed to rely on for fair and accurate intelligence reports and oversight of the intelligence community. But what does he do instead? Go out of his way to make the intelligence community unfairly look bad because they have negative information about President Trump and his presidential campaign and it now looks like they were working with Russians to get Donal Trump elected President. So they've decided they have to make the intelligence community look bad at all costs so President Trump doesn't take them down in 2018.

Learn Out Loud: 'American President Series- President Woodrow Wilson Biography'

Source: Learn Out Loud- President Woodrow Wilson: Democrat, New Jersey, 28th President of the United States.

Source:The Daily View

"Thomas Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States, in office from 1913 to 1921. A leader of the Progressive Movement, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With the Republican Party split in 1912, he led his Democratic Party to control both the White House and Congress for the first time in nearly two decades."

From Learn Out Loud

As I’ve blogged before I have mixed feelings about President Woodrow Wilson. Similar to how I feel about President Richard Nixon and President Ronald Reagan, President Lyndon Johnson as well.

One one side you have this brilliant foreign policy leader and President who literally is the father of the liberal internationalist doctrine. That was the American foreign policy with each President making their own amendments to that doctrine especially President George W. Bush who was a Neoconservative, that was about defending liberal democracy at home and abroad. Working with our allies to defend, protect, and promote liberal democracy and prosperity around the world. Work with friendly developing countries to promote and defend democracy and prosperity in those countries through foreign aide. President Wilson’s liberal internationalist doctrine, was the foreign policy doctrine of the Democratic Party all the way though President Barack Obama’s presidency.

And then on the economic front you have a pretty Progressive President in Woodrow Wilson. He expanded the regulatory state that was created by President Theodore Roosevelt with the creation of the Federal Reserve and creation of the national progressive income tax. He supported tariffs on foreign goods. He supported workers rights and even organized labor. He was in favor of creating public Unemployment Insurance that President Teddy Roosevelt first proposed as President, but like President Roosevelt President Wilson failed to get Unemployment Insurance through Congress.

But then you had this other side of Woodrow Wilson who along with being the father of America’s liberal internationalist foreign policy doctrine, President Wilson was also one of the father’s of Jim Crow laws and segregation among the races both in the public and private sectors. President Wilson had given life to the Southern Dixiecrat segregationist Neo-Confederate Governor’s in the South who didn’t see African-Americans has American citizens and perhaps even as human beings. And wanted them segregated from European-Americans through force. Who were in bed politically with the Ku Klux Klan and wouldn’t prosecute from for their terrorism against African and Jewish-Americans, As well as other racial and ethnic minorities in America.

You get Jim Crow and the segregationist policies out of the Woodrow Wilson Presidency and had he been successful in getting the League of Nations passed in Congress through the Senate and we’re talking about one of our greatest American president’s instead of being in the 20s of wherever he’s ranked but certainly in the middle of the pack.

But you can’t get Jim Crow out of the Wilson Presidency, just like you can’t get Watergate out of the Richard Nixon Presidency. Because of the lasting horrible legacy of Jim Crow that went all the way through the 1960s in America. That alone could make a good argument for President Wilson not being a mediocre President, but one of our worst ever.

Mometrix Academy: 'President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points'

Source: Mometrix Academy- with a look at President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points.

Source:The Daily View

"Make sure you are prepared for your exam by reviewing Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. Know why he created them and how they affected the aftermath of WWI.

Mometrix Academy is the world's most comprehensive test preparation company. This channel will provide you with videos that will help you learn about many different subjects."

From Mometrix Academy

As I argued before President Woodrow Wilson wanted to create a world, or at least an America and Europe, that was safe for democracy. Where countries wouldn’t go to war with each other because times were good. Countries were at peace, free trading with each other, living in prosperity and freedom. I also argued that President Wilson was about 30 years ahead of his time on this front. Because what we got post-World War II with the United Nations, NATO, and in the 1950s with the European Union, was exactly that.

Free, democratic, wealthy nations, tend not attack other free democratic wealthy nations. Because those countries aren’t run by dictators who are simply looking to consolidate and expand their own power both inside of their country, but outside of their country. Because those countries tend to believe in at least some form of democracy. Whether it’s liberal democracy which is what America has. Or social democracy which is common in Europe.

And democrats whether they’re on the Center-Left or Center-Right, tend to believe in these values along with checks and balances and respecting one’s borders and territory. Dictators obviously look at things differently and are interested in power. Staying in power but also expanding their own base of power. Whether they’re on the Far-Left or Far-Right politically.

So in this sense at least Woodrow Wilson was a visionary in the same class as a Richard Nixon or George H.W. Bush when it came to foreign policy. Men who not only understood how today’s world worked and operated, but saw decades into the future for how the world could look into the future. Where countries would no longer be fighting each other. Especially developed free countries and that instead they would work together to not only project their won freedom and economies, but work to promoted democracy, freedom, and prosperity around the world. When it comes to vision President Woodrow Wilson doesn’t get enough credit for the visionary that he was as a foreign policy leader.

Khan Academy: Sal Khan- 'President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points: The 20th Century'

Source:Khan Academy- talking about President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points.

Source:The Daily View

"Woodrow Wilson attempted to build a more peaceful world after the horrors of World War I.  Created by Sal Khan."

From Khan Academy

1917 is huge year in both American history as well as European history, as well as Russian history. The Bolshevik Communists take over Russia and rename the country the Soviet Union of Russia and become a gigantic Marxist/Communist state the largest country in the world at least as far as land with all of these people now being forced to live under Marxist/Communist statism.

Think about North Korea today, but add a couple hundred-million more people to Russia living under this Marxist/Communist system. While President Woodrow Wilson in America attempting to create a new internationalist world order that would be there to protect, defend, and promote liberal democracy over authoritarianism including and even especially communism.

Post-World War II is the start of the Cold War between America and Russia. With Western Europe being on America’s side and the eastern non-democratic countries like China allying with Russia to promote communism in the world. But 1917 and post-World War I starting in 1918 is where you see this competition start. With America and Britain being on the side of liberal democracy or at least democracy in some from. Britain being more of a social democracy than liberal democracy. But both countries believing in at least some levels of personal autonomy and property rights, along with private enterprise. With Russia and their Slavic allies in Europe, prompting this communist form of statism with no personal autonomy or property rights.

President Wilson was a foreign policy liberal internationalist idealist. He wanted World War I to be the war that ended all wars and create a world that was safe for democracy. Safe for private enterprise and free trade. Where people would have personal autonomy and be able to self-govern themselves. He was an idealist especially in a country like America at the time that was very isolationist and not a fan of America’s involvement in World War I.

Woodrow Wilson like with President Richard Nixon, who was twenty years ahead of his time when it came to seeing that the Cold War was destined to end and where America would work with Russia and China, instead of being enemies with them, President Wilson was about thirty years ahead of him time in seeing that there would be an international community with America being one of it’s major players to defend, protect, and promote liberal democracy and private enterprise in the world. Which is what we got with the United Nations in the mid-1940s and the European Union in the 1950s. In this sense at least President Wilson was a brilliant man.

Jocz Productions: President Woodrow Wilson's- '14 Points and League of Nations Explained'

Source:Jocz Productions- President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, explained.

Source:The Daily View

"Learn about the League of Nations and Wilson's 14 Points with the help of Michael Jackson, NSYNC, Tom Hanks, Mr. Jocz, and more!"

From Jocz Productions

President Woodrow Wilson, was an idealist at least in one sense: he saw a post-World War I Europe that would be liberal democratic, with free private economies, that would never want to go to war with each other, because they would never have to. The boundaries of each country would be clear and recognized and the economies would all be private and successful. And these countries would then serve as great ally to America and never need to go to war with America either. And both sides would be great trade partners as well. With expansive free trade and low tariffs.

The League of Nations like the United Nations in the 1940s and 1950s post-World War II, was seen as an organization of allies that would protect and defend democracy and freedom around the world. The 19 teens and 1920s, was pre-Cold War. Where liberal democracies like America and in Europe, were in competition with communist and authoritarian countries like Russia, the Communist Republic of Germany ( which was East Germany ) and Eastern European Slavic countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia.

Had the League of Nations been successful, maybe we don’t get World War II. Not saying that the Nazi Party wouldn’t come to power in Germany in the 1930s and that America and Europe, wouldn’t have gone to war with Nazi Germany in the 1940s. But there would have been this League of Nations there and Europe would have been stronger and as a result Adolph Hitler’s power and destruction outside of Germany would have been limited.

President Wilson’s idealist vision for America and Europe, was to have liberal democratic countries that would have no need to go to war with each other. Because they would always have peace and prosperity. Be reliable trading partners with each other and America and defend liberal democratic values. And not feel the need to invade each other because they respected each others land an autonomy.

I believe one of the reasons why Nazi Germany was able to come to power and create so much destruction for German Jews but other Jews in Europe like in Poland and France, was because there wasn’t this international organization there to keep the peace and promote democracy and national autonomy. America and Europe, didn’t go to war with Nazi Germany until after a lot of damage and murders and been committed because there wasn’t this international organization to prevent something like a Nazi Germany from coming to power.

Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- 'The 14 Points Explained- U.S. History Review'

Source:Hip Hughes- Keith Hughes, talking about President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.

Source:The Daily View

"Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points broken down and put into context so you can easily soak up the main ideas. Ideal for stressed out students as well as lifelong learners and the cray cray on the internets. Be sure to subscribe for over 200 fun, focused and FREE HipHughes History videos at Hip Hughes"

As Keith Hughes says in this video the League of Nations was the key point ( no pun intended ) in President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points. And even though the U.S. Senate didn’t ratify the League of Nations treaty Europe and other countries did. And the LN managed to stay in business for a while and was the forerunner to what became the United Nations post-World War II.

The 14 Points was about ending World War I but also about how America and Europe and how the countries in Europe would relate to each other after World War I. Including Germany which lost World War I going away. And the 14 Points was about not just winning the peace post-World War I and doing by the stabilizing the economies in Europe so countries would flourish and not feel the need to go to war to improve their economies, but to settle issues about land and who can use what waters and when.

As I’ve written before Woodrow Wilson was not just a liberal internationalist when it came to foreign policy, but he is also at the very least one of the father’s of liberal internationalism. And believed that liberal democracy had to be defended and promoted in order to keep authoritarians from coming into power especially by force, but also through democratic means as we saw with Adolph Hitler in Germany.

And that unlike Neoconservatives and neoconservatism, Wilsonian liberal internationalists, believe that America should work with their allies in order to promote and defend liberal democracy. Mostly through diplomatic means but if necessary through military means as we saw during World War II. Neoconservatives tend to be more military first and tend to be more unilateral than Liberals when it comes to foreign policy.

The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- August Hecksher: 'Woodrow Wilson- Biography, Family Background, Education & Politics'

Source: The Film Archives- President Woodrow Wilson: 28th President of the United States. As well as the last Neo-Confederate President of the United States.

Source:The Daily View

"Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 -- February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States, in office from 1913 to 1921. About the book: Amazon

A leader of the Progressive Movement, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With the Republican Party split in 1912, he was elected as a Democrat."

From The Film Archives

As I mentioned last week, I have mixed feelings about Woodrow Wilson and his politics. Because on one side he’s basically the father of liberal internationalism and was our first liberal internationalist as President. This foreign policy that is about liberal democracy, defending liberal democracy, supporting liberal democracy around the world, and working with our allies to defend liberal democracy and promote liberal democracy. To defend liberal democracy against communism and other authoritarian philosophies around the world. This has been the dominate foreign policy of the Democratic Party going from President Wilson, all the way up to President Barack Obama.

But while President Wilson believed in liberal internationalism and defending liberal democracy around the world which was a reason why he got America involved in World War I, he supported and promoted authoritarianism at home.

President Wilson, is one of the father’s and architects of our Jim Crow laws that segregated the races in schools and other forms forms of access to American life like housing and backing to use as other examples. Which was always a big weapon and tool that authoritarian states like Russia and others used during the Cold War, used against America. Saying that while we attack their authoritarianism in their countries, we promote a different type of authoritarianism in our own country. By denying African-Americans access to American life simply because of their race.

So on one side you have a brilliant President when it comes to foreign policy and national security, similar to Richard Nixon or George H.W. Bush, but without as many national security qualifications as President Nixon or President Bush, But on the other side you have a President who believes Americans should be separated simply because of their race and that African-Americans are inferior to European-Americans, simply because of their race and complexion.

You combine Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, with Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights policy, with Bill Clinton’s economic policy, and you might have the perfect President politically. Because those three President’s were so successful in their one area. Without President Wilson’s lack of support for civil and equal rights, I believe we’re definitely talking about a great President instead of a mediocre President.

A&E: Biography- Gary Gilmore

Source:A&E- Biography Gary Gilmore.

Source:The New Democrat 

“After committing a series of escalating petty crimes in Oregon during his teens, Gary Gilmore was sent to reform school and later served his first stretch in prison. By the age of 35, he had spent half his life incarcerated. After receiving a conditional release in May 1976, Gilmore moved in with a cousin in Provo, Utah, and briefly led a normal life. However, two months later he killed two men in cold blood during separate robberies and was arrested shortly thereafter. Found guilty of first-degree murder in his October 1976 trial, Gilmore chose not to appeal his death sentence. His case became a rallying point for opponents of the death penalty, and his execution was delayed for a time. He was executed by a firing squad in January 1977." 

From Biography 

“Documentary TV is an English language documentary channel. It features free online documentaries about crime , violence , murders, cases, serial killers , America,Russia and world.

Don’t forget to subscribe and enjoy our videos for more Serial Killer Documentaries!”  

Source:Documentary TV- from an A&E bio of Gary Gilmore.

From Documentary TV

"Serial Killer - A&E Biography ''Gary Gilmore''

From A&E 

This photo is originally from a video that had the A&E Biography of Gary Gilmore. But if you are familiar with YouTube, you know that a lot of quality videos disappear, but a lot of the garbage manages to hang around. 

Source:A&E- Some of the most evil serial killers ever.

I’m not going to say that Gary Gilmore would have ended up as a terrific human being had he only had a father that loved him and raised him properly and didn’t beat his kids including Gary Gilmore. Because we’ll never know that.

And I’m not going to say Gilmore’s rough childhood should’ve spared him from his responsibilities in the murders that he was given. Even I do believe he should’ve been spared the death penalty which is a different issue. But Gary Gilmore unlike Ted Bundy or Jeff Dahmer, had good upbringings and parents who raised them well and who loved them. Gary didn’t really have that at all growing up.

Gary Gilmore’s father was basically a drunk bastard who wasn’t around much other than to pay the bills and when he was around would beat the kids mother, as well as the kids and beat Gary as well. Gary’s mother did love her kids including Gary, but wasn’t able to raise her kids properly. Didn’t have the skills and wasn’t able to make the money needed to raise her kids well.

Gary Gilmore similar to Charles Manson had a horrible upbringing and as a result became a very angry young man who got into a lot of trouble early in life. But the time Gilmore was executed in early 1977, he had already spent more than half of his time in life in prison.

Gary Gilmore was not a man who was built and raised to succeed in society and live with freedom. He only had any success in life when he was in prison and had real structure and people making decisions for him and supervising him. This is not a man who was ever ready to be outside of prison and a man who if he were left in prison indefinitely in prison, would’ve been a very productive prison inmate. And would’ve gotten himself a good education and job, but while in prison.

Outside of prison Gary Gilmore was a shark outside of the ocean. A killer shark who would lose his temper easily and not be able to find a good job and end up stealing to support himself and murdering the people he would steal from. Which is what he did in 1976 that eventually got him the death penalty.

Gary Gilmore was never suited for life on the outside and to live in freedom. And should’ve never been paroled. He is the poster child for outlawing parole in America, even though I’m not in favor of that. But if you were to eliminate parole it would be for criminals like Gary Gilmore. People who when are in the outside anyone who crosses their path and does the smallest thing that can set that person off, literally put their life at risk. Gilmore is someone who should’ve been given an indefinite sentence in prison before he was released for the last time in his life. And he wouldn’t have become a serial killer.  

Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- 'The Election of 1912 Explained'

Source:Hip Hughes- Perhaps the last competitive 3-way American presidential election.

Source:The Daily View

"HipHughes covers the basics about one of the weirdest election the U.S. ever had. Four candidates, a lazy incumbent, a relative newcomer, an old Socialist and a pissed off Teddy Roosevelt.  And for the record TAFT was not Teddy's Vice President, he was his Secretary of War (Thanks Hayden Gordon)"

From Hip Hughes

As I’ve blogged before the 1912 presidential election is a very important and interesting election for many reasons. I mean if you’re a political junky such as myself the 1912 election is not the Super Bowl of American politics, but its the best Super Bowl of all-time. It’s the Super Bowls of Super Bowls and not like the modern Super Bowl or NFL where the last Super Bowl is automatically pumped up and sold as the greatest Super Bowl of all-time by the media and even the NFL, until the next Super Bowl. But this election was really the best ever I believe because of the clear choices that the American voters had.

1912 wasn’t about Democrat versus Republican and perhaps a charming entertaining third-party candidate who has hopes of getting 5% of the vote and sneak into the presidential debates. If there was TV back in 1912 at least 3-4 presidential candidates would’ve been invited to the debates and in the debates. Perhaps even all four with Socialist candidate Eugene Debs who got about 6% of the vote getting into the debates as well. Because the old progressive faction of the Republican Party thanks to Theodore Roosevelt, broke away from the Republican Party in 1912 and formed their Progressive Party.

The only thing that could’ve made the 1912 presidential elections better, perhaps along with TV, but instead of having two Conservatives in that election ( not to take a shot at Conservatives ) but have one Conservative being President William Taft. One Liberal whoever the Democratic candidate is. Along with the Progressive being Teddy Roosevelt and the Socialist being Gene Debs.

But instead there were two Conservatives ( again, not to take a shot at Conservatives ) with President Taft and Governor Woodrow Wilson, and a Progressive, as well as a Socialist. Taft and Wilson, differed a little on economic policy, but tended to agree on the other issues. TR and Debs, differed a lot from Taft and Wilson and also differed a lot from each other. TR was truly a Progressive and Debs was truly a pacifist-isolationist Democratic Socialist. Similar to Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party today.

Liberal democratic politics meaning liberal democracy and not the Democratic Party necessarily and American politics in general, should be about choice. And not just one or the other like trying to decide if you want the chicken or fish on an airline flight, but several choices with each candidate looking different from the others. That is what the 1912 presidential election represented and what American politics should be about generally. And if that means having runoffs and reforming the Electoral College so the winner doesn’t win the election with 40% of the vote which is what Woodrow Wilson won with in 1912, then I would be in favor of that.

The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- James Chace: 'The Election That Changed The Country- How 1912 Changed American History'

Source: The Film Archives- Theodore Roosevelt: the 1912 Progressive Party nominee for President.

Source:The Daily View

"The United States presidential election of 1912 was the 32nd quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 5, 1912. The election was a rare four-way contest. About the book: Amazon."

From The Film Archives

The 1912 presidential election was very interesting for many reasons in American politics: more than a hundred years later in a country that is now around 320 million people and yet 1912 was one of our last presidential elections with three major politic parties with the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and then Progressive Party, but also with three major presidential candidates. With none of the three candidates getting anywhere near 50% of the popular vote. This was truly a multiple-party presidential election.

1912 was also an election where Woodrow Wilson from the Democratic Party, was the centrist candidate. Even though he is basically the father of liberal internationalism and the foreign policy that was about liberal democracy and defending liberal democracy and fighting authoritarianism around the world. And had a progressive economic policy as far as regulating the economy and a belief in a public safety net.

But President William H. Taft was a Conservative Republican and Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive and in some cases ran as a Social Democrat in 1912 when he ran for President for the last time. So Americans voters had a real choice for President in 1912 and didn’t have to vote for the candidate they disliked the least, but instead had a real choice for President.

Back in the early 20th Century the Republican Party was a conservative party, but with a Progressive Republican wing in it. That Teddy Roosevelt was the leader of and when he didn’t win the 1912 presidential election and believed the nomination was stolen from his by President William Taft, he decided to create and build his own progressive party.

TR had the name and the ability to get the resources to do that and mange to run a credible third-party presidential campaign in 1912 because of these factors. And even though he lost to the eventual winner Democratic Woodrow Wilson, he beat the President of the United States Republican William Taft.

The Film Archives: Nicholas Patler- 'Jim Crow and The Wilson Administration: An Enduring Legacy'

Source: The Film Archives- The American Civil War?

Source:The Daily View

"Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat elected from New Jersey, but he was the first Southern-born president of the post-Civil War period. He appointed Southerners to his Cabinet. Some quickly began to press for segregated workplaces, although Washington, D.C., and federal offices had been integrated since after the Civil War. In 1913, for instance, Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo – an appointee of the President – was heard to express his opinion of black and white women working together in one government office: "I feel sure that this must go against the grain of the white women. Is there any reason why the white women should not have only white women working across from them on the machines?"[13]

Wilson introduced segregation in federal offices, despite much protest from African-American leaders and groups. He appointed segregationist Southern politicians because of his own firm belief that racial segregation was in the best interest of black and European Americans alike.[14] At Gettysburg on July 4, 1913, the semi-centennial of Abraham Lincoln's declaration that "all men are created equal", Wilson addressed the crowd:

How complete the union has become and how dear to all of us, how unquestioned, how benign and majestic, as state after state has been added to this, our great family of free men![15]

In sharp contrast to Wilson, a Washington Bee editorial wondered if the "reunion" of 1913 was a reunion of those who fought for "the extinction of slavery" or a reunion of those who fought to "perpetuate slavery and who are now employing every artifice and argument known to deceit" to present emancipation as a failed venture.[15] One historian notes that the "Peace Jubilee" at which Wilson presided at Gettysburg in 1913 "was a Jim Crow reunion, and white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible master of ceremonies."[15] (See also: Great Reunion of 1913)

In Texas, several towns adopted residential segregation laws between 1910 and the 1920s. Legal strictures called for segregated water fountains and restrooms.[15] Jim Crow laws were a product of what became the solidly Democratic South. White Southern Democrats, exploiting racial fear, attacking the corruption (real or perceived) of Reconstruction Republican governments, and suppressing the black vote by violence and intimidation, had taken over state governments in the South in the 1870s and essentially dominated them for nearly 100 years. They disenfranchised most blacks through voter registration laws and new constitutions by the end of the nineteenth century. In 1956, Southern resistance to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education resulted in a resolution called the Southern Manifesto. It was read into the Congressional Record and supported by 96 Southern Congressmen and senators, all but two of them Southern Democrats."

From The Film Archives

Woodrow Wilson is a mix bag to me, because he is the father of American liberal internationalism: this idea that America should always be strong and fight authoritarianism around the world ( even if we promote it at home ) and work with our allies around the world to defend liberal democracy and fight against authoritarianism. Whether it's communism, or religious theocracy, monarchy, nationalism, whatever the authoritarian philosophy might be. Which has been the governing foreign policy inside the Democratic Party going all the way though the Barack Obama Administration. George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign might be the only exception to this. So on this score I give President Woodrow Wilson very high marks.

President Woodrow Wilson was also an economic Progressive: he believed in things like a public safety net things like Unemployment Insurance for people who are unemployed. That every America ( at least European-Americans ) should have an opportunity to succeed in America. He believed in a regulatory state not to run private industry, but to protect employees and consumers from predators in the economy. Perhaps not as progressive as Theodore Roosevelt ( but most American politicians weren’t back then ) but an economic Progressive. Even though he was very regressive when it came to race relations and promoted segregation and separating African-Americans from European-Americans.

But if you want to know why we had segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1920s and going all the way up to the mid-1960s, look no further than President Woodrow Wilson and his administration of the 19 teens. Where President Wilson even segregated the races in the Federal Government. And not allowing African-Americans to get good Federal jobs simply because of their race. Which gave life to Dixiecrats and Dixiecrat governors in the South, as well as local government’s own there to pass their own segregation laws.

Southern predominately Anglo-Saxon European-Americans, knew they lost the Civil War and that slavery would no longer be tolerated. But there’s that old saying that the Confederates lost the Civil War but won the battles and the reconstruction. Jim Crow laws were Confederates chance at revenge. Acknowledging that slavery was history but that since Africans would no longer be slaves for anyone in America, that instead they would be treated like second-class citizens in America and in some cases not even be treated like American citizens at all. Be treated like criminals, terrorists, and even animals, by Southern racists. And Jim Crow laws and segregation, is obviously a huge part of the negative legacy of President Woodrow Wilson. Just like Watergate is a big part of President Richard Nixon’s negative legacy.

The Film Archives: Mississippi Freedom Riders- Civil Rights Movement

Source: The Film Archives- Freedom Fighters in the 1960s American South.

Source:The Daily View

"Freedom Riders were civil rights activists who rode interstate buses into the segregated southern United States, in 1961 and subsequent years, in order to challenge the non-enforcement of the United States Supreme Court decisions Morgan v. Virginia (1946) and Boynton v. Virginia (1960), which ruled that segregated public buses were unconstitutional. The Southern states had ignored the rulings and the federal government did nothing to enforce them. The first Freedom Ride left Washington, D.C., on May 4, 1961, and was scheduled to arrive in New Orleans on May 17.

Boynton outlawed racial segregation in the restaurants and waiting rooms in terminals serving buses that crossed state lines.[7][page needed] Five years prior to the Boynton ruling, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had issued a ruling in Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company (1955) that had explicitly denounced the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) doctrine of separate but equal in interstate bus travel. The ICC failed to enforce its ruling, and Jim Crow travel laws remained in force throughout the South.

The Freedom Riders challenged this status quo by riding interstate buses in the South in mixed racial groups to challenge local laws or customs that enforced segregation in seating. The Freedom Rides, and the violent reactions they provoked, bolstered the credibility of the American Civil Rights Movement. They called national attention to the disregard for the federal law and the local violence used to enforce segregation in the southern United States. Police arrested riders for trespassing, unlawful assembly, and violating state and local Jim Crow laws, along with other alleged offenses, but they often first let white mobs attack them without intervention.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) sponsored most of the subsequent Freedom Rides, but some were also organized by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The Freedom Rides followed dramatic sit-ins against segregated lunch counters, conducted by students and youth throughout the South, and boycotts of retail establishments that maintained segregated facilities, beginning in 1960.

The Supreme Court's decision in Boynton supported the right of interstate travelers to disregard local segregation ordinances. Southern local and state police considered the actions of the Freedom Riders to be criminal and arrested them in some locations. In some localities, such as Birmingham, Alabama, the police cooperated with Ku Klux Klan chapters and other white people opposing the actions and allowed mobs to attack the riders."

From The Film Archives

The Mississippi Freedom Riders, were young adults and civil rights activists and even volunteers, who had the gaul to march and ride for freedom and equal rights for African-Americans in 1961 and then several times after that in the 1960s. To challenge non-enforcement of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Morgan v Virginia and Boynton V. Virginia. Which ruled that segregated public buses were unconstitutional. States like Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and others in the South, were not enforcing these Supreme Court decisions. Even though under law they were supposed to.

Keep in mind, Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement, was already up and running by 1961, but it didn’t have the backing of the media and especially not Congress, or the Eisenhower Administration, or even the Kennedy Administration, by 1961, at least not officially. They were working what’s called backchannels and staying in touch with each other and the U.S. Administration working with Dr. King and his organization behind the scenes.

But even if President Kennedy was privately in favor of civil and equal rights for all Americans in 1961, he certainly wasn’t making that position public yet. It’s not until 1963 after big bombing in Alabama where President John Kennedy comes out strongly in favor of civil rights laws in a prime time speech that the networks broadcast.

The civil rights marchers and even the Freedom Riders, were considered radical especially in the early 1960s especially pre-civil rights laws of the mid 1960s. Imagine that, radicals because they not only believed in individual freedom, but then would march for that, but take that even a step forward and march for civil rights and equal rights for all Americans.

But that what life was like in the early 1960s which didn’t look much different culturally and politically as 1955. Where racial and ethnic minorities in America, were seen as second-class citizens. Even though under the U.S. Constitution they were entitled to the same rights, freedom, and responsibility as European-Americans and even European-American men and even Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon men.