Charles Kesler on the Grand Liberal Project

Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I’m Peter Robinson.
Today, Barack Obama and three waves of liberalism. My guest is Dr. Charles Kesler is a professor
of government at Claremont McKenna College, a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute
and the editor of the indispensable Claremont Review of Books. Charles Kesler writing recently
in the Claremont Review of Books, Barack Obama “has endeavored to do no less than complete
and perfect the grand liberal project began a century ago.” For our purposes now, briefly,
in one or two sentences, what’s the grand liberal project? First of all thank you. It’s a pleasure to
be here. American liberalism in the sense that we know it today has a beginning. It
began about a hundred years ago in the American progressive period and it has advanced across
the 20th century in a series of waves. The first one being progressivism, the second
the new deal, the third the ’60s. Broadly speaking that is the counterculture and the
great society, and Barack Obama is the fourth wave or at least he aspires to be the fourth
great breakthrough for modern American liberalism. Alright, let’s take each wave–each of those
waves in turn, segment one then the liberal project wave one. Political liberalism, you’re
right, is the most fundamental wave. It believed in progress. Yes. You know, sometimes political labels
actually tell you something and the progressive movement is one of those cases where you had
a movement that started as an intellectual movement, became a sort of journalistic and
political one and eventually settled down after a long period of contest between being
a Republican Party movement and being a Democratic Party movement. It would eventually, by the
new deal, settle down into being the leading ideological component of the Democratic Party.
Initially there were more progressive Republicans than there were progressive Democrats. That would be Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt wing of the Republican
Party. Case in point, exactly. But intellectually
what they had in common was an impatience with the constitution and the old forms of
American politics, which they regarded as outmoded. The typical formulation would be
something like this, that you, the constitution is an 18th century document which is increasingly
inadequate to solve the problems of the 20th century or now, the 21st century and so it
either has to be replaced or refined and rehabilitated. And, Woodrow Wilson is perhaps the most celebrated
critique of the constitution. He’s the first president to criticize the constitution under
which he served. As a young man, he was interested in actually amending that constitution to
turn it into a sort of parliamentary system. But as a mature political scientist and then
of course a politician, he decided that you could transform it from within. You could
reform the spirit in which the constitution would be interpreted. What was it that was inadequate about the
old constitutional forms as Wilson saw it? Well, they led–two things were inadequate
about them, I think you could say. One is that they were based on 18th century concepts
of a permanent human nature, a fixed sort of human nature. And because of that, the
constitution itself had to be fixed. It had to be as permanent as possible to protect
the rights of man which were unchanging because they were aspects of his very nature. And
the second thing which he regarded as improvable about the constitution is that the theory
of human nature on which it was based was not only old, it was too selfish, too self-interested
and egoistic and as a result, the dominance of political machines and the spirit of self
interest in American business and so forth which were great of course betenoires of progressivism.
He regarded all that as a logical consequence of the spirit of the constitution itself.
This was self-interestedness working itself out under modern conditions, you know, where
you have lots of immigrants arriving all the time in America who need to be organized politically
by machines and so forth and so on. Now, you write that he introduced, Wilson
introduced a new understanding or attempted to introduce a new understanding of leadership. Yes. This is part of his scheme to improve
the constitution or to remodel it from within. The presidency would be the key, that if you
could get a president like himself and like the apostolic succession of great democratic
progressive president since then including now, I suppose Barack Obama, they could pour
new wine into the old bottle of the constitution and the new wine was the notion of leadership,
that their job was not to run the constitutional machinery, to fulfill the duties of the executive
office per se but to lead public opinion. To lead it into the future, to move American
politics forward to open it to the salutary influences of progress and to do this by taking
the American people in hand, showing them the New Jerusalem that awaits them in the
future and organizing them for that march into Jerusalem. So in those early years of the 20th century,
the last–well, one of the last proponents of the old, a couple of the last proponents
of the old constitutional order would have been William Howard Taft and Calvin Coolidge
and these were chief executives who were content to administer the federal government which
was then still relatively modest by our standards today to execute the duties specifically enjoined
on them as chief executives by the constitution and otherwise, to leave it alone. By contrast
you’ve got Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt who want to take America by the collar and
dragged it in there and Wilson indeed wants to remake all the world after the first world
war. Yes. That’s right. It’s a difference in vision and scope and
level of energy that they believe is fit–fitted to the job of president. In fact, Wilson is the first president really
to use this word which is now ubiquitous in our politics, vision. To be a leader you have
to have a vision of the future and you have to sort of communicate that vision to the
unanointed, the mass public in the United States. Make them believe in it by making
them believe in you and your prophetic ability to see where the country is going and all
you do is pose as the modest prime minister in a way conducting us to the futures of this
new visions. So, is this a fair summary then, phase one
of liberalism sees the constitution as an instrument for rousing the people and leading
them to a great national destiny whereas the old constitutional order would say no, no,
no, you don’t understand, William Howard Taft, Calvin Coolidge. The constitutional order
is constructed to leave people alone. Let Americans be. Yes, although I would say that there was always
a notion of national destiny or of the republican significance of America for the world and
for humanity but that significance was found in the fulfillment of, as it were, the permanent
requirements of human nature. Segment two, the second wave of liberalism, economic liberalism.
You’ve written Charles, “What is most characteristic about the second wave of liberalism is the
doctrine of social and economic rights.” Explain. Yes. From the first wave, you’ve got what
we now call the living constitution. The notion that– Antonin Scalia [inaudible]. Yes, that’s right and for us this term means
something that judges believe in and apply, you know activist judges. But for Wilson who
really formulates this theory, it’s a theory of the whole government. Every branch of government
has a part to play in opening up the constitution. It’s a, it’s really a sort of Darwinian notion
that new times present new challenges. If the constitution like any living organism
is to survive it has to be able to adapt to it’s new environment and it can’t be restricted
by the separation of powers, by checks and balances, by this old 18th century ideas of
limited government. It’s gonna be a living government. The constitution has to be a living
document and the government has to be able to change in structure and function with the
changes in public opinion and changes in the social and economic problems confronting it.
So what the new deal adds to this is that– Franklin Roosevelt 1930s, this is a couple
of decades after Wilson. That’s right. Is an economic spin in which
the notion of the living constitution now translates into a whole new category of rights
that have to be guaranteed under the constitution and by the government. And these are what
Wilson sometimes, I mean, sorry, FDR sometimes called the second bill of rights or the economic
bill of rights. And they include things like a right to a job, a right to a vacation from
the job, a right to healthcare, a right to a home, a right to an education. All of these
sort of social and economic benefits are things he said was in modern America are as fundamental
as the inalienable rights of the declaration of independence, you know, life, liberty,
the pursuit of happiness. The only difference being that the old rights
essentially meant that the government had a duty to leave you alone and only to protect
your life and liberty against other human beings who might try to rob you or kill you
or intrude upon your property. The new rights require government to be much more energetic,
active, positive in its approach, and essentially to nationalize all of American politics because
these rights which are going to go out to individuals and groups of Americans, retirees
in the case of social security and so forth, all come to a head in Washington and the stream
of benefits flows from Washington. You write, “The theory of the new economic
rights is that the old rights: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion
are not worth anything until you have a certain economic and social equality granted to everyone
and guaranteed by the government. This is a very bad argument but it turned out to be
a very successful argument. Bad and successful, I’d like you to address both of those. Why
is it a bad argument? What–I mean surely there is at least an intuitive appeal. Who
wants freedom of speech when he’s starving? Who cares about freedom of religion when he
hasn’t got a job, right? Yes, that’s right. So there is But does it Why is it a bad argument? Does it follow that your right to freedom
of religion, let’s say, or freedom of worship is being frustrated because you don’s have
a church and you want the government to build you a church, because the flavor of that you’re
interested in is not available in your market. That’s really the transformation. I mean the
older understanding of course recognize that having a decent home and decent medical care
and so forth, education, these were good things but it refrained from calling them rights.
Because when you call them rights you necessarily create duties to fulfill these rights and
as government grows across the 20th century, let’s say, you know as more and more rights
are created someone has got to pay to guarantee your healthcare, your home, your job, your
vacation from the job and so forth. Who is it that has the duties to pay for your rights? That is the famous man behind the tree. Don’t
tax me, don’t tax me, tax the man behind the tree. Well and it’s really what Hayek was talking
about when he spoke of the road to serfdom. Going back to a society like feudalism where
duties are primary and rights are exemptions from duties that government grants to its
favored clients. Our freedoms disappear in those sort of comprehensive duties and you
know, if your right to consent to taxes, let’s say, a very old right, understood as a derivation
of the old natural rights of the declaration of independence. You know when that right
comes into the conflict with your duty to pay taxes to provide all of these benefits
that have been promised which takes precedence and increasingly I think in the politics of
the 20th century, the duty takes precedence and it’s Indeed this current administration seeks to
extend it to the Caribbean Islands and elsewhere, actually. Very much so. Alright, but you say it turned out to be a
very successful argument. Yes, part of FDR’s political genius was to
weave the new concept of rights together with the old concept of rights and to cover up
a little bit its novelty and its radicalism and he did so along the lines that you’ve
just outlined, that of course the old rights are still there. These are just new rights
we’re adding to the old rights. They don’t take away from them, they add to them. And
in fact to vindicate the old rights we need these new rights because a man without a job,
what does the right to vote mean to a man who’s without a job? What is the right to
own property mean to a man who has no property? Right. And that was a very successful combination
in selling what was in fact a very new and in a way revolutionary idea as a continuation
of an old idea. Segment three, liberalism wave three. Cultural
liberalism, the sexual revolution of the ’60s, Charles Kesler writes “freed up everyone to
pursue passion without the restraints of a reason.” Explain. Well again, if you start from the premise
of the new deal style rights, that because you, individuals can’t be counted on to provide
their own housing or their own education or their own healthcare, government has to do
it for them. The purpose of this is for government to take charge of your necessities as it were
or your or at least what are called necessities and to let you leave in freedom, a new kind
of freedom which really is a kind of freedom from responsibility or freedom from virtue
in the old sense. I mean it took virtues to you know, build a life for yourself, provide
for your family, get a decent house, send your kids to good schools and so forth. Now we’re being offered the And now it’s the freedom of the nursery schools. That’s right. Instead of the virtues that
went with the old style of freedom, the new kind of freedom is really liberation. It’s
liberation from virtue, from the kind of character you needed to be free in the older understanding. Charles, how is it? Beautifully put, you just
summed up a huge amount of thought in a couple of sentences there. How is it that we understand,
we feel the connections between these three waves of liberalism but we know that Woodrow
Wilson would have been appalled by the Wood Stock. Yes. I mean the hippy thing and Franklin Roosevelt.
I don’t what to call it. As with FDR, yes that’s right. FDR. FDR had some marital problems but he
was a very prim man. He loved the Book of Common Prayer. He went to church. He loved
the–he was a man of traditional morality and even traditional aesthetics. How do we
understand what took place in the ’60’s as it continue a third wave of what is somehow
the same thing? Well, I would say this. You’re right that
in some ways the character of a Woodrow Wilson or an FDR is better than their principles.
And what happens is that their– Remind me to keep you on my side. Their insistence on this, let’s say, higher
standards, more traditional kinds of standards corrodes overtime against the idea that after
all there is progress. We assume that there is progress. The progressive assumption is
that the future will be better than the present even as the present is better than the past.
And so who are we in the end to say that human liberation will not take different unusual
forms, sexual liberation, the drug revolution, whatever, of the 1960s. Perhaps this is in
fact the kind of experiments that the growth of human personality requires, and that’s
really how the ’60s, I think, comes about. You know where it seems to me that one place
one sees it is in the family of the Kennedy’s where you have Edward Moore Kennedy who is
at this stage presumably in the last months of his existence among us but at this stage
of his career he’s championed every aspects, most notably one of the champions of abortion
on demand. The very notion if Patrick Joseph Kennedy Sr., his father, or even John Fitzgerald
Kennedy his older brother had thought that their baby of the family would end up as a
champion of abortion, they would have been appalled, is that right? Yes, no I think that’s right. I think that’s
right. This takes place within a generation, in a
half or two generations. Well, and that example of course raises the
question I was skirting earlier which is in fact the old rights and the new rights don’t
just peacefully coexist. The new rights come with a huge cost in terms of the old rights.
Because some of these old rights like the right to life under the aegis of the new rights
looks less and less absolute or less and less permanent and compelling. Explain one instance of that. You’ve written
“freeing up everyone equally turns out to be bad for women.” Yes. Well, it turns out to be bad for women
because women and men are different in certain ways. I mean they’re equally human beings
deserving of the kinds of rights that human beings are possessed of. You’re being old fashioned. You’re asserting
unchanging– That’s right, exactly. But it was always understood
that though they were beings of equal worth, they were beings of different fate because
nature had made them different and complementary, of course, but not the same and so the attempt
to liberate women from femininity and also to liberate men from masculinity I think has
been the source of great unhappiness. Undoubtedly, there were aspects of women’s condition and
lifestyles that had to change in the ’60s and ’50s because the economy was changing,
society was changing. New kinds of opportunities were opening up
for educated human beings whether they were men or women and that would have an effect
on traditional families that we shouldn’t discount. But still the ideological kick that
the ’60s added was a kind of revulsion at the old roles of mother and even homemaker
and so forth and to regard these as passe and declasse at the same time. The avant-garde
was moving away from that and it was easier for the avant-garde to handle the new lifestyles,
of course, then it was for women in the middle class and the working class, right, to handle
them because the disadvantages that cropped up could be more easily handled if you had
a higher income than if you didn’t. One particular artifact, political artifact,
of this third wave of liberalism, cultural liberalism, identity politics. You’ve written,
“Left to ourselves our identities. The thing we’re supposed to be liberating is not complete.
We have to join groups. Identity rights now become very important in politics.” Briefly
explicate that assertion. That’s right. Well, the politics of sort of
liberation, cultural liberation which we saw on the ’60s, well one side of the ’60s was
meant initially to liberate individuals but individuals are weak and they need the support
of, they need support groups as we learned to say back then. And so women’s liberation
couldn’t be the liberation of individual women alone. It had to be the liberation of all
women since the sisterhood and the same thing with the sexual, other aspects of the sexual
revolution. Individual homosexuals could not be fully liberated. They needed the support
of their peers and so what began as individual kinds of social and economic liberation became
group forms of social and economic liberation and that’s really the logic of the entitlement
state, of the entitlement rights that came out of the second wave of liberalism, that
rights really are privileges that government grants to broad categories of people, not
to individuals. Not to individuals. That’s really, that’s futile but the modern
version of that same notion is that these are rights that go to identity groups of one
kind or another who claim that they have been repressed and need now to receive from government
the support necessary to be free. Segment four, enter Barack Obama. Excuse me.
I return to the assertion with which we began which is the Barack Obama according to Charles
Kesler has “endeavor to do no less than complete and perfect the grand liberal project began
a century ago.” So let’s just go through these. Barack Obama and political liberalism. What
does he wish to extend, to complete, to perfect? Well, I think he intends, concretely, to turn
the court back into Warren era kind of activist court and to break the five four log jam that
has characterized the court for generation now. Sotomayor’s nomination is an indication
of this. I would expect– You don’t think he stepped down on a banana
peel. It looks as though her decisions are actually pretty narrowly construed. She abides
by the president. Yeah. Well, she said some silly things but
she doesn’t [inaudible] silly decisions. It would be wonderful irony and long overdue
if a liberal appointee to the court moved right. About time for that happen to their side. Instead of Republican appointees moving left
which has been the almost universal rule for, you know, 50 years. Right. Right. So if he slips on a banana peel, that’s great.
I think it’s our turn to have somebody slip on a banana peel. But his intention is certainly
to restore the living constitution to its full health and vigor. That will be enough out of you Mr. Justice
Scalia. We have a living constitution and that’s that. He actually admits this in the–in his second
book, The Audacity of Hope. He talks about–he has a long sort of passage in which he debates
theories of interpreting the constitution. But in the end surprise, surprise, he gets,
he is in favor of the living constitution. Alright. So in what way then wave two, the
economical liberalism, in what way does he wish to complete and perfect that project? Well, he wants to achieve what every democratic
president has tried to achieve since FDR which is national healthcare. This is the great
long sought goal of–to complete as it where this–the entitlement state. And he has a
very good chance of succeeding, I’m afraid. This summer we’ll, I think we’ll tell. It’s
not inevitable but he seems to have the best shot of any Democratic presidents so far since
FDR for doing this. And the third wave, the cultural, the wave
of cultural liberalism. How does Barack Obama want to perfect and complete that? Well, here I think what’s interesting about
him is that he has downplayed the cultural agenda and has in fact stepped back and deliberately
so from the in your face social radicalism of the ’60s. I think he understands that that
was a political, tremendous political liability for liberalism and for democrats. And that
he wants to cool those issues and to demonstrate a new maturity in the Democratic Party. And
he’s, you know he has– He’s stylistic or substantive? –stylistically–More than substantively but
a little of both. So if he appears, we we’re talking earlier about how appalled by the
cultural, the sexual revolution Woodrow Wilson or FDR might have been. But, here you have
Barack Obama, as best one can tell, a very close and a well-functioning marriage, two
absolutely adore–an old fashioned nuclear family and not a hint of any scandal surrounding
them. He’s quite an– Right. On sort of the ethical or moral scale, he’s
really quite old fashioned. Yes, no and I think that that’s designed to
impart, to represent the new maturity as it were of the Democratic Party on this subject.
He is an adult, he’s a grown up. But, he can show you that grownups can be cool. You don’t
have to be a kid like in the ’60s to be cool. The party, we’ve progressed since then and
a certain amount self restraint that goes with liberation is not only necessary but
it’s attractive and he certainly embodies that. At the same time, of course, he has
ticked off every box on the cultural liberal agenda with the possible exception of gay
marriage. But who knows in 6 years where he will actually be on that question. But on
everything else, abortion–with one other possible exception, I should say in his favor
and that is religion. Where like Bill Clinton and like Jimmy Carter, he has been more open
to using religious language to welcoming certain aspects of religion back into the public square.
But, otherwise he’s a pretty conventional cultural liberal I’d say. You note that as President Ronald Reagan could
still quote passages from Whittaker Chambers’ 1952 book Witness. That’s the great book in
which Whittaker Chambers describes becoming an underground communist in this country in
the ’30s and breaking with the party. Yes. Alright. Here’s the passage, one of the passages
Ronald Reagan could quote. “When I took,” this is Chambers. “When I took my little sling
and aimed at communism,” that is to say, he broke with the party. “I also hit that great
socialist revolution which in the name of liberalism has been inching its icecap over
the nation for 2 decades.” He wrote that in 1952. So we’d have to say that if he’s right
about that the icecap has now been inching over the nation for 8 decades. Yes, right?
Alright. So here is what I’m–a fundamental question, you write about the grand liberal
project. And the question I have is really, is there really a grand liberal project or
is it just a kind of somehow or rather it’s a set of impulses of this stage. In other
words, if you shook Barack Obama awake in the middle of the night and said, “Quick,
you can have everything you want” What would he ask for? What’s the culmination? When do
they know they’ve gotten–When the icecap covers the country completely, what will it
look like? Well, part of the genius of liberalism is
never defining, what the terminus ad quem is. You’ll never find a liberal saying, “You
know, if only government were 50 percent of GDP, we’d be happy.” Yeah. You know. This is all we–we wanted is what
Sweden has. They’ll never actually define that and partly that’s because they are progressives.
I mean they really are progressives. They don’t know, they can’t know where history
is going to take us exactly. They are confident that it’s going to be in a more socialized
direction, greater, deeper social democracy. But, they cannot specify like Marx could specify
what the end state is going to look like. That gives them–it’s all a kind of–to use
a mathematical and a [inaudible] term, asymptotic approximation of democratic perfection at
the end of history. But, you never quite get to the end and so there is always more reform
to be done. I would say, though that mentioning the icecaps, I mean environmentalism is one
of those things which is added to the armory of liberal argument and ideas and opened up
a whole new category to justify government’s growth and intervention. And Obama is exploiting
it fairly successfully right now. Segment five, what are conservatives to do?
Charles Kesler quote “It does seem as if the conservative movement is longing for sort
of conservative Viagra.” Dr. Kesler, explain that. Well, this program is called Uncommon Knowledge,
right. [Laughter] I’m–I don’t think is a secret that conservatism is not back on its
heels right now and is dispirited and somewhat in the doldrums. And in a way, the reason
for that is that we’ve fought. We became in a way too progressive. We we’re confident
that the victory that Reagan won was a permanent victory and I think that history was moving
in our direction, and all we had to do was sort of collect on the down payment, you know
on the initial gains that Reagan had made and simply ride those. And Gingrich’s success
in 1994 added to the sense that a new conservative era was opening up, and the long sought emerging
republican majority was about to really emerge for generation. Gingrich was himself in those
days very eloquent on this subject. I mean he used to talk about, you know, the third
wave. He had his waves too. That’s right, exactly. Very much like the
progressives that the microchip and the new computer technology of the age would guarantee
as a political parallel the breakdown of traditional bureaucracy, the demassification of the government,
the unleashing of individual initiative, and so forth and thus the republican ascendancy
for the next generation or two. Right. Well, some aspects of that came true of course
technologically and so forth but politically, no. No, there was no determinism from the
economy and technology to politics. And I think– As political contributions here in Silicon
Valley would demonstrate. Yes, no, exactly. The people who became rich off that microchip
are now giving money to give money to Al Gore and Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. That’s right. The Gore did invent the internet
so, I mean there’s that. Charles, can I just–why? This is anthropological
question. I’m asking you a question about human beings. Why hadn’t the decisive victory
been won when the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989 and Soviet Union collapsed in 199? We
have by that point had decades of experience between limited government and free markets
on the one hand and command economies on the other, and if you want to take the Soviet
Union out of the picture, just look at Western Europe. We have much larger state than in
United States and you have 3, 4 decades now of economic stagnation, unemployment up around
9, 10 percent. What, why is it even an argument that we need more market participation in
healthcare and not less? Why? Well Doesn’t it shake your faith in democracy here? There’s a strategic and a tactical answer
I think. The strategic answer is that the victories of liberalism in the past century
are so much deeper and changed American politics so much more than conservatives, I think,
are willing to admit that we’re up against a process, a new understanding, let’s put
it this way, of the state and its purposes and so forth that’s a hundred years old. The
20th century is really the liberal century. Conservatives came on the scene only very
late, I mean there was no organized conservative movement until the ’50s, really, when Bill
Buckley National Review began. So when Justice Antonin Scalia excoriates
Warren and the Warren Court, he is actually stopping short about 5 decades. Yes. The notion of a living constitution that was–The
Warren Court, it’s harvest time from an intellectual notion. The beginnings of that notion date
back 4 to 5 decades earlier. Yes. But, really Scalia I mean is an interesting
case in point here. In many ways Scalia is a new deal judge. I mean he accepts the new
deal settlement. That is he doesn’t have as an ambition reigning in congress’ ability
to regulate the economy. Alright. He is anti-Warren court. He can’t do every judge. No, no, he can’t do everything. But, he doesn’t
have as an agenda you might say going back before the new deal court and for him everything
is really a question of whether the judges should do it or not or leave it to the democratic
process. That’s really the argument of the new deal court and of the progressives in
their attitudes towards the court that the court should get out of the way of reform,
of reforming liberalism, and stick to its own work which is to, you know, handle the
civil rights question and maybe a few procedural questions about democracy. But to leave government
to grow more or less as the people or as the people are alleged to want it to grow and
as they express their desires through congressional legislation. Charles, final question. You said that–of Barack Obama’s inaugural
address “The speech was a pastiche of themes adapted from FDR and Ronald Reagan, the last
two presidents to pull off major electoral realignments. What Obama hopes for is a similar
breakthrough for the forces of liberalism in this generation.” [Sniggers] We’re out
of time so I have to ask for a yes or no, maybe to the elaboration, to the extent of
a single sentence. Will he be able to pull it off? Will Barack Obama pull it off? I don’t think so. Ah. Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College
and the editor of the Claremont Review of Books. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I’m Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge
and the Hoover Institution. Thank you for joining us.

  1. The best explanation of what liberalism is today. Rights of the people is changing, thats why Libs want a living constitution, because human nature may not be fix, it could be amendable. Duty is more important. For example, individuals needed support groups. Identity politics is essential. The government needs to support those identities. The presidency needs a mature vision of the future, like a right to health care for all. Therefore people who have a job have a duty to pay for it. But its an impulsive vision. Government must have more Gross Domestic Product to get involve deeply into people lives. More and more reform and more issues to be discovered. Hence, Barack Obama got elected. Now, after 8 years of becoming like Europe where the largest group was ignored because they had more duties then rights, Trump got elected and he reversing all of what Obama did. The almost antiquated right to be left alone.

  2. Democrats to a large extent have become elites because they believe in ideas that have become alien to the people. And to some extent the Republicans as well. They don't care about kids future(s). Just look at the national debt, 20,000,000,000,000 !!!! That will rob the countries future !! By 2034 Social Security will go broke (Medicare will go broke before). The Obama attempt to expand medicare may have accelerated this bankruptcy. I doubt that President Trump can stop it. Meanwhile, the media, newspapers and tv news, have abandoned the people and are in the pockets of power elitists and idealists. Institutions, such as universities, power corporations (Google, Facebook, and politically correct companies) and Hollywood, have become so far left that they turn away from the disambiguation collective of Americanism to tribal identity politics and Marxist class warfare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *