The Rise of Conservatism: Crash Course US History #41

Episode 41: Rise of Conservatism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse
U.S. history and today we’re going to–Nixon?–we’re going to talk about the rise of conservatism.
So Alabama, where I went to high school, is a pretty conservative state and reliably sends
Republicans to Washington. Like, both of its Senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby,
are Republicans. But did you know that Richard Shelby used to be a Democrat, just like basically
all of Alabama’s Senators since reconstruction? And this shift from Democrat to Republican
throughout the South is the result of the rise in conservative politics in the 1960s
and 1970s that we are going to talk about today. And along the way, we get to put Richard
Nixon’s head in a jar. Stan just informed me that we don’t actually
get to put Richard Nixon’s head in a jar. It’s just a Futurama joke. And now I’m
sad. So, you’ll remember from our last episode
that we learned that not everyone in the 1960s was a psychedelic rock-listening, war-protesting
hippie. In fact, there was a strong undercurrent of conservative thinking that ran throughout
the 1960s, even among young people. And one aspect of this was the rise of free
market ideology and libertarianism. Like, since the 1950s, a majority of Americans had
broadly agreed that “free enterprise” was a good thing and should be encouraged
both in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, and also in deep space
where no man has gone before? No, MFTP. You’re thinking of the Starship
Enterprise, not free enterprise. And anyway, Me From The Past, have you ever
seen a more aggressively communist television program than “The Neutral Zone” from Star
Trek: The Next Generation’s first season? I don’t think so.
intro Alright so, in the 1950s a growing number
of libertarians argued that unregulated capitalism and individual autonomy were the essence of
American freedom. And although they were staunchly anti-communist, their real target was the
regulatory state that had been created by the New Deal. You know, social security, and
not being allowed to, you know, choose how many pigs you kill, etc.
Other conservatives weren’t libertarians at all but moral conservatives who were okay
with the rules that enforced traditional notions of family and morality. Even if that seemed
like, you know, an oppressive government. For them virtue was the essence of America.
But both of these strands of conservatism were very hostile toward communism and also
to the idea of “big government.” And it’s worth noting that since World War
I, the size and scope of the federal government had increased dramatically.
And hostility toward the idea of “big government” remains the signal feature of contemporary
conservatism. Although very few people actually argue for shrinking the government. Because,
you know, that would be very unpopular. People like Medicare.
But it was faith in the free market that infused the ideology of the most vocal young conservatives
in the 1960s. They didn’t receive nearly as much press
as their liberal counterparts but these young conservatives played a pivotal role in reshaping
the Republican Party, especially in the election of 1964.
The 1964 presidential election was important in American history precisely because it was
so incredibly uncompetitive. I mean, Lyndon Johnson was carrying the torch
of a wildly popular American president who had been assassinated a few months before.
He was never going to lose. And indeed he didn’t. The republican candidate,
Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, was demolished by LBJ.
But the mere fact of Goldwater’s nomination was a huge conservative victory. I mean, he
beat out liberal Republican New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And yes, there were liberal
Republicans. Goldwater demanded a harder line in the Cold
War, even suggesting that nuclear war might be an option in the fight against communism.
And he lambasted the New Deal liberal welfare state for destroying American initiative and
individual liberty. I mean, why bother working when you could just enjoy life on the dole?
I mean, unemployment insurance allowed anyone in America to become a hundredaire.
But it was his stance on the Cold War that doomed his candidacy. In his acceptance speech,
Goldwater famously declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Which made it really easy for Johnson to paint Goldwater as an extremist.
In the famous “Daisy” advertisement, Johnson’s supporters countered Goldwater’s campaign
slogan of “in your heart, you know he’s right” with “but in your guts you know
he’s nuts.” So in the end, Goldwater received a paltry
27 million votes to Johnson’s 43 million, and Democrats racked up huge majorities in
both houses of Congress. This hides, however, the significance of the election. Five of
the six states that Goldwater carried were in the Deep South, which had been reliably
democratic, known as the “Solid South,” in fact.
Now, it’s too simple to say that race alone led to the shift from Democratic to the Republican
party in the South because Goldwater didn’t really talk much about race.
But the Democrats, especially under LBJ, became the party associated with defending civil
rights and ending segregation, and that definitely played a role in white southerners’ abandoning
the Democrats, as was demonstrated even more clearly in the 1968 election.
The election of 1968 was a real cluster-Calhoun, I mean, there were riots and there was also
the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who was very unpopular with the anti-war movement,
and also was named Hubert Humphrey, and that’s just what happened with the Democrats.
But, lost in that picture was the Republican nominee, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was one
of the few candidates in American history to come back and win the presidency after
losing in a previous election. How’d he do it?
Well, it probably wasn’t his charm, but it might have been his patience. Nixon was
famous for his ability to sit and wait in poker games. It made him very successful during
his tour of duty in the South Pacific. In fact, he earned the nickname “Old Iron Butt.”
Plus, he was anti-communist, but didn’t talk a lot about nuking people. And the clincher
was probably that he was from California, which by the late 1960s was becoming the most
populous state in the nation. Nixon won the election, campaigning as the
candidate of the “silent majority” of Americans who weren’t anti-war protesters,
and who didn’t admire free love or the communal ideals of hippies.
And who were alarmed at the rights that the Supreme Court seemed to be expanding, especially
for criminals. This silent majority felt that the rights
revolution had gone too far. I mean, they were concerned about the breakdown in traditional
values and in law and order. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.
Nixon also promised to be tough on crime, which was coded language to whites in the
south that he wouldn’t support civil rights protests. The equation of crime with African
Americans has a long and sordid history in the United States, and Nixon played it up
following a “Southern strategy” to further draw white Democrats who favored segregation
into the Republican ranks. Now, Nixon only won 43% of the vote, but if
you’ve paid attention to American history, you know that you ain’t gotta win a majority
to be the president. He was denied that majority primarily by Alabama
Governor George Wallace, who was running on a pro-segregation ticket and won 13% of the
vote. So 56% of American voters chose candidates
who were either explicitly or quietly against civil rights.
Conservatives who voted for Nixon hoping he would roll back the New Deal were disappointed.
I mean, in some ways the Nixon domestic agenda was just a continuation of LBJ’s Great Society.
This was partly because Congress was still in the hands of Democrats, but also Nixon
didn’t push for conservative programs and he didn’t veto new initiatives. Because
they were popular. And he liked to be popular. So in fact, a number of big government “liberal”
programs began under Nixon. I mean, the environmental movement achieved success with the enactment
of the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board
were created to make new regulations that would protect worker safety and make cars
safer. That’s not government getting out of our
lives, that’s government getting into our cars.
Now, Nixon did abolish the Office of Economic Opportunity, but he also indexed social security
benefits to inflation and he proposed the Family Assistance Plan that would guarantee
a minimum income for all Americans. And, the Nixon years saw some of the most
aggressive affirmative action in American history. LBJ had begun the process by requiring
recipients of federal contracts to have specific numbers of minority employees and timetables
for increasing those numbers. But Nixon expanded this with the Philadelphia
plan, which required federal construction projects to have minority employees. He ended
up attacking this plan after realising that it was wildly unpopular with trade unions,
which had very few black members, but he had proposed it.
And when Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a new Chief Justice to the Supreme Court after
Earl Warren retired in 1969, his choice, Warren Burger was supposed to be a supporter of small
government and conservative ideals, but, just like Nixon, he proved a disappointment in
that regard. Like, in Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenbug Board
of Education, the court upheld a lower court ruling that required busing of students to
achieve integration in Charlotte’s schools. And then the Burger court made it easier for
minorities to sue for employment discrimination, especially with its ruling in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. This upheld affirmative action as a valid governmental
interest, although it did strike down the use of strict quotas in university admissions.
Now, many conservatives didn’t like these affirmative action decisions, but one case
above all others had a profound effect on American politics: Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first trimester
of a pregnancy as well as a more limited right as the pregnancy progressed. And that decision
galvanized first Catholics and then Evangelical Protestants.
And that ties in nicely with another strand in American conservatism that developed in
the 1960s and 1970s. Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. Many Americans felt that traditional family
values were deteriorating and looked to conservative republican candidates to stop that slide.
They were particularly alarmed by the continuing success of the sexual revolution, as symbolized
by Roe v. Wade and the increasing availability of birth control.
Statistics tend to back up the claims that traditional family values were in decline
in the 1970s. Like, the number of divorces soared to over one million in 1975 exceeding
the number of first time marriages. The birthrate declined with women bearing 1.7 children during
their lifetimes by 1976, less than half the figure in 1957. Now, of course, many people
would argue that the decline of these traditional values allowed more freedom for women and
for a lot of terrible marriages to end, but that’s neither here nor there.
Some conservatives also complained about the passage in 1972 of Title IX, which banned
gender discrimination in higher education, but many more expressed concern about the
increasing number of women in the workforce. Like, by 1980 40% of women with young children
had been in the workforce, up from 20% in 1960.
The backlash against increased opportunity for women is most obviously seen in the defeat
of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1974, although it passed Congress easily in 1972. Opponents
of the ERA, which rather innocuously declared that equality of rights under the law could
not be abridged on account of sex, argued that the ERA would let men off the hook for
providing for their wives and children, and that working women would lead to the further
breakdown of the family. Again, all the ERA stated was that women and men would have equal
rights under the laws of the United States. But, anyway, some anti-ERA supporters, like
Phyllis Schlafly claimed that free enterprise was the greatest liberator of women because
the purchase of new labor saving devices would offer them genuine freedom in their traditional
roles of wife and mother. Essentially, the vacuum cleaner shall make you free. And those
arguments were persuasive to enough people that the ERA was not ratified in the required
¾ of the United States. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Sorry if I let my personal
feelings get in the way on that one. Anyway, Nixon didn’t have much to do with the continuing
sexual revolution; it would have continued without him because, you know, skoodilypooping
is popular. But, he was successfully reelected in 1972,
partly because his opponent was the democratic Barry Goldwater, George McGovern.
McGovern only carried one state and it wasn’t even his home state. It was Massachusetts.
Of course. But even though they couldn’t possibly lose,
Nixon’s campaign decided to cheat. In June of 1972, people from Nixon’s campaign broke
into McGovern’s campaign office, possibly to plant bugs. No, Stan, not those kinds of
bugs. Yes. Those. Now, we don’t know if Nixon actually knew
about the activities of the former employees of the amazingly acronym-ed CREEP, that is
the Committee for the Reelection of the President. But this break in at the Watergate hotel eventually
led to Nixon being the first and so far only American president to resign.
What we do know is this: Nixon was really paranoid about his opponents, even the ones
who appealed to 12% of American voters, especially after Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the New York Times in 1971. So, he drew up an enemies list and created
a special investigative unit called the plumbers whose job was to fix toilets. No, it was to
stop leaks. That makes more sense. I’m sorry, Stan, it’s just by then the
toilets in the White House were over 100 years old, I figured they might need some fixing,
but apparently no. Leaking. Nixon also taped all of the conversations
in the Oval Office and these tapes caused a minor constitutional crisis.
So, during the congressional investigation of Watergate, it became known that these tapes
existed, so the special prosecutor demanded copies.
Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege, and the case went all the way to the Supreme
Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he had to turn them over. And this is important
because it means that the president is not above the law.
So, what ultimately doomed Nixon was not the break in itself, but the revelations that
he covered it up by authorizing hush money payments to keep the burglars silent and also
instructing the FBI not to investigate the crime.
In August of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that articles of impeachment be
drawn up against Nixon for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. But the real crime,
ultimately, was abuse of power, and there’s really no question about whether he was guilty
of that. So, Nixon resigned. Aw man, I was thinking I was going to get
away without a Mystery Document today. The rules here are simple.
I guess the author of the Mystery Document, and lately I’m never wrong.
Alright. Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole
would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith
in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and
be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”
Aw. I’m going to get shocked today. Is it Sam Ervin? Aw dang it! Gah!
Apparently it was African American congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan. Stan, that is
much too hard. I think you were getting tired of me not being
shocked, Stan, because it’s pretty strange to end an episode on conservatism with a quote
from Barbara Jordan, whose election to Congress has to be seen as a huge victory for liberalism.
But I guess it is symbolic of the very things that many conservatives found unsettling in
the 1970s, including political and economic success for African Americans and women, and
the legislation that helped the marginalized. I know that sounds very judgmental, but on
the other hand, the federal government had become a huge part of every American’s life,
maybe too huge. And certainly conservatives weren’t wrong
when they said that the founding fathers of the U.S. would hardly recognize the nation
that we had become by the 1970s. In fact, Watergate was followed by a Senate
investigation by the Church Committee, which revealed that Nixon was hardly the first president
to abuse his power. The government had spied on Americans throughout
the Cold War and tried to disrupt the Civil Rights movement. And the Church Commission,
Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Vietnam all of these things revealed a government that
truly was out of control and this undermined a fundamental liberal belief that government
is a good institution that is supposed to solve problems and promote freedom.
And for many Conservatives these scandals sent a clear signal that government couldn’t
promote freedom and couldn’t solve problems and that the liberal government of the New
Deal and the Great Society had to be stopped. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week.
Woah! Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people and it exists because
of…your support on Subbable is a voluntary subscription service
that allows you to support stuff you like monthly for the price of your choosing, so
if you value Crash Course U.S. History and you want this kind of stuff to continue to
exist so we can make educational content free, forever, for everyone, please check out Subbable.
And I am slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning. Thank you again for
your support. I’m coming back around. I can do this. And as we say in my hometown,
don’t forget to be awesome.

Ken Wilber — Identity Politics: An Integral View

I love this conversation about identity politics too. I’ve just written on Facebook a couple days ago, right after the midterm election, I think something interesting happened. You know, Jared Polis won as Democratic governor of Colorado. The funny thing was, the day after he won, all the headlines were, you know, “America elects its first male gay governor”. Right? So the identity politics were coming out in full force. The funny thing is, when I was looking at all the forums, from all of the people who either voted for him or did not vote for him, the number one thing I kept seeing repeated over and over again was, “Wait he’s gay? Cool!”. Like the identity politics didn’t factor into the build up to the election, but it became one way to interpret the election once it already happened. And I saw that as a healthy use of identity politics. Because, you know, Jonathan Haidt, who we talked about earlier, he oftentimes talks about how when he went to a liberal arts school, and I think it was the 1980’s he says, he was taught a wide selection of different lenses that he could put on, one at a time, to enact reality, and see, you know, look at things from different perspectives. And all of those lenses were useful, insofar as they went. The problem comes when we only choose one of those lenses as being the primary lens that we’re enacting reality through. And this has become the problem with identity politics. I think it’s completely fine, after someone like Polis wins, to write a headline acknowledging the fact that he’s the first male gay Governor. I think that’s cool, because I think there are, you know, groups of people out there who have a history of oppression and marginalization. And this is a sign because — because you know talk about the starting line and the finish line of the race, Jared Polis was an example of someone who made it over the finish line. There was an equitable result here, and hey, guys, that’s good news for gay America, there is a good reason to celebrate here. But acknowledge it and then let it go because there’s so many more important facets to this story, including his policies and all of that. So I was encouraged when I saw that story, as being like, well, here is a case where identity politics could have dominated the build up to the election, but they really only came into play after the election, as sort of an interpretive device for the election. And I thought that was fine, I thought that was healthy, because we didn’t get stuck on it. Identity politics is important in a developmental sense, because, again, just using the very simplified broad waves of development, from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric to integral, everybody goes through those ethnocentric stages, everybody goes through an “identity politics” stage. And they’re absolutely crucial for personality formation. It’s something that has to be kept in mind as we move towards a global world federation, that we still have to have people develop their identities. And so there’s still some role for nation states to help get them from ethnocentric towards world centric, and then start identifying with global humanity. But we can only do these things sort of one step at a time, so these are important. What we have to be very careful about is that identity politics recognizes that it works only if it understands it’s part of a worldcentric unity-in-diversity. It can’t be just diversity. That’s tribal association, that’s everything humanity fought against to end bigotry and slavery. None of those got ended when we were at ethnocentric stages of development. They were all heightened, and cases of wars, and serfdom, and slavery, and misogyny, and you name it. Now we got out of all of those by moving to worldcentric. And if we now just start reemphasizing identity politics, ethnocentric, we’re cutting under that great worldcentric umbrella of moral fairness for all. And that’s a disaster. And that’s part of what’s happening right now. So we have to really be careful about that. And the far right and the far left, neither one of those are helping. They’re both sort of sucking into that identity politics tribal orientation. And that’s really a problem. If you see it as part of an ongoing embrace of a broader identity that allows you to see what all tribes have in common, and how we all should be treated fairly regardless of race, color, sex, or creed then it’s great, and every person should be proud of their ethnic orientation, their sex, their identity, whatever it is.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

Today’s Republican Party opposes big government. It’s culturally conservative. Its demographic support is strongest among
white voters, and it usually dominates elections in the South. And its 2016 presidential nominee has been
heavily criticized for inciting racial tensions. But things weren’t always this way. Yet over the past 160 or so years, the party
has undergone a remarkable transformation from the party of Abraham Lincoln… to the
party of Donald Trump. And to understand how the GOP got the way
it is today, you have to go back to when it first came into existence — in 1854, just
7 years before the Civil War. There are two parties at this point, the Whigs
and the Democrats. America is quickly expanding westward and
there’s an intense debate over whether the new states should permit slavery The Democratic Party, with strong support
in the South, has become increasingly pro-slavery. But the Whigs are divided on the issue. Their northern supporters are really afraid
that the growing number of slave states would have too much political influence, which they
feared could hurt free white workers economically So In 1854, the country is debating whether
or not the new states Kansas and Nebraska will allow slavery. The can’t agree and the party ends up collapsing. The former whigs in the north form a new party
that will fight against letting slavery expand further; they call it the Republican Party. By 1860 the Republican Party become increasingly
powerful in the North, enough so that a little known Republican named Abraham Lincoln wins
the presidency. Even though Lincoln promises he won’t interfere
with slavery in the states that already have it, he and his party are still too anti-slavery
for the South to tolerate. So 11 Southern states secede from the Union,
forming the Confederate States of America. The Northern states decide to fight to keep
the Union together, and the Civil War ensues. The result is a Northern victory and the abolition
of slavery nationwide. After the war, Republicans begin fighting
to ensure freedmen in the South have rights. A year after Lincoln’s assassination, the
party passes the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which said black citizens have the same rights
as whites. They fight to make sure that black men have
the right to vote, with new laws and constitutional amendments. But something had happened during the civil
war that began changing the young Republican Party. Government spending during the war made many
northern businessmen really rich. Gradually, these wealthy financiers and industrialists
start taking more and more of a leading role in the Republican Party. They want to hold on to power, and they don’t
think that fighting for black rights in a mostly white country is the best way to do
that. Meanwhile, the South is resisting these new
racial reforms, often violently. And most white Republican voters and leaders
now feel that they’ve done enough for Black citizens in the South, and that it was time
to emphasize other issues. So in the 1870s, the party basically gives
up on reforming the South, deciding instead to leave it to its own devices, even if that
meant black citizens were oppressed and deprived of their new right to vote, and the region
was politically dominated by white Democrats. Fast-forward to the new century. By the 1920s, the Republican Party has become,
essentially, the party of big business. This works out quite well for them when the
economy was booming, but not so well when the economy crashes in 1929 and the Great
Depression begins. Franklin D. Roosevelt and other Democrats
are swept into power, and begin dramatically expanding the size and role of the federal
government, in an attempt to fight the Depression and better provide for Americans. Republicans oppose this rapid expansion, defining
themselves as opposition to bigger government, an identity that the party still holds today. Then, going into the 50s and 60s, race and
the South return to the forefront of national politics, with the civil rights movement attempting
to end segregation and ensure blacks truly had the right to vote. Civil rights isn’t purely a partisan issue,
it’s more of a regional issue with northerners from both parties supporting it and southerners
from both parties opposing. Then 1964, it’s Democratic president Lyndon
Johnson who signs the Civil Rights Act into law. And it’s Republican presidential nominee
Barry Goldwater who opposes it, arguing that it expands government power too much. A massive switch-up takes place. Black voters, many of whom had already been
shifting from Republicans, convert almost entirely to their new advocates, the Democrats. And white voters in the South, who had been
staunch Democrats, start to really resent “big government” interference here and
in other matters, like abortion rights and school prayer. Over the next three decades, whites in the
South switch to the GOP, which makes the South an overwhelmingly Republican region. By the 80s, the party begins to resemble the
GOP we are familiar with today. Republicans elect Ronald Reagan, who promises
to fight for, business interests, lower taxes, and traditional family values. Then, as the 21st century begins, America
is going through a major demographic shift in the form of Hispanic immigration, both
legal and illegal. Democrats and business elites tend to support
reforming immigration laws so that over 10 million unauthorized immigrants in the US
would get legal status. But “tough on immigration” policies and
rhetoric become popular on the Republican right. Then, when Mitt Romney loses his bid for the
presidency in 2012, he gets blown out among Hispanic voters — exit polls showed that
71% of them backed Barack Obama. And the Republican Party starts to look more
like a party for white voters in an increasingly nonwhite country. Given demographic trends, Republican leaders
worry that if they keep losing Hispanic voters by that much, they’ll lose their chances
of winning the presidency. So in 2013, some key Republicans in the Senate
— including rising star Marco Rubio — collaborate with Democrats on an immigration reform bill
that would give unauthorized immigrants a path to legal status. But there’s a huge backlash from the Republican
party’s predominantly white base, which views the bill as “amnesty” for immigrants
who broke the rules. This exacerbates GOP voters’ mistrust of
their own party’s leaders, which had already been growing. And that makes the political landscape of
2015 is fertile ground for a figure like Donald Trump, an outsider businessman who wants to
build a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump isn’t a traditional conservative,
but he appealed to Republican primary voters’ resentment and mistrust of party elites, as
well as their strong opposition to growing immigration trends. And even though he was loathed by party leaders,
he won enough support in the primaries to become the GOP nominee for president. Now, the Republican party is once again at
a major crossroads as it tries to meet the political challenges of the 21st century. It’s possible that the turn toward Trump
and his ideas this year will be remembered as an aberration, and that a new generation
of Republican politicians will find a way to be more than just the party of white resentment
— rediscovering their roots as the party of Lincoln. But it’s also possible that Trump is just
the beginning, and that the party will increasingly play to white voters by appealing to racial
tensions. It’s up to Republican voters and leaders
to decide just what they want their party to be.


you know when we conservatives talk about small government the progressives immediately start shrieking about what the country would look like with no government at all but that's not what we're talking about and we both know it you can't have a civilization without some form of government I just want a government that's going to fit back in the box that it originally came in so what do you need to have good government well some of the smartest best educated minds in history thought that over it not for a few days or weeks but for their entire adult lives they read the histories of every civilization that it ever existed trying to find some recurring themes and they did find some recurring themes and here's a few of them concentration of power this is bad give total power to one guy and you get murderers like these guys here now back in 1215 in England they had someone of that stripe King John who governed in the style of the day that style was known as beasts at voluntas that's Latin for force and will basically King John took whatever he wanted just like every other King and Emperor before him John however was such a piece of crap that the Barons that ruled their estates in John's name finally said hey you know what were done and they took King John to a table and they made him sign away the power of force and will he signed an agreement with the rebellious barons called the Magna Carta Liberto the great contract of freedom England was no longer ruled by one nasty King now it was ruled by 25 nasty barons but this Magna Carta was the first time in history that someone had limited the power of the king now this led the founding fathers to their second recurring theme of good government the rule of law this means that those whose heads get chopped off is no longer decided by one paranoid degenerate having a bad day introducing the rule of law meant that there were rules for what was allowed and what was not and those rules were written down so that anyone could read them and the rule of law meant that no one no king no baron no Shah or Sultan no one was above the law the rule of law applied to everybody okay so the founders that's good laws are good but who makes the laws what if those people suck too well two thousand years before the signing of the Magna Carta the ancient Greeks lived in something called a city-state that's basically a walled city that was its own country and on one of these city-states called Athens these regular Greeks got it into their heads that the people themselves could make the laws and that they all had to live by them in the Greek language that meant that the demos the people would hold all of the criteria in English that means the power this democracia democracy was an awesome idea but if it was such an awesome idea why did it die out 2,000 years before our founding fathers were born well it turns out there's a serious flaw in democracy and it's simple really some people are idiots and some people are bastards and some people are idiot bastards Athens fell because the Athenian leader Pericles got everyone all liquored up about fighting the Spartans the Spartans the Athenians voted for war 27 years of war later Athens was in ruins and so was democracy a democracy can be dangerous because people do stupid things Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany because millions of Germans had voted for him and his National Socialist Party then these guys the German parliament or the Reichstag voted for 41 to 84 to give Adolphe Hitler absolute power and that was a bad idea so finally these dead white males realized that you could not put a fence around the power it just didn't work that way but you could build a wall around the individual you could build a wall of individual rights that's why contrary to most people's believed the United States is not a democracy the United States is a republic now there are many elements of a democracy but people are like the President and the Congress and so on but there is a wall of human rights not around the government but around the people that stops the lying greedy half-wits who seek political power from punching people in the nose and stealing all of their candy the constitution of the United States exists to distribute personal political power the president has power that's true but Congress has power too and so does the Supreme Court these three branches of government the executive legislative and the judicial are constantly screaming and yelling and poking and slapping and biting each other if one of them gets drunk the other to tie into a bed for a while and they write on its face with sharpies and wait for it to sober up now here's one final cool little twist virtually everyone in America knows that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution the Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech freedom of religion freedom to assemble and peacefully protest and so on and virtually everyone in America is wrong the Bill of Rights does no such thing the First Amendment says that freedom of speech freedom of thought freedom of religion freedom of the press and the freedom to protest is built into every human being the minute that they come into this world the First Amendment simply says that the government does not have the power to take that right away good government is not a player good government is the referee referees aren't allowed to call penalties against one team and not the other referees do not intercept passes and then run them back for touchdowns and referees do not make up the rules as they go along now try to imagine a Super Bowl where both teams are comprised exclusively of referees and there are 22 penalty flags being thrown on every single play if you can then also imagine there are a hundred thousand referees in the stadium and each one of them is constantly screaming out a hundred thousand rule changes and two or three players are shuffling around looking frightened and confused well then you will understand why conservatives don't like big government

Why are Conservative Politicians so afraid to voice their opinions about other things besides taxes?

okay so I'm gonna get to talking about why it is that conservative politicians always seem to be the one who are afraid to talk about any other subject on the planet apart from taxes and to a certain extent the economy I mean I don't know have you all noticed that liberal socialist centrist communists fascists Ku Klux Klan Joseph Stalin all these different people greens all these different people they talk about they have an opinion for everything whether it's security homosexuality climate change the economy jobs crime all sorts of stuff these people have an opinion on everything and they are not afraid to show it God willing the devil is alive they are not afraid to show to express their views before I go any further let me just say again look this room that we're in right now this is the first this is the room where I made my first animation video I mean that was way back in 2011 I believe this is my father study it's a grand place I can only record here when I'm at my parents house this is where I mean you know this is my microphone I used to record with a phone I got this far but now I'd like to do even better better microphones my own website all this stuff I need your help guys somebody did send me a donation just now and I'm going to tell you who that is right now right now was it just I just I just checked my email and I thought Bonita Maria Ryan I want to thank you you're a patriot our burner you are a patriot thank you very much I appreciate that 100% you are a patriot and you are one of the foot soldiers who doesn't wait to see if someone else does something you do it beforehand because right now as I said this is an internet war we are in the globalists are there getting tough the people who own the internet they're there getting tough they want to turn this into the new TV where we don't have rights we don't have to get to choose what we want to watch or listen to or anything like that they're getting rid of it they're gonna do monetize people permanently they're de monetizing all my videos we're gonna beat them we're going to you know beat them so donate to me if it's even one dollar just one dollar a loonie one yellow coin just donate that you know where to go go down to the top of the comments section you'll be going to my paypal and you can donate however amount one dollar even even I mean don't do anything below one dollar that's just an insult Wanda and if you do that okay you want to insult me go ahead hey anything's better than nothing but one dollar let's go on to the subject it seems the Conservatives not just in Canada but in America not so much in America but definitely in Canada and I'm definitely in Europe all they are confident about talking about is lowering taxes and sometimes the economy even though lately with the economy they're afraid to talk about even that because a lot of their views they think people would see them as unpopular you know privatization cut wasteful spending you know people who are not supposed to be on welfare you take that welfare away from me I say yeah amen to that let me tell you something about black folk in America you know before the Great Society and New Deal and all this not trying to bash those things because many people rely on Medicare and Medicaid I'm not bash I'm not saying it but before all of that black folk used to own businesses in Harlem they used to in Baltimore in Detroit they used to only they did their own stuff I mean you know so all this stuff you know Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt Lyndon Johnson of course who famous is that he's gonna have niggas vote and Democrat for the next hundred years well he's successful you can't blame him he said it he's successful but you know the Conservatives are afraid to talk about these things or talk against many of these things they're afraid it's just mind-boggling to me when it comes to the environment they don't want to talk about it when it comes to gay issue they don't want to talk about it when it comes to to the you know even even cutting the deficit they barely want to talk about how they want to do that they say they want to do it but they don't know how they're gonna do it the only thing conservatives really really have confidence in talking about is lowering taxes have y'all noticed that I mean honestly have y'all noticed that I mean okay late and I say this you know and this is one of the reasons why I became an independent you would be surprised at how many people would agree with the traditional conservative position on many of these issues you would be surprised I mean very surprised not most people ordinary people you know in the grocery store on the street on the bus you know most people ordinary type of people don't appreciate carbon taxes don't appreciate you know pride flags marker all over the streets and all over the schools that a lot of people just think it's just it's just too much I mean you know they're not necessarily homophobic grand but they think it's too much it's in our face but they're not gonna say it but they believe it they're the silent majority a lot of people do think that we need to start carding people in dangerous neighborhoods and we need to get tough on these crimes and all this stuff many people agree with that a lot of people would if you talk to them it's like conservatives I don't know what is wrong with them they're just so chicken they're just and this is the thing that's wrong with Andrew Shearer and that's why he's he's probably not gonna win I'm telling you right now he's probably not gonna win if you look online on social media a lot of the base of the right eye rancor was shared they wouldn't vote for him they wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole I mean they would rather lick the seat of a toilet which some person infected with aids and Ebola sat on for two days and took a big old dump on they'd rather lick that toilet seat then even go anywhere near Andrew Scheer that's how resentful they are of his cowardice I mean people like Andrew Shearer people like Teresa even to a certain extent Doug Ford for example I mean the other day a reporter asked him a question about I don't know whether it was pro-life or abortion he didn't want to talk about it we're not bringing up abortion here's what I would do if I was a leader here and I'm not saying I'm a right right winger or a left winger I'm independent you all know that by now this is what I would do first let's start with climate change I'm not saying it does it doesn't exist but here's what I'm gonna do I'm against the carbon tax and not only am i against the carbon tax I'm also against taking land privately owned land and closing it off to the private sector making a government land nobody could do anything with it green belt all this a lot of people would are afraid to talk about that Doug Ford was afraid to talk about that he briefly mentioned it he got tore up so badly worse than a person who jumped into a yard full of ten junkyard dogs he got tore up and he ran away I wouldn't go anywhere I would say look this is the thing with taking away people's land and making a government land and you're calling it net parks or green belts or this and that it doesn't fix the problem of beyond the green belt you know it doesn't even fix the problem of Toronto here's what I would do every time a tree gets chopped down anywhere in the country you have to replant that tree not only that all of these fossil fuel companies that these polluting companies or companies that emit a lot of carbon they have to plant a tree every month or every year whatever do all of that sort of stuff you know I would even do something whereby you sell these crazy drivers out there anybody who lives in big cities I'm in the GT you all know that there's a lot of crazy stupid people who are behind the wheel in the Toronto area who really shouldn't be driving I don't know how they got their license look if you get into a car accident between a certain hour of the day 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to 4 p.m. you get into an accident and that accident causes the highways to get backed up for hours and hours you get your license take whoever was that fault gets their license taken away forever and don't lose one bit of sleep over it because the more idiots who get into these preventable accidents and you take their license away the more idiots are off the road and I wouldn't lose any bit of sleep for and they know how good that would be for the environment you can take the bus you can take the train and that would probably make public transit even better because more and more people would be relying on it secondly let's talk about homosexuality nobody wants to touch that I'm not saying that people should be prevented from loving who they want or marrying who they want to love or who they feel they are connected to but this is what I would do and I wouldn't be afraid to say it pride flags don't belong on school property on public flag poles pride flags don't belong on public roads as crosswalks that nothing make any sense you are deliberately trying to push it in people's face you're making a point it's almost like saying you know no we don't just want freedom we want you to accept it we're gonna shove this thing down your throat you are going to love us you are gonna worship us don't just accept us you need to drop down and and and praise us we're gonna make sure it no no that suck that that wouldn't happen on my watch you wouldn't see another pride flag flying on us on a flagpole on any public grounds again not on any school grounds City Hall grounds provincial browns no if you want to fly that flag you fly it on you your verandah your flight on your balcony you fly off your you know on your roof in your yard or you take it with you to Pride Parade or whatever it doesn't belong it's not it's not a public flag that is a private flag that's like saying we're gonna have the Confederate flag on South Carolina's Capitol grounds that's not a state flag that's not a country flag that's not a municipal flag that's a flag for you know grumpy southerners they can fly that on their pickup truck they can fly that in the trailer they can fly that on their wherever don't fly that on public ground the only public the only flag that should be flying on public grounds is the provincial flag the nation's flag the city's flag and the flag of the institution of which the flagpole is domiciled that's my thing with this whole gay thing and furthermore no more teaching about homosexuality and LGBT and this radical sexual stuff in schools none of that anymore and I wouldn't be afraid to say it and a lot of people support me and that too a lot of people a lot more than you think that's not an unpopular position to take and conservatives who I know my majority of them agree with me should be unafraid to say that you would be surprised how many grassroots people you'd get supporting you but um immigration another tough topic that especially Canadian and European conservatives don't want to talk about it's simple if you come here illegal illegally you revoke your right to ever become a citizen of our nation or even to visit our nation now if you happen to have a child with you or you had an anchor baby then okay you can stay but you can't vote you can't do anything that a citizen or a resident does and that child will gradually be given a pathway to citizenship but not you and you have to pay a fine every year that you live here to help us secure the border to help us so that no more illegals come in that's a very popular position if conservatives were to start talking like that they get a lot of people supporting them there are a lot of issues that the right could talk about and I'm not saying this because I'm a writer right wing I'm saying this is an independent who's just observing you know this is just they just don't talk about anything other than lowering taxes and you know lowering taxes can also be harmful as well because when you lower taxes to the point where you don't have any money then you're not going to be able to pay down the large debt and deficits and stuff that we have so it's almost this is why support for the center-right just keeps shrinking and these far-right people keep getting popular but that's what I have to say on this subject this is your animation

"The Structure of Government" by Ayn Rand

mr. n I don't know exactly how to start off on this I guess it is a rather broad topic but what would you say is the most valuable political system valuable from what ten point you really should mean what is the right or the proper political system since political systems are man-made in a matter of human choice the question should be what is the right political system is net what you mean yes for capitalism of course total uncontrolled less a fair capitalism which means a separation of state and economics well isn't when we speak of political systems we usually think of capitalism as an economic system and a political system such as a republic or a democracy but that is correct but capitalism should be really called the political economic system because every economic system acquires in depends on a certain kind of political structure and the structure appropriate to a capitalist economy is very public but a specific kind of republic whatever the American kind the Republic established in basic principle by the American Constitution namely a system which is devised to limit the power of the government and properly reduces the government to only one function the only function which a government may morally have namely the protection of individual rights mr. Bendele thing you're often stated then a proper government should be limited by a written constitution in view of what has happened to the US Constitution do you think that any written document can be effective in limiting government power no matter how strictly written if the heart Ricky written is yes there is a determined power trying to enlarge the sphere of government activity well that two aspects your question really if you are asking can a written document autom ethically guarantee compliance with that document and automatically protect a society from any groups that may want to destroy the document and the answer of course is no nothing can automatically establish a perfect system which will work regardless of the philosophical knowledge and understanding of the citizens of that country and no document will protect a country when an if men do not choose to think do not choose to understand their actions and to protect the right principles therefore no document is protection against the philosophical status and knowledge of the citizens of a country but assuming an enlightened electorate or a country with the proper intellectual foundation written document is necessary because it limits the power of the government it is an objective point of reference in case or any doubts as to the power of the government lies in what type of law in and observant besides it's clear what happened the American Constitution that proves my point it proves the necessity of a constitution why because in order to undermine the Constitution that the extent to which it has been undermined it was necessary to rely on certain countries or badnesses vagueness in the Constitution the whole destruction of our political system was done by means of certain clauses a contradictory clause in the Constitution the worst of which was the Interstate Commerce Clause and the right of eminent domain also entered to this day when the Congress is passing blatantly unconstitutional laws it may observe the Supreme Court is stretching the meaning of the Constitution further and further in order to validate these laws but the fact that they are obliged to stretch the meaning is the best proof that a constitution is necessary and does work now what would happen if our elected today was more enlightened politically and philosophically the Supreme Court would not be able to pass as constitutional the kind of decisions which they have passed therefore if you observe the history of the infringement of the Constitution you will see that the poll came from the fact that the first small dubious infringement were accepted if the electors were properly enlightened the objections would have and should have risen the first time that a blatantly unconstitutional decision was passed or an unconstitutional law was approved mister keuner mister and why is a republic more proper than a democracy well because we have to define our concept clearly a democracy in the political meaning of the the original meaning the final specific political system means a country governed by unlimited majority rule a democracy is a form of government in which the majority has the right to vote on anything and to pass any laws they see fit the sole standard of legality being a majority vote that is counting of numbers democracy is incompatible with a constitution because the principle there is that the sole standard of right or wrong in politics is accounting of Knossos and majority rule the best example of that system are the original city-states of Greece well if you remember the majority had the right to vote a death sentence for a man if they disapproved of his ideas and Socrates is the best example the most famous one of what is wrong with a system of democracy Socrates was condemned to death because the majority of the citizens found that his ideas were subversive to the use of Athens and he refused to escape though he had the chance he declared that his fellow citizens were wrong in their decision but they had the right to vote away his life which is a ghastly example the sanction of the victim in a perfect example the nature of a democracy as a political system of government now a republic properly is a system of government which is limited by the individual rights of men which means that the majority may vote but only in a strictly limited and defined political sphere and that the individual rights of men are not subject to majority vote not to government legislation all that the government can and should do in regard to rights is protect them but government cannot infringe them that is in essence the nature of a proper Republic would you look upon a representative democracy as curing any of the flaws of democracy or merely lessening them I would say what's in them if anything if I representative democracy you mean a system which is based on the democratic principle of unlimited majority rule but merely delegate that power to the chosen representative rather than to the direct boat of the citizens is that what you mean no that would be even worse because for a large country a majority would not be likely to agree on some vicious legislation whereas a small a chosen body of Representatives unguided and unlimited by any restricting principle is the pattern of a tyranny when your representatives in the name of the alleged majority may be guilty of any form of violating individual rights are establishing complete status tyranny yeah that would be consistent with your principle if the principle is unlimited majority rule mr makovski my friend you have said that the government should protect the individual should the government protect an assemblage of individual individuals such as a union well yes and no it is a sense a union or any group of individuals cannot have any rights other than the rights of its individual members therefore the government can protect the Union or any other organization only from the standpoint of the individual rights of its members being entrenched if somebody attacks a union by force then the government should protect it but the reason why should protect it is the individual rights of the members if however you mean protecting a union as a group against its own members that is obviously a contradiction to protect a group as such means to enforce to port by the force of law some actions of that group against individual members who may disagree that of causes direct contradiction that right cannot be claimed by anyone mr. Finkelstein yes miss rent which rights would you say that by in taking into consideration the Constitution the United States which right do the government possess over the people politically the government or any group organization does not have any rights let's be very clear about it right a concept which pertains and can pertain only to the individual and what is the base of Rights there is really only one right but it is so fundamental that all other rights are merely derivatives and Restatement of the same basic right that right is the right of a man to his own life to begin with a right let's define that is a moral concept in which the fines and sanctions and men's freedom of action in an individual in excuse me in a social context a right is a social moral concept it pertains to what is right what is good for men to do in relation to other men on a desert island you would still need morality but you wouldn't need right because there would be no one there to infringe your freedom of action it gives in a society the question of Rights arise and the basic issue there is does one man have the right to dispose of the life of another the basic right that has to be respected and defined in a social context is the ownership the property if you will of a man's right to own life a and once you have established that a man is the owner of his own life that he has a right to live that his life is his to dispose of it does not belong to anyone else you have the base from which all other rights are to be derived if a man has a right to his own life then he has a right to take all those actions which are necessary necessary by his nature as men as a rational being to sustain and protect his own life and if it is all right then it is equally applicable to all individuals to all human beings in order to prove that a certain action is in fact a right you have to prove that is required by men's nature you would have to base it on the nature of men as he exists if so then it is equally applicable to all other men and therefore the first issue to be observed very carefully in deciding what is or is not properly a right is the issue of does the claimed right applied equally to all men or not if it does not and it cannot be right for instance an example of it when some men today assert economic right so-called when they claim that they're entitled to the unearned support of other men when men claims that they're entitled to minimum sustenance to be provided by others this is obviously a denial of the concept of Rights because in order to provide a learn sustenance to one men you will have to exact slave labor from another man and you cannot claim the right to infringe the rights of one man in favor of another that is denying the concept of rights nothing which impinges some man's rights for the benefit of others can in logic and in morality be claimed to be a right a right has to apply on equal terms that is as the same principle to every member of the human race mister Oh sting oh I just wanted to know what position now the American government should take what position now the American government should take or any government that we're talking about the political government we're talking about should take in protecting the rights of the individual well first define how can rights being pinched the basic way in which one man can infringe the rights of another is by the use of physical force or compulsion anything which you force and meant to do without his voluntary choice and consent is an infringement of his rights therefore what the government is required to protect men from is the use of physical violence the government has to be an arbiter who settles disputes among men according to object principles in order to prevent them from resorting to violence and in case of crime or foreign attack the government's duty to protect a man from the aggressors who are using physical force against him those are the basic functions of a government and the way in which a government protects individual right thank you mr. Bhandari getting back to clinical systems do you feel that it's desirable for clinical government to be instituted as we have this country divided into areas and and geographic areas be given a certain minimum amount of representation the national legislature is speaking of the issue of reapportionment I'm speaking of the idea of each state having two votes in the Senate as opposed to a system where they'd have a proportion to population oh yes that is the same issue yes of course it is absolutely essential to have local state representation as apart from individual citizens representation here the issue is one of political structure because it is not sufficient to decide that we want a government which protects individual rights our good intentions are sufficient the desire to have a free country and the government of pre institutions is not sufficient you have to know what kind of structure we'll carry out that ideas that intention and the first problem in political structure is how to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical or oppressive since the government has a monopoly on the use of physical force and by the nature of a government it has to have that monopoly since it is the protector of men against force and the agency which uses force under laws under strictly and objectively defined laws a government has to be the kind of agency now the problem becomes how to devise a system in which this institution that uses force cannot step out of its boundaries and become an institution of arbitrary tyranny arbitrary whim to do that it is necessary to have the system of checks and balances which was the great achievement of the founding fathers they devised the system which could not rest merely on the good intentions or the promises of any one particular office holder they made it impossible for any particular branch of government to reserve total power and to establish tyranny now when you speak of checks and balances it is essential then to have local government which can serve as a deliberate antagonist not an ally but a check meaning an antagonist on the power of the central government and the duties of both have to be balanced in such a way that each serves to prevent the other from unconstitutional as a patient of power now but when you want to establish a balance of that kind you have to consider whom or what are you balancing after all men live in certain localities if you have a large country a federal government is at a great distance from you an individual citizen in a given area cannot exercise direct control over the federal government and for that it isn't to spread his ideas to such an extent that he would get a majority of the whole country is an impossible concept how then can an individual citizen has a certain proper influence on the conduct of the central government only so a series of steps of local governments or which progressively or going down are closer and closer to the influence of the immediate citizens involved therefore pure locality your geographical position becomes of enormous importance what you have to protect and bear in mind is the fact that your government has to be structured in such a manner that your local citizens exercise direct power over their local authorities then you arise a step higher and you have say County authorities then state authorities then regional and federal in other words you need a hierarchy which ultimately rests on the actual place of residence are the citizens who are going to vote and direct the course of the country I must also remember in politics that citizens as such men do not represent a political unit to have a country you need two elements men and geography a country is always limited by its geographical boundaries and the men who live in it are than its citizens but it is not a collection of men floating in space so that for instance such a phenomenon as the gypsies who travel all over the world could not be considered an issue or a country they're individuals but they have no geographical locations they are nomads therefore they are not yet the element of a political structure now the proposal to limit all political voting district to one man one word as a code is in effect the attempt to destroy all political structure and to reduce the country to a nomad population ruled directly by one central government it's one of the most dangerous proposals for the destruction of a political structure in this country and it is direct road to a democracy in the original and worse sense of the world to unlimited majority rule and to living the country at the in the power and at the whim of any temporary majority of the moment if however your purpose to protect individual rights you need a series of semi sovereign states semi sovereign localities governed by its local population been united in the wider entity which is the United States mr. Gaddafi along this line you would then be in favor of such a thing as a filibuster which limits majority role rule well that is a small technical question I'm not sure that that is the real and proper means I would be in favor of a filibuster only one on one principle that is that one must not gag the bear debate or limited in time in a parliamentary form of government the legislature should have the time to discuss the proposed legislature however it is also true that the filibuster could go on forever now that's a purely technical question of how do you lay down the rules of your Parliament in such a way is to give ample time to for debate yet not allowed to degenerate in the sheer obstruction that is the small and not too important technical question because what your legislature should limited by is your Constitution not what kind of tricks you may pull on the floor of Congress to prevent or hasten the passage of a particular law what is really important here is principles define in the Constitution of what the Congress may or may not vote about mr. mr. ski do you think the choosing of the judiciary the Supreme Court in this country is the best way do you think that the president should choose the judiciary in this country for the highest court or do you believe that gives the judiciary too much power too much way to the presidency oh that's a very difficult technical question I would say no in principle not necessarily it's not a bad system because if you remember their reasons for it were to make judiciary independent of the direct popular vote independent of any shifting majority of the moment therefore in principle this was not an impractical idea however it is an example of why no system can survive the absence of philosophical consistency on the part of the citizens who practice it because observe for instance it used to be an unwritten law but a proper moral check on the president arbitrary whim that the justices should be selected from representative of both parties and that they should be men who have done distinguished legal service now this was not a constitutional provision but it was a proper unwritten law observing how many institutions that has been discarded and broken progressively the presidents have been appointing justices not by the principle of merit and not on the ground of z-pass Distinguished Service but personal political alliances and handling it like a political reward I think the worst appointments in this respect were Kennedy's when he appointed young men who maybe very distinguished citizens 40 years from now but not in their searches mr. Finkelstein mr. ng spoke before about the fact that the Supreme Court has been unreasonably instructing the Constitution of the United States what limitations would you put what extra limitations if any would you put on the Supreme Court now now it just is the Supreme Court that you have to begin I would put the following limitation if you want to indulge just in Utopia building but if you ask me a theoretical question the limitation should be written in the Constitution or the following effect Congress shall pass no law which contradicts other laws on the status and which is so unclear that no two congressmen or private lawyers can decide what it means the president the state of this Supreme Court is not entirely the Supreme Court's fault the real trouble there is as follows today's congressman and by today I mean progressively in the past decades being at the mercy of any of the next election enough total political ideological kills in the country have been very careful to pass the kind of non objective laws that could please they hoped everybody in the electorate next time they came up for election for the passage of vaguely worded non objective laws the kind won't antagonize anybody has been a habit growing progressively more so in the past decades when you pass non objective laws somebody ultimately has to decide what that law means and therefore Congress has been dumping on the Supreme Court the kind of laws which they didn't trouble to make clear and the Supreme Court was in effect forced to legislate because Congress had failed to do so there have even been in the past complaints from Supreme Court justices on just this point that the laws they are asked to pass on our so none of ejected so vaguely worded that they are forced to legislate in effect therefore if you wanted to correct the present situation it would have to start with the correction of the manner in which Congress passes laws though other would have to be stricter provisions for the objectivity of the laws enacted I don't know we have time to answer more than one very brief question I'd like to ask one I don't know how if the answer can be brief though who in in this society do you think should determine the constitutionality of laws in an ideal society should be the job of the Supreme Court but I think the Constitution should be a little more explicit about the field in which the government has or does not have the right to pass laws or control I'm sorry I see everybody has questions but I think that's all we have time for this evening I want to thank voidness our ski Arthur Finkelstein Kent Q no Anitha Gandolfi for joining us on our panel this evening and of course miss Rand thank you very much tonight we have looked at various political systems and their relative merits this is your host Jack rest speaking good evening

American Politics 2/2 – Party Politics

alright let's take a quick look at Party politics in America first thing you need to know is the two-party system there are two major parties in the United States the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and when you talked about the people within them you call them Democrats or Republicans then the elephant is basically the logo for the Republican Party and the donkey was previously used in actually still used sometimes for the Democratic Party even though their formal logo today has only this D in it the GOP is another more informal name for the Republican Party it stands for Grand Old Party but it's formally called the Republican Party every election in America is basically a contest between candidates from the Democratic Party and a candidate from the Democratic Party and one candidate from the Republican Party and here you see some colors by the way the color codings here in this system blue is the color of the Democrats and red is the color of the Republicans but first a candidate must defeat another of the same party in a primary election in other words he if you want to you know run for office for on this party ticket you must first perhaps defeat someone else who wants to do it at the same time for the same party and that's called a primary election so everything is various contests based here and very is typical of American individualism really and in prime elections very typical that only party members can vote but it varies so so all of these these congressmen and these centers not necessarily all but a lot of them first had to defeat an opponent from within the same party as him and then defeat the Republican or Democratic the opposite opponent from the opposite party the parties don't have strict leadership and what I mean by that is to tell you that in most of the world parties have a leader and that leader is really the leader that leader had will will lead the party and take major positions in government but these parties do not and and what I just told you about having primary elections and having to run against people in your own party that's strange in most countries where they have a party hierarchy and a leadership that basically that's candidates itself and chooses who runs against who from another party so in other words Barack Obama has never been the leader and is not the leader of the Democratic Party and this other person is that this is Mitt Romney who was the presidential candidate for the Republicans in 2012 he lost of course it was obama's reelection and here are some logos by the way this is this is kind of Obama's logo from his presidential race and this was the Romney's were logo Mitt Romney's logo the third party candidates can run for office and often have no party but this they still they're still often called third party candidates meaning they're not affiliated with the these two other ones if they have no party they're called independence and this map this shows you from probably the 2012 senatorial election the Senate seats that were elected then it's not all of them because they have six-year terms but these the ones that are not either blue or red these are independents and those are the two gray ones here so two senators from 2012 did not belong to any political party called independence and the US has a two-party system by the way by practice not by law and this is from the 1912 election presidential election where the Theodore Roosevelt of former president ran on a third party ticket with his own party and came in second so there's nothing against other political parties gaining ground it's just that it's very very difficult American liberalism and conservatism those are sort of the ideologies that you need to know about both parties have people who identify as liberal moderate or conservative although liberals are mostly associated with Democrats and conservatives with Republicans as these stats or will show typical liberal positions will include support for government spending for instance welfare regulation and being open to same-sex marriage and being pro-choice that's for the abortion issue being in favor of woman's right to choose to have an abortion whereas typical conservative positions would include being in favor of a favor of less government spending and in favor of deregulation and traditional marriage being not open to same-sex marriage and being pro-life you know being against abortion rights and being pro-gun rights just some a there are conservatives who don't have to agree with all of these positions it's just that these are all typical conservative positions some media personalities are famous exponents of liberalism about conservatism for instance Bill O'Reilly the man on the right here basically a news pundit from the network Fox News John Stewart had his at The Daily Show one conservative one liberal and many media people will identify as one or the other and maybe meet for debates like these two did American Party politics before 1900 just a very short very simplistic primer here political parties did not exist when the Constitution was written just so you know that they came later however George Washington Thomas Jefferson John Adams you know the first presidents they they still might might have identified as sort of having a position in a political position reminiscent of a political party even though political parties did exist and Federalists like George Washington although more so his vice president John Adams and that was one sort of faction and the other one was the Democratic Republicans strange name really given well we know which political party we have today but nevertheless Democratic Republicans represented by Thomas Jefferson the Federalists more in favor of the federal government and Democratic Republicans like Thomas Jefferson more in favor of states rights so Jeffersonian democracy is a word favoring agrarian populism meaning like for for the farmer and decentralization of power again like more states rights thinking Andrew Jackson who was once who also became a present founded the Democratic Party in 1828 which at that time favored less a fair liberalism less if it's a French term this is not like liberalism today this is has more in common with conservatism today leslie fair liberalism its economic liberalism it's being in favor of deregulation and free trade anyway this president had his face on the twenty dollar bill but again this is the man who founded the democratic party even though it has changed a lot the republican party was found in 1854 and its first president was abraham lincoln and this party was in favor of protectionism not less a fair liberalism not a free trade but protectionism and modernization more government spending in investment and also of course abolitionism being in against slavery for in favor of abolishing slavery which means sort of against some states rights because slavery used to be a states rights issue and since 1900 just a few things here the progressive era is what we call this period around 1900 1910 as about those years maybe to 1920 as well Theodore Roosevelt was Republican and Woodrow Wilson who was a Democrat they both supported regulation and social legislation meaning not not not really a welfare state yet but supporting some measures to help poor people you might say FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt not related to a Theodore Roosevelt is famous for his New Deal coalition which was huge a coalition with the segregationist south the southern states were segregationist they meaning segregation between whites and blacks right until 1964 that's when the New Deal coalition broke away these the South more went to the Republicans instead of the Democrats the South had been democratic during you know the Civil War since Abraham Lincoln was a Republican we represented the Union at the northern states anyway moderate Republicans dominated the party the Republican Party in the interwar sorry the post-war years with Dwight David Eisenhower who was president former world war ii veteran and a Nelson Rockefeller who was a vice president to Richard Nixon Richard Nixon was himself vice president to Dwight David Eisenhower so these were moderate Republicans whereas you have some conservative candidates like Barry Goldwater who lost in 1964 to lyndon b johnson while ronald reagan also conservative won against Jimmy Jimmy Carter in 1980 you can tell by these electoral maps how Goldwater's lost was tremendous in 1964 Reagan's win was tremendous in 1980 the conservative wing has grown while the word liberal has become a pejorative meaning a sort of a dirty word that happened basically around 1990 you might say some examples of party politics here you need to know what a divided government is because keep in mind you could have a president of one party and a congress dominated by the other party and when you have that that means you have divided government if you are to have legislation passed it must be passed through what it's called bipartisanship that means both parties have to agree on something in order to pass it because Congress can what could want one thing in order to have a past president must agree and then you know sign it and obviously we have divided government under most of Barack Obama's tenure Republicans have controlled at least the House of Representatives most of the time and also the Senate for the latter latter years and the tea party movement is an example of party politics here Tea Party movement which came about after Obama won his first election represents the most conservative Republicans basically the most anti Obama Republicans at that time Bernie Sanders is a completely different figure who has been an independent politician basically the most successful independent in American political history he has called himself a Democratic Socialist which is really kind of a dirty word has been a dirty word for quite some time in America and but he has done it nonetheless and hey he has been a congressman and a senator and of course tried to run for president in 2016 it doesn't look like he'll win by the way it would probably be Hillary Clinton who was beating him in this Democratic primary possibly at least and and then she will go on to face the Republican candidate who was with who will would have won their primary some more examples here illegalized a marijuana and abortion and same-sex marriage and gun control these are very typical partisan issues where most Democrats and Republicans probably don't view it the same way or at least liberals and conservatives I should say take very different positions while something like capital punishment for instance is less of a partisan issue I would say but in it and either in any case most of these issues are very states rights sort of things so the state's issues and that's why you have many states where marijuana is not legalized and when you have states where it is and you have states that have banned the death penalty and other states that have not so it's kind of a state's issue the federal government generally doesn't deal with many of those things although the US Supreme Court can do and has done and for instance 2015 Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage will be legal for all the states libertarians that's a different kind of party a libertarian party but this person that's wrong Paul who has tried to run for president several times on the Republican ticket is probably a few times on the libertarian party ticket as well libertarians are the ones that want both small government meaning less government spending and lower taxes and etc but also freedom of choice and therefore generally positive to stuff like abortion and same-sex marriage and Merah legalize marijuana therefore you know they're kind of conservative on one thing and liberal on the other anyway that's the libertarians and just a final thing here note that in America is kind of well known for its very very low voter turnout with less than sixty percent generally less than 60% of the popular voting population participating in presidential elections which are the most popular and less than forty in the midterm elections which are two years after the presidential election anyway thanks for watching hope you'll catch my other videos as well