Jonah Goldberg: 'Leave Liberal Hollywood to The Liberals'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- there's one of the most famous signs in America, if not the entire world.

“We need to buy a movie studio.”

Amid the conferences, panels, meetings and informal conversations in the wake of the presidential election, this idea has been a near constant among conservatives who feel like the country is slipping through their fingers. Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee combined raised just more than $1 billion, and all we got are these lousy T-shirts. Since conservatives are losing the culture, goes the argument, which in turn leads to losing at politics, maybe that money could be better spent on producing some cultural ammo of our own?

It’s a bad idea.

Let’s first acknowledge that Hollywood is overwhelmingly, though not uniformly, liberal. Hollywood constitutes a major part of the Democratic Party’s financial base and, arguably, the constituency liberal politicians fear — and revere — most. That’s why all of the post-Newtown talk of the Obama administration “going after Hollywood violence” was nonsense from the outset.

In August, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait wrote an interesting essay arguing that the right-wing culture vultures of the 1990s were right: Hollyweird really was eroding traditional conservative values. A committed liberal, Chait is grateful for this effort: “We liberals owe not a small measure of our success to the propaganda campaign of a tiny, disproportionately influential cultural elite.”

Chait makes a strong case. But just as there’s a problem with conservatives drawing straight lines from the silver screen to social decay, there’s a problem with drawing similarly unwavering lines to progressive triumph.

Hollywood produces culture, but it also takes its orders from it. For instance, according to today’s pieties, the gun is an evil right-wing talisman. And yet, every year Hollywood vomits up a stream of films that cast guns as the solution to any manner of problems. Martial arts stars notwithstanding, you’ll be hard-pressed to find an action movie in which the star’s most trusted sidekick isn’t his gun." 

From the AEI

I hate to sound like Bill Clinton with it depends on the meaning of is, because that's appropriate here in this discussion. 

Are we talking about Liberals, or Hollywood/pop culture stereotypical Liberals? Are we talking about people who believe in liberal democracy, or are we talking about people who are anti-establishment, leftist-socialist, revolutionary hippies/hipsters? 

Hollywood is the entertainment capital, not just of America, but perhaps the rest of the world as well. It's also one of the biggest homes of Corporate America. When I think of Socialists, I don't think of Corporate America. I think of people who run left-wing rags and political action committees, and people who run for office promising a fairer society, thanks to a bigger, stronger, national government. As well as a lot of guys who look like they should be introduced to razors, shaving cream, and a good barber shop. And women who go around claiming that eating meet is animal cruelty, while wearing leather jackets and leather boots. I don't think of millionaires and billionaires who run Fortune 500 companies, like in Hollywood.

There are plenty of people in Hollywood that produce a lot of left-wing friendly programming and movies, as well as music. But you have to understand that entertainment is a big business, first, not a political action organization. If there's a lot of money to made in producing left-wing friendly entertainment, someone in Hollywood or in the broader entertainment industry, is going to produce that entertainment. So maybe it's not Hollywood that is left-wing (which is what we're really talking about here and not liberal) but maybe the country is more left-wing, socialist even, then it was in the 1950s. 

CBC Sports: NHL 1983- Stanley Cup Finals Game 4- Edmonton Oilers @ Long Island Islanders: Full Game

Source:CBC Sports- a look at the Long Islanders (as I call them) bench.

"Game 4 1983 Stanley Cup Final Edmonton Oilers at New York Islanders (CBC" 

From Islanders Pride

If you look back at the Long Islander Islanders (as I call them) from the 1980s, they could've been not just team of the 1980s, but perhaps had the best dynasty that any NHL franchise has ever had and that includes the Montreal Canadians of the 1970s and the Edmonton Oilers of the 1980s. 

The Islanders win the first 4 Stanley Cup Finals of the 1980s. Which is literally the North American Championship of major league pro hockey, but then they never really get close to getting back to the Stanley Cup Finals, after losing to the Oilers in 5 games in 1984. 

OraTV: Newsbreaker With David Bignaud: 'LA Lakers Owner Jerry Buss Dies at 80 Years Old'

Source:Ora TV- Los Angeles Laksers owner Jerry Buss.

"Los Angeles Lakers owner Jerry Buss died Monday morning at 80-years-old, according to the Los Angeles Times. He was hospitalized last week with an officially undisclosed medical condition but Radaronline.com reports he had cancer. Buss led the Lakers to 10 NBA championships." 

From Ora TV

The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- 'Why Capitalism is Best (1979)'

Source:Commonsense Cap- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

Source:The FreeState

"Milton Friedman On Why Capitalism is Best" 

From Commonsense Cap 

Phil Donahue essentially trying to make the case that private enterprise and capitalism is somehow greedy and all the angels and unselfish people work for government, with the role of regulating how the rest of us live. 

With Professor Friedman making the sharp and quick response to that by boomeranging Mr. Donahue's point against him and rhetorically asking him: "Do you think Russia and China doesn't act on greed and aren't greedy." As well as asking him if he's aware of a successful society that doesn't act on greed. 

Webster's definition of greed: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed" We all want more than we need in life (except for Angels and Saints) so we have security and not have to worry about how we're going to pay our bills and take care of our families. 

There can be too much of anything in life, as well as too little. But if you eliminate greed, you'll have a lot more poverty in America, as well as anywhere else, because you'll have fewer people wanting to be successful in life and getting the skills and knowledge to be successful, because they won't have that self-motivation to be secure and have more than they need to live well. 

Helmer Reenberg: Gerald Ford, Hale Boggs & Richard Nixon- On The JFK Assassination: November 23rd, 1963

Source:Helmer Reenberg- U.S. Representative Hale Boggs (Democrat, Louisiana) 

"Assassination of John F. Kennedy, mortal shooting of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, as he rode in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. His accused killer was Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine who had embraced Marxism and defected for a time to the Soviet Union. Oswald never stood trial for murder, because, while being transferred after having been taken into custody, he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, a distraught Dallas nightclub owner." 

From Britannica 

"US Rep. Gerald R. Ford Jr. (R-MI), chairman of the House Republican Committee, states that Republicans will support the new President, Lyndon Johnson, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

US Rep. Hale Boggs (D-LA) expresses confidence in newly inaugurated President Lyndon Johnson, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Boggs expresses sorrow about the death of John F. Kennedy.

Former Vice President Richard Nixon speaks to reporters about President Kennedy's assassination.

Six days later, Ford and Boggs was invited to join the commission under the chairmanship of Earl Warren."

From Helmer Reenberg

Representative Ford and Representative Boggs, basically giving their feelings about how they felt about the JFK assassination and how they felt about the incoming President Lyndon Johnson who was President Kennedy’s Vice President. 

Representative Ford basically saying that President Johnson was going to get what is called a honeymoon period in American politics. That House Republicans at least were going to see what the new President has in mind for the country and how he plans on moving forward. And that House Republicans were ready to help President Johnson at least in the beginning with anything that they can. 

And House Republicans helped President Johnson quite a bit in the 88th Congress with tax cuts and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

Merv Griffin Show: Gerald Ford Interview- Pardoning Richard Nixon (1979)

Source:Merv Griffin Show- interviewing former President Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) in 1979.

"This is an intimate interview with former U.S. President Gerald Ford from September of 1979. He talks about the rumors of an under-the-table deal regarding Nixon's resignation over the Watergate scandal and Ford's subsequent pardon of Nixon. Merv Griffin had over 5000 guests appear on his show from 1963-1986. Footage from the Merv Griffin Show is available for licensing to all forms of media through Reelin' In The Years Productions:Reel In The Years." 

From the Merv Griffin Show

Looks like Nixon White House Chief of Staff Al Haige put the option on the table for then Vice President Gerald Ford, that he consider pardoning Richard Nixon once Ford becomes President of the United States, at least according to Gerald Ford.

As President Ford said in this interview, there's no evidence that then President Nixon agreed to resign as President, only if then Vice President Ford pardons the former President. Any suggestion to suggest that's exactly what happens, puts you in the small camp of people that say that Robert F. Kennedy murdered Marilyn Monroe in 1962. With the only answer that you have to that is: "It could've happen." The problem is that speculation is not a substitute for evidence.

NFL Films: 1983 Seattle Seahawks Highlights

Source:NFL Films- Video Library with a film about the 1983 Seattle Seahawks, the runner up in the AFC that season.

"1983 Seahawks" 

From Lafayette Cathey

The Seattle Seahawks not just became winners in 1983 but contenders and a regular playoff team in the AFC. And ended up having a pretty good decade in the 1980s under head coach Chuck Knox who built another winner and contender in Seattle like he did in Los Angeles and Buffalo. But like in those cities and in Seattle being a contender even a championship contender is different than being a champion. Where you win your conference championship, get to and win the Super Bowl. Something that Chuck Knox or Ground Chuck wasn't able to do in Los Angeles, Buffalo and in Seattle where he had very good teams in each city, but never quite got over the top.

NBC Sports: NFL 1983- AFC Championship- Seattle Seahawks @ Los Angeles Raiders: Full Game

Source:NBC Sports- Los Angeles Raiders RB Marcus Allen, running away from the Seattle Seahawks defense.

"Marcus Allen and the Raiders take on Curt Warner and the Seahawks in the AFC Title Game. Seattle swept the Raiders during the year, but this game would turn out to be a different story." 

From Raiders Classic

The Seahawks and Raiders were very good rivals in the 1980s.

BBC: 'Storyville American Idol- Ronald Reagan Documentary'

Source:BBC- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) being sworn in as the 40th President in 1981.

"BBC Storyville American Idol Ronald Reagan Documentary." The video is currently unavailable in the United States. 

As a Liberal Democrat I guess I have mixed feelings about Ronald Reagan our 40th President of The United States. Because compared with today's Republican Party, Ron Reagan looks like a God as someone greater than the GOP could ever imagine to be. 

The Reagan-Goldwater conservative coalition that rebuilt the GOP in the 1970s and 1980s, has now become the Christian-Conservative coalition GOP thats more of a theocratic or religious party rather than a true conservative party. And Reagan went after the votes of the Christian Coalition but he did that to win to have their votes. And so they wouldn't back a candidate from the Far-Right that would cost the GOP elections. Not because he was part of that coalition. 

So I guess Ron Reagan if he were alive and functioning today probably wouldn't be very happy with todays GOP. So thats one reason why I have a lot of respect for Ron Reagan was his character and his realism. You knew exactly who he was and when he said he was a Conservative, you could believe him for the most part.

Despite Reagan not being much of a fiscal conservative with his supply-side economics and all of the borrowing that came from that. But he was a true government out-of-my-wallet, bedroom and classroom Conservative. 

But what I don't have much respect for Ron Reagan was his libertarian almost anti-government side of him. That we are still dealing with as a country that the GOP has taken to heart when it comes to economic policy. 

The Republican Party is certainly pro-government when it comes to social policy, where Reagan didn't have much in common with Religious-Right. And pro-government when it comes to defense policy, but the economic philosophy that Reagan built that the GOP almost has got around across the board and it's made it very difficult for the Federal Government to address major issues and problems of the day as it relates to debt and deficit. Immigration, infrastructure, healthcare, energy, reforming entitlements and social welfare as a whole. Because this wing of the GOP essentially believes government has no role here.

So what I like and respect about Ron Reagan was that he was a true anti-big government and statism Conservative. Who believed that it wasn't the job of government to tell Americans how to live their lives. Which is why he almost looks liberal compared with todays religious and neoconservative Republican Party. 

But the other part of the Reagan political legacy it's made it almost impossible for the Federal Government to do its job. And has brought so much opposition towards him that the country today is left politically between two wings. One believing that government should so almost everything from the New-Left. And the other wing believing that government should do almost nothing from the Libertarian-Right. Which isn't much of a choice for the country.

CSPAN: Francis Fukuyama- On American Neoconservatism

Source:CSPAN- Francis Fukuyama talking about American neoconservatism.

"Francis Fukuyama says that a gridlocked and dysfunctional political system cant get America back to fiscal stability. More at: 

Best-selling author Francis Fukuyama says that the fight against ISIS is part of a larger Shia/Sunni war. After its failings in Afghanistan and Iraq, the best America can hope for is containment.

(Part 1 of 2) Francis Fukuyama is the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins." 

From Carleen Trial

Just to let you know I separate mainstream right wingers from the Far-Right. That yes center-rightists and far-rightists are both on the right wing of the American political spectrum. But classical conservatism is the mainstream right wing political philosophy in America. And I see ethane-nationalism and right wing tribalism, as part of the Far-Right in America. And I'll explain what I mean by this in this post and explain why they are different.

I guess the popular definition of American neoconservatism is that Democracy should be promoted around the world. And that the goal of the United States should be to eliminate authoritarian regimes around the world. And that the military should be the main tool to accomplish this and that we should even do these things unilaterally if necessary. I would go further with that and say that Neoconservatives believe that the strength of our national defense should be viewed based on how much we spend on it. And security of the state meaning country should be paramount and not just as it relates to national security. But our moral fiber and national morality and so-forth even if that means we need to restrict individual freedom, to use as examples. Neoconservatives are typically in favor of the Iraq War, but don't have much respect for Libertarians or Conservatives.

Neoconservatives don't tend to have much respect for the Ron Paul's of the world who believe in a high degree of individual freedom across the board. As long as we aren't hurting innocent people, that we shouldn't have have national standards for individual behavior. Instead of allowing individuals to live their lives. Neoconservatives what's the best for the nation as a whole. And that government has a role to not only only protect people but at times even protect people from themselves. Even if that means restricting individual freedom. Which is how we get things like the Patriot Act and indefinite detention where a good case can be made that both are unconstitutional. Because they violate the right to privacy and a fair speedy trial, but these two laws are both neoconservative policies that put security over freedom in this country. Or gay-marriage bans or pornography bans because Neoconservatives and the Religious-Right in America, see these activities as violating our national morality and moral code.

The main differences I see between Conservatives and Neoconservatives, is that Conservatives believes in freedom and that the main job of government is to protect our freedom. And that means having a certain level of security, but that we can't have freedom without security. That we need both to balance each other out to make them as effective as possible. Whereas Neoconservatives tend to believe in a certain level of freedom, they aren't Communists. But they certainly have a certain level of statism in their philosophy. Believe that security and national morality always has to be paramount and that it's more important then freedom itself.

NBC Sports: NFL 1982- AFC Wildcard- Cleveland Browns @ Los Angeles Raiders: 2nd Half

Source:NBC Sports- coverage of this 1982 AFC Wildcard.

"Raiders v Browns 1982 Playoffs p4" 

From Newton Minnowowski

The Raiders beating the Browns in the AFC Playoffs.

The Film Archives: 'Religious Right, White Supremacists, and Paramilitary Organizations: Chip Berlet Interview'

Source:The Film Archives- with a look at the Far-Right in America.

"John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the media and on the Internet, and political cults on both the right and left of the political spectrum.

He was a senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks, and is known as one of the first researchers to have drawn attention to the efforts by white supremacist and anti-Semitic groups to recruit farmers in the Midwestern United States in the 1970s and 1980s. He is the co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort and editor of Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash.

Berlet, a paralegal, was a vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild. He has served on the advisory board of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, and currently sits on the advisory board of the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation. In 1982, he was a Mencken Awards finalist in the best news story category for "War on Drugs: The Strange Story of Lyndon LaRouche," which was published in High Times. He served on the advisory board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution. He was affiliated with Chicago Area Friends of Albania.

The most recent of Berlet's three books, co-authored with Matthew N. Lyons, is Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, published in 2000 by The Guilford Press. It is a broad historical overview of right-wing populism in the United States.

The book received generally favorable reviews. Library Journal said it was a "detailed historical examination" that "strikes an excellent balance between narrative and theory." The New York Review of Books described it as an excellent account describing the outermost fringes of American conservatism. A review by Jerome Himmelstein in the journal Contemporary Sociology said that "it offers more than a scholarly treatise on the activities of the Third Reich", that it provides a background to help the reader understand the Holocaust and that it "merits close attention from scholars of the political right in America and of social movements generally." 

Robert H. Churchill of the University of Hartford criticized Berlet and other authors writing about the right wing as lacking breadth and depth in their analysis.

In articles, Berlet has argued that the United States is currently undergoing a right-wing backlash that is the most sustained of its kind in U.S. history. He argues that although 95% of the US's hate crimes are committed by people not affiliated with any group, they have nevertheless internalized a narrative developed and promoted by the right wing that demonizes certain groups, including blacks and gays. He argues that the left must develop coalitions to find a way to counter-balance these narratives, instead of becoming isolated as another side of the "lunatic fringe".

In ZOG Ate My Brains, Berlet warned of a "troubling resurgence on the political Left" of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that undermine the effort of progressives to bring about social change.

Berlet has provided "research assistance" to a campaign run by the mother of Jeremiah Duggan to reopen the investigation into his death. The British student died in disputed circumstances near Wiesbaden, Germany. Berlet's statement suggests that the LaRouche movement bears responsibility."

Source:The Film Archives

I'm going to separate Conservative right wingers from the Far-Right in America, because they are almost completely different. Conservatives are democratic and believe in democracy. Even at times speak in favor of liberal democracy. Where as the Far-Right in America are authoritarians and statists and a coalition small but loud made up of Nationalists, Christian-Theocrats and Nazi's.

This post is about the Far-Right in America and I'm going to concentrate on the Far-Right. Theocrats mainly and how they came about. The Christian-Right in America has probably always been around and were originally part of the Klu Klux Klan or the KKK has its elements that the Far-Right came from and the Christian-Right in America, basically emerged politically in America as a powerful coalition as a response to the 1960s. And what they called an invasion of liberalism and social freedom throughout America.

As all sorts of groups in America emerged with new power and freedom. African-Americans, women, homosexuals and Latin-Americans. The labor and environmental movement, the antiwar movement, the Baby Boom generation and others. And they saw all of these groups as a threat to the Christian-Right's  way of life. Where all families have two parents living together, dad worked, mom stayed at home and raised the kids. But with dad making most of the decisions. African-Americans almost without any power. Homosexuals in the closet, pornography, sex before marriage, adultery, unmarried couples living together. All considered immoral and so- forth.

By the mid to late 1960s before the Religious-Right became a force in America, they were basically left without a political party as the Democratic Party became more liberal on civil rights. And Richard Nixon being the brilliant politician that he was knowing that the Republican Party was simply too small to compete with Democrats nationally, brought Christian-Theocrats what I call the Religious-Right into the Republican Party and started working the South. To expand the Republican coalition which is how he was able to be elected President.

The Christian-Right basically ran against the liberal 1960s in the 1970s and these Southern Christian-Theocrats came into the Republican Party in a big way. To the point by the 1980s Republicans pretty much owned the South. Or at least were able to compete with Democrats into the South as long as they appeal to these Christian-Theocrats. And thats how the political party spectrum was switched around in America with Democrats controlling the Northeast and West Coast and Republicans controlling the South.

The Religious-Right in America basically emerged in the mid and late 1960s in response to what they saw as out-of-control liberalism and freedom in America. And saw what they see as traditional America being under attacked. And what they saw as their religious freedom which at times is basically just bigotry against groups they disagree with as under attacked and grew throughout the 1970s, a major force by the late 1970s to the point that national Republicans couldn't win without them.

WWE Fan Nation: WCW 1992- World TV Championship- Steve Austin vs Barry Windham

Source:WWE- Steve Austin vs Barry Windham in 1992.

"Barry Windham defends the World TV Title against "Stunning" Steve Austin who happens to have Paul E. Dangerously in his corner." 

From WWE

Cheating to win in clean site with the referee of course not aware of what's going on. Something I don't like about pro wrestling, especially when the wrestlers are good enough to beat each other. Steve Austin was never as good of a pro wrestler as Barry Windham (but almost no one else was back in the 1980s and 90s) but he was big and strong enough to even beat a man who was as big, strong, athletic, quick, and as great as a mat wrestler as Barry Windham.