AMA: Fuzzy Bear

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who are some of your favorite Red avatars on this site?

There are many.  YE, jdb, President Johnson, KaiserDave, Xing, nathan (I'm adding socialists), JacobinAmerican, eric82oslo, АndriуValeriovich, karpatsky, Torie, Grand Mufti T'chenka, Mondale, just to name a few.

Most people here I actually like.  I'll get into battle mode occasionally, but there are a number of folks that I could work with to find solutions to problems if we were members of a legislative body even though they have a very different worldview than I.  I'm not a slash and burn guy.

I don't judge you as an HP based on your issue positions unless you're a real Nazi or Bolshevik or something like that.

[NOVA Green]

Do you support or condemn the rise of Extreme-Right Vigilantes that are literally shooting Americans dead on the Street from South Carolina to Kenosha WI or elsewhere?

Do you believe that massive over-reaction on the part of the Far Right (Including White Supremacist and White Nationalist political formations), as well as the Left under the Trump Administration has effectively created an American version of the "Strategy of Tension", which has effectively created massive destabilization within the era of COVID-19 and BLM?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

Do you believe that Amerika is a Good and Great Nation, where we can overcome all adversity, unite against all threats both domestic and abroad, while still taking to the streets to help finally overcome what are ultimately historical patterns of racism and discrimination against the Ancestors of some of the first settlers on Amerikkkan shores, which persists to the present day?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why is Florida's education system so bad, I have a friend who moved to Florida and he's attending private schools because Florida's education system is bad?

Florida's education system is bad because it is financed by a system of property taxes and state aid, and it is poorly funded.

There are enough private school options in Florida to where well-off people are able to send their kids to private or religious school options.  This means that the wealthiest taxpayers are not vested in public education.  To put it in demographic terms:  I live in a wealthy Republican county in FL, yet the public school system is close to being majority-minority and the majority of public schools qualify for Title 1 aid, meaning that 75% of the students qualify for free or reduced school lunch.  Florida's underclasses are generally the troubled kids; they are poor amidst wealth, they often have significant family issues, and it is from these ranks that many of the school's behavioral problems come.

My son has ADHD.  When he was in public school, they would not count him as a special needs kid.  That was because they could only have 5 special needs kids per class.  Lots of classes were that way; they had the 5 kids with problems and others with problems who were deliberately unclassified.  (Indeed, I believe that one of my son's classes in elementary school was a class where the kids with problems that DIDN'T have IEPs were routed.  Lots of this happens. 

There are many reasons why schools stink in FL, but the main reason is that its seniors and its wealthiest taxpayers have no stake in the system and don't case what happens with other people's kids.

[Fuzzy Bear]

On a slightly less deep topic, do you believe private schools should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

For students, no.  I do believe that RELIGIOUS private schools can restrict same-sex dating.

High school students shouldn't be having sex, period.  This question is irrelevant at a very real level.

I do believe that religious schools should be able to require its teachers to live a lifestyle in accordance with Scripture as a condition of employment, and living in opposition to that is fair grounds for termination.  I make a distinction between "private" schools that are secular and "religious" schools that are not.

[KaiserDave]

Who is your favorite Democratic nominee of the 20th century?

What do you make of the four individuals pictured in my signature?

Did you have COVID? And if so I offer my best wishes for your recovery.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Why is your username "Fuzzy Bear"?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why is your username "Fuzzy Bear"?

It was a nickname I got when I grew a scraggly beard from my wife and it stuck.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Did you have COVID? And if so I offer my best wishes for your recovery.

My wife and I tested positive for COVID-19, but we were pretty much asymptomatic, as was my son (who was not tested, but quarantined with us).  Praise the Lord.

[lfromnj]

Favorite posters overall?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who is your favorite Democratic nominee of the 20th century?

All in all, I would vote for Alfred E. Smith.  In my lifetime, I would have to say Hubert Humphrey.

Al Smith was the manifestation of the realignment that brought to fruition the FDR coalition.  Had he won the election of 1928, Smith would likely have implemented more aggressive measures to combat the Depression; he would have taken a more activist approach to combat the Depression, and while things would still have been tough, Smith would have projected a more positive and less elitist image to people, and would have quite possibly been able to stem the Depression earlier.  Smith would have truly been "the common man" as President; he'd have been the first Harry Truman (who was my favorite Democratic President).  

Smith did NOT take his loss in 1928 bitterly; his bitterness came from FDR running in 1932 and taking the nomination he thought was his.  He called it "treachery" that FDR undercut him for the nomination.  He endorsed Landon in 1936 and Willkie in 1940.  To be sure, neither of these guys were conservatives and it wasn't like Smith switched to Robert Taft, but it was astonishing; he felt HE should have been given a second chance to win.  Smith was actually friendly to Eleanor Roosevelt through all of this and was reportedly reconciled to FDR shortly before his death in 1944.  Smith would likely have not been a two (2) term President if he'd have been elected in 1932.  I do believe that a younger and more vigorous leader as President would have served America well in WWII.  Smith was a liberal and he would have been the great liberal of his day if he had been elected in 1928, and likely would have been considered at the level FDR was if he'd have been elected in 1932.

[WD]

In this thread you’ve said that you’ve votes Democratic in the past, although you plan to vote for Trump this year. Which party do you identify yourself with more? and why do you feel Democrats have lost the votes of people like yourself?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

What are your thoughts regarding the treatment of drug users and/or dealers by the current criminal justice system?  Would you change anything if you were in control? 

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Zell Miller/Mark Pryor v Trump/Pence?

[Hammy]

Do you enjoy the summers or find them as miserable and intolerable as I did when I lived there?

[Fuzzy Bear]

In this thread you’ve said that you’ve votes Democratic in the past, although you plan to vote for Trump this year. Which party do you identify yourself with more? and why do you feel Democrats have lost the votes of people like yourself?

When I moved to where I live now, I registered Republican because it's a one-party county and I did not wish to effectively disenfranchise myself in local elections where winning the primary is tantamount to election.  I have long been pro-life, but the longer I have been a Christian, the less comfortable I have been with supporting pro-choice candidates, recognizing that it's the SCOTUS that drives Roe v. Wade. 

Over time, the social liberalism has caused me to be unable to internally self-identify as a Democrat.  I used to call myself a "Democrat in Exile" or a "Democrat on Strike", and I began to call myself an "Independent", although I'm not really.  I've been staunchly Democratic in state elections and a ticket splitter (but a mostly Democratic voter) in national elections.  This is the anti-war side of me and the side of me that believes that social conservatism and healthcare for all need not be mutually exclusive.  And I do very much believe in protectionism and restrictive immigration, the heart of the globalist agenda.  Free Trade has devastated the working class of America and high levels of immigration places added economic stress on unskilled workers who are American citizens; those policies bring in cheap labor for businesses, cheap goods, and votes for left-leaning politicians, but they hurt the most vulnerable Americans in the job market.  (The reason Trump won is that he filled a void in the American political system on these issues where many Americans believed as I do, but no major party nominee stepped up and agreed with them.)

At this point, however, I'm a self-identified Republican who cannot imagine voting for a Democrat again.  I probably will, but the Democrats' verbal support of rioting (until Don Lemon suggested that it was hurting them in the polls) is simply unacceptable.  Instead of facilitating the kind of discussion that could lead to meaningful reforms in relevant criminal justice issues, the Democrats gave their support to rioting in 40 cities and called it "mostly peaceful protests" (until now, when it's clear to everyone that it's not).  They refuse to condemn BLM and Antifa, who have been at this for months. And, no, these riots are not "both sides"; they are leftist events, and the narrative that racist cops are randomly killing blacks is ridiculous beyond belief.  (Criminal gang members ARE, indeed, randomly killing blacks, but the Democratic silence is deafening.) 

It's that simple.  Rioting is never OK.  Elected officials that won't face it down from the beginning have failed to carry out their primary reason for their incumbency.  Elected officials who support it have no legitimacy.  "The Honorable" is a ridiculous title when put in front of the name of Ayanna Pressley (for example) who called for riots, or Jerrold Nadler, who called the rioting in Portland "a myth".  People have the right to a safe and orderly environment, regardless of the grievances of others.  People have the right NOT to join others in their grievances, and to be left alone while the grievances are addressed.  People have the right to be free from being coerced to "renounce their privilege" or utter any other phrase that is not on their mind.  The Democrats of today have given legitimacy to leftists who do that, and they have done so purely for perceived political advantage.  In my view, this cannot be allowed to stand.  My hope is that the GOP enjoys a Warren Harding type landslide, sweeping Democrats from office, not because their policies are so much better, but because the kind of support for violence given to BLM and Antifa by Democrats cannot be allowed to stand without the sternest rebuke possible.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you make of the four individuals pictured in my signature?

The (4) are (from left to right):  William Jennings Bryan, Henry A. Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, and Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders  I like him to the point that I believe that he's (A) actually sincere in his beliefs, and (B) is like Jacobin American here in that he's someone who projects caring for people without the uttermost shamelessness of Identity Politics.  That has to be balanced with the fact that his supporters consist of some of the most radical and dangerous activists in American politics today.  

I now see why the Democratic Establishment wishes to keep Bernie at bay.  Bernie would fold in Communists and Bolsheviks into the Democratic Party to try to "mainstream" them.  Only it won't work; those folks can't stop being who they are.  Those undercover videos of Bernie supporters saying they're Communists really is true.  It shouldn't surprise people; campaigns are happy for most of the help they get, but Bernie's movement has been infiltrated with some of the most anti-American left.  One of my core beliefs is that America is a nation with the ability to right its wrongs and a nation that actually does so and actively seeks to do so.  Bernie's supporters consist of large numbers who believe the opposite, and that number extends to people whom Bernie would put in his Cabinet.  It's a relief to know that his "movement" is largely centered around his persona and will likely dissipate after this election cycle.

Hubert Humphrey  Humphrey was the man who was most responsible for reorienting the Democratic Party to where it became a Civil Rights party.  Even as blacks began to vote for FDR, the GOP was still more liberal on Civil Rights than the Democrats, whose segregationist South was key to their electoral hegemony in Presidential races.  I do believe that had he been elected in 1968, the Democratic Party would be a much different party than it is now, and a much more constructive party.  Had he been the nominee in 1972 the Democratic Party would not have suffered the ignomious defeat they suffered.

Henry A. Wallace  I am ever grateful that Henry A. Wallace was dumped from the ticket in 1944.  His Presidency would have resulted in the Soviets gaining a wider swath of Communist satellites in Europe, extending to Turkey and Greece and even Italy and Austria.  Wallace was able to admit he was wrong after 1948 and published a book to that effect.  He typifies the dreamy sort of idealism that would have put America at a disadvantage against an enemy.  

William Jennings Bryan He's controversial today because (A) he was vocally Evangelical and Creationist and (B) his racial views are a topic for historical debate.  This has, of course, to be balanced against his advocacy for democracy.  "'Let the People Rule' is a slogan for which our people can afford to stand - those who advocate this doctrine are traveling toward the dawn."  So said Bryan in January, 1918.  Professor Willard Smith of Goshen University pointed out in his writings that there this idea was a constant in Bryan's whole political career, but that there was a contradiction between Bryan's statement and the reality that the condition of blacks in American democracy declined over Bryan's career.  Indeed, Smith points out that the period where there was a rise in socialism and progressivism in the 1920s was a time when the political condition of blacks was at one of its lowest points of power.  

Bryan was not a race-baiter, but he certainly did not oppose Wilson's re-segregating the Federal Civil Service and at no time was he ever a "civil rights advocate".  After his death in 1925, the KKK burned a cross in Dayton, OH with an inscription:  "In memory of William Jennings Bryan, the greatest Klansman of our time."  Now, to be sure, this may have reflected more anti-Catholic than anti-black.  (Bryan's later life was about Fundamentalist preaching and opposition to Evolution Theory and Prohibition, and the focus of the Klan in 1924 was very much an anti-Catholic focus.)  Still, this aspect of Bryan's career gives people pause; just how much of a progressive hero can a man be who was (arguably) anti-black?

Bryan WAS anti-war, however.   Bryan maintained a posture of neutrality in WWI, which put him in conflict with the Anglophile, Woodrow Wilson.  Wilson was in awe of Britain and was (IMO) always desirous of entering WWI on the side of the Triple Entente because of his view of Britain; it was the reason Wilson forced him out as SoS in 1915.  (Wilson was a President who wanted to be his own SoS; he fired Bryan's replacement, Robert Lansing, and replaced him with Bainbridge Colby, a recent party-switcher from Republican to Democrat who was a "yes man" for Wilson during the ratification of the treaty of Versailles.  (Lansing was supportive of approval of the Treaty even with Republican-sponsored "reservations" attached, whereas Wilson wanted NO reservations at all; this posture by Wilson is what kept us out of the League of Nations.)

So, all in all, my view of Bryan is complicated.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Zell Miller/Mark Pryor v Trump/Pence?

This year?  Trump/Pence.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What are your thoughts regarding the treatment of drug users and/or dealers by the current criminal justice system?  Would you change anything if you were in control? 

I am for erasing entirely the criminal records of all persons convicted of mere drug possession in the past and who do not have any other criminal convictions.  Indeed, I could probably support doing this even if a person DOES have other convictions.  I am for commuting existing sentences for drug dealers, albeit on a case-by-case basis.  (I don't view drug dealers as necessarily "non-violent".)  I would certainly be in favor of pardoning many persons convicted of drug dealing offenses and even erasing their records, but on a case-by-case basis.

I would use my pardon power liberally in this regard.

I am for dialing back the War on Drugs.  I could go on and on with this, but the bottom line is that the War on Drugs has done more harm than good.  Punish robbers and thieves, regardless of whether or not they're drug addicts or sociopaths.  In this respect, I view the War on Drugs as I do "Hate Crimes":  I don't care WHY someone violates someone's rights to life, liberty, and property.  I want punishments imposed and disincentives for others who view stealing/killing/raping etc as something they might pull off without punishment.

I am also very skeptical of the value of most substance abuse treatment.  I say this after having worked in the field for many years.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you enjoy the summers or find them as miserable and intolerable as I did when I lived there?

I'm in air conditioning most of the time.  The summers are unbearable.  But I don't know that I could hack the cold anymore.  I say this because retiring to rural Ohio is possibly on the horizon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If you had to pick a few favorite (or least-unfavorite) national-level Democratic politicians who are within the mainstream of the party (i.e. no Bernie, but also no Joe Manchin or Stephen Lynch or JBE), who would they be?

Conversely, who are some of your least favorite #populist Republicans, pro-life movement figures, Trump administration figures, etc.?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you support or condemn the rise of Extreme-Right Vigilantes that are literally shooting Americans dead on the Street from South Carolina to Kenosha WI or elsewhere?

Well, yes, of course.

Now I say this in the spirit of the Woke Left criticizing the spec in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.  The overwhelming amount of rioting and criminal violence in our cities since May of this year (which has resulted in death) is the fault of BLM and Antifa.  And by "overwhelming", I mean "almost exclusively".

Do you believe that massive over-reaction on the part of the Far Right (Including White Supremacist and White Nationalist political formations), as well as the Left under the Trump Administration has effectively created an American version of the "Strategy of Tension", which has effectively created massive destabilization within the era of COVID-19 and BLM?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

The "massive over-reaction" is the massive overreaction of the Left to the issue of police shootings.  They are unfortunate, but there is no reason to believe that the Court system isn't working on these issues.  It is clearly the Left (including some Democratic politicians) that are pushing this.  Indeed, they HAVE pushed this.

Do you believe that Amerika is a Good and Great Nation, where we can overcome all adversity, unite against all threats both domestic and abroad, while still taking to the streets to help finally overcome what are ultimately historical patterns of racism and discrimination against the Ancestors of some of the first settlers on Amerikkkan shores, which persists to the present day?

America is a Good Nation.  Period.  I believe in liberty, justice, and equality for all.  I do not believe in the agenda your post implies.

I believe in the right of "peaceable assembly".  Not riots.  I believe in personal guilt.  Not Critical Race Theory.  I believe in a government that does take some role in meeting vital needs of its least fortunate citizens and meeting the needs of people's healthcare (as well as public safety).  I don't believe in repirations, period.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you had to pick a few favorite (or least-unfavorite) national-level Democratic politicians who are within the mainstream of the party (i.e. no Bernie, but also no Joe Manchin or Stephen Lynch or JBE), who would they be?

Conversely, who are some of your least favorite #populist Republicans, pro-life movement figures, Trump administration figures, etc.?

Fave Dems:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Sen. Doug jones (D-AL)

These are the only two (2) Democrats I can bring myself to feeling positive toward at this time.

Least fave GOP:

Rick Scott (R-FL)
Kelly Loeffler (R-GA)

I really don't like the Republicans all that much.  I just consider the Democrats to have gone off the rails drastically.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So--and forgive me if I'm wrong--you seem to have implied hawkishness or anti-communism in a Cold War context, but have explicitly referred to yourself as "anti-war" in some of the above text. The latter is consistent with your statements elsewhere, and reminds me a bit of Pat Buchanan, who in his 1980s writing was clearly hawkish to the point of using War on Terror-style phraseology regarding "with us or against us", but made an about-face on US intervention in the 1990s. How do you square the two, and on what rationale was the US' mission in the Cold War justified, but the US' mission today unjustified?

Do you know much about George Kennan? And, if so, what are your thoughts on him?

[Continential]

What do you think of Ted Kennedy and George Wallace?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you think of Ted Kennedy and George Wallace?

I voted for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Democratic Primary.  I did not support Carter for re-election; I abstained for President.  As I was a partisan Democratic activist at that time I regret that move.  The Democratic Party should have quashed Kennedy's rebellion promptly.  Carter, I believe, would have had a very good second term if he had been given one. 

I have mixed feelings about Ted Kennedy.  He was an excellent Senator, but I have a great awareness of the fact that his drunk driving caused the death of a young woman at Chappaquiddick.  It's kind of amazing that Kennedy believed that he'd get a free pass on that.  It's even more amazing that other Democratic pols thought Kennedy would get a free pass on that.

As for George Wallace  In 1976 in NY, there was a bastion of members of the County Committee in my home county that were actual Wallace supporters.  One of the people involved was Wallace's state chair who regularly endorsed Republicans.  Myself and another person led primary challenges against these people and almost drove them out.  (They were well-entrenched and had their friends registered as Democrats.) 

When I was an active Democrat I certainly hoped to see George Wallace at least endorse the Democratic Presidential ticket.  He actually did so in 1976, 1980, and 1984.  In looking at George Wallace, there is a bottom line, and that bottom line is that when it came to Civil Rights protesters who were, truly and honestly, peaceful protesters, "the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhood were allowed to provide the response".  That's a quote from Mike Royko and he was right in asserting that George Wallace was one of those people that allowed that response and one of those people that made the struggle for Civil Rights for all far more bloody and difficult than it needed to be.

I've always been fascinated with George Wallace.  He COULD have been a force for good.  He COULD have been a national hero had he opted for courage.  He COULD have been President if he had vision.  That's one thing I'll say about Jimmy Carter; he had a VISION as to how he was going to get to actually BE President over the long haul.  Wallace didn't have that; he couldn't see further than the next election.  America paid a terrible price for that.  I think it was a good thing that he publicly repented and it's better that he did than that he didn't.  But I wonder if he would have repented if the political environment hadn't changed as much as it did.