Who would you pick as the 'Best President since FDR' !?

You've heard what their opinions are about the best presidents in U.S. History, who are your favorites and why?

The Party of Work - NYTimes.com

The Party of Work - NYTimes.com

OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Party of Work

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 8, 2012 754 Comments

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS

The American colonies were first settled by Protestant dissenters. These were people who refused to submit to the established religious authorities. They sought personal relationships with God. They moved to the frontier when life got too confining. They created an American creed, built, as the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset put it, around liberty, individualism, equal opportunity, populism and laissez-faire.

Josh Haner/The New York Times

David Brooks

Go to Columnist Page »

The Conversation

David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns.

All Conversations »

Related

• Demographic Shift Brings New Worry for Republicans (November 8, 2012)

Related in Opinion

• Op-Ed Contributor: Values, Not Demographics, Won the Election(November 8, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (754) »

This creed shaped America and evolved with the decades. Starting in the mid-20th century, there was a Southern and Western version of it, formed by ranching Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Their version drew on the traditional tenets: ordinary people are capable of greatness; individuals have the power to shape their destinies; they should be given maximum freedom to do so.

This is not an Ayn Randian, radically individualistic belief system. Republicans in this mold place tremendous importance on churches, charities and families — on the sort of pastoral work Mitt Romney does and the sort of community groups Representative Paul Ryan celebrated in a speech at Cleveland State University last month.

But this worldview is innately suspicious of government. Its adherents generally believe in the equation that more government equals less individual and civic vitality. Growing beyond proper limits, government saps initiative, sucks resources, breeds a sense of entitlement and imposes a stifling uniformity on the diverse webs of local activity.

During the 2012 campaign, Republicans kept circling back to the spot where government expansion threatens personal initiative: you didn’t build that; makers versus takers; the supposed dependency of the 47 percent. Again and again, Republicans argued that the vital essence of the country is threatened by overweening government.

These economic values played well in places with a lot of Protestant dissenters and their cultural heirs. They struck chords with people whose imaginations are inspired by the frontier experience.

But, each year, there are more Americans whose cultural roots lie elsewhere. Each year, there are more people from different cultures, with different attitudes toward authority, different attitudes about individualism, different ideas about what makes people enterprising.

More important, people in these groups are facing problems not captured by the fundamental Republican equation: more government = less vitality.

The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.

Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.

Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.

For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.

Let’s just look at one segment, Asian-Americans. Many of these people are leading the lives Republicans celebrate. They are, disproportionately, entrepreneurial, industrious and family-oriented. Yet, on Tuesday, Asian-Americans rejected the Republican Party by 3 to 1. They don’t relate to the Republican equation that more government = less work.

Over all, Republicans have lost the popular vote in five out of the six post-cold-war elections because large parts of the country have moved on. The basic Republican framing no longer resonates.

Some Republicans argue that they can win over these rising groups with a better immigration policy. That’s necessary but insufficient. The real problem is economic values.

If I were given a few minutes with the Republican billionaires, I’d say: spend less money on marketing and more on product development. Spend less on “super PACs” and more on research. Find people who can shift the debate away from the abstract frameworks — like Big Government vs. Small Government. Find people who can go out with notebooks and study specific, grounded everyday problems: what exactly does it take these days to rise? What exactly happens to the ambitious kid in Akron at each stage of life in this new economy? What are the best ways to rouse ambition and open fields of opportunity?

Don’t get hung up on whether the federal government is 20 percent or 22 percent of G.D.P. Let Democrats be the party of security, defending the 20th-century welfare state. Be the party that celebrates work and inflames enterprise. Use any tool, public or private, to help people transform their lives.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 9, 2012, on page A31 of the New York edition with the headline: The Party Of Work.

Supreme Court decision to hear Shelby Voting Rights challenge met with praise, worry | al.com

Supreme Court decision to hear Shelby Voting Rights challenge met with praise, worry | al.com

Shelby County's challenge to a provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval before changing their election procedures.

The decision was greeted with cheers from Shelby County's attorney, who said Southern communities have changed and no longer need such burdensome 1960s-style oversight from Washington. However, it was met with concern by others who argued that things haven't changed that much and the protection for minorities remains merited.

"We're extremely pleased. Section 5 pre-clearance is a burden on local governments and 16 states," said Shelby County attorney Frank "Butch" Ellis.

Ellis said the pre-clearance requirement served a critical function for 40 years, but is no longer justified. Eighty-five percent of Shelby County's residents are white. But Ellis said black residents have been elected as mayor and to other political positions.

"The South is not the same old South that it was," Ellis said.

Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making any elections-related change such as redrawing lines or implementing voter identification requirements.

The justices said they will examine whether the formula determining which states are covered is outdated because it relies on data that is now 40 years old.

Alabama was part of a coalition of states that supported Shelby County's challenge.

"Section 5 served a critical and laudable function 40 years ago, and the court held that it was constitutional then. But Section 5 is not justified now, and its re-authorization in 2006 was not constitutional. Section 5 currently serves only to allow federal bureaucrats to block good-faith and nondiscriminatory changes in state law and to impose unjustified costs on state and local governments," said a statement issued by the office of Alabama's attorney general.

The South is not the same old South that it was," said Shelby County lawyer Frank Ellis.

However others took a different view.

Ryan Haygood, of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents black residents in Shelby County, said the court's decision to hear the case provides the court an opportunity to review a "very substantial record."

"Congress considered Section 5's utility in 2006 and found discrimination in voting persists and the Act was needed for another 25 years, and Alabama is a very good example of why Section 5 is still needed," Haywood said.

Haygood said Section 5 was used in this election to stop discriminatory redistricting and voter photo identification efforts in Texas, and also in Florida to stop early voting days from being cut in half.

Birmingham's Rep. Demetrius Newton, who served as the first African-American Speaker Pro-Tem of the Alabama House of Representatives, said he was not surprised the high court agreed to hear the Shelby case, but he is concerned about what it could mean.

Newton said he believes there are still efforts to try to limit the voting power of minorities.

"I still see a lot of problems that I believe need to be addressed," Newton said.

Staff writer Brian Lawson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Why Missouri should NOT execute Reggie Clemons - YouTube

Why Missouri should NOT execute Reggie Clemons - YouTube

 This case reminds me of the Clay Davis Case. I doubt that Mr. Clemons should have been convicted of any crime, yet he is on death row today. Please, watch this video and share with your friends! Hopefully with our collective voices, what happened to Clay Davis will not happen to Reggie Clemons!

How do TV Ratings Work?

Why Blacks don't like Herman?

Blacks don't like Herman Cain simply because he is a pawn. A pawn for the GOP as well as a pawn for the racist under-toned rhetoric of the tea party and their fight to, "take their country back." Like Sarah Palin after Hillary Clinton became a legitimate presidential candidate in the 2008 elections, Herman Cain is used by GOP strategists as a counterweight to Barack Obama the winner of those elections. Broadly speaking Herman Cain's policy idea's are on par and to some degree even more radical than the ultra-right and very radical GOP candidates vying for their parties nomination. Black people cannot like a candidate like Herman Cain regardless of political affiliation or skin color because his political ideas, economic plans and personal ideologies are all detrimental to the long term sustained well-being for black people as a whole.  I would like to argue that rather than Mr. Cain being a sign of black progress he is fact the reverse! Mr. Cain does not seem to be aware that today the income disparity between blacks and whites has never been larger. He also fails to contemplate how the incarceration of non-violent blacks has destroyed generations of black families and left unfettered will destroy generations more. Yes, Mr. Cain achieved the "American Dream" but neglects to realize or acknowledge he is the rarest of exceptions within the black community and instead campaigns for Reagan like policies that will only worsen the already gigantic economic and political gap between blacks and other minorities with their caucasian counterparts.