Terry Michael
                         Terry Michael
" ....quite possibly the original self-described 'libertarian Democrat.' "
--Nick Gillespie, Editor, Reason.com and Reason.tv

Views here are those of Terry Michael, writing as an individual,
not as director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, www.wcpj.org
Affiliation noted for identification only. This site is funded personally by Terry Michael, not by the Center

Writing copyright 2005-2014
Site launched December 2005

Photo by William Waybourn



Most recent thoughts...

August 25, 2016

This web site is now an archive of my past writing.

Most of what I have written has been published (since 2007) at the libertarian webzine, Reason.com, and can be accessed here:
Terry Michael Reason essays

--Terry Michael



Vote Democratic Nov. 4


September 7, 2014
At Reason.com, I explore the two mushy factions of the Democratic Party and the three branches and a twig of the badly divided Republican Party, looking toward 2016.



Reason Online logo

by Terry Michael, December 8, 2013
Mexicans and Medicine: A Grand Bargain?

What if Republicans decide they dislike Mexicans less than
they despise Obamacare, and Democrats realize immigration liberalization
is more attractive than illusory healthcare "reform"?


by Terry Michael, November 30, 2013
Medical science...or vaccine propaganda?

A late November article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) makes some pretty audacious claims about vaccines and childhood infectious diseases.

I haven't read the whole "study" from Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health. (I don't have an expensive NEJM subscription.) I have mixed views on benefits of, and problems with vaccines. But this seems like obvious propaganda masquerading as a "scientific" study. The “calculations” (a better descriptor) estimate that over 100 million cases (what a nice round number?) of serious childhood illnesses have been prevented in the U.S. since 1924 by vaccination programs, according to news reports about the NEJM article. And the dean of the graduate school has even extrapolated the possibility of 3 or 4 million fewer deaths from vaccines among those “cases.”

“Death” would be the obvious end point of a serious infectious disease, and would be a standardized way to determine what “might” be achievable from specific interventions, like vaccines. How the Pittsburgh study defined “serious,” I have no idea.

But look at the Centers for Disease Control’s own numbers on deaths from infectious diseases in the whole U.S. population, not just children, from 1900 to present (and the CDC is one of the biggest boosters of vaccines):


CDC Infectious Disease History

In 1900, there were 800 deaths per hundred thousand from infectious diseases. BEFORE the time penicillin began to be widely used in the general population in the mid-1940's, that had dropped to 200/100,000. By the 1950's, BEFORE the polio vaccines were introduced, that had dropped to 100/100,000, pretty much where it has stayed--including since the time the Vaccination Assistance Act was passed in 1962.

The reasons for the precipitous drop in infectious disease deaths in the first half of the 20th Century are so obvious they apparently escaped the confirmation-biased calculations of the Pittsburgh "researchers" -- better nutrition, clean water, modern sanitation, improved hygiene.

In other words: all those things that give us strong, effective natural and adaptive immunity.

PermaLink for this post


Terry Michael, August 31, 2013:

In Syria, leave bad enough alone.

uncivil war

Mr. President, should we also bomb the House of Saud, for its brutal repression of women and homosexuals? Should we nuke the Mullahs in the "Islamic Republic of Iran," for nuclear weapons they may one day possess and perhaps decide to use against the "Jewish State of Israel?" Should we continue to collude with the military dictators in Egypt, or side with the "democratically elected" Muslim Brotherhood?

The Arab/Islamic Middle East is going through its Dark Ages.  The United States of America does not have the power to shed light on that darkness, except by offering as example our liberal democratic principles.  The Islamic world needs a Renaissance, an Age of Reason, an Enlightenment.


Reason logo

Chuck Hagel


Gary Johnson 2012

Penance for "anti-war" liberals:
a vote Nov. 6 for Gary Johnson

by Terry Michael

Anti-war liberal Democrats. I'm talkin' to you. Very specifically, you in the 40-or-so states and the District of Corruption in which I live, where electoral college scores for Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have been frozen on the board for months--years, in many cases.

Search your souls. Follow a path to penance I'm offering, for your failure to get in Barack Obama’s face these last four years, when our 2008 anti-war candidate became our commander-in-chief and chose to continue America’s permanent state of elective warfare.

Without costing Obama a single elector--I’m making this easy for you--send a peace message, by voting for the only serious presidential candidate who wants to stop sending young men and women to die and kill for nothing, in the tribal hills of Central Asia, the Graveyard of Empires, the non-nation state of Afghanistan.

Vote for former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who would end the madness, not at the end of 2014, but at Noon tomorrow.

Many of you seem to take comfort in cackling about Mitt Romney’s vicious attack on Big Bird, when you should be aiming another bird at Barack Obama, for starting a "second Afghanistan war," when he “surged" tens of thousands of young American men and women into harm's way, for no national purpose. Let me remind you liberals, since you’ve probably blocked it from memory, that happened Tuesday, December 1, 2009, with a speech to an audience of teen-aged cadets at West Point. If weekend warrior George W. Bush had staged that charade, you would have been in a state of rage.

Then, two years later, right up to the end of the 2011 withdrawal deadline, Barack Obama had the audacity to try to negotiate keeping troops in Iraq, where thousands of Americans are still holed up in our imperial embassy.

Stop averting your eyes. Get off your dilettante liberal behinds, and challenge the military-industrial-labor-congressional-media complex. Heed the admonition of the co-founder of our Democratic Party, James Madison, who said two hundred years ago: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

I’m talkin’ to you, who sheepishly choose to lose all thoughts of the bloody permanent state of American Empire-building, the TexasBushCheneyHalliburton-war-profiteering  perpetuated by the anti-war candidate we elected president in 2008. Yes, “we.” Mea culpa. I wrote a libertarian Democrat case for Obama in September 2008.

I'm appealing to you, who--admit it--cringe a little each time you see First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden expressing their heartfelt support for the troops, the young men and women laid out at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center with brain concussions and without one or two of their arms or legs, because of Barack Obama’s failure to stand up to the military machine. You, who probably haven't had as much as a 5-minute conversation with anybody wearing a uniform, except maybe at that fund-raiser to end “don’t-ask-don’t-tell.”

I’m challenging you to no heavy lifting, in your solidly Democratic or Republican state. Just go cast a protest vote, for Gary Johnson, against the imperialistic lunacy, like that against which many of us protested--in the streets--when another Democratic president waged another horrific war that took the lives of 57,000 Americans and an estimated two million Vietnamese. Send a message not just to our present president, but to your fellow “liberal Democrats” in Congress, for whom massive offense spending is an AFL-CIO jobs program, just like it is corporate welfare bestowed by their Republican colleagues.

And then, probably take an Ambien. Because I don’t know how you've been able to sleep at night, in your state of anti-war but pro-O'bomba cognitive dissonance. The morning after November 6 will look a lot better, if you help pile up millions of anti-war messages--sent as votes for Gary Johnson.

A libertarian Democrat whose other thoughts are at www.terrymichael.net, Terry Michael is a former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. His day-job is directing the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism.




Give Third Parties 5 minutes


Gary Johnson Endorsement

Reason.com permalink      PDF Version


Luke vs. Leviticus

Reason.com permalink    PDF version

Obama Afghan Deaths
Reason.com permalink    PDF version

Chicago Sun-Times
And this Chicago Sun-Times reprint March 26....


oped Washington Times Terry Michael

Washington Times permalink    PDF version

UPDATE, JUNE 8, 2012

Since writing the piece below for Reason.com, I have returned to sanity and am supporting Gary Johnson for president. See my Gary Johnson endorsement by clicking here:
Gary Johnson 2012

See whole article with my January musings about Romney here:
A Libertarian Democrat Considers Mitt Romney
So much for the hope that Obama would move the party
in a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberal direction.

Reason permalink    PDF version

Reason.com logo

A July 4th
Postcard to the President

by Terry Michael | July 1, 2011

It’s been a tough few years for us anti-interventionist libertarian Democrats (all six of us). Our split-every-difference, poll-driven, focus-groping president has started an elective second war in Afghanistan, continued (but pretended not to) an inherited disaster in Iraq, and initiated a third pointless, congressionally unauthorized, guns-a-blazing big adventure in the play land of an aging drag queen in Libya.

Sixty-something anti-war baby boomers will recall a bit of 1965 black humor in the disappointing aftermath of Democratic peace candidate Lyndon Johnson’s trouncing of Republican war hawk Barry Goldwater: “They told me if I voted for Goldwater in 1964 we’d be at war in Vietnam within a year. They were right. I did, and we were.”

The most recent Democratic president—a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less!—announced his own war less than a year after inauguration, bravely speaking to an audience of approving teenage West Point cadets in December 2009. Bowing to demands of the military-industrial-congressional complex after several months of hand-wringing, President Barack Obama chose a theater for his military adventure not far from those Vietnam jungles, a few B-52 or F-16 flying hours across South Asia, in the tribal hills of the sort-of nation state of Afghanistan. There came the new boss, just like the old boss.

So the joke can now be updated: They told me if I voted for McCain in 2008, we’d be in a perpetual state of war within a year. They were right. I did and....well, you know the punch line.

Read more....

Original Reason HTML Link or Reason PDF

Uncle Crack
Terry Michael InfoGraphic

Getting NPR and PBS
Off Taxpayer Crack

by Terry Michael | March 11, 2011

As one who founded (22 years ago) and continues to operate a journalism-related non-profit/501(c)(3), I offer this commentary and some suggestions with regard to the NPR fund-raising debacle and the continuing debate over taxpayer funding of "public" broadcasting.  I do so as an admirer of great reporting by dedicated journalists at both NPR and PBS, and their local stations.

Let me begin by observing and commenting on what an NPR spokeswoman had to say about a fund-raising employee (Betsy Liley, NPR's senior director of institutional giving), who suggested the corporation might shield a donor with anonymity:

An NPR spokeswoman, Anna Christopher, had no comment on the phone recording. But she said: "All donations, anonymous and named, are reported to the IRS. NPR complies fully with all tax and financial disclosure regulations."

Those are  weasel words. I know them when I see them, having spent 16 years as a political press secretary.

Running a 501(c)(3), I am familiar with filing Form 990's. I've spent countless hours filling them out for over two decades. We list our donors over $5,000--names, addresses and amounts--on Schedule B of the Form 990--but the IRS does not make that public!  When we post a copy of WCPJ's Form 990 on our web site, we voluntarily include the Schedule B...
...because we believe in full transparency.

For two decades, we have made complete PUBLIC reports of every single donation and every single expenditure, by line-item.  That should be REQUIRED BY LAW for all organizations that claim tax exemptions, and particularly by those to which donors can make tax deductible gifts.  Over the last 22 years, several individual donors have asked that their names not be released by WCPJ.  In each case, the gift was $500 or less, and we listed the amount with the word "Anonymous" in our regular reports of gifts, making the judgment that the donor either didn't want to be solicited by others, or just didn't want to brag about his giving.  In no case have we ever accepted an anonymous gift from an institution.

The Washington Center for Politics & Journalism has never sought a government grant and never will, as long as I lead it.  We (I) do it the old-fashioned way, begging benefactors to give money if they believe in our mission.  And then we let everyone decide whether a gift or an expenditure compromises that mission.

With that background, here are my suggestions to NPR, PBS, CPB, et al......

(1) Wean yourselves off taxpayer crack. Tell the politicians who give you government grants that doing so compromises your ability to cover them objectively.  You would never accept politicians making grants to The Washington Post, so why should you get them?  Ask legislators and presidents to phase out federal funding for all "public broadcasting" over the next three years, which will give you a reasonable amount of time to come down from your addiction.

(2) End the fiction that "support provided by" is not advertising.  That is a euphemism, which allows your benefactors to hide the amounts of their donations in the secret part of your Form 990 filings.  Accept advertising, but publicly disclose every cent you get from advertisers, just as your reporters expect politicians to do so, when they file their FEC reports on campaign contributions.  Your listeners and viewers can then decide for themselves whether your reporting has been compromised by your benefactors.  That transparency occurs everyday in the profit-making newspaper and magazine business, when a reader can decide for himself whether The New York Times or Newsweek is being influenced by money it gets from advertisers who appear right next to news, analysis and opinion reports.

(3) Continue to operate as non-profits, if you must.  You can do that and still take money from advertisers, as well as donors.  Doing so frees you from that awful pressure of having to make a profit by satisfying customers--though a lot of good profit-making newspapers and broadcast networks still deliver excellent reporting to their customers, despite seeking that filthy lucre.

Call this Terry Michael's three-step program for ending the addictions of "public" broadcasting.

PermaLink to This Site Article


Life February 17, 1941

The End of the American Century
It's time to practice Jeffersonian
libertarianism at home and abroad

by Terry Michael | February 16, 2011

Though its first decade began with a security nightmare in lower Manhattan and ended with an economic collapse blocks away on Wall Street, the 21st century can still bring greater peace, prosperity, and individual liberty if American libertarians seize this moment in history. We must echo President Dwight Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” warnings in his January 17, 1961 farewell address and we must counter the “American Century” conceit still plaguing us from Henry R. Luce’s Life magazine editorial of February 17, 1941, the 70th anniversary of which is now upon us.

The contrast between Eisenhower’s historically informed wisdom and Luce’s jingoistic missionary zeal offer an opportunity for serious discourse beyond the empty choices presented by bloated government liberals and big government conservatives. Both “sides” pretend they want to downsize the fat federal beast, just as they both sell interventionist foreign policy with flag-waving “support the troops” propaganda.

More alike than not, Democrats and Republicans serve the narrow interests of the “government affairs representatives” who infest Washington’s K Street lobbying firms. They pander to both the procurers of middle- and elderly-class entitlements and to the rent seekers from scare-mongering national security industries, who profiteer from a permanent state of empire-building and elective warfare.

Read more....

Original Reason HTML Link or Reason PDF


The Washington Times oped graphic

Mr. Obama's war
Why don't anti-war Democrats
support soldiers, straight and gay?

by Terry Michael | December 31, 2010

Liberal Democrats in Congress fought hard for open service by homosexual soldiers, persuading some Republican politicians that it was politically smart to catch up with a fast-moving culture. So now, when will the theoretically anti-war party in Congress use its constitutionally mandated war powers to legislate against President Obama's elective atrocity in Afghanistan? When will they speak out for bringing home from that corrupt hellhole all the troops, straight and homosexual, young men and women, lingering in harm's way for no discernible national purpose after routing the Taliban a decade ago?

Mr. Obama was nominated by Democrats and elected by partisans and independents precisely because he presented himself as the noninterventionist in a field dominated by "liberal internationalist" warriors like Joseph R. Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Inscrutably to those who thought they were electing an anti-war president, he then proceeded to form a government with a vice president and a secretary of state from the "neo-con lite" wing of the Democratic Party, the foreign-policy "experts" who are part of a self-proclaimed Beltway consensus perpetuating the liberty-threatening permanent state of war James Madison counseled against two centuries ago.

Read more....

Original Washington Times Link or PDF File


Root of All Evil?

The Root of All Evil?
Money won't turn
political garbage into gold.

Terry Michael | October 29, 2010

My tart-tongued mother, of Scotch-Irish mixed-with-German descent, and with Southern Illinois wisdom to boot, would have had some good advice for President Barack Obama’s political message consultants had she lived to see the craziness of 2010 politics: "You can't turn shit into Shinola." And not just this bizarre year but every year, her son tells his political journalism students, "Money follows message. Not the other way around."

To summarize: No amount of dirty Chamber of Commerce foreign money—conjured up by the White House a few weeks ago in a vain attempt to fire up left-liberals—could create the crappy set of electorally damaging facts that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid visited on both the Democratic base and the relatively apolitical center of American politics over the past 22 months.

In other words, "It's the policies, stupid!" that have created the forthcoming November disaster for Democrats, not some failure to communicate.


Original Reason HTML Link or Reason PDF


Obama Don't Bash Chamber

Obama: Don't Bash
the Chamber of Commerce

It's Bad History and Bad Politics

by Terry Michael | October 15, 2010

As a former press spokesman for the Democratic National Committee now teaching college journalists about politics, I find shameless, maybe even shameful, my party’s tarring of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - a Washington, D.C. neighbor of President Barack Obama, a block from The White House across Lafayette Park. That’s saying a lot in a cabble-babble and net-nutty environment, where shame no longer seems to inhibit even the worst behavior.  But trying to paint the business lobby as a Chamber of Horrors that's using dirty money from foreigners, is worse than shameful for this former operative. It’s stupid politics.

Ever since the Republican-inspired Progressive Era morphed into Wilsonian Democrat social-engineering progressivism 100 years ago, the Democratic Party has tried to portray itself as a little bit holier than the party of Mammon.  We have liked to think of ourselves as the tribune of the “little guy,” standing against those fat cat Republicans who live on George Babbitt’s Main Street or reside on that greedy, seedy Wall Street.

Read more....

Original Reason HTML Link or Reason PDF


Still the War Stupid

It's Still the War, Stupid!
How congressional Democrats
can save their seats

by Terry Michael | September 14, 2010

It’s not the economy, it’s the war, stupid!

I’m talkin’ to you, Democrats in the House and Senate. Scores of you are about to lose your jobs, while the rest forfeit coveted committee chairmanships because you don’t realize the way to avoid defeat is to appeal to your base with an anti-war message.

No smoke and mirrors in the next seven weeks will convince Republican, independent, and conservative-leaning centrists—the motivated voters of 2010—that President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats have a plan to restore home equity and retirement savings, stimulate investment, and reduce unemployment. Those are functions of the business cycle, impacted by the irrational exuberance that fueled the illusion that real estate and stock values could rise forever. Tea Partiers may irrationally blame Democrats for most of that pain, but they’re certain big government—especially ObamaPelosiCare—is making things worse.

Read original here....

Original Reason HTML Link  or  Reason PDF



Reason logo

Jefferson Reason May 28, 2101

In Defense of Libertarianism
An open letter to left-liberals

| May 28, 2010

To my left-liberal Democrat friends:

As you engage in intellectual dishonesty using Rand Paul’s silly comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to misrepresent libertarianism, perhaps you might want to consider a little history of the political philosophy of the founder of our party, Thomas Jefferson, the original libertarian. Let me help you escape your ignorance about libertarianism without a capital L, a political philosophy far from conservatism.

As a child of the 1960s, I was one of you. I wore a “Madly for Adlai” button, delivered Kennedy brochures on my newspaper route, and defended Medicare in speech class. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I was the only kid in town to subscribe to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a near-communist rag according to neighbors who read the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, for which a young Pat Buchanan was writing editorials.

After three years of reporting, I became a press secretary, arriving in Washington in 1975 with Rep. Paul Simon who embodied the Progressive Era. He believed programs, regulations, and social “science” expertise could lift the poor and end corruption.

Read more here....

Original Reason HTML Link  or  Reason PDF


Reason Logo Ethics Industry Lies

Lies of the Ethics Industry
How the champions of "good government" suppress speech
and sow cynicism

| April 30, 2010

Our 21st century politics might be regarded as an ethical golden age—at least in contrast to the corruption of the 19th century, when senators were on railroad payrolls and urban machines pilfered public treasuries. Yet according to a recent Pew Research Center survey, only 22 percent of citizens now trust government  "almost always or most of the time."

Ironically, the trust deficit is partly a result of the very transparency rules adopted to encourage confidence in government. Enacted after some idiots in Richard Nixon's White House broke into the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee—apparently guided by the aphorism "nothing's too cheap to steal"—transparency laws were supposed to shine light on the influence of cash. Which they did. But they also left an even bigger impression that money is the root of all public policy evil.

Read More here....

Original Reason HTML Link  or  Reason PDF


Reason logo

Down the Health Care Wormhole

How ObamaPelosiCare
will saddle future generations
with a public policy disaster

Terry Michael | April 20, 2010

If we can put a man on the moon, we can re-write the basic laws of supply and demand and get more quality health care, dispensed by fewer providers per patient, at lower prices for all Americans. Sure we can. Just like we ended poverty with the Great Society, and like we’ll impose liberal democracy on the corrupt oligarchy ruling a collection of tribes known as Afghanistan.

Landing humans on the lunar surface looks like an easily do-able dream when set beside many of the ideologically and anecdotally driven social, economic, and foreign policy nightmares cooked up by public officials in the last half-century of big government. That truth is explored in the appropriately titled book, If We Can Put a Man on the Moon...: Getting Big Things Done in Government (though, it should be noted, the book doesn’t advocate getting big things done by big government).

Published last year, it was co-authored by former Reason Foundation privatization analysts John O’Leary and William D. Eggers. Together, the authors bring experienced insight about how good, bad, and really awful public policy ideas are generated, and then how those ideas should be tested in terms of design, adoption, implementation, achievement of intended results, and periodic review.

Read more here....

Original Reason HTML Link  or  Reason PDF


Reason logo

A Nanny State Assault on Internship Programs
The trouble with the Labor Department's one-size-fits-all agenda.

Terry Michael | April 14, 2010

As if I didn’t have enough to worry about raising money for my non-profit college journalism education program in this lousy economy, the nanny state is now threatening my Politics & Journalism Semester with one-size-fits-all regulations written for the blue collar employment era.

Twenty-one years ago, I founded, and still run, a semester-in-Washington effort to teach real world politics (maybe an oxymoron) to college journalists who want to be political reporters. In spring and fall classes of 16 weeks each, I give my dozen students a twice-weekly seminar series featuring top political practitioners and political journalists. The rest of the week, they work in news bureaus as interns, usually unpaid. Few of them receive college credit, and many have already graduated. I guarantee each a $3000 living expense stipend if they aren’t paid, and don’t charge any tuition or fees. Generally, my “graduates” have nothing but praise for the experience, reflected in hundreds of them making personal donations to our 501(c)(3) non-profit, which has a budget of about $250,000 per year.

Read more here....

Original Reason HTML Link or Reason PDF


terrymichael.net logo

Elective Wars.
Brought to you with a little help from
our friends in the MainStreamMedia.

by Terry Michael | March 19, 2010

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) let his anger get the best of him recently, when he exploded at America’s press for obsessing on a disgraced congressman while blood and treasure is spilled for a corrupt U.S. client government in Afghanistan.  But Kennedy got it mostly right, despite his over-the-top angry tone.

Years ago, America’s now decimated newspapers and broadcast news divisions shut down all but a handful of foreign bureaus, leaving international coverage to flag-waving Cable TV anchors, embedding themselves with troops to market their “shows.” American journalism has scant resources--and even less will--to investigate foreign affairs.

With military boosterism substituting for intelligent foreign policy coverage, America’s mainstream media has made itself the propaganda organ for a phony bi-partisan, military and congressional industrial complex.

Read more here....

Permalink to this site article


Reason Online logo

Our Afghan
"Government in a Box"

Did Gen. McChrystal reveal
more than he intended?

by Terry Michael | February 18, 2010

"We've got a government in a box, ready to roll in," Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, told The New York Times last week about the largest military offensive since an American-led coalition invaded the country in 2001. Six thousand U.S. Marines, plus British and Afghan forces, descended on a Taliban stronghold in Marja, in the southern Helmand Province, a mission described as a "test" of America’s new counter-insurgency strategy designed to win over civilians and establish order, all while chasing away or killing Taliban fighters.

Government in a box? What a foolish thing to say, what hubris. Ironically, it’s probably more truth than the general wanted to reveal about American manipulation of the Afghan "government." But what should we expect when we put a military commander—underscore the word commander—in charge of a nation-building folly. Apparently, the general thinks you can bring in a government as easily as he requisitions more meals-ready-to-eat for his troops.

Of course, we’ll get a result as tasty as those MREs. The outcome will be what any intelligent observer with a sense of history will understand--a client government in name only, in a failed non-state, rife with corruption. If that sounds familiar, you probably know what we tried unsuccessfully with an earlier American client regime, in “South” Vietnam in the early 1960s. And it’s what another general touted by the Military Industrial Complex, David Petraeus, did with his rent-a-bad-guy “counterinsurgency strategy” in Iraq, heralded by neocon loonies as the “victory” for their elective war.

Read more here....

Original Reason HTML Link or Reason PDF


On first year failures
of President Barack Obama....
(from RT TV, February 12, 2010)

Terry Michael


Reason logo

A Back to the Future
Jeffersonian Liberalism

How the Democrats can thrive in the Information Age

by Terry Michael | January 25, 2010

Hopes dashed by the first-year bumblings of Barack Obama and three big GOP victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, Democratic campaign strategists, policy-mongers, and populist fire-breathers are touting formulas for party renewal. Nothing new here. Re-branding has been a cottage industry for Democrats since Lyndon Johnson dashed liberal dreams of wealth redistribution with his war in the 1960s, and mush-mouthed Democrats abandoned the toxic “L” word and started calling themselves “progressives" in the 1970s and 1980s.

While short-term thinking, focused on the November election, will dominate Beltway chatter about re-tooling Obama's legislative agenda, Democrats desperately need a new informing ideology to replace the 19th and 20th Century brand of statist programmatic liberalism rejected by the political center, in a choice-demanding information age.
..... Read all here:
Original Reason HTML Link or Reason PDF


Washington Times logo

An Obit for Health Care Reform
....drowned in liberal Kool-Aid

R.I.P. HealthCareReform
by Terry Michael | January 22, 2010
(in The Washington Times)

Health Care Reform (HCR) died Jan. 19 in Massachusetts, shortly before his 19th birthday. He was a victim of a mass suicide pact by economic left-liberals swilling Kool-Aid ..... Read all here:
Original Washington Times Link or PDF File


Filing Cabinet
War and Peace

Science Health Technology
Favorite Sites...
Reason's Hit & Run

The Politico
Cato Institute