#and its highest expression is probably democratic socialism | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

newstfionline · 4 years ago

Text

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

The winter storm (NYT) A sprawling storm dumped snow across much of the U.S., including areas that rarely get it. More than 6 inches fell on Austin, Texas—the most in 55 years. Millions of people are without electricity. The cold shattered longstanding records: Temperatures dropped to 17 degrees in Houston and to minus 38 degrees in Hibbing, Minn. At one point Monday, the Weather Service had winter storm warnings issued from Brownsville, Tex., along the U.S.-Mexico border to Caribou, Maine, a distance of more than 2,500 miles. Snow even accumulated on the beach in Galveston, a city where residents are far more accustomed to hurricanes than they are to wintry weather.

Millions endure record cold without power; at least 16 dead (AP) A winter storm that left millions without power in record-breaking cold weather claimed more lives Tuesday, including three people found dead after a tornado hit a seaside town in North Carolina and four family members who perished in a Houston-area house fire while using a fireplace to stay warm. The storm that overwhelmed power grids and immobilized the Southern Plains carried heavy snow and freezing rain into New England and the Deep South and left behind painfully low temperatures. Wind-chill warnings extended from Canada into Mexico. In all, at least 16 deaths were reported. The worst U.S. power outages were in Texas, affecting more than 4 million homes and businesses. More than 250,000 people also lost power across parts of Appalachia, and another quarter million were without electricity following an ice storm in northwest Oregon. Four million people lost power in Mexico. Utilities from Minnesota to Texas implemented rolling blackouts to ease the burden on power grids straining to meet the extreme demand for heat and electricity.

Pelosi says independent commission will examine Capitol riot (AP) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday that Congress will establish an independent, Sept. 11-style commission to look into the deadly insurrection that took place at the U.S. Capitol. Pelosi said the commission will “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex … and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power.” In a letter to Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said the House will also put forth supplemental spending to boost security at the Capitol. An independent commission along the lines of the one that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks would probably require legislation to create. That would elevate the investigation a step higher, offering a definitive government-backed accounting of events. Still, such a panel would pose risks of sharpening partisan divisions or overshadowing President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda.

Ambassador sweepstakes underway as figures jockey for plum posts (Washington Post) Harry M. Reid’s phone has been ringing a lot lately, with calls from interest groups, friends and potential candidates themselves, all craving one thing: an ambassadorship. The former Senate majority leader then picks up the phone and dials Steve Ricchetti, one of President Biden’s top advisers, who for months has been fielding requests for plum positions. “There’s very few political jobs that bring the dignity of being an ambassador for the United States to a country. It’s a very prestigious position,” Reid said. But he suggested the would-be envoys shouldn’t hold their breath: “I think with the impeachment going on and trying to get the Cabinet filled, I think people should be understanding that things are more important than the ambassadorship right now with the president.” It is a sweepstakes that comes along every four or eight years—intense jockeying in public and private as the well-heeled and well-connected seek coveted positions that come with lavish housing, a staff of chefs and an expectation that the U.S. envoy will put the digs to use for parties. With its mix of famous figures and exotic locales, the competition always attracts interest. But it is under more scrutiny than usual this year as Biden stresses his desire to repair international relationships that frayed under Trump, with ambassadors likely to play a key role in that effort.

A third party (Gallup) Americans’ desire for a third party has ticked up since last fall and now sits at a high in Gallup’s trend. Sixty-two percent of U.S. adults say the “parties do such a poor job representing the American people that a third party is needed,” an increase from 57% in September. Support for a third party has been elevated in recent years, including readings of 60% in 2013 and 2015 and 61% in 2017. Meanwhile, 33% of Americans believe the two major political parties are doing an adequate job representing the public, the smallest percentage expressing this view apart from the 26% reading in October 2013.

Kidnap capital Mexico eyes biometric phone registry, sparking privacy fears (Reuters) A plan by Mexican lawmakers to put millions of cell phone users’ data in a biometric registry, billed as a tool to fight kidnapping and extortion, has sparked a backlash from telecoms companies and rights groups who warn it could lead to stolen data and higher costs. Already approved in the lower house of Congress, the reform is in line with President Andres Lopez Obrador’s vow to counter crime using intelligence methods rather than force, but critics say it reveals the pitfalls of governments seeking to gather more citizen data for law enforcement purposes. Under the plan, America Movil, AT&T Inc and other carriers would be responsible for collecting customers’ data, including fingerprints or eye biometrics, to submit to a registry managed by Mexico’s telecoms regulator. But a telecoms industry group that counts some major companies as members warned in an open letter that the reform could increase phone theft as criminals look to get around the registry by stealing devices and could risk customers’ safety if personal data were misused.

As the virus crisis drags on, hard-hit French youth struggle (AP) On a recent evening, Leïla Ideddaim waited to receive a bag of food, along with hundreds of other French young people who are unable to make ends meet. She saw the chitchat that accompanied the handout as a welcome byproduct, given her intense isolation during the pandemic. The 21-year-old student in hotel and restaurant management has seen her plans turned upside down by the virus crisis. With restaurants and tourist sites shuttered and France under a 6 p.m. curfew, her career prospects are uncertain. Odd jobs that were supposed to keep her going during her studies are hard to come by. “I’m in a fog,” said Ideddaim, who moved to Paris last year and is now struggling to meet both her basic needs and her emotional ones. The pandemic has devastated economies the world over, pushing vulnerable people deeper into poverty or tipping some into it for the first time. In France, the economic fallout has weighed particularly heavily on young people—and their woes have only been compounded by disruptions to their studies and social interactions. Nearly a quarter of French young people can’t find work—two-and-a-half times the national unemployment rate and one of the highest in the European Union’s 27 nations. Many university students now rely on food aid and several organizations have rallied to meet the need.

Separatists grow majority in Catalonia despite Socialist win (AP) The pro-union Socialist Party claimed a narrow win in regional elections in Catalonia late Sunday, but the bloc of parties supporting secession by Spain’s northeastern corner widened their control of the regional parliament. The outcome confirms that pro-separatist sentiment has not waned despite the collective suffering of the COVID-19 pandemic and a frustrated secession bid in October 2017 that left several of its members in prison. Four years on, the wealthy region that has its own language spoken alongside Spanish remains divided down the middle by the secession question. However, it was not clear if the separatist parties would be able to overcome the in-fighting that has plagued their bloc since the dream of an easy breakaway from Spain proved elusive.

Moscow residents get the snow they longed for (Washington Post) The snow started falling late Thursday in Moscow, sticking to car windshields and hiding walking paths. By the time it was over on Sunday, parked cars were buried under heaps of snow. The weekend’s wintery blast was noteworthy even for the Russian capital. A year ago, as Moscow experienced its warmest winter in nearly 200 years of record keeping, Russians longed for the white covering that often makes January and February’s dark days appear brighter. This wallop caused more than 100 flights to be delayed or canceled as some residents traversed downtown in skis.

India arrests student activist (Foreign Policy) New Delhi police have arrested a 22-year-old activist for sedition after she shared and made edits to a document—a Google doc—shared by climate activist Greta Thunberg when she expressed her support for India’s farmer protests. The document provided background on the protests as well as providing advice on nonviolent actions to support the farmers. “The Indian state must be standing on very shaky foundations if Disha Ravi, a 22-year-old student of Mount Carmel college and a climate activist, has become a threat to the nation,” said P. Chidambaram of the opposition Indian National Congress.

India’s dramatic fall in virus cases leaves experts stumped (AP) When the coronavirus pandemic took hold in India, there were fears it would sink the fragile health system of the world’s second-most populous country. Infections climbed dramatically for months and at one point India looked like it might overtake the United States as the country with the highest case toll. But infections began to plummet in September, and now the country is reporting about 11,000 new cases a day, compared to a peak of nearly 100,000, leaving experts perplexed. India, like other countries, misses many infections, and there are questions about how it’s counting virus deaths. But the strain on the country’s hospitals has also declined in recent weeks, a further indication the virus’s spread is slowing. When recorded cases crossed 9 million in November, official figures showed nearly 90% of all critical care beds with ventilators in New Delhi were full. On Thursday, 16% of these beds were occupied.

Myanmar military guarantees new election; protesters block train services (Reuters) Myanmar’s military junta guaranteed on Tuesday that it would hold an election and hand over power, denied its ouster of an elected government was a coup or that its leaders were detained, and accused protesters of violence and intimidation. The junta’s defence of its Feb. 1 seizure of power and arrest of government leader Aug San Suu Kyi and others came as protesters again took to the streets and as China dismissed rumours spreading on social media that it had helped with the coup. As well as the demonstrations in towns and cities across the ethnically diverse country, a civil disobedience movement has brought strikes that are crippling many functions of government. The unrest has revived memories of bloody outbreaks of opposition to almost half a century of direct army rule that ended in 2011 when the military began a process of withdrawing from politics.

Defying Biden administration, Egypt again arrests relatives of Egyptian American activist (Washington Post) Egyptian security forces raided the homes of six relatives of an outspoken Egyptian American activist, arresting and imprisoning two cousins in defiance of calls by the Biden administration for the Egyptian government to improve its human rights record, rights advocates said Tuesday. The targeting of the relatives of Mohamed Soltan, a human rights defender based in Northern Virginia, marks the latest attempt by the government of President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi to silence its critics living abroad, according to political opponents of the former military chief. Sunday’s arrests came roughly three months after five of Soltan’s relatives were released from prison, days after Joe Biden won the presidency. They had been forcibly taken from their homes in June after Soltan filed a lawsuit in the United States against former Egyptian prime minister Hazem el-Beblawi for his role in inflicting torture on Soltan when he was imprisoned in Egypt. Biden highlighted the case during the presidential election campaign, tweeting that torturing Egyptian activists and “threatening their families is unacceptable.” He also warned of “no more blank checks for Trump’s ‘favorite dictator,’” referring to Sissi by a term that Trump once used for him. By going after Soltan’s relatives again, as well as the relatives of other foreign-based critics in recent days, the Sissi government appears to be challenging the Biden administration and its efforts to make human rights a foreign policy priority once again for the United States, activists and analysts said.

Zuma Risks Arrest After Defying South Africa Corruption Inquiry (NYT) Jacob Zuma, the former president of South Africa whose nearly decade-long tenure was tainted by breathtaking corruption scandals, refused to appear before an inquiry panel Monday, raising the possibility that he would be imprisoned for contempt. The panel’s leader, Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, said he was seeking an order from the Constitutional Court, the country’s highest court, that would “impose a term of imprisonment on Mr. Zuma.” Justice Zondo’s move catapulted the simmering theme of corruption during Mr. Zuma’s term, which lasted from 2009 to 2018, into a tense showdown over the accountability of the former president. His successor, Cyril Ramaphosa, has promised to purge the governing African National Congress of endemic problems of bribery and graft that have severely damaged its credibility in South Africa, one of the continent’s most important economic powerhouses. Mr. Zuma, 78, had been set to appear before the inquiry panel, the Commission on State Capture, starting Monday for a week of testimony about his role in the corruption. The former president sent a letter from his lawyers instead, arguing that he was not legally bound to appear.

#headlines #news

3 notes · View notes

meta-squash · 4 years ago

Text

[Old Manics meta repost, originally written in 2015 or 2016. I was definitely in a....place....when I wrote this.]

Cue yet another long convoluted rambling strange post about Richey Edwards and Theodor Adorno. For some reason this has been rolling around in my head as half-formed thoughts for a while. They’re definitely still half-formed, but I wanted to get them out of my head and into something slightly more sentence-like.

[Uhh, TW for weird logic, ED-style thinking, and convoluted ill-formed ideas.]

In one of Richey’s manifestos to a zine in December 1992, he writes “THE GODS THOUGHT THERE IS NO MORE DREADFUL PUNISHMENT THAN FUTILE AND HOPELESS LABOUR. GROW UP, GET FUCKED, WITHER. NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY KNOW HUNGER, TRUE HUNGER LIKE SOMALIA. EVERYONE HAS CLOTHES, FOOD, A DRINK. EVERYONE IS LAST, PATHETIC WRETCHED. THE ONLY FREEDOM LEFT IS THE FREEDOM TO STARVE. FILL YOUR HOME WITH ANYTHING YOU LIKE BUT YOU CAN’T INVENT ANOTHER COLOUR…” The “freedom to starve” quote keeps being attributed to him on the internet, or to Tom Morello, lead singer of Rage Against The Machine, who has a different but similar quote about capitalism and labor exploitation that includes the phrase. (It also appears in the comic V For Vendetta, apparently.) But the phrase didn’t originate with them. I keep seeing repeated uses of it when reading essays by Theodor Adorno from the 60s, and I’m sure the phrase is probably older than that. Morello’s quote containing the phrase is essentially summarizing one of Adorno’s ideas.

So far I’ve come across the phrase in two of Theodor Adorno’s essays. One is in “Freedom In Unfreedom”. In essence, it discusses the paradox of the idea of freedom in our current society. He essentially says that people no longer have a specific concept in mind when they invoke the word “freedom,” and that the nature of present society means that whatever concept of freedom we come up with is not possible because it contradicts current circumstances. He gives the example of early Nazi Germany, when an social-democratic organization took up “Freedom” as its slogan, but the concept and the term had lost its power entirely because employment was incredibly low, and people were struggling, so upholding freedom as a conceptual principle which implies self-determination looked foolish because in practice no one is free and everyone is unemployed and starving and unable to access food/wellbeing and therefore unable to practice self-determination. He says “In other words, freedom was exposed as the freedom to starve; people had direct experience of their dependence on society, a dependence that made a mockery of a freedom that was defined in purely formal terms.”

The other Adorno essay that uses the phrase is “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. Basically, in the section that uses the phrase he discusses the way that the culture industry (or mass culture) exploits and uses artists by homogenizing them. He says “anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in.” Freedom is supposedly given to each individual (in society, in art, in expression, in culture, in the workplace) but if a person doesn’t inherit the ability or resources to succeed in life, then this freedom becomes the “freedom of the stupid to starve”. People who aren’t able to adapt to society’s expectations/who question or refuse to conform are neglected and made to starve, literally or metaphorically. The blame is placed on them for their inability/unwillingness to adapt or conform, because they were “given” the opportunity to succeed (despite that opportunity requiring conformity, or changing their nature, or giving up morals, etc). So a person who is unable or refuses to conform to society and culture and the working class, who goes hungry or cold (literally or metaphorically), is an labelled outsider. They retain their integrity, or their morals, or their original artistic vision, but they suffer through loss of wealth, or faith, or by being rejected and called an outsider and being mocked or no longer listened to. They are free, but at a price.

Applying this to Richey, I thought it was interesting that he seemed to be taking freedom to starve both literally and figuratively. “Freedom to starve” becomes a refusal to consume in certain ways, ascetism, essentially. It becomes a literal or physical manifestation of the neglect that occurs when a person refuses to conform to society’s expectations. It becomes Richey refusing to conform to society’s expectations of food consumption while also refusing to conform to musical and artistic standards by creating The Holy Bible and specifically pointing out the wrongs of society. The band having complete control over the album, hiding in their studio and working together without any outside influence pushes against the expectation of producers/managers/sound engineers/labels/etc having partial influence or control over the sound of a band’s music. Richey’s inability to adapt mentally to fame, to touring, to the stress of schedule, etc etc also is a sort of manifestation of that “freedom of the stupid to starve”, in that he was unable to properly adapt to what was expected of him in terms of fame and touring, and he was blamed for it and seen as strange for disliking aspects of fame.

This is where I get into some interesting, if problematic, ideas. Richey seemed to kind of take the idea to another level through his eating disorder. Freedom to starve/freedom of restriction essentially becomes true freedom because it takes back control of body mind and spirit. Richey sort of talked about this in an interview with Simon Price in 94 in France. He mentioned that people can’t hold you down and force you to eat/watch you all the time, and that your body is your own and you should have a right to do with it what you want. Essentially, self mutilation/self harm/restriction becomes a mode of self-control, a reclamation of the body from expectations of society. Society expects excess and encourages/wants consumption. In creating consumption, the culture industry takes control of the mind and the body by telling consumers what they want even if they didn’t originally desire it, saying it over and over and continually producing under consumers are convinced that they do want whatever they are being given. Self-mutilation, restriction and ascetism removes that and reclaims the body as owned by itself and its mind. It puts control back into the awareness of the self and the body and the mind, which forces the self to be aware of the influence of culture industry. This awareness allows the self to refuse that influence, the refusal of which includes those actions or decisions that go against the expectations or desires or encouragements of society. It also confronts the fact that society sees certain types of expressions of emotion/mental state as “wrong” or maladaptive and those who express themselves a certain way are marked as outsiders. Repression and restriction and stoicism becomes revenge for society marking you as outsider for expressing rage at unfreedom/expressing emotions that are seen as maladaptive. Self-harm or starvation becomes a reclamation of the mind and the emotions, and increasing of that maladaptive expression in order to basically reject society’s expectations altogether. Richey essentially says that when talking about his time in hospital; self-harm or self-restriction takes back control of body and mind from expectations of doctors and society – they can’t hold you down and force food down your throat, someone can’t be with you 24 hours a day, it’s my body I do what I want with it.

The height of this could be disappearance/death: refusal to participate “correctly” in society, refusal to “be” in society in the expected way. A rejection of literally all things. James Bradfield notes that a major theme in Journal For Plague Lovers is a rejection of experience, a rejection of expected lyrical formats, and a rejection of some sort of answer or truth. A realization that nothing seems to be working. A refusal to continue to consume or participate correctly or to express consumption or participation correctly, especially in that the meanings or messages of most of the songs are completely obscured through unconnected phrases or disparate references that take research to decipher. The idea is sort of expressed in individual songs from the album as well. All Is Vanity asks questions of vanity extremes vs personal neglect – which one is refusal to participate correctly? Are they both refusal? Are they the same? Inability to adapt correctly compared to what is expected/right vs what you are doing and how your actions are called into question as incorrect. Discipline is respected, but certain types of discipline are seen as different/maladapted compared to the expectations of society or the culture industry, which allows for the question of which type of discipline is “wrong” or “right” and does it depend on perspective? Excesses are lauded in the culture industry, consumption is encouraged, as is vanity and obsession with the self, and ascetism or restriction and neglect of the self is seen as wrong. But extreme excess of consumption is also frowned upon or mocked. Society encourages a certain amount of excess and consumption in order to control and delude. In encourages and creates consumption so that the consumer doesn’t stop and thinking about how they are being made to overwork and overconsume in ways they probably didn’t originally want to be doing but have been convinced into by society. Refusal of consumption/vocal awareness of participation in consumption becomes maladaptive because it’s not what society wants, which is exactly the kinds of words and things the band was expressing.

And the idea of disappearance or death takes all of this to the highest level, in that disappearance rejects society’s expectations entirely, refusing to participate in society in a “correct” way. It is also expressing whatever sort of emotions or thoughts a person might have in a way that creates an absence (metaphorical and literally) rather than yet another thing to be consumed. Disappearance when a person is still living is a complete reclamation of the body and self because the person essentially is able to drop out of society as themselves, and even if they assume a different identity, they are still inherently refusing to participate in an expected way, still creating an absence of a person and an absence of an identity, and in using a false identity that refusal becomes even more complex. Death, too, and specifically suicide, is a refusal to participate in society, but in a much more final way. Suicide is yet another reclamation of the body, since it is by one’s own hand and willpower that one’s life is taken, not through illness or another person or old age. It creates a different kind of absence, since often a suicide, since there is a body and often a note, gives answers or at least there is a physical proof of refusal and a physical proof of that person’s death. A suicide creates a narrative with finality, with refusal as the finality and therefore certain aspects of absence are filled in with the assumptions that come with suicide and death in general. A disappearance has a narrative with an ellipses rather than a full stop, and because it is left open, the absence and refusal are left with unanswered questions, reasons, and unspoken ideas, specifically because it is a kind of refusal to participate that is completely unexpected and cannot be explained with a body or a note.

I don’t really have a conclusion to these thoughts or any sort of cumulative idea or whatever. I just was thinking about the phrase “the only freedom left is the freedom to starve” and what it meant in relation to Richey when Adorno is applied.

#manic street preachers #manic street preachers meta #old meta repost #from 2016

6 notes · View notes

mjonesrel390b · 5 years ago

Text

Post 1

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/11/15/americans-have-positive-views-about-religions-role-in-society-but-want-it-out-of-politics/

The pew research center published this article on November 15, 2019 stating that most Americans want religion to be eliminated from politics. The trend is still that Americans think that religion is losing its foothold in everyday life and see religion as primarily “a positive force in society.” Sixty three percent of United States adults would prefer that places of worship steer away from political matters and the remaining thirty six percent want churches to express their views on social and political questions. A majority of seventy six percent of United States adults would rather that churches and all other places of worship do not endorse any governmental candidate. When asked if churches and religious organizations have too much influence it was split into relatively equal thirds of people agreeing, not agreeing, and determining that the current amount of influence is roughly where it should be.

Fifty five percent of American adults say that churches and religious organizations put out more good into American society than they do harm. The following questioned asked in the Pew Research survey was the issue of religions place when it comes to morality. Fifty three percent believed that churches and religious organizations increased morality in society and the next biggest portion thought that they do not make a significant difference. Half of U.S. adults thought that religious places of worship bring people together. American adults who are religious are confident that their leaders have the highest morals. Seventy eight percent of the population studied felt that religion is losing influence in American life and of those seventy-eight, forty two consider this to be a negative thing.

In my mind the separation of church and state has been such an integral part of the constitution, but I suppose that before this I had not considered how greatly religion influences politics. Not one president has been non-religious and the first to even mention the non-religious in an inaugural speech was president Barack Obama, as shown in the video we all viewed in class.

Another truth revealed in the survey is that both Republicans and Democrats are worried that those in control of each of the respective parties are the most extremist on the scale of left to right. I can understand that this is probably because those with the strongest views are located on the opposite sides of the spectrum and those with the loudest voices are often times the one who are most heard. The above percentages were based upon all American adults but when a division is made between Republicans and Democrats, we can see a clear differing of opinions about religion’s impact on U.S. citizens daily lives. In general, republicans glorify churches and religious organizations and believe that American is losing its religiosity.

During class we have discussed how Black people tend to vote democratically but have conservative values which is also present in this study when it broken down into racial categories.

More of those who regularly go to church are confident with their leaders stance on abortion than immigration or climate change. I propose that this goes back to the part of this study that investigated morality. I think this correlation signifies that people see abortion as more of a moral issue when compared to immigration and climate change.

1 note · View note

berniesrevolution · 6 years ago

Photo

IN THESE TIMES

THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHED ORDER ARE CRACKING.

The day after democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her Democratic primary last June, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reported a 1,500 percent increase in searches for the word “socialism” on its website. Overall, socialism and fascism have become its most-searched words—a telling commentary. In the midterm elections, Ocasio-Cortez and another charismatic democratic socialist, Rashid Tlaib (D-Mich.), won seats in the House, and universal healthcare emerged as a potent, unifying issue that helped deliver Democrats control of that chamber.

The cornerstone of the passing era is hostility toward taxes, regulation and public investment. The era began with the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, but it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who expressed its motto most memorably. “The era of big government is over,” Clinton proclaimed in his 1996 State of the Union. The white flag of surrender has flown over the Democratic Party ever since, with an all-too-brief interlude during Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign.

Perversely, it was a demagogic Republican who sensed the emergence of a new era and rode its currents to the White House. He may be a liar and a charlatan, but Donald Trump’s election-turning insight was that voters don’t want smaller government. They want government that works for them—and not for corporations. In addition to xenophobia and white Christian nationalism, Trump campaigned on massive infrastructure investment, “great” healthcare for everyone, taking on the pharmaceutical industry and “draining the swamp” of political corruption. Similar (but authentic) platforms of robust public investments and checks on corporate power have turned Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders into political sensations.

At least on paper, even the Democratic Party seems to be catching on that corruption—defined as the capture of government by wealth and special interests—is the new “big government.” In May, Democratic leadership released a three-page plan for “fixing our broken political system and returning to a government of, by, and for the people,” promising to beef up ethics laws and “combat big money influence.” If these promises are to be anything more than empty gestures, though, there is a long way to go. A May analysis by OpenSecrets showed that incumbent congressional Democrats had taken an average of $29,000 apiece from lobbyists since 2017, while Republicans had taken $30,000. In August, the Democratic National Committee overturned a ban on contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Universal healthcare is a case study in how the current system saps the energy for pushing major legislation through Congress. The majority of Democrats claim to want Medicare for All, but centrist Democrats, beholden to the insurance and hospital industries, are content to tweak Obamacare; they only support universal coverage by some vague mechanism, at some uncertain point.

Progressives, meanwhile, began rallying behind specific legislation in 2015: Medicare for All bills in the House and Senate. Local chapters of organizations like Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and National Nurses United began pushing for single-payer bills in individual states, helping move the issue into the national debate.

That split within the Democratic Party, multiplied across a range of issues, is an unmistakable sign of transformation. The Left is in a phase of intense institution-building similar to that of the Right in the 1970s and ’80s, with new and newly energized think tanks—Demos, Data for Progress, the Roosevelt Institute and the Democracy Collaborative, among others—and an electoral infrastructure made up of groups like DSA, People’s Action, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution and Working Families Party.

This progressive resurgence is reflected, as well, in the landscape of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. The five probable contenders in the Senate—Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren—have among the Senate’s most left-leaning voting records, and they’re vying to distinguish themselves by introducing progressive legislation.

Gillibrand is the most striking example, and the best measure of where the Democratic Party’s energy lies. Once a centrist, she has tacked steadily left in recent years and is now one of the party’s leading voices for the #MeToo movement and immigration reform, in addition to becoming an energetic economic populist. In April, for example, she introduced a bill to require that post offices offer basic banking services, like checking and savings accounts and low-interest loans. It’s a partial solution to the abuses of the payday loan industry that could help the estimated 9 million “unbanked” people in the United States.

The effects of all this, as with the effects of the “Reagan revolution” of 1980, will take decades to fully manifest. But they will likely radiate out and reshape our politics for a generation and beyond.

“VALUE VOTERS”

The Republican ascendancy of the past 40 years has been driven by a network of institutions bankrolled by wealthy donors and corporate interests, harnessed to the conservative movement’s passion for a few key issues, especially its hatred of abortion, same-sex marriage and public education. Over the decades, the Heritage Foundation and other quasi-scholarly institutions, in sync with popular rightwing media operations, have given conservatives a unified agenda and framed it as an apocalyptic battle between good and evil. Broadly, the goal was to radically limit the federal government’s involvement in the economy and vastly expand its power to legislate Christian Right morality.

In the 1990s, the Democratic establishment’s “third way” exposed the party’s lack of a similar set of principles. The heart of the third-way paradigm was the idea that the Democratic Party could survive the libertarian and “values voter” onslaught only by meeting the GOP halfway, tacking between right-wing interests and the common good. Bill Clinton’s most influential policy successes, like the North American Free Trade Agreement, the welfare reform bill of 1996 and deregulation of the financial services sector, tended to serve corporate interests while betraying working-class and minority voters.

The Occupy movement of 2011, which pushed economic inequality front and center, was the first sign of a tectonic shift in our politics. The Sanders campaign of 2015-16 was the second. Both cast inequality as a moral outrage, with the same urgency and fierceness that evangelicals bring to the abortion debate. Writing in the Guardian, Sanders denounced oligarchy and called income inequality “the great moral, economic and political issue of our time.”

And it isn’t only about economic inequality. The nation’s moral imagination is broadening as inequality writ large takes center stage. We know too much about the consequences of climate change, especially in the most vulnerable communities, for it not to be a moral issue. The same is true of access to quality education. The many videos of police abuse, the stories of sexual assault, and the protests and movements they spawned—#MeToo, Black Lives Matter, NFL players taking a knee— have helped to galvanize and focus the progressive resurgence, along with Trump’s demonization of racial and religious minorities and his pride in sexual assault and misogyny.

“The old perceived trade-off, between appealing to a broad middle of the electorate and having a transformative agenda, is becoming outdated as progressives coalesce around ideas that speak to the people who’ve been excluded from our system,” says Adam Lioz, political director at Demos Action. “It’s an exciting moment in progressive politics, in that candidates recognize that putting forward a bold platform is actually the pragmatic thing to do.”

This is how new political eras emerge. Just as the capture of government by special interests in the 19th century provoked the rise of the Progressive movement, the pervasive corruption of our politics is now reinvigorating it. The evangelical Right's passion hasn’t faded, but its focus on sex and reproduction no longer dominates national discussions about morality. To talk about inequality and corruption is to talk about right and wrong, fairness and justice. We are all “values voters” now.

Translating progressive values and votes into policy is the task ahead. That can seem like a nearly hopeless prospect, given the current makeup of Congress and the Supreme Court. But it starts with putting forward a strong agenda to frame the debate. That’s what the conservative movement did for the Republican Party in the 1970s and ’80s. Across a range of issues—notably economic injustice, climate change, state violence against minorities and corrupt elections—it’s what the progressive movement is doing for the Democratic Party right now.

ECONOMIC INJUSTICE

With about 28 million people still uninsured in the United States—and with medical bills the leading cause of bankruptcy—the radical inequalities of the healthcare system remain one of the nation’s great moral failures. The number of cosponsors of the single-payer Medicare for All bill in the House, HR 676, is a measure of how decisively leftward the consensus has shifted. From 2013 to 2015, the number of cosponsors fell by one, from 63 to 62. It has since nearly doubled, to 123.

The campaign for a higher minimum wage, led most prominently by Fight for $15, has, since 2014, put struggles of minimum-wage workers front and center, winning a $15 wage in at least 35 cities, states and counties. In 2017, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the Raise the Wage Act, which would hike the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2024 and index it to the median wage after that.

Warren and Sanders are the highest-profile progressive advocates in this realm. If either runs in 2020, they will help to set the terms of the debate. Warren has already released a proposal requiring that 40 percent of a corporation’s board of directors be elected by workers, known as “codetermination.” It would also require that social interests, not just shareholder interests, be a key factor in corporations’ decision making.

Warren’s proposal has no chance of becoming law anytime soon, but it has planted a flag for a radical idea (in the U.S. context), attracted media coverage, provoked discussion and shaped the debate over how capitalism is practiced. It’s a prime example of how ideas become mainstream, legislative agendas are formed, and a party out of power remains relevant.

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the left #in these times #progressive #progressive movement #2020 election #democrats #democratic party #bernie sanders #elizabeth warren #alexandria ocasio-cortez #democratic socialism

109 notes · View notes

glenngaylord · 6 years ago

Text

DEVIL MAY CARE - My Review of HAIL SATAN? (3 1/2 Stars)

ME: Mom? I have something to tell you.

MOM: Of course. You can tell me anything. No matter what, I’ll always love you.

ME: Ok, but it’s not what you think.

MOM: A mother always knows.

ME: You do?

MOM: I’ve known probably before even you did.

ME: Oh.

MOM: I could just tell. By the way you looked at others. By your interests. By your mannerisms.

ME: Ok, that’s weird, but I’m just gonna come out and say it.

MOM: That’s right! Come out!

ME: Mom…I think I’m a Satanist.

MOM: Wha-wha-WHAT????!!!

That’s right, folks. It’s almost impossible to walk away from Penny Lane’s (OUR NIXON, NUTS!) new documentary, HAIL SATAN?, without wanting to join up with The Satanic Temple and do the devil’s work. Needless to say, this film was not at all what I had expected beforehand. I thought I was in store for a peek inside a religious cult filled with blood sacrifices, voodoo and all sorts of evil, violent rituals and escapades. Lucifer, was I wrong!

Lane immerses us in this non-theistic activist group, co-founded in 2013 by Lucien Greaves (not his real name), prominently featured in the film. Enraged by the church’s encroachment upon the state, Greaves formed this social justice group and formed its seven basic tenets:

- One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.

- The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

- One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.

- The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.

- Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

- People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.

- Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

This doesn’t sound like the axis of evil to me. A marriage of serious advocacy and perhaps a bit of satire, the Satanic Temple has stood for LGBT rights, pluralism in school prayers, adopting highways, childhood abuse, abortion rights, Muslim refugees, among many other equal rights issues. Rather than wanting to stamp out religious expression, they only seek to expand it.

A major undertaking of theirs involved wishing to plant a Baphomet sculpture (depicting a goat-headed, angel-winged demon seated in front of two gazing children) next to the Ten Commandments monuments displayed on government properties in many towns across the country. Not only do they want equal time for all religions, but their actions really serve to show the violations in the separation of church and state tenets we should hold so dearly. Funny enough, the origins of those biblical stones will astound you. It elicited a collective gasp at the Writers Guild screening I attended. No spoilers here, but this revelation is worth the price of the ticket alone.

Also noteworthy are their unique and inspiring attempts to form a counter protest against the Westboro Baptist Church, the notoriously homophobic organization founded by the late Fred Phelps. By staging gay kiss-ins over the grave of Phelps’ late mother, they hoped to change her sexual orientation in the afterlife! Yes, it’s trolling of the highest order, but you can also feel the passion in their beliefs. The film plays out like a droll comedy, but at its heart are some serious issues and uniquely entertaining solutions. At this point, I wanted to empty my wallet and give everything to this group!

Like any organization which welcomes all, as long as you have $25 for their membership card, a few nut jobs are bound to sneak in and wreak havoc. I remember back in the 90s, I was a member of ACT UP and was shocked that at the time, anybody who walked in off the street to a meeting could bring up issues and vote. It was almost TOO democratic and led to some eye-roll inducing moments. Same goes here, where we see a chapter leader advocating violence against a certain polarizing world leader. “Not today, Satan!”, the group responds back as they quickly snuff her torch.

All of this adds up to a truly entertaining experience which just may boost their membership. I’m not sure I want to don horns and shout “Hail Satan” on the steps of City Hall anytime soon, but any “religion” with a sense of humor and a completely refreshing credo will at least get me to bend the knee for anyone dressed in red and carrying a pitchfork next Halloween.

Learn more here. You may just want to get the t-shirt: https://thesatanictemple.com/

1 note · View note

filmstruck · 7 years ago

Photo

Donald Ogden Stewart: Katharine Hepburn’s Secret Weapon by Kimberly Lindbergs

You may not recognize Donald Ogden Stewart’s name but if you are a classic film fan you’re probably familiar with his work. Stewart’s ability to write snappy dialogue and adapt popular plays for the screen made him one of the highest paid screenwriters in Hollywood during the 1930s and 1940s. And throughout his career, Stewart regularly worked with actress Katharine Hepburn. The pair made five films together including HOLIDAY (’38), THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (’40), KEEPER OF THE FLAME (‘43), WITHOUT LOVE (‘45) and SUMMERTIME (‘55). The last three titles are currently available to stream on FilmStruck and provide a fascinating look at the collaborative relationship between the successful screenwriter and accomplished actress who became lifelong friends during one of the most inspired and turbulent periods in Hollywood history.

Hooray for Hollywood!

Donald Ogden Stewart was born in Columbus, Ohio into a wealthy and well-connected family. After graduating from Yale University, he moved himself and his recently widowed mother to New York’s Greenwich Village. In this urban bohemia Stewart’s writing really began to flourish with encouragement from his friend and fellow Yale scholar, author F. Scott Fitzgerald. Stewart found regular employment with Vanity Fair and in 1920 he released his first book, a clever satire titled A Parody Outline of History. Stewart’s book was so well received that it earned him a place at the Algonquin Round Table where his natural wit and charm impressed other literary giants including Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley. He also became friendly with Ernest Hemingway who used Stewart as the model for the fictional character of Bill Gorton in his debut novel, The Sun Also Rises.

In 1924, Stewart married an attractive socialite named Beatrice Ames and the couple eventually settled in Hollywood where Stewart found regular employment with MGM. One of Stewart’s earliest screen writing successes was DINNER AT EIGHT (’33), based on a play by George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber, which poked fun at high society. His insider’s perspective would become an asset at MGM where he was regularly asked to help script films that satirized high society.

Working with Katharine Hepburn

Stewart and Hepburn first met during the original stage production of HOLIDAY in 1928. A decade later, Stewart and Hepburn were reunited on the MGM set for George Cukor’s film version of HOLIDAY (’38) but this time Stewart was working as a screen writer and Hepburn was an up and coming actress. Although the film version didn’t find an appreciative audience at the time, it’s grown in stature since its release. Stewart has been credited for his sharp dialogue, which enriched the original text, and Hepburn’s interpretation of the jaded debutante Linda Seton is arguably one of her most enduring screen characters.

Despite the mixed critical reaction to HOLIDAY, Cukor and MGM brought Stewart and Hepburn together again to make THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (’40). The film was a smashing success that earned Stewart an Academy Award for his screenplay and cemented Hepburn’s reputation as one of Hollywood’s brightest stars.

Political Activism

During his time in Hollywood, Stewart became deeply involved in various political causes. Although it’s evident from his early screenplays that he had always had a social conscience, the rise of fascism in Europe was a catalyst for his left leaning radicalism. Stewart was a proud supporter of Roosevelt’s New Deal and embraced socialist causes after reading the work of British Labour politician John Strachey. Having endured the Great Depression, Stewart was keenly aware of the destruction that unchecked capitalism had wrought and as someone who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he was compelled to reexamine his own privilege.

Stewart’s political awakening spurred him to become chairman of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League alongside longtime friend Dorothy Parker. He also became President of the League of American Writers, which was a branch of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) that included Stewart’s friend, Ernest Hemingway, among its members. His political activities put a strain on his marriage and he divorced his first wife in 1938 but eventually married fellow writer and activist, Ella Winter.

Stewart’s activities brought him to the attention of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which accused him of aiding the Communist movement. Stewart fought back and was forced to defend himself as early as 1938 in newspaper articles where he argued that the HUAC was “in themselves a threat to democracy” and mocked the organizations support of “anti-labor, anti-Roosevelt causes.”

Radical Filmmaking

In 1943, Stewart got the opportunity to express his anti-fascist sentiments while working on the screenplay for KEEPER OF THE FLAME based on I.A.R. Wylie’s novel of the same name. The MGM production reunited Stewart with Hepburn as well as director Cukor. KEEPER OF THE FLAME is a provocative slow-burn thriller also starring Spencer Tracy who plays a reporter trying to piece together the mysterious death of a celebrated American hero named Robert Forrest. Hepburn plays Forrest’s wife in the film who reveals that her wealthy patriotic husband, with help from other powerful men, was secretly undermining American democracy by subverting the free press and stirring up division. Her character explains that, “They didn't call it fascism. They painted it red, white and blue and called it Americanism.”

When KEEPER OF THE FLAME was screened for the Office of War Information's Bureau of Motion Pictures, the Bureau Chief (Lowell Mellett) openly expressed his disapproval of the film’s anti-capitalist message and during its premiere producer Louis B. Mayer walked out of the theatre frustrated by the script’s suggestion that fascism was linked to American wealth and power. Republican members of Congress at the time were so outraged by the film that they demanded that the President of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (William H. Hays) establish new guidelines against political propaganda.

End of a Career

Thanks to the fallout from KEEPER OF THE FLAME, Stewart’s reputation began to suffer but he continued working sporadically, and in 1945 he reunited with Hepburn and Tracy to make WITHOUT LOVE. Stewart did a bang-up job of adapting it for the screen but the direction is a bit scattershot. Despite some missteps, Hepburn is particularly wonderful and gives a well-rounded lowkey performance as a melancholy young widow who enters a loveless marriage with Tracy only to discover that she really has feelings for him.

Other films followed including the Oscar-nominated LIFE WITH FATHER (‘47) but Stewart’s career ended abruptly in 1950 when his name was included in Red Channels, a right-wing, anti-communist booklet that became the basis of the Hollywood blacklist. Stewart, like many progressives and radicals at the time, was singled out for his political pursuits as well as his scripts which lampooned the rich or worse, accused them of anti-democratic warmongering.

Stewart refused to renounce his politics or name names so he and his wife fled the country in 1951 and settled in London. Hepburn followed the couple there, helping her friends set up home in Hampstead where she was rumored to have selected the curtains and carpet for their new residence. Stewart did very little writing after he left Hollywood but in 1955 Hepburn encouraged director David Lean to employ her old friend during the making of SUMMERTIME. Accounts vary about the extent of his contribution, but Hepburn clearly welcomed Stewart’s involvement. He understood the romantic concerns of the idle rich like few others and his sympathetic depictions of smart, difficult and complicated women defined Hepburn’s career. As a result, the screenwriter and actress remained friends until Stewart’s death in 1980 at age 85.

#FilmStruck #Katharine Hepburn #Donald Ogden Stewart #Summertime #Keeper Of The Flame #Without Love #StreamLine Blog #Spencer Tracy #Kimberly Lindbergs

41 notes · View notes

thinkveganworld · 6 years ago

Text

This is an article I wrote years ago, but pretty much all the substance still applies. Interesting how little we’ve changed in the meantime.

Dave Johnson, a concerned blogger, has written, "We are a country of broken systems...Everything is broken. Every thinking person knows it. Democracy is broken. The media is broken. The health care system is broken. The budget is broken. They say Social Security is broken. They say the schools are broken. The economy is broken. The system of international law is broken. We don't even have a reason to trust that the election tomorrow - sorry today - is legitimate because the machines that record the votes are broken by design." Dave expresses what many of us know about America. We've lost the republic of Jefferson and replaced it with a sort of banana republic wherein we don't have elections. Our elections have become just for show. Our institutions - the ones that used to support democracy - are now crippled. The various corporate media outlets gaslight the public by failing to report vital facts, instead telling us fairy tale versions of national events. The national delusion continues. To borrow an old-but-good Paul Simon line, we're still crazy after all these years (and growing crazier by the minute.)

On various Internet sites, evidence mounts to indicate votes weren't accurately counted in election 2004. Meanwhile, the talking heads of Fantasyland TV news keep telling the public George W. Bush won, no questions asked. They say to the public, "move on, move on, nothing to see here," while hundreds of blogs expose likely vote fraud right before our truth-seeking eyes. An example is a Greg Palast article, "Kerry won," at the TomPaine.com site.

Millions of Americans know George W. Bush is deeply corrupt and has arguably committed crimes of an impeachable nature. However, our broken corporate media outlets virtually ignore this fact.

Around 100 prominent Americans and over forty family members of September 11 victims have petitioned New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to open an investigation into possible Bush administration misconduct regarding 9/11. This is an important story, but we hear nothing about it on TV news.

Our broken news outlets also fail to adequately cover the fact that the Bush administration has repeatedly trampled on the people's constitutional rights, including the right of the people to freely assemble. In The Progressive, November 2004, editor Matthew Rothschild talks about the Bush administration's arresting protesters at rallies and penning them in "free speech zones."

Rothschild points out this suppression of free speech and assembly is "distinctly un-American." He says the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, calls the behavior "completely antithetical to an open society."

A handful of wealthy individuals own most corporate media outlets. By and large these media owners support Bush's views and do not support the rights of the American people. If that weren't the case, the mainstream media would operate very differently. TV news programs would report the above-mentioned issues in ways that expose Bush's misconduct, support the people and bolster our constitutional rights.

Some Democratic Party leaders also fail to put the people and our civil liberties ahead of political expediency. After millions of citizens were disenfranchised and lost their voting rights in the 2000 presidential election, Democratic Senators refused to stand with courageous House members and insist the people's voting rights be protected.

Democratic leaders have had four years to repair the voting system, yet the same questions have been raised about the 2004 vote. Just as they did in 2000, certain party leaders quickly caved and refused to fight for the people.

Journalist William Greider in his 1992 best seller, WHO WILL TELL THE PEOPLE, provides explanations for the failure of our political institutions. What Greider said in '92 is particularly appropriate to the discussion of our broken political system and election 2004.

Greider says, "The empty space at the center of American democracy is defined ultimately by its failed political institutions. At the highest level of politics, there is no one who now speaks reliably for the people, no one who listens patiently to their concerns or teaches them the hard facts involved in governing decisions."

Since Kerry's alleged loss of the 2004 election, we've all heard countless Democrats on television lamenting the "loss" and asking how the party must change in order to appeal to conservative as well as liberal Americans. I haven't heard one Democrat say what the party needs most is to once again connect with and speak on behalf of the people instead of doing only what's expedient.

Greider discusses the Democratic party's beginnings and refers to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to George Washington in May, 1792. Greider says the text is "uncannily appropriate" to today's political dilemma and goes on to say, "Jefferson described the political divisions - North and South, agrarian and rural - developing around Washington. He lamented that the Federalist financial interests, led by his rival Alexander Hamilton, were steadily corrupting the Congress. Once they succeeded in seizing control, Jefferson warned, they would install a monarchical form of government centered in the presidency, and the people's right to govern themselves would be effectively extinguished."

Jefferson's fears are being realized today, with corrupt financial interests seizing control, installing a virtual monarchy centered in the presidency of George W. Bush. Bush is similar to a monarch in that he hasn't been democratically elected, and he brazenly tramples on the people's civil liberties and tries to diminish our right to self-govern at every turn.

Greider points out that it wasn't until Andrew Jackson's presidency that the nation first had the political party officially known as the Democrats. He says the party today no longer acts "as a faithful mediator between citizens and government" and adds that members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) make the party's rules. He suggests if the DNC did more to connect with voters and their concerns, "it would probably be more reform-minded (and liberal) than the Democratic party reflected in Congress."

Greider explains the DNC doesn't try to connect meaningfully with the people, so it's "utterly dependent on the politics of money." The DNC doesn't have a reliable independent base, so it has no choice but to be more concerned with the reaction of the congressional leadership than with the concerns of the people.

Influential Democratic party members include corporate lobbyists, former policy advisors and chiefs of staff, and long-time insider-statesmen. As Bill Clinton's former press secretary and Kerry campaign advisor Mike McCurry told Greider, "Those guys really are the establishment, and the establishment argument is: Don't rock the boat, stay in the mainstream where everything flows smoothly."

The problem is, repairing our broken political system and protecting the American people's interests require rocking the boat, moving outside the mainstream and riding the turbulent waves that always accompany change.

The Democratic party should advance its own interests by providing support for its base; by continually educating the public about important issues and by working to build up labor unions, environmental groups, teacher's organizations, minorities and various citizens' groups between and during elections.

Democratic party leaders should also strengthen the party by speaking out more forcefully against the political corruption of the Bush administration and acting as champions of the people. We need Democrats to serve as the opposition party, not as lapdogs to George W. Bush and enablers and partners-in-crime to corrupt Republicans.

We need people in positions of influence, including those in the media and Democratic party, to find the courage and basic human decency to help the people repair our broken political system. Otherwise, we'll perpetually be a nation that's gone from Jefferson's Republic to virtual banana republic. In that case, the America our founders struggled and bled to create will have died.

3 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-are-republicans-on-the-political-spectrum/

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Republicans Have More Friends Across The Political Divide Than Democrats Study Finds

When David Huzzards friend posted some QAnon conspiracy theories on Facebook in the fall, Huzzard first assumed the best of intentions. He recalls thinking: Maybe they just got tricked.

Huzzard, a 40-year-old pet store owner in Virginia Beach, is well-versed in the art of maintaining friendships with people who dont vote like he does. Huzzard is a Democrat in a city that narrowly went for President Biden in the 2020 election.

Then his friends rhetoric got stronger. Shortly before the election, Huzzards friend posted on Facebook again, this time sharing falsehoods about how mail-in ballots were subject to fraud. Huzzard and his wife were taking extra caution to avoid covid-19 as they were expecting a baby in November and planned to vote absentee. Huzzarddidnt address the issue with his friend directly, instead publishing his own Facebook post saying: If youre against mail-in voting, youre against my voting rights and youre no longer my friend.

Still, Huzzard and his friend remained cordial whenever they saw one another in person. He considered inviting this friend and her husband over for dinner. But as the other couple continued sharing online disinformation about the efficacy of masks and the vaccines, Huzzard and his wife decided that for the safety of their family and their unvaccinated children, they would no longer socialize with them.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Partisan Ideological Leanings Unchanged

Although Americans as a whole are a mix of ideological viewpoints, the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized over the years in their tenor.

The 51% of Democrats identifying as liberal matches the prior high from 2018, but it has been near this high-water mark for the past five years. The next-largest group of Democrats are ideological moderates, at 35%, followed by conservatives, at 12%.

While the conservative share of the Democratic Party is not insignificant, it has shrunk by more than half over the past quarter-century, falling 13 points since 1994. Moderates have seen similar shrinkage, down 13 points, while the percentage liberal has about doubled.

Line graph. Annual trend from 1994 to 2020 in Democrats’ ideology, with 51% in 2020 identifying as liberal, 35% as moderate and 12% as conservative. This marks a sharp change since 1994, when 48% were moderate, 25% liberal and 25% conservative.

Ideological uniformity is much higher among Republicans, 75% of whom now consider themselves conservative, up slightly from 73% in 2019 and the highest proportion yet in Gallup’s trend since 1994.

Meanwhile, one in five Republicans describe their views as moderate, down from 33% in 1994, while just 4% say they are liberal, similar to most years.

Line graph. Annual trend from 1994 to 2020 in independents’ ideological views, with 48% in 2020 identifying as moderate, 29% as conservative and 20% as liberal. This is consistent with the broad pattern since 1994.

How We Got Here

California is now all but synonymous with the Democratic Party, but for decades it leaned to the right. Republicans won the state in all but one presidential election between 1952 and 1988, and California had both Democratic and Republican governors during that period.

Republican recall hopefuls seek to differentiate themselves in San Francisco debate

Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox and Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin traded views on issues such as homelessness, the minimum wage and Gavin Newsoms zero car emissions executive order.

The state was once known for producing moderate Republicans who tended to hold more liberal or at least libertarian positions on social issues than the national party. But as the state grew more blue overall, its shrinking GOP contingent became decidedly more conservative.

Consider Californias last two Republican governors, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The whole way both men conducted their administrations, it was generally pro-choice, fiscally conservative, pro-environment, said Joe Rodota, an author and political consultant who worked for both Wilson and Schwarzenegger.

Experts say Wilson and Schwarzenegger embodied a more moderate California Republican ethos than the positions taken by most of the 2021 Republican gubernatorial field.

Party concentration has also moved inland, with Republican votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area starkly declining.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Climate Change And Pollution

Pollution in the United StatesClimate changeClimate change denial

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a “hoax.” He has said that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” a statement which Trump later said was a joke. However, it was also pointed out that he often conflates weather with climate change.

Although “not a believer in climate change,” Trump has stated that “clean air is a pressing problem” and has said: “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of climate change. Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water.”

In May 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump issued an energy plan focused on promoting fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation. Trump promised to “rescind” in his first 100 days in office a variety of Environmental Protection Agency regulations established during the Obama administration to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, which contribute to a warming global climate. Trump has specifically pledged to revoke the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule, which he characterizes as two “job-destroying Obama executive actions.”

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a system to control carbon emissions.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

The above chart illustrates a pretty clear trend: the more multilateralist you are, the less populist you will be. There are, however, some quite clear outliers. Both Syriza and New Zealands National Party are classed as multilateralist populists. And then,of course, there are Denmarks Social Democrats. Sensitive to the collapsing support for the hard-right Danish Peoples Party, the Social Democrats tacked right on migrants issues in their 2019 election campaign as they sought to tempt voters to their side. Party leader Mette Frederiksen told one televised debate: You are not a bad person just because you are worried about immigration. The party topped the poll – albeit with a reduced vote share – and Frederiksen became prime minister.

Since this is the first year the survey has been carried out, we cannot measure change. We cannot say, for example, to what extent Trump has changed the way the Republicans are positioned. We can only say that – right now – the world sees his party as highly populist, poor on ethnic minority rights, and prone to undermining basic democratic principles. That might be a concern for us, but its probably not for him: insular populists tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks.

Confidence In Scientists And Other Groups To Act In The Public Interest

Though the survey finds that climate scientists are viewed with skepticism by relatively large shares of Americans, scientists overall and in particular, medical scientists are viewed as relatively trustworthy by the general public. Asked about a wide range of leaders and institutions, the military, medical scientists, and scientists in general received the most votes of confidence when it comes to acting in the best interests of the public.

On the flip side, majorities of the public have little confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials. Public confidence in K-12 school leaders and religious leaders to act in the publics best interest falls in the middle.

Fully 79% of Americans express a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in the military to act in the best interests of the public. The relatively high regard for the military compared with other institutions is consistent with a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, which found 78% of the public saying the military contributes a lot to societys well-being.

Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.

More Negative Views Of The Opposing Party

Beyond the rise in ideological consistency, another major element in polarization has been the growing contempt that many Republicans and Democrats have for the opposing party. To be sure, disliking the other party is nothing new in politics. But today, these sentiments are broader and deeper than in the recent past.

In 1994, hardly a time of amicable partisan relations, a majority of Republicans had unfavorable impressions of the Democratic Party, but just 17% had very unfavorable opinions. Similarly, while most Democrats viewed the GOP unfavorably, just 16% had very unfavorable views. Since then, highly negative views have more than doubled: 43% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats now view the opposite party in strongly negative terms.

Among all Democrats, 27% say GOP policies are a threat to the well-being of the country; among all Republicans, more than a third think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Even these numbers tell only part of the story. Those who have a very unfavorable impression of each party were asked: Would you say the partys policies are so misguided that they threaten the nations well-being, or wouldnt you go that far? Most who were asked the question said yes, they would go that far. Among all Democrats, 27% say the GOP is a threat to the well-being of the country. That figure is even higher among Republicans, 36% of whom think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Republicans supported Woodrow Wilson‘s call for American entry into World War I in 1917, complaining only that he was too slow to go to war. Republicans in 1919 opposed his call for entry into the League of Nations. A majority supported the League with reservations; a minority opposed membership on any terms. Republicans sponsored world disarmament in the 1920s, and isolationism in the 1930s. Most Republicans staunchly opposed intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By 1945, however, internationalists became dominant in the party which supported the Cold War policies such as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.

Issues For Which Location Plays Some Role

Though taxes and concern about the budget show relatively little geographic variation, one topic that touches on similar issues of government size and scopeopinions of Obamacareshows more . Support is strongestbetween 60 and 70 percentin the Bay Area and central and coastal LA, and weakestless than 40 percentin the rural far north and east of the state. Yet most of our places remain lukewarm toward the law, with support between about 40 and 60 percent. This includes most of the Central Valley and most of the coast outside of central and coastal LA and the Bay Area.

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Inglehart: Traditionalistsecular And Self Expressionistsurvivalist

World Values Survey

In its 4 January 2003 issue, The Economist discussed a chart, proposed by Ronald Inglehart and supported by the World Values Survey , to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like , , and the importance of the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these , while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of and , and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as , as well as willingness to engage in political . At the right of the chart is the open position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left and ex-Communist countries on the top left.

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

Actions While In Office

American Health Care Act2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals

President Trump advocated repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act . The Republican-controlled House passed the American Health Care Act in May 2017, handing it to the Senate, which decided to write its own version of the bill rather than voting on the AHCA. The Senate bill, called the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” , failed on a vote of 4555 in the Senate during July 2017. Other variations also failed to gather the required support, facing unanimous Democratic Party opposition and some Republican opposition. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bills would increase the number of uninsured by over 20 million persons, while reducing the budget deficit marginally.

Actions to hinder implementation of ACA

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as:

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments

Cost sharing reductions subsidy

President Trump’s argument that the CSR payments were a “bailout” for insurance companies and therefore should be stopped, actually results in the government paying more to insurance companies due to increases in the premium tax credit subsidies. Journalist Sarah Kliff therefore described Trump’s argument as “completely incoherent.”

Religion And Marital Status

Ideological groups are distinguished by certain societal attributes, such as , marital status, and gun ownership, yet are relatively similar in terms of race and ethnicity. Generally, liberals were more likely to be secular, single and in possession of a college degree while less likely to own a gun. Conservatives, most of whom adhere to as well as fiscal conservatism, tended to be more religious and more likely to be married, employed and own firearms.

The majority of Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives attended church services once a week. Weekly churchgoers were also in the plurality among the general population and all ideological demographics, except liberals. Of liberals, a plurality, 43% attended church services “seldom or never”, compared to 25% of respondents overall. Conservatives were also more likely to be married than Liberals or the Democratic voter base in general. Finally, 77% of Enterprisers were married, compared to 44% of Liberals.

Disadvantaged and Conservative Democrats had the highest union membership rates at 23% and 18% as well as the highest percentage of minorities . In terms of gun ownership, the majority of Enterprisers and Social Conservatives had a gun at home, compared to just 23% of Liberals. Liberals were the most educated group with 49% being college graduates compared to an average of 26.5% among all the conservative groups . Disadvantaged Democrats were the least educated, with only 13% having a college degree.

Nolan: Economic Freedom Personal Freedom

Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart was created by libertarian David Nolan. This chart shows what he considers as “economic freedom” on the horizontal axis and what he considers as “personal freedom” on the vertical axis. This puts in the left quadrant, in the top, in the middle, in the right and what Nolan originally named in the bottom. Several popular online tests, where individuals can self-identify their political values, utilize the same two axes as the Nolan Chart, including The Political Compass and iSideWith.com.

The Us Presidential Election 2020: Last Lap Reflections

27 October 2020

For the vast majorority of voters, this extraordinary election is more like a referendum on the incumbent. Youre either for Trump or against him.

Being against Trump is a whole lot easier than being for Biden. Joes lacklustre persona was painfully evident during the last debate, when he scrambled an alarming number of his words, and recited the Covid-19 death toll as if he were memorising a shopping list.

The truth is that he has difficulty thinking on his feet. When the President ludicrously equated himself with Lincoln in anti-racist achievement, Biden didnt think of reminding him of LBJs Great Society. When Trump chanted his mantra against socialised medicine, Biden might have mentioned that when Roosevelt introduced social security, Republicans hurled the same S word. You could be forgiven for wondering whether, in the top offices of Democratic Party HQ, theres actually a real appetite for winning this election.

Americans tend to like their Presidents to be assertive, positive and with an energetic presence. Alas, they also almost always elect the taller candidate. Trump, in all his awfulness, ticks those boxes.

Even Obamas vigorous campaigning for Biden may backfire. It seems to underline the comparative inadequacy of the carry-over from the previous administration.

Two questions should be foremost in the voters minds, regardless of whether they opt for orange or beige.

Figure 11 Views On Gun Control Display A Strong Urban

NOTES: Question wording is In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Shading represents the share of Californians who say laws should be more strict. Estimates come from a multilevel regression and poststratification model as described in Technical Appendix A. Full model results can be found in Technical Appendix B.

Wildlife Conservation And Animal Welfare

In October 2016, the Humane Society denounced Trump’s campaign, saying that a “Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere” and that he has “a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries.”

In February 2017, under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture unexpectedly removed from its public website “all enforcement records related to horse soring and to animal welfare at dog breeding operations and other facilities.” The decision prompted criticism from animal welfare advocates , investigative journalists, and some of the regulated industries .

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

According to 2017 Pew Research Centre data, a vast majority of the African American population supports the Democratic party, with 88 per cent voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

The terms right and left refer to political affiliations that originated late in the eighteenth century in relation to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. During the French Revolution of 1789, the members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution.

The aristocracy sat on the right side of the Speaker, which was traditionally the seat of honor, and the commoners sat on the left. This gave birth to the terms right-wing and left-wing politics. The Left had been called the party of movement and the Right the party of order.

During the French Revolution, the National Assembly was divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution. Lamartine in front of the Town Hall of Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms left and right to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Homosexuals Do Not Deserve Equal Rights

This comes from their religious beliefs, which form the basis for a lot of policy. Republicans believe that homosexuality is a choice and, as such, gay people should not be acknowledged in the same way as other groups. Therefore, according to a Republican, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, nor should they be allowed to adopt children.

Popular Political Views In The Us

One thing that you will notice right away is that most popular political parties and political philosophies in the U.S. are located at the top half the of the diagram. The makes sense because in the U.S. most Americans value freedom .

While there may be some outliers on the more authoritarian fringe, they have never received popular support in the U.S., although sometimes these groups will try to stir up support or try to trick the local population into voting for them by hiding their true motives.

Greenberg And Jonas: Leftright Ideological Rigidity

In a 2003 Psychological Bulletin paper,Jeff Greenberg and Eva Jonas posit a model comprising the standard leftright axis and an axis representing ideological rigidity. For Greenberg and Jonas, ideological rigidity has “much in common with the related concepts of dogmatism and authoritarianism” and is characterized by “believing in strong leaders and submission, preferring ones own in-group, ethnocentrism and nationalism, aggression against dissidents, and control with the help of police and military”. Greenberg and Jonas posit that high ideological rigidity can be motivated by “particularly strong needs to reduce fear and uncertainty” and is a primary shared characteristic of “people who subscribe to any extreme government or ideology, whether it is right-wing or left-wing”.

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years ago

Text

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Republicans Have More Friends Across The Political Divide Than Democrats Study Finds

youtube

When David Huzzards friend posted some QAnon conspiracy theories on Facebook in the fall, Huzzard first assumed the best of intentions. He recalls thinking: Maybe they just got tricked.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Partisan Ideological Leanings Unchanged

Although Americans as a whole are a mix of ideological viewpoints, the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized over the years in their tenor.

Ideological uniformity is much higher among Republicans, 75% of whom now consider themselves conservative, up slightly from 73% in 2019 and the highest proportion yet in Gallup’s trend since 1994.

Meanwhile, one in five Republicans describe their views as moderate, down from 33% in 1994, while just 4% say they are liberal, similar to most years.

How We Got Here

Republican recall hopefuls seek to differentiate themselves in San Francisco debate

Consider Californias last two Republican governors, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Experts say Wilson and Schwarzenegger embodied a more moderate California Republican ethos than the positions taken by most of the 2021 Republican gubernatorial field.

Party concentration has also moved inland, with Republican votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area starkly declining.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Climate Change And Pollution

Pollution in the United StatesClimate changeClimate change denial

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a system to control carbon emissions.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

Confidence In Scientists And Other Groups To Act In The Public Interest

Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.

More Negative Views Of The Opposing Party

Among all Democrats, 27% say GOP policies are a threat to the well-being of the country; among all Republicans, more than a third think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

youtube

Issues For Which Location Plays Some Role

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Inglehart: Traditionalistsecular And Self Expressionistsurvivalist

World Values Survey

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

Actions While In Office

American Health Care Act2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals

Actions to hinder implementation of ACA

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as:

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments

Cost sharing reductions subsidy

Religion And Marital Status

Nolan: Economic Freedom Personal Freedom

Nolan Chart

The Us Presidential Election 2020: Last Lap Reflections

youtube

27 October 2020

For the vast majorority of voters, this extraordinary election is more like a referendum on the incumbent. Youre either for Trump or against him.

Even Obamas vigorous campaigning for Biden may backfire. It seems to underline the comparative inadequacy of the carry-over from the previous administration.

Two questions should be foremost in the voters minds, regardless of whether they opt for orange or beige.

Figure 11 Views On Gun Control Display A Strong Urban

Wildlife Conservation And Animal Welfare

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms left and right to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Homosexuals Do Not Deserve Equal Rights

Popular Political Views In The Us

Greenberg And Jonas: Leftright Ideological Rigidity

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-are-republicans-on-the-political-spectrum/

0 notes

thecounterplan · 6 years ago

Text

There Are No “Never Trump” Republicans Anymore

(Image: The New Republic)

#NeverTrump isn’t a real political category. It’s a rhetorical strategy designed to give the GOP a pre-emptive chance to absolve itself once Trump is out of office.

It seemed for a moment in the arduously long, reality TV charade that was the 2016 election -- which, like all recent US presidential elections, took place over what felt like years instead of the one it was supposed to be -- that conservatives in the Republican Party were really going to fight the rise of Donald Trump. In March 2016, with Trump’s candidacy looking quite likely, Mitt Romney gave a speech in Utah condemning Trump on all fronts. “After all,” Romney said, reasonably, “This is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.” Within just one year, captured in a now-infamous photo, Romney would meet with Trump in a fancy restaurant, where on the agenda was the possible scenario of Romney coming onboard the Trump cabinet. Romney didn’t get the job, which is probably for the best, but he did get spectacularly dragged by Trump, who by inviting him to dinner and then giving him nothing in return (except, one expects, the promise of tax cuts that would massively benefit people like Romney) made him out to be a “cuck,” to use the parlance of the Trump crowd.

The National Review, the long-standing conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley, took what appeared to be a bold move in devoting a whole issue to opposing Trump’s nomination for the GOP. (The cover is the splash image at the top of this piece.) Popular conservative commentators like Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, and Mark Helprin launched attacks at Trump from all angles, declaring him an opportunist taking advantage of a party with a long-standing intellectual and cultural tradition that Trump, according this argument, exploits solely for his personal gain. Hell, Beck even correctly presaged that if Trump were to win, “there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government.” (I can think of dozens of families torn apart by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement [ICE] who would agree with Beck -- although probably for different reasons.) Beck even later confessed to fomenting the political paranoia that in part produced Trump. The National Review frequently peddles in party-loyalty lines of reasoning and the vacuous rallying call of “As long as it’s not the liberals!”, so it was surprising to see them adopt a firm anti-Trump stance so early into the primaries in January 2016. It appeared, for a moment, like a cautious self-reckoning on the part of these major conservative figures and, perhaps, the movement itself.

Two years later, in his Blaze studio, Beck sported a Make America Great Again hat and declared that he would happily vote for Donald Trump in 2020.

I could go on. “This person said Trump would ruin conservatism.... barely into his presidency, they’re already defending his every move!” is a story so common now that each new iteration feels like something barely worth mentioning.

The behavior of the conservative political scene made sense at first, even amongst those who expressed worry about Trump. People like Ben Shapiro made a big stink about how they could never vote for Trump, but then once in office, with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, Shapiro and his colleagues in right-wing media weren’t going to use the boost in social and political capital afforded to their end of the political spectrum to damage the president. The Shapiros of the world expressed their misgivings about Trump -- he’s a liar, he’s really a New York liberal at heart, etc -- but they knew that in order to get any modicum of legislation out of their newfound control in Washington, they’d have to go through Trump. I remember tracking the posts and op-eds by the conservative commentariat in the first half year of Trump’s presidency and finding the temperature of the room pretty consistent: they could all tell he was bad news, but they weren’t about to sound the alarms just yet. After all, there are still libs to own -- and “owning the libs” is really all that can be said of the “philosophy” behind people like Shapiro, as Nathan J. Robinson so brilliantly put it -- and maybe if the GOP could ride Trump out and pick up a Gorsuch here, an Obamacare repeal there, the giant gamble of 2016 will have all been worth it.

Indeed, these “turning point” moments, where ostensible #NeverTrumpers realize just how good a conservative he is, are pretty easy to predict. The second Trump lands the GOP a mostly unqualified political win, like he did by appointing Neil Gorsuch to replace the Supreme Court seat vacated by the passing of Antonin Scalia and totally stolen from Merrick Garland, suddenly the #NeverTrumpers see the light. Immediately after it was announced that Anthony Kennedy would be stepping down, giving Trump the chance to fill another Supreme Court seat, conservative YouTuber Steven Crowder stated on Twitter, “I was pretty clearly a skeptical-optimist once Trump was nominee. And I readily admit now, that despite personal disagreements, @realDonaldTrump is absolutely the right man for THIS job at this time in history.” Like the conservatives in the executive and legislative branches of government, Crowder’s sudden enthusiasm for Trump makes sense, for now the GOP has a better shot of enshrining their increasingly unpopular policies through the least democratic of the three branches of government. (This is not to say that the Democrats haven’t liked the democratic insularity of the Supreme Court when it works to their advantage, as many astute commentators have pointed out in the wake of Kennedy’s departure announcement. Over-reliance on the judiciary, like so many problems with the US government, is a bipartisan problem.) And unlike the grueling and ultimately futile attempt to wholesale repeal Obamacare in Trump’s first year, the president’s general lack of professionalism -- to say nothing of human decency -- didn’t stop Gorsuch from getting his lifetime seat. Sure, Trump sounded weird when he introduced Gorsuch as his nominee; it seemed as if he skipped the part of Schoolhouse Rock where the Supreme Court gets explained. But at the end of the (supposed to be) perfunctory confirmation hearings, Gorsuch picked up where Scalia left off, and Trump, in the eyes of the GOP, couldn’t mess that up.

Since Trump will almost certainly get to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Kennedy -- anyone who thinks the likes of Susan Collins will fall out of the Senate ranks on the confirmation vote must have been asleep the past two years -- I fully expect that additional Trump skeptics will decide that in the end even the thin veneer that is their “Trump criticism” isn’t worth keeping up if it means that Roe v. Wade gets repealed. Shapiro, who in what seems like a half-joke offered himself up as a Supreme Court nominee to Trump, Tweeted,

There are so many interesting things about Shapiro’s characterization of how the two major parties have interacted with the Supreme Court, including the pervasive conflation of “Democrats” with “the Left” that renders the “criticism” and “comedy” of people like Shapiro and Crowder unintelligible most of the time. First and foremost, conservatives have been happy to use the highest court in the land to produce legislation (see Second Amendment jurisprudence, which over the course of the 20th century reads increasingly like NRA ad copy rather than sound legal scholarship) and even invent whole new nonsensical ontological doctrines (like the notion that money is speech). Secondly, Shapiro continues in the regrettably persuasive rhetorical trend of framing originalism, a doctrine that is as “forced into” the Constitution as any living document theory, as simply “returning the court to its constitutional boundaries.” Thirdly.... ah, crap, I’ve gone off topic. Some arguments are so bad that they must be rebutted immediately. I digress. I quote the Tweet merely to say: for all of his anti-Trump posturing, I get the sense he will end up intellectually prostrating just like the rest of his colleagues in conservative media. To quote George V. Higgins, whose slept-on 1974 novel A City on a Hill reads like a study of the cronyistic governance we now find ourselves under, Shapiro “is like the rest of the horses: they’re getting thirsty, but they won’t drink till they’re ready.”

Despite these ongoing series of conversions to the Trump cause, the phrase #NeverTrump, originated by conservatives in 2016 who refused to vote for Trump even after he became the GOP nominee, persists in the discourse. After a series of Tweets in which he contradictorily described “preventing illegal immigration” as “not racist” while also describing such policy as “slowing massive demographic change,” Andrew Sullivan qualified his opinions on immigration policy with this admission: “Trump is not Hitler; I am not Neville Chamberlain; i’m a passionate Never-Trumper who wants to solve a problem that is empowering white nationalism everywhere.” Writing for Bloomberg, Albert R. Hunt calls the post-Kennedy retirement moment as “a hard time” for “Never Trump Republicans.” Emerald Robinson’s analysis of Never Trumpers in the present moment offers a similarly glum prognosis: “The Never Trump intellectual crowd has no momentum and no popular following these days.” Just two years ago, the thought that the host of The Celebrity Apprentice could come to define contemporary conservatism seemed laughable, even following his 2016 win. Most had the sense that Trump would fumble through whatever time he had in office, either until he was voted out, removed from office for any number of reasons (violations of the emoluments clause or Russia, take your pick), or if he got bored and quit. But in 2018, President Trump is finally winning.

“Never Trump” does, to some extent, accurately characterize the internecine squabbles amongst the conservative side of American politics. Some have been openly critical, and some, like George Will, have even called on Americans to vote for the Democrats to hold the Republicans to account. (Some have decided not to run for re-election in 2018, having successfully completed their life’s work of kicking poor people further down the curb to further enrich the already money-drenched upper strata of American society. Er, I mean, to spend time with their families.) But the term really should have died on November 8th, 2016. Since that day, the category of “Never Trump” has dwindled. What we really have that comes closest to “Never Trumpers” in the present day are “conservatives who occasionally criticize Trump.” Perhaps it’s just me, but I feel that “Never” carries a firm, imperative force that occasional criticism cannot live up to -- especially when that criticism becomes increasingly occasional. Admittedly, my point here is not novel: conservative commentator Jonah Golberg pronounced the Never Trump movement to be “nevermore” and over just a month after the Trump/Clinton election. Yet the name persists. Why?

One must question what “never” means in this context. Leading up to the election, the name made sense: it identified conservatives who would never vote for Trump. Clear enough. But once Trump won, what could “never” be describing? Never talk to him? Never support his policy decisions? Never identify with a party that christens Trump its leader? However one defines the “never” of “Never Trump” in the post-2016 political landscape, one thing unites all possible definitions: none of them accurately account for what the conservative movement in America has done to “counter” Trump. Anyone watching what’s happened to the GOP after 2016 could not come to any other conclusion that the GOP is Trump. That supposedly bold National Review issue feels like it was written decades ago.

As David Roberts convincingly argued earlier this year, the kind of Never Trump editorials that still get published by the “moderate” class of conservative -- your Sullivans, your Brookses, your Stephenses -- aren’t actually representative of the conservative movement by and large. The things that the Republican base likes about Trump -- his brashness, his vulgarity, his tough-guy attitude -- are anathema to the virtues prized by the conservative commentariat: civility, reason, balance. A columnist like David Brooks wants to present conservatism as a stable and philosophically considerate tradition: present-day conservatism in the GOP base wants to own the libs.

Now, I’m generally not the kind of person to tell someone that they can’t identify themselves politically however they wish. Moreover, though I grew up in an extremely conservative city, I no longer am a conservative myself, and as such I can’t say I have the insider’s knowledge of the movement as a whole. But I do feel comfortable in pointing out inconsistency, and like Goldberg I have a hard time accepting the continued usage of Never Trump outside of the very narrow conception “would never vote for Trump.” With Trump as president, and the GOP as his party, conservatives who still ally with the Republican party must ask themselves: “What does never really mean?” Without a bold proposal like Will’s call to vote for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, “never” in the current-day “Never Trump” reads a lot more like “Never Trump... until he does something we like.” Had there been a mass exodus of Republicans following 2016, maybe with the formation of a new conservative party, Never Trump would have felt like a true movement in the real sense, not merely a single “yes or no” choice at the ballot box. If one truly identifies as “Never Trump,” they have to maintain a pretty intense level of cognitive dissonance to continue identifying with the party that is increasingly being emblazoned with the all-caps, gold-colored name of Trump.

Some of the Never Trump crowd position their “never”-ness in superficially reasonable terms, as Shapiro attempted to in a recent interview with Bill Maher (11 minutes of unbearable smug which I would subtitle: “Alasdair MacIntyre was Right”). The argument goes something like this: “Look, I’m going to be level-headed about Trump. I’ll criticize him when he does something bad, and I’ll praise him when he does something good.” At first pass, this seems reasonable: it doesn’t have the intensity of a dogmatically negative or positive view of Trump, and it exhibits a rational standard of treatment. No one’s perfect, so you should criticize them when necessary, but when those same people do good, they should be rewarded. Sensible, no?

Not in the case of Trump. The same motivation that caused The National Review to publish its Against Trump issue is the same reason why Never Trump can’t exist in a world where “Never Trumpers” are either (a) still largely supportive of the Republican party or (b) likely to eventually turn over to Trump if he gives the party and its base enough of what they want. What the authors in the Against Trump issue saw in Trump -- the same thing that Romney and Shapiro and other conservative commentators saw -- is that if Trump was to become associated with the Republican party, its image would be irrevocably damaged. The reasons for this are obvious: the party of “family values” would be nominating a sleazy, New York media mogul who bragged about cheating on his wives (he’s now on his third); the party of the “heartland American people” would be backing a big-city Hollywood figure with numerous instance of screwing over the employees of his companies; the party that markets itself as having a philosophical heritage dating back to the Founding Fathers would be asking a guy with a comically paltry vocabulary to espouse its ideology; the party most committed to supporting the troops would have as its spokesman a guy who mocked a leading GOP senator who spent time as a POW in Vietnam for “being captured”; and, most damningly of all, the party which claims a monopoly on faith in America (and by faith I mean Christianity) would be throwing its weight behind a guy who embodies everything that Jesus Christ teaches against, what with his unrepentant egotism and love of gold idols. Nominating Trump, the Never Trump Republicans rightly recognized, would not merely be a political failing: it would be an act of hypocrisy whose magnitude had never been seen in the modern GOP, a moral collapse of such catastrophic proportions that anyone who continued to tie themselves to the GOP after a Trump nomination would be tacitly admitting that their political principles are easily expendable if short-term political gain can be actualized.

Well, Trump got the nomination, and rather than take a bold stance against that moral collapse of the GOP, the Never Trump crowd... waited. Never Trumpers knew that with all three branches of government under GOP sway -- with the takeover of the judiciary imminent -- that even an incompetent political figure like Trump could possibly manage some real conservative victories. Maybe those tax cuts would go through. Maybe Roe would be overturned. After a rocky start, the GOP started accruing political wins, gaining some traction in the process. Never Trumpers criticized the GOP on many occasions, but writing posts or issuing stern condemnations (cf. Senators McCain, Collins, and Flake) isn’t the same thing as holding one’s political party to account, particularly if, like those aforementioned Senators, they end up voting for all of the things the Trump-led GOP wants anyways. A quick look at FiveThirtyEight’s helpful data which tracks how often the current group of Senators votes in alignment with Trump is telling with regard to the political reality of Never Trump as a real movement:

That’s the lowest end of Republican support for Trump. Libertarian Rand Paul, who fashions himself an outsider in his own party, votes with the president two-thirds of the time. Republican “Trump critics” like Lindsey Graham and John McCain follow the party line at a rate even higher than that, as does “Conscientious Conservative” Jeff Flake. (Most interesting of all to me is the data showing several Democrats voting half or nearly half of the time with Trump, a clear reminder to the DNC that it isn’t the #resistance that it thinks it is, and to the conservative pundit class that the Democrats aren’t a far-left party, or even a left party.) 40 of the 51 Republican members of the Senate vote with Trump over 90 percent of the time. If that isn’t empirical proof that the Republican party isn’t the party of Trump, I don’t know what is. Perhaps the Never Trumpers could have never stopped the GOP embrace of Trump; in fact, I think that was always the likely scenario. But the turn from Against Trump to the full-throated endorsement of Trump in the GOP doesn’t just highlight the party’s desperate grasp at power as its popular support continues to dwindle: it shows the Never Trumpers that their political party was never really what they thought it was. Trump, as a friend of mine put it, didn’t say anything new to change the Republican party: he merely “said the soft parts loud and the loud parts soft.”

Now, at this point I’ve largely staked my claims on hypocrisy and moral failings. As I wrote in my inaugural piece for this website, hypocrisy lost any moral force it might have ever had in Washington a long time ago, so merely saying to a political party, “Hey, you’re not living up to your ideals!” doesn’t do much politically and feels cheap at the level of accusation. For me, the reason why we must sternly rebuke any attempt to keep the Never Trump brand active in political discourse is because of the obvious rhetorical strategy inherent to it: namely, once Trump is out of office, it gives Republicans a built-in apology tour, one that I regret to say will likely be persuasive to many people.

At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul Ryan nonspecifically admonished his party to realize the err of their ways in the GW Bush years: “The Republican victories that began in 1980 were inspired here at CPAC. But as a conservative, I admit my party took success for granted. The Republican Party disregarded its roots - losing direction, sacrificing principles and failing to offer a vision relevant to most Americans.” After the rise of the Tea Party and the subsequent Republican electoral successes in the 2010 midterms, it became immediately unclear what policies Ryan thought represented the GOP’s abandonment of its principles. The policies that characterize the Bush years -- military interventionism and the expansion of the imperial United States, supply-side economics, to name a few -- remained party orthodoxy in 2010 onward, albeit in a much more intense, anti-government incarnation than had existed before. Still, the GOP may not have really tried to course-correct in the way that Ryan suggested in 2009, but at the time Ryan’s words made sense, given Barack Obama’s sweeping 2008 electoral victory and the general feeling that Bush would go down as one of the worst presidents in recent memory, in large part for the perpetual warfare his administration brought to the Middle East and the increasingly invasive security state. I remember people applauding Ryan’s words back then, and it’s easy to see why. After a massive failure, you should own up to it. For a minute it seemed like Ryan, then a rising star in his party, was actually doing that.

Flash-forward to when Trump is out of office, whenever that might be. I can already see the reams of teary-eyed mea culpas that will wallpaper the op-ed sections of magazines and newspapers nationwide: “We lost our way!” “We abandoned our principles!” “A few brave souls in our party spoke out, but not enough of us listened to them!” So long as the phrase “Never Trump” exists in the political discourse, it allows Republicans of all stripes to claim that the party was not monolithic under Trump, and that many did actually try to resist his agenda. If there are pleasant New York Times columnists who claim to be conservative and from time to time call Trump out for his degradation of the office of the president, the GOP can pivot to those types as speakers for “a new direction in conservatism.” The Never Trumpers can see this too: reading the work of people like Shapiro, it’s easy to detect that the minute Trump is out of office, they’ll perform some entirely undeserved grandstanding, claiming that the “rough times” are behind the GOP and that now they can focus on enacting government policies based on conservative principles -- all the while relishing those victories the party won under Trump.

Never Trump Republicans don’t exist anymore. To label oneself a Republican in 2018 is to take on the burden of knowing that whatever policy wins you claim between 2016 and 2020 are largely owed to Trump being in office. Remember, the reason why Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016, to the shock of just about every prognosticator on both sides of the political spectrum, was precisely because he bore no resemblance to nice-guy party rubes like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. As was the case in the Tea Party-dominated 2010 elections, in which a gaggle of largely inexperienced (politically speaking) small-government types took over Washington, the Republican base was tired of Republicans. With Trump, those voters have gotten what they wanted in 2016: to remake the party in Trump’s image. (Note that the title of this article and the thrust of my argument is that there are no Never Trump Republicans; this does not mean that there couldn’t be Never Trump conservatives, though in order to be consistent politically those conservatives would either [a] need to form a new coalition and caucus with the Democrats, which shouldn’t be too difficult given how much to the right Democrats have drifted since Bill Clinton’s first term, or [b] form a new party entirely.)

A simple if absurd analogy can help boil down my point here. Suppose a presidential candidate knocks on my door tomorrow to let me know about their vision for America, which looks a lot like mine. To name a few policies: they’d eliminate the Electoral College, they’d advocate for Medicare for All or some other form of universal healthcare, and they’d set in place much easier and more direct policies for immigration and asylum seeking. All of it sounds great, and I’m almost immediately on board with them. But then, right as they’re preparing to wrap up their pitch, they say, “I will also personally ensure that every single person named Ryan in the United States is executed by public hanging.”

Now, for 99 percent of their spiel, I’m on board. It’s only the whole Ryan-killing business that really puts me off. But the Ryan-killing thing is a massive, unacceptable moral catastrophe, one that would not even be worth it if this candidate actually was able to pass all of those policies that are so important to me. Even if my primary political identity was centered on those policies passing, it would be unacceptable for me to align myself with someone who would in the process of pursuing those other policies murder countless innocent people. If the political party I identified with (full disclosure: I’m an independent) saw it fit to nominate this person for the presidential ticket, I would renounce my membership immediately. I could not associate with such a party, even if I agreed with it on the overwhelming majority of things. This is why comments like Crowder’s “despite personal disagreements, @realDonaldTrump is absolutely the right man for THIS job at this time in history,” or Shapiro’s “I’ll criticize him when he’s bad and praise him when he’s good” strategy are extremely disingenuous. Not coming to a consensus on whether or not the 1997 John Woo action film Face/Off is “so bad it’s good” or just straight-up good is a “personal disagreement,” one that doesn’t necessarily impinge on other agreements you might have with a person or group. The things one has to own up to with Trump -- and since he was christened the party’s president, yes, Republicans must own up to it -- cut deeply against the party’s ethos, to a degree that the very credibility of the party itself is completely rubbished. If you’re willing to call that a “personal disagreement” that you’d put up with to get a Supreme Court seat, then you’d put up with just about anything.

When it comes to Trump, of course, the hypothetical Ryans of America can rest easy, unless they happen to be trying to seek asylum for Mexico or are any woman that has to live with the fact that the man deemed worthy to lead the country has profoundly little respect for women, and has on multiple occasions made sexually creepy comments about his adult daughter. But the party leadership of the GOP and their supporters in the media class should have stopped resting easy the moment Trump won the party’s nomination. RNC delegates should have been faithless if they really believed the core worldview of the Republican party: small government, family values, the Judeo-Christian tradition, among many others. Trump believes in none of that. Above all else, he believes in himself, and to believe in Trump is to believe in wealth, and accruing it in whatever means is most expedient. (As it turns out, treating a private, for-profit property you own into a “Winter White House” that gets directly funneled taxpayer money is a pretty good way to do that.) By nominating Trump and spurning the principles that it touts as its intellectual and moral tentposts, the Republican party showed the world that it stands for nothing other than political gain. Such a (tacit) admission may seem old-hat, given just how cynical most people’s view of politics actually is, but even my cynical eye was stunned by everything about Trump and his ascendancy. Surely, I thought, if the GOP actually greenlit Trump’s candidacy, there would have to be defections unlike any we’ve seen before in either the Democratic or Republican parties -- not enough to totally cripple the GOP, mind, but defections nonetheless. But then they didn’t happen, and that’s when I knew.

From the moment Trump won that fateful night in November 2018, “Never Trump” disappeared as a real description of anything resembling a moderate conservative wing of the GOP. Now, Never Trump exists as a rhetorical and intellectual life raft for a party that finds itself simultaneously with all the political power it could possibly want and out to sea. Once Trump is gone and the rest of the party leaders are left thrashing in the choppy waters they’ve caused with their recklessness, they will cling on to “Never Trump” in the hopes that it will get them back ashore and in the good graces of the American public. Some will welcome them back out of sympathy. Some may even think, seeing the people bobbing amongst the waves, that the GOP will have learned the error of its ways. But none of us should be so naive. While forgiveness is a virtue, if moral and intellectual consistency mean anything at all, they would tell us that there comes a point at which a political party crosses a line from which it can never come back. By accepting Donald Trump, the GOP communicated that there are no lines which it would cross in order to advance its political agenda, even if that means fundamentally betraying their self-professed core convictions. It is our task as responsible citizens of a republic to remind the Republican party that there are no take-backs in Faustian bargains. Nor should there be.

#Donald Trump #NeverTrump #Mitt Romney #Ben Shapiro #The National Review #Glenn Beck #Jeff Flake #Susan Collins #Republican Party #GOP #Steven Crowder #John McCain #conservatism

2 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 4 years ago

Text

Thursday, April 1, 2021

Eager to build infrastructure, Biden plans to tax business (AP) President Joe Biden wants $2 trillion to reengineer America’s infrastructure and expects the nation’s corporations to pay for it. The president travels to Pittsburgh on Wednesday to unveil what would be a hard-hatted transformation of the U.S. economy as grand in scale as the New Deal or Great Society programs that shaped the 20th century. The Democratic president’s infrastructure projects would be financed by higher corporate taxes—a trade-off that could lead to fierce resistance from the business community and thwart any attempts to work with Republicans lawmakers. The White House says the largest chunk of the proposal includes $621 billion for roads, bridges, public transit, electric vehicle charging stations and other transportation infrastructure. Another $111 billion would go to replace lead water pipes and upgrade sewers. Broadband internet would blanket the country for $100 billion. Separately, $100 billion would upgrade the power grid to deliver clean electricity. Homes would get retrofitted, schools modernized, workers trained and hospitals renovated under the plan, which also seeks to strengthen U.S. manufacturing.

States struggle to get rent relief to tenants amid pandemic (AP) Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced last July that New York would spend $100 million in federal coronavirus relief to help cash-strapped tenants pay months of back rent and avert evictions. By the end of October, the state had doled out only about $40 million, reaching 15,000 of the nearly 100,000 people looking for help. More than 57,000 applicants were denied because of criteria set by lawmakers that many said was difficult to meet. New York’s experience played out nationwide, with states failing to spend tens of millions of federal dollars aimed at helping renters avoid eviction. Burdensome requirements, poorly administered programs and landlords refusing to cooperate meant tens of thousands of tenants never got assistance. Some states also shifted funding away from rental relief, fearing they’d miss a year-end mandate to spend the money—a deadline that got extended. The problem, housing advocates said, was that the federal government didn’t specifically earmark any of the coronavirus aid for rental relief, leaving states scrambling to set up programs with no guidance on how the money should be allocated.

Child tweets gibberish from US nuclear-agency account (BBC) A young child inadvertently sparked confusion over the weekend by posting an unintelligible tweet to the official account of US Strategic Command. The agency is responsible for safeguarding America’s nuclear weapons. Some social-media users feared the account may have been hacked. But it has since been revealed a young member of the account’s social-media manager’s family was responsible for posting the tweet, “;l;;gmlxzssaw”, which was then deleted within minutes. Turns out their Twitter manager left his computer unattended, resulting in his “very young child” commandeering the keyboard.

Brazil is rocked by political turmoil as pandemic outlook darkens (Washington Post) Six cabinet members are out. The military’s top leaders are also gone. And it’s only Tuesday. First came the Monday morning exit of Brazil’s foreign minister, a right-wing ideologue blamed for failing to secure enough coronavirus vaccines. Then the defense minister was gone. Then the justice minister was replaced. Tuesday morning brought still more tumult: the departures of the navy, army and air force chiefs. The exits have sent political shock waves across Latin America’s largest country, precipitating the most politically uncertain moment of President Jair Bolsonaro’s two-year-plus tenure. Brazil must now face what public health analysts say could be the darkest weeks of the pandemic with a raft of new officials and an incoherent national strategy. The sudden moves—some expected, others not—suggested mounting political desperation in the presidential palace. Health systems have collapsed. Some 2,600 people are dying of the coronavirus every day. And Brazilians are increasingly looking to blame the failures of the pandemic on Bolsonaro, who has never appeared more vulnerable. Earlier this month, the leader of the congress implied the president may face impeachment. If Bolsonaro is to have any shot at maintaining power, quieting calls for impeachment and eventually winning reelection, he has to start making changes, analysts said.

Buildup in conflict in Eastern Ukraine (NYT) The war in eastern Ukraine, which has been on a low simmer for months, drawing little international attention, has escalated sharply in recent days, according to statements Tuesday from the Ukrainian and Russian governments. In the deadliest engagement so far this year, four Ukrainian soldiers were killed and another seriously wounded in a battle against Russian-backed separatists in the Donetsk Region of eastern Ukraine, the country’s military said. The soldiers’ deaths, along with a buildup of Russian forces on the border, has seized the attention of senior American officials in Europe and Washington. In the past week, the U.S. military’s European Command raised its watch level from possible crisis to potential imminent crisis—the highest level—in response to the deployment of the additional Russian troops.

Myanmar junta deepens violence with new air attacks in east (AP) The military launched more airstrikes Tuesday in eastern Myanmar after earlier attacks forced thousands of ethnic Karen to flee into Thailand and further escalating violence two months after the junta seized power. The Karen National Union, the main political body representing the Karen minority, said the airstrikes were the latest case of Myanmar’s military breaking a cease-fire agreement and it would have to respond. The attacks came as protests continued in Myanmar cities against the coup Feb. 1 that ousted an elected civilian government and reversed a decade of progress toward democracy in the Southeast Asian country. Hundreds of civilians have been killed by security forces trying to put down opposition to the coup.

Continued questions over pandemic origins (Financial Times) The head of the World Health Organization has called for further investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic after the report on its mission to Wuhan left important questions unanswered. “As far as WHO is concerned, all hypotheses remain on the table,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO. The remarks amounted to a rebuke of China, which has sought to shield international experts from examining its early response to the outbreak in Wuhan and play down the country’s role in the spread of the virus worldwide. Tedros was joined by 14 countries, including the US and the UK, that expressed “shared concerns” over the WHO study in a joint statement issued on Tuesday.

Taiwan under threat (Foreign Policy) Twenty Chinese planes intruded into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone last Friday, the largest incursion yet. The maneuver signals growing provocation around Taiwan ahead of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party on July 23. The intrusions have become so common that Taiwanese airplanes have stopped scrambling in response. The United States has responded by loosening restrictions to make it easier for U.S. officials to meet with their Taiwanese counterparts. While there are serious concerns about who would prevail in a hypothetical invasion, it’s important to remember that any Chinese attack on Taiwan would likely be telegraphed well in advance. The size of forces needed, and the Taiwanese-Chinese intelligence penetration of each other’s militaries, means strategic surprise is probably out of the question.

A growing challenge for Iraq: Iran-aligned Shiite militias (AP) It was a stark message: A convoy of masked Shiite militiamen, armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, drove openly through central Baghdad denouncing the U.S. presence in Iraq and threatening to cut off the prime minister’s ear. The ominous display underscored the growing threat that rogue militias loyal to Tehran pose for Iraq. It came at a time when Baghdad seeks to bolster relations with its Arab neighbors and is gearing up for early elections, scheduled for October, amid a worsening economic crisis and a global pandemic. Last week’s procession also sought to undermine Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s credibility, with Iran-aligned militias driving down a major highway and passing near ministries as Iraqi security forces looked on. Ahead of a new round of talks between the U.S. government and Iraq, it sent a stark warning that the militias will not be curbed.

In stark warning, Egypt leader says Nile water ‘untouchable’ (AP) Egypt’s president said Tuesday his country’s share of the Nile River’s waters are “untouchable” in a stark warning apparently to Ethiopia, which is building a giant dam on the Nile’s main tributary. The comment from President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi comes amid a deadlock in the yearslong talks over the dam between the Nile Basin countries, which also includes Sudan. In a news conference, el-Sissi warned of “instability that no one can imagine” in the region if the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is filled and operated without a legally binding agreement. The dispute centers on the speed at which a planned reservoir is filled behind the dam, the method of its annual replenishment, and how much water Ethiopia will release downstream if a multi-year drought occurs. Another point of difference is how the three countries would settle any future disputes.

Inactivity kills (Euronews) Inactivity is currently the world’s fourth leading cause of death. It’s a problem often confused and conflated with laziness and personal choice, but in reality the issue is geographic, systemic, and woven into the structure of modern living. In short: if we want to fix our increasingly sedentary world, we have to redesign it. Political correspondent and cycling enthusiast Peter Walker dedicates a chapter of his new book to this exact issue. The Miracle Pill: Why a sedentary world is getting it all wrong is an eye-opening read, addressing our global inactivity problem and suggesting solutions for readers. Currently, 1.5 billion people around the world are so inactive they are risking their long-term physical health. Every year an estimated 5.3 million people die from causes related to inactive living—roughly the population of Norway. An extraordinary 80 per cent of British children move so little that they face a future with poorly developed cardiovascular systems, weak bones and chronic illness. Solving this sedentary crisis requires, in part, a rethink in how we design our towns and cities. “We’ve designed the world such that in many, many places driving is more or less the only thing you can do,” Walker tells me. But if we could all harness the power of activity, our lives could be dramatically altered. The book’s name—The Miracle Pill—relates to a study in Denmark that tracked 30,000 randomly selected people over the course of 15 years. After adjusting for all other factors, the people who cycled to and from work (an average commute of just 15 minutes across the group) were 40 per cent less likely to have died during the research period. “It’s this sort of statistic which helps you understand why some experts can go a bit misty-eyed when they talk about activity,” Walker writes in the book, “it’s also why so many of them compare everyday movement to the miracle-giving pill.”

Lego thieves (The Guardian) French police, who say they are building a case against an international gang of toy thieves specializing in stealing Lego, have warned specialist shops and even parents to be aware of the global trade of the bricks. The alert comes after officers arrested a woman and two men last June as they attempted to steal boxes of Lego from a toy shop in Yvelines, outside Paris. The suspects, all from Poland, reportedly admitted they were part of a team stealing Lego sought by collectors. “They come to France, set up in a hotel in the Paris region, then set about raiding toy stores before returning to Poland to sell off their haul,” the officer said. A Lego specialist who advises the online auction platform for buying and selling collectibles says sales on the French site doubled last year. “Investing in these pieces isn’t new but this niche market has reached new heights with the pandemic. People have more time at home because of the health restrictions and the game market has exploded. We often have more than 1,000 Lego sales a week,” he said.

#headlines #news

0 notes

gravitascivics · 4 years ago

Text

UNDEMOCRATIC FEATURES HURTING THE LEFT

[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous postings. Of late, the blog has been looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their subject. It’s time to post a series of such summary accounts. The advantage of such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and arguments. This and upcoming summary postings will be preceded by this message.]

The last couple of postings reviewed how the right of center advocates are facing disadvantages and how, in turn, many of these citizens’ cherished beliefs or attitudes are being, at least in their eyes, threatened. But the right of center community is not the only faction feeling these disadvantages. The left also finds that its positions and policy choices are not being given fair hearing. The reasons for this are the topic of this posting and those reasons further explain what is fueling the polarized politics of today.

Victimized by these features is the Democratic Party. That party has suffered from undemocratic provisions of this nation’s constitutional arrangement. These features, as a consequence, favor the Republican Party. In addition, they undermine what the system claims to be, that is a democracy.

When one questions such a basic attribute, one needs to define his/her terms. By democracy this writer means a political system that exhibits two political qualities. One, it depends ultimately on the people deciding what direction its governmental policies will take – usually through the decisions made by the people’s representatives.[1] And two, in choosing those representatives each citizen has an equal voice or, as the old adage goes, one man/woman, one vote.

Probably the feature that attracts the most attention is the reliance on the Electoral College to choose the nation’s president. It becomes most relevant every four years when that selection is made. Under the above standard of equal voice, the people would select the president in a straight popular winner-take-all voting system. But the Electorate College, for reasons not necessary to review here (given how much press it gets), does allow for the vote-getting loser to win the election as was the case in 2000 and 2016.[2]

And since states with the highest urban populations tend to be of urban character in politics and other social realms, this structurally hurts liberally biased citizens. But structural bias does not end with the Electoral College. One political scientist who has looked into this is Jonathan Rodden. [3]

His research points out that in his review of US House elections since 2012 to 2019, Democratic candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican opponents, yet Democrats only secured 45% of the seats of those various Congresses. And since 2002, this imbalanced result has happened more often than not. As a matter of fact, for Democrats to win a Congress majority, they need to win overwhelmingly at the polls. And this undemocratic result also happens at the state level where Democrats, on a regular basis, are underrepresented, compared to how people vote in state legislature elections.

Why? The usual cited reason is gerrymandering. That is the conscious drawing of representation districts so that one party, the Republican Party, is benefited over the other, the Democratic Party. Given that Democratic support tends to be concentrated in urban areas, this factor causes Democratic voters to be “bunched” geographically. This allows for those who control state legislatures – often Republicans – to draw district lines purposefully to maintain their advantages. Those lines are drawn every ten years and they rely on the census data that is collected in years ending in zero, e.g., 2020.

But Rodden’s research, while acknowledging the effect of gerrymandering, points out a surprising finding. It turns out that this undemocratic result is not unique to the US. When surveying various democratic systems, this underrepresentation of urban areas – or over representation of rural areas – affects all British derived systems. That is, the systems of Great Britain and all of the former colonized areas of British rule – e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Canada.

All of these systems have majoritarian, district elections. Those elections select one representative per district and that person is the candidate who wins the majority of votes in the respective district. That can be compared to continental European elections where the selections of representatives are not winner-take-all affairs.

There, the districts are larger, and voters elect a slate of representatives reflecting which of them received the most votes. For example, if a district is to have three representatives, the top three vote getters each win a seat. The result, therefore, is that winners represent more than just the majority of voters of a district; they represent the nation-wide majority.

This writer has thought of another solution. That would be the creation of a fourth branch of government; one that would be charged with all aspects regarding elections in the national government – perhaps states could have the same comparable branch at their level. The members of that branch would run elections, draw district lines, determine winners, and, to promote the democratic quality of the system, encourage participation.

How the officials are chosen can be thought out so as to minimize partisan drives or motivations that those fourth branch officials might have. Short of that, perhaps these functions could be assigned to the courts instead of the legislatures. There are several problems, though, with judges making these decisions.

One, in states, judges are mostly elected and would probably have motivations to treat these functions in a more partisan way. Two, judges are already busy enough with the law. And three, these functions deserve their own expertise, i.e., people handling elections call for specialized knowledge having little to do with the intricacies of laws, per se. Therefore, this overall function deserves its own independent branch along with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

[1] This definition is a bit informal. A true democracy doesn’t have representatives but holds large assemblages in which all citizens are invited to attend and express their wishes over proposed policies. Some call that a direct democracy as was the case in ancient Athens. Once representatives are instituted, one has a republic or democratic republic. Given the impracticality of having a direct democracy in a polity the size of nation, like the US, the term democracy is readily used to describe what the US has.

[2] Okay, a quick review: The Electoral College, that elects the president, is made up of state delegations of “electors” that usually allocates all its votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state from which the delegation emanates. Problem is that the number of each state’s electors is made up of the total number of representatives that state has in Congress: that’s two senators (no matter how large that state’s population is) and the number of House representatives which is based on population, but each has at least one elector (no matter how small that state’s population is).

This provision can distort the national popular vote sufficiently in that the candidate who does not win the popular vote can win a majority in the Electoral College and with that, the White House. It’s rare, but it has happened too often, for some.

[3] Jonathan Rodden, Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2019). The argument and evidence shared in this posting on this issue is derived from Rodden’s book.

#polarized politics #Electoral College #gerrymandering #democracy #Jonathan Rodden #civics education #social studies

0 notes

englishchinesetranslations · 4 years ago

Link

Critical Race Theory is a Victimization Cult

JUNE 29, 2020 ART KELLER

It is not a particularly unique observation to notice that the Critical Social Justice movement, particularly the part that embraces Critical Race Theory, bears tremendous resemblance to a secular religion. When asked about that similarity, sociologist Bradley Campbell, author of The Rise of Victimhood Culture, explained, I think it’s similar to a lot of utopian political movements in having similarities to religion. Those at the forefront of the movement, who wholeheartedly embrace an oppression/victimhood worldview derived from Critical Theory, and who see it as providing a basis for a call for repentance and change in their own lives and the lives of others, and as a call to restructure social institutions, seem to have embraced something very much like a religion. In my own work I’ve called it a “moral culture” rather than a religion, and I think that’s probably more accurate. We could call it “social justice culture,” or as Jason Manning and I called it, “victimhood culture,” but in any case, it’s a worldview that places a certain conception of social justice as the highest value. In this view oppression permeates social institutions and interactions, and social justice means fighting this oppression.

Drawing from critical theory, those who embrace this moral culture tend to view various social identities as the most important thing about people, and they see those identities as oppressor or victim identities. To be white, male, Christian, or straight, for example is to have a privileged position in a system of oppression, and to be a person of color, female, non-Christian, or LGBT is to be disadvantaged. Those who embrace the new moral culture aren’t alone wanting to address oppression and injustice, but they tend to see it in a particular way and to interpret everything in these terms…interpreting everything in terms of oppression and in elevating those concerns above all others seems to have led many of the activists to disregard liberal values such as due process and free speech.

While there is much merit in Professor Campbell’s analysis, I wonder whether it goes far enough. Religion, when taken to extremes, tends no longer to promote love, acceptance, and a sense of community and fulfillment—the stated goals of most religions. Religious extremism promotes violence, intolerance, tribalism, and a deliberately confused mental state in its adherents. When that happens, when religion “goes to the dark side,” we stop using the term religion, and start using the word “cult.” As a former CIA officer, I know what that kind of cult looks like. I can’t write about my own counterterror operations, or any training I may have gotten from the CIA in persuasion and indoctrination without having to submit it for pre-publication review to the CIA.

But nothing stops me from highlighting the work of others on the same topic, so we can see what the ideological conversion of a cult looks like up close and personal. Some of the best journalism on the terror group ISIS—a cult within a religion—was done by Rukmini Callimachi, whose Peabody-winning podcast, The Caliphate presents a grim journey into the heart of darkness. It is not for the faint of heart, as it includes detailed descriptions of beatings, gruesome executions, and religiously-justified systematic rape. The Caliphate follows a young Canadian whose nom de guerre is Abu Huzayfah. He starts as an ISIS fanboy watching videos of violence in the Syrian civil war, but when he shows up in online chat forums about the war, he gets engaged by lurking ISIS recruiters who use techniques explicitly designed to rob converts of the ability to think critically. Eventually he finds himself in Syria, operating as an ISIS policeman, flogging a man bloody for the crime of not forcing his wife into a niqab, and executing fellow Sunni Muslims (who ISIS claims to protect) for the crime of not surrendering abjectly to ISIS. And how does he justify murdering follow Sunni Muslims? It’s their fault, apparently. He had no agency in their deaths, even though he pulled the trigger.

By not turning their town over to ISIS the instant ISIS appeared, “They killed themselves,” he stated. He finishes his direct involvement by fleeing ISIS territory after his second murder on their behalf, disillusioned, but no less full of willful blindness about the harm caused by his radical views, as well as convenient self-justifications for why he doesn’t need to confess his murders to the Canadian police. This story, though far more brutal and gruesome, contains elucidating parallels to the rapid rise of Critical Race Theory in contemporary Western culture. Though there are many obvious differences, given our present context, it’s worth examining how ISIS and Al Qaeda lure in recruits in some detail. From Chapter 2 of The Caliphate: The speakers in this lengthy snippet of conversation are Callimachi, Abu Huzayfah, and Jesse Morton, an Al Qaeda recruiter who reveals exactly how he manipulated recruits into embracing Al Qaeda’s murderous ideology.

Huzayfah: I actually just started talking to them. You know, like, “Hello, how are you?”

Callimachi: And if you’re searching for an identity, and you don’t necessarily have a community that you really fit into ——

Huzayfah: Oh, it felt like, you know, wow. These guys — it’s easier to talk to them. Like, they’re more accepting of you.

Callimachi: This becomes your community.

Huzayfah: And I started asking questions about jihad and everything, what their viewpoint was, and how does — how is jihad, like, right? I would even put out things that I thought were wrong with jihad, like how is killing accepted? How is suicide bombings accepted? And they’d always give religious justifications.

Callimachi: What were the techniques that you, yourself, used to draw people in?

Morton: So you do that through the ideology. That’s the framework. At the same time, this individual is wide-eyed and asking you questions, like are suicide, uh, martyrdom operations permissible in Islam?

Callimachi: Can you give me examples of people that you recruited and explain to me how you did it?

Morton: Well, essentially, once you have an audience, once a person expresses an interest by email, or once you see that they are logging consistently into your conversation room —— What you have to do is you have to frame their personal grievance (emphasis added) in a way that is making them think that they can contribute to a broader cause. And we utilize three primary principles that are part of the jihadi or the Salafi jihadi, as they really call it, worldview.

Callimachi: And Jesse explained to me that there are actual steps that the recruiters are taught. Essentially, three steps. Three concepts, he called it. Morton: They are based upon interpretations of the Quran, and they are based upon references in Hadith.

Callimachi: Some of them are concepts that every Muslim, you know, believes in. But what they do is they sharpen them, and then eliminate any other understanding of these concepts (emphasis added) to the point where the person now believes that the only choice they have is to join an armed jihad.

Morton: The first principle to teach is what you call tawheed al-hakkimiya.

Callimachi: Tawheed al-hakkimiya, which is also sometimes called tawheed al-hakkimiya

Callimachi: The concept of tawheed means monotheism, a single God. But what the jihadists have done is they take tawheed, they take monotheism, to this completely other level.

Morton: Which is basically the belief in Allah requires belief that Allah is the lawgiver, the legislator, the one who developed the Shariah.

Callimachi: The only form of governance that the jihadists believe is acceptable is governance according to Shariah law, which they believe is divine law. This is the corpus of Islamic jurisprudence that was written down and shaped after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century.

Morton: And what you do with that is you teach people that unless you have this belief, which most of the Muslims in the world don’t, you’re not a Muslim, really. You don’t understand your religion.

Callimachi: So you living in Canada and paying your taxes or voting in an election or abiding by the laws of that society negates your belief in God as the legislator, because that is not Shariah law, right? And your participation in that makes you an infidel. It basically expels you from the fold of Islam. It’s that radical.

Callimachi: Concept number two. Morton: What you do is you take it to the next principle, which we call kufr bi taghut.

Huzayfah: Once you’re declaring that there is one God only, one God, then you have kufr bi taghut. Morton: Which is a rejection of the false gods. Really, it means idols.

Callimachi: You’re supposed to rebel against false idols. It’s one thing to say, O.K., I live in Canada, I believe in Shariah law, so therefore, I’m not gonna vote, I’m not gonna pay my taxes, I’m not going to, you know, take part in municipal elections, I’m not gonna take part in any of that. That’s not enough.

Callimachi: They say that during the life of the Prophet Muhammad, there was an incident where he comes back to Mecca, and he goes to the Kaaba, which is that black cube structure. It’s considered the first mosque in Islam. And he apparently entered it, and he found it full of idols, and immediately he goes and smashes them. He destroys them.

Callimachi: So what did the jihadists do with this? If you have accepted that God is the lawgiver, right? Then the idol is anything that takes away from that idea.

Callimachi: So the democratically elected president of your country? That is an idol. The ballot box? That is an idol. The act of voting? That is an idol. And if you are a good Muslim, you don’t just let an idol sit around, right? You destroy it (emphasis added).

Morton: The third principle is al wala wal bara. Morton: Which means that your allegiance is to the Muslims only.

Callimachi: In Arabic, it means loyalty and disavowal or loyalty and rejection. I’ve heard ISIS members translate it as loyalty and hatred.

Huzayfah: Al wala wal bara, because if you’re believing there is one God, you’ll have to hate and love everything that God loves and hates. So that’s al wala wal bara.

Callimachi: It’s basically the concept of us versus them (emphasis added), which just kind of seals it. Morton: To reject contact and support for everyone else outside of the jihadi movement, including other Muslims, and you must sacrifice in the way of Islam for the sake of the global Muslim population.

Callimachi: So that means you don’t just reject the society that you’re in. You don’t just reject its leaders. You also reject your Christian friends. You also reject your Muslim parents, if your mother is not a practicing Muslim and is properly covered up, or if your father is forbidding you from joining the Islamic State, which is the only lawful form of government that there is.

Huzayfah: It says in the Quran, you have to enter the religion in totality. You can’t just cherry-pick.

Callimachi: And Jesse talks about how when you get them to that third stage ——

Morton: Once they’re indoctrinated to a certain degree-you could essentially do anything you wanted with them (emphasis added). Perhaps needless to say, any group that wants to move adherents into a state where it can do anything it wants with them has gone well past whatever beneficial aspects major religions purport to deliver and moved firmly into destructive-cult territory. Steven Hassan, an expert on cults, was himself once lured into the “Moonie” cult before figuring out, with the aid of his family, that a deluded fat Korean billionaire that owned a factory that was churning out AR-15 assault rifles was probably not, in fact, the Messiah. In Hassan’s book, Combating Cult Mind Control, he outlines what he calls the “BITE model” of cult manipulation. Not every cult follows every aspect of the BITE model, but every cult does some or most of the BITE techniques. These techniques begin lightly and get increasingly severe as cult recruitment progresses from initiation to indoctrination into reprogramming. These techniques are relevant in all cult contexts.

They are also clearly evidenced in the moral panic sweeping the country, which operates through the ideology of Critical Race Theory. [James Lindsay: For the last several weeks, my Twitter DMs, private messages, and email are bombarded daily by messages from scared and upset people reporting the sinister instances of CRT in action in their own lives—from their workplaces to their institutions to their social lives and to their romantic relationships—the phrases and actions in brackets following each BITE bullet point are examples of how CRT is showing up in real life. Each echoes a commonplace sentiment in the CRT research and popular literature and its related social activism.]

The B in BITE is Behavior Control. It includes Instill dependence and obedience [“Do better”] Modify behavior with rewards and punishments [“This apology leaves a lot out and is still very racist”] Dictate where and with whom you live [This is most nearly applicable in schools and various “spaces” that are to be “desegregated,” by which is meant excluding white and white-adjacent people in the name of inclusion; easily extends to living arrangements] Restrict or control your sexuality [more prominent in queer and trans activism than CRT, but characterizing lack of attraction to certain features as racism and attraction to them as exoticization and fetishization] Control your clothing and hairstyle [cultural appropriation, decolonizing hair and fashion] Exploit you financially [“…here’s my cashapp for all this emotional labor,” make sure you donate to the cause in these approved ways and we’re compiling a list (through contribution matching, say) of people who do and don’t] Restrict your leisure time activities [demands to use leisure time in “critical self-reflection” and reading anti-racist materials or be accused of racism]

Require you to seek permission for major decisions [cultural appropriation, can get far worse (recall college president George Bridges at The Evergreen State College asking to go to the bathroom and being told to hold it by student activists)] Require you to spend major time on group indoctrination and rituals, including self-indoctrination on the internet [“do the work,” post the hashtag, black out your image, read these resources, share these articles, retweet these accounts] The I is Information Control Deliberately withhold and distort information [decolonize the curriculum, remove “white” sources from the canon and education, characterize disagreement as “privilege-preserving” or “race-traitorous”] Forbid you from communicating with ex members and critics [cancel culture, conservatives and liberals are Nazis]

Restrict access to non-cult sources of information [Those resources are written from a racist position in order to uphold white supremacy] Compartmentalize information to insider vs outsider doctrine [Same as above] Use information gained in confession sessions against you [Confess that you complicit in racism, then use this against the person by saying they’re a “known” or “confessed racist”]

Gaslight to make you doubt your own memory [Black Lives Matter is just about the fact that the lives of black people matter too, these protests are peaceful and the riots just the voice of the silenced finding room to breathe] Require you to report your thoughts and feelings to superiors [forced confessions of complicity in racism or else one suffers white fragility] Encourage you to spy and report on others’ misconduct [cancel and dox culture]

Use “Big Brother” surveillance methods [everyone has a camera in their pocket and will load any racist behavior they can find onto the internet in a heartbeat] The T is Thought Control Teach you to internalize to internalize group doctrine as “Truth” (a la Robert Lifton’s “sacred science”) [Lived experience is the best arbiter of “lived realities”;

Critical Race Theory is sociology, race research, or even “science,” real science suffers white biases and isn’t to be trusted, Critical Race Theory uses emotion and stories and thus is authentic, disagreement with Critical Race Theory is always ideologically and politically motivated by white supremacy; you need to forward black and brown voices; believe black (women); disagreement is false consciousness/internalized racism/willful or white ignorance]

Instill Black vs. White, Us vs Them, and Good vs. Evil thinking [racist versus anti-racist; there is no not-racist; choosing not to be anti-racist is choosing racism; there is no neutral; brown complicity is a form of anti-blackness that is pushed upon brown people by white supremacy and upholds it]

Change your identity, possibly even your name [Ibram X. Kendi’s real name is Ibram Henry Rogers, for example, but the demand to change the victims’ names is not yet prominent in CRT; it does require adopting a Woke activist identity, such as “politically Black” or “queer” however]

Use loaded language and clichés to stop critical/complex thought [all of the words “racist,” “antiracist,” “fascist,” “antifascist,” “Nazi,” “alt-right,” “sexist,” “misogynist,” “homophobe,” “transphobe,” “ableist,” “fatphobic,” and so on and endlessly so forth are clear examples; others include “white fragility”; “sounds about white”; “check your privilege”; “somebody’s triggered”] Teach thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thinking and reality testing [“oh, look, another white man giving his opinion on Critical Race Theory”; disagreement is a means of “privilege-preserving epistemic pushback” just meant to maintain one’s privileged status]

Reject rational analysis, critical thinking, and constructive criticisms [all engagement that isn’t critical engagement is inauthentic, supports racism, comes from false consciousness, internalized dominance, internalized racism, willful ignorance, white fragility, biased, privilege preserving] Use excessive meditation, singing, prayer, and chanting to block thoughts [“Antiracism is a commitment to a lifelong and ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and social activism”; protest chants]

The E is Emotional Control Instill irrational fears of questioning/leaving group [cancel culture, dox culture; accusations of being branded a racist and shunned or fired; you won’t be part of “the community”] Make you feel elitist and special [“you’re on the right side of history”; “you’re in solidarity with the Truth”]

Promote feelings of guilt, shame, and unworthy [“good white people”; “I define as a white progressive any white person who thinks they are not racist or less racist” and they are the worst for upholding white supremacy culture] Elicit extreme emotional highs and lows [“you’re on the right side of history”… “you did it wrong, centered yourself, you’re still racist”] Label some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, or wrong [“white women’s tears are political and uphold white supremacy more than anything”; emotional outbursts show a lack of “racial stamina” and “racial humility” and are thus “white fragility”]

Teach emotion stopping techniques to prevent anger or homesickness [Same as above, really, plus reminding that the white home is the place where white supremacy begins and takes root first] Threaten and harass your friends and family [cancel and dox culture; they’re racists] Shun you if you disobey or disbelieve [cancel and dox culture] Teach you there is no happiness or fulfillment outside the group [everyone else is complicit in racism and upholding the status quo; there is no neutral, only a choice between antiracism and racism] An additional trait of CRT that likens it to cult environments is the hyper-attentive focus on the central idea of the cult doctrine: systemic racism, which is believed to pervade everything, be “ordinary,” and is considered permanent.

According to many CRT advocates, including the bestselling Robin DiAngelo, racism is present in and relevant to every interaction and circumstance. The question, she says, must move away from “did racism take place?” to “how did racism manifest in this situation?” For her, every situation and interaction contains racism, and the devotee of her program is to focus obsessively on finding it and calling it out.

Moreover, CRT establishes an identity cult, as opposed to, say, a cult of personality around some charismatic figure. Under CRT, every Critical Race Theorist who is also a racial minority becomes his or her own cult personality. It therefore proceeds with an “identity first” model that says “I am Black,” for example, means something more and more important than “I am a person who happens to be black.” The capitalized B in “Black” here indicates the CRT-defined politically Black identity that is key to cult identification and cult participation. Under CRT, then, race is expected to be given ultimate social significance and racism is believed to pervade every possible occurrence and interaction.

Thus, race and racism are always of central relevance to CRT thought, which dramatically increases and focuses the control-based elements of the BITE model. All behavior must be CRT-appropriate. So must the information one takes in and communicates, the thoughts one has, and the emotions one expresses because anything else signals racism that must be “interrogated” and “dismantled.” To care that racism is reduced in reality therefore necessarily means taking the fight against racism out of the hands of the Critical Race Theory advocates. Not only do they operate in bad faith—meaning from the Critical Theory approach—and do so using cult mind control language; they’re also deforming the institutions that are the foundations of our society. In attributing all differences between different racial groups to racism, they’re proposing univariate solutions to multivariate problems. This means not only is their project is doomed to fail and leave many black people stuck at the bottom of the socio economic ladder, it will do so only after wildly alienating the majority of the country. Moreover, “systemic racism” is intentionally vague enough to be quasi-spiritual in nature.

It is, as James Lindsay has described it, “racism of the gaps” that can continually be appealed to as the cause of problems or disparities even when there is no evidence of discrimination or strong evidence against discrimination. To pick just one example of how CRT’s oversimplification provides incorrect diagnoses and solutions to what’s driving systemic inequality in the black community, consider a line from “Black Lives Matter’s” manifesto. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. Notice the word missing from that phrase? Fathers. Research on family structure is crystal clear: families with an active father in them have far better outcomes for children. Families without fathers produce children with less impulse control and more assertive/violent behavior. That’s not a formula for success in either school or life.

Moreover, the concept of disruption of family structures can readily lead to the kind of psychological states and isolation necessary for cult indoctrination. In the black community in the US, 70% of children are currently being raised by single parents, almost all single moms, the highest single-parent proportion by far of any other group. If BLM gets its way, that number would be 100%, because the nuclear family needs to be “disrupted,” and active dads are an irrelevant variable in successful child raising. Except we know they’re not, and what is really needed in black America are more active dads, not fewer. Critical Race Theory is not a recipe for racial progress, but unmitigated strife and ultimate disaster for black America and the broader America of which it is a part. This is why we need to turn our backs on this cult.

0 notes

techcrunchappcom · 4 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://techcrunchapp.com/the-latest-connecticut-governor-is-self-quarantining-coronavirus/

The Latest: Connecticut governor is self-quarantining | Coronavirus

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is self-quarantining after his chief spokesperson tested positive for COVID-19.

The Democratic governor’s chief spokesperson, Max Reiss, identified himself as the senior staff member who had tested positive, in a release posted to Twitter late Friday. An initial news release from the governor’s office didn’t identify the staff member, but said that it was the first known case of the coronavirus in the governor’s office.

Reiss wrote he wasn’t sure how or where he contracted the virus, but added that his family had been self-quarantining after his children were exposed at school. He said none of his family was experiencing symptoms, but they will quarantine for the next two weeks.

Contact tracing has begun and all members of the administration who have been within 6 feet (2 meters) of Reiss for 15 minutes or more will self-quarantine for 14 days. In addition to Lamont, chief of staff Paul Mounds and chief operating officer Josh Geballe will self-quarantine. Reiss also encouraged journalists who had contact with him under those same parameters in the last 24 hours to “take the necessary steps.”

Lamont and senior staff are tested twice a week, the release from the governor’s office said, and there are no known additional positive cases.

Three U.S. governors — Republicans Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and Mike Parson of Missouri and Democrat Ralph Northam of Virginia — had COVID-19 earlier this year. Another governor, Democrat Steve Sisolak of Nevada, announced Friday that he had tested positive for COVID-19.

———

HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE VIRUS OUTBREAK:

— Dr. Fauci suggests masks at Thanksgiving gatherings

— Italy reaches daily record of nearly 40,000 coronavirus cases

— States ramp up for biggest vaccination drive in US history

— Governors and other U.S. elected officials show little appetite for imposing the lockdowns and large-scale business closings seen last spring.

— Virus ward doctor runs from dawn to dark in Italy, fears the devastation of the coming winter.

— Many school districts are temporarily shutting down in-person classes as cases rise across U.S.

— Follow AP’s coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak

———

HERE’S WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING:

CARSON CITY, Nev.— Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak on Friday said he has tested positive for COVID-19 as the virus surges to record levels in the state and across the U.S.

The 66-year-old Democrat is the fifth governor to report testing positive for the coronavirus this year. Three governors, two Republicans in Missouri and Oklahoma, and one Democrat in Virginia contracted COVID-19 this year.

Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine tested positive in August but received a negative test a few hours later. DeWine tested positive using a rapid test before testing negative later that day after using a more sensitive laboratory-developed test.

Sisolak said he was not experiencing any symptoms on a call with reporters and was swabbed for a rapid test on Friday morning as a matter of routine. After it yielded a positive result, he also underwent molecular testing and his sample is still being processed.

———

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea’s soccer association says four players and a staff member of the men’s national team have tested positive for COVID-19 after arriving in Austria for a friendly with Mexico.

Korea Football Association spokesperson Kim Min-soo said the rest of the team will be re-tested before a decision is made whether to cancel the match with Mexico, which was scheduled for Saturday night local time in Wiener Neustadt, south of Vienna.

The players who tested positive were Kwon Chang-hoon, a midfielder for German club SC Freiburg; Hwang In-beom, a midfielder for Russian club FC Rubin Kazan; Lee Dong-jun, a forward for South Korean club Busan I Park FC; Jo Hyeon-woo, a goalkeeper from South Korean club Ulsan Hyundai FC.

The KFA said none of the five who tested positive were showing symptoms and that players and staff were currently quarantining in their rooms.

At home, South Korean health authorities reported 203 new cases of COVID-19, the highest daily jump in 73 days, causing concern in a nation that has eased its social distancing restrictions since October amid concerns over a weak economy.

———

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama on Friday added almost 3,000 COVID-19 cases, the highest number reported in a single day since the pandemic began. Health officials believe many of those cases arose from Halloween parties, sporting events and other group gatherings.

“This is a new record for us,” State Health Officer Scott Harris told The Associated Press. “Overall, we believe the number accurately shows that Alabama is seeing increased community transmission of COVID-19.”

Harris said unlike past surges of that size, the increase is not due to a large data dump of previously backlogged reporting.

Health officials have expressed concern about an uptick in hospitalizations and deaths as the nation heads into the holiday season.

“When you see the kind of jump in cases we’re seeing now, that clearly demonstrates community transmission,” said Dr. Don Williamson, the state’s former longtime state health officer who now heads the Alabama Hospital Association.

———

SAN FRANCISCO — Several San Francisco Bay Area counties are joining San Francisco in banning all indoor dining and scaling back other activities as coronavirus cases surge nationwide, alarming public health officials as the holidays approach.

Santa Clara, Marin and Contra Costa counties announced Friday that they will halt indoor dining as of Tuesday.

Contra Costa County also is ordering indoor gyms and fitness centers to close. Santa Clara is requiring gyms to operate at 10% capacity and closing all outdoor bars, bowling alleys and other indoor family centers.

The Bay Area generally has been more cautious than the rest of the state in allowing activities during the pandemic, and health officers representing 7 million people implemented a stay-at-home order back in March ahead of a similar order by the state.

Dr. Sara Cody, health officer for Santa Clara County, which is home to Silicon Valley, said it is “absolutely imperative” to take action given the steep increase in cases starting around Election Day. She said she expects the state to move the county back to a more restrictive tier of operation and would rather not wait to take action.

Businesses have pushed back on the idea that restaurants and gyms are to blame for virus transmission, and health officials have said that small, casual gatherings at home where family and friends are not wearing masks or socially distancing are to blame for the latest surge.

———

TOPEKA, Kan. — Some churches in Kansas have suspended indoor, in-person worship services and the capital city’s zoo even has tightened its rules as the the state set another record for new coronavirus cases.

The bishops of the two Episcopal Church dioceses that cover Kansas this week directed their congregations to suspend services and meetings. The United Methodist Church bishop for Kansas and Nebraska also encouraged its churches to suspend in-person services until further notice if they are in counties “identified as being in critical or dangerous statuses.”

And the Topeka zoo said that starting Saturday, all visitors will be required to wear masks, except when eating. The zoo had allowed visitors to take off their masks if they were outdoors and socially distanced.

Kansas averaged a record 2,553 new confirmed and probable coronavirus cases a day for the seven days ending Friday. The state health department added 6,282 coronavirus cases to the state’s pandemic tally since Wednesday, increasing it to 115,507. The department also reported 41 additional COVID-19-related deaths, bringing the pandemic total to 1,256.

———

PHILADELPHIA — Health officials in Pennsylvania’s third-most populous county ordered schools Friday to temporarily halt classroom instruction in what they said was an effort to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

The Montgomery County Board of Health mandated that all public and private K-12 schools in the suburban Philadelphia county offer virtual instruction for two weeks beginning Nov. 23. The order affects tens of thousands of students in more than 20 public school districts along with students of charter, private and parochial schools.

Spiking COVID-19 numbers are prompting other Pennsylvania school districts to take action. Pittsburgh Public Schools announced Friday that more than 800 students who resumed classroom instruction just this week would have to go back to remote learning.

———

HARTFORD, Connecticut – The University of Connecticut placed all dormitories under quarantine at its main campus Friday because of rising coronavirus infections, as the state reported a daily record of positive test results.

Gov. Ned Lamont’s office reported 2,746 more people tested positive for COVID-19 compared with Thursday. It was the highest number since testing began in March and the first time that daily positive tests totaled more than 2,000 since April.

UConn officials also announced that all 5,000 residential students in Storrs will be tested before leaving for the Thanksgiving break in two weeks.

UConn placed five more dormitories under full quarantine Friday, adding to the five put under full quarantine on Wednesday, said Eleanor Daugherty, associate vice president and dean of students.

All other residence halls in Storrs are under a “modified” quarantine, meaning students are allowed to leave their dorms only for in-person classes and essential research and clinical activities.

“We don’t have the COVID spread under control,” Daugherty wrote in a notification to students. “This is about family, my friends. We all want to go home and be with our loved ones. It is essential that we return home to our families in our best health.”

————

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he should not have attended a birthday party with a dozen people at an upscale restaurant earlier this month as the state is battling an increase in coronavirus cases.

The San Francisco Chronicle first reported Friday that the Nov. 6 event was a 50th birthday party for Newsom friend and adviser Jason Kinney. It took place at the French Laundry in Napa County, a pricey Michelin star restaurant.

Newsom says he followed the restaurant’s health protocols and took safety precautions. The group dined outside.

California currently restricts gatherings of more than three households. Napa County is allowed to open restaurants for limited indoor dining.

Newsom has also encouraged people to maintain social distancing and limit mixing with others.

———

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam on Friday announced substantial new statewide restrictions on gatherings and certain businesses in an effort intended to help slow rising cases of COVID-19 and hospitalizations from the coronavirus.

The governor’s office said in a news release that the state’s cap on gatherings will be reduced from 250 to 25, the state’s mask requirement will be applied to younger children, and alcohol sales will be prohibited at dining establishments, breweries and wineries after 10 p.m. Those and other new restrictions will take effect at midnight Sunday.

The gathering ban will apply to events such as weddings, but won’t impact schools or restaurants. Restaurants were already subject to capacity limits due to rules requiring that patrons remain socially distanced.

“COVID-19 is surging across the country, and while cases are not rising in Virginia as rapidly as in some other states, I do not intend to wait until they are. We are acting now to prevent this health crisis from getting worse,” Northam said in a statement.

———

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon says Wyoming’s first new public-health orders since last spring to limit the spread of the coronavirus are coming soon.

Gordon declined to go into specifics at a news conference Friday. Gordon says state officials will be meeting with local business leaders in the days ahead to discuss the best approach.

Gordon says many people in Wyoming are being “knuckleheads” by not taking steps on their own to prevent spreading the virus.

Wyoming now ranks behind only the Dakotas for new coronavirus cases per 1,000 people.

Wyoming hospitals report almost 200 people hospitalized with COVID-19, quadruple the number a month ago.

———

SALEM, Ore. — Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced a statewide two-week “freeze” in the state Friday, which will limit restaurants and bars to take-out only and close gyms, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities during that period.

The freeze will be in effect from Nov. 18 through Dec. 2 and aims to limit group activities and slow the spread of COVID-19.

The state has experienced a spike in daily case counts and reached record high daily case counts and positivity rates during the month of November.

As part of the freeze grocery stores, pharmacies and retail stores are limited to a maximum capacity of 75%.

Faith-based organizations will also have their capacity reduced to 25 people inside and 50 people outside. However, other facilities — gyms and fitness centers, museums, pools, sports courts, movie theaters, zoos, gardens, aquariums and venues — will have to close their doors completely.

All businesses will be required to close their offices to the public and mandate work-from-home “to the greatest extent possible.”

Coronavirus cases in Oregon have been increasing since mid-September and began to surge at an “alarming rate” in November.

On Thursday, Oregon recorded 1,122 new confirmed or presumptive cases of COVID-19, the first time it had surpassed 1,000 cases. The total number of confirmed cases since the start of the pandemic is nearly 54,000. The death toll is 746.

———

NEW ORLEANS — The number of new, confirmed COVID-19 cases in Louisiana jumped by nearly 3,000 in the latest daily figures released by the state health department.

Friday’s figures show the state with a total of 194,685 confirmed cases, compared to 191,889 confirmed cases Thursday. The death toll related to the new coronavirus climbed by 24 to 6,121. More than 176,000 people have recovered.

The latest state health department figures also show hospitalizations have edged back up statewide — hitting 684 after dipping to 676 a day earlier. Hospitalizations, a key figure used in determining what restrictions on gatherings are needed, remain well below the peaks they hit earlier this year — close to 2,000 during a spring outbreak and around 1,600 in late summer. But they have trended gradually upward since early fall.

New Orleans officials have expressed worries about a growing number of cases after recently easing some of the toughest restrictions in the state.

In Baton Rouge, news outlets reported Friday that Mayor Sharon Weston Broome says she’s concerned about the local economy and hospital capacity because the positivity rate in East Baton Rouge Parish has hit 5%.

———

BOSTON — Massachusetts is planning to open a field hospital in Worcester to prepare for a possible overflow of COVID-19 patients as the disease continues to surge again in the state.

The facility will be located at the DCU Center in Worcester and will include 240 beds. It should be ready to take in patients as early as the first week of December. The partner for the site will be the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center.

The announcement comes as the state has begun recording more than 2,000 newly confirmed cases daily of the disease caused by the coronavirus.

During the initial spike of the virus in the spring, the state opened five field hospitals across Massachusetts.

#connecticut #governor #latest #World

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-are-republicans-on-the-political-spectrum/

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Republicans Have More Friends Across The Political Divide Than Democrats Study Finds

When David Huzzards friend posted some QAnon conspiracy theories on Facebook in the fall, Huzzard first assumed the best of intentions. He recalls thinking: Maybe they just got tricked.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Partisan Ideological Leanings Unchanged

Although Americans as a whole are a mix of ideological viewpoints, the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized over the years in their tenor.

Ideological uniformity is much higher among Republicans, 75% of whom now consider themselves conservative, up slightly from 73% in 2019 and the highest proportion yet in Gallup’s trend since 1994.

Meanwhile, one in five Republicans describe their views as moderate, down from 33% in 1994, while just 4% say they are liberal, similar to most years.

How We Got Here

Republican recall hopefuls seek to differentiate themselves in San Francisco debate

Consider Californias last two Republican governors, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Experts say Wilson and Schwarzenegger embodied a more moderate California Republican ethos than the positions taken by most of the 2021 Republican gubernatorial field.

Party concentration has also moved inland, with Republican votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area starkly declining.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Climate Change And Pollution

Pollution in the United StatesClimate changeClimate change denial

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a system to control carbon emissions.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

Confidence In Scientists And Other Groups To Act In The Public Interest

Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.

More Negative Views Of The Opposing Party

Among all Democrats, 27% say GOP policies are a threat to the well-being of the country; among all Republicans, more than a third think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Issues For Which Location Plays Some Role

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Inglehart: Traditionalistsecular And Self Expressionistsurvivalist

World Values Survey

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

Actions While In Office

American Health Care Act2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals

Actions to hinder implementation of ACA

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as:

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments

Cost sharing reductions subsidy

Religion And Marital Status

Nolan: Economic Freedom Personal Freedom

Nolan Chart

The Us Presidential Election 2020: Last Lap Reflections

27 October 2020

For the vast majorority of voters, this extraordinary election is more like a referendum on the incumbent. Youre either for Trump or against him.

Even Obamas vigorous campaigning for Biden may backfire. It seems to underline the comparative inadequacy of the carry-over from the previous administration.

Two questions should be foremost in the voters minds, regardless of whether they opt for orange or beige.

Figure 11 Views On Gun Control Display A Strong Urban

Wildlife Conservation And Animal Welfare

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms left and right to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Homosexuals Do Not Deserve Equal Rights

Popular Political Views In The Us

Greenberg And Jonas: Leftright Ideological Rigidity

0 notes