Liberals rejected 1,000 voters in its leadership race. One of them is questioning why – CBC.ca

Robyn LeGrow is among the thousand-odd people rejected by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador to vote for its next leader. (Peter Cowan/CBC)

Some people registered to vote in Newfoundland and Labrador's Liberal Party leadership race are being ousted from the process, and left questioning the party's reasoning why.

Among the rejected is Robyn LeGrow of St. John's,who two weeks ago posted on herpersonal Facebook account a critique of candidate Andrew Furey's campaign policies.

"I can only assume that that is why I have been disqualified. I had no idea when I put that post out on my personal page, to my personal friends, that it would get as much attention as it has," LeGrow told CBC News on Wednesday.

The party is informing the former voters via email.

"We want to thank you for your interest in the Liberal Party and this election. However, our records indicate that you do not support the aims and objectives of the Liberal Party of NL. As a result, you have been found ineligible to vote," reads an emailwritten byLewis Stoyles, chief returning officer of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election.

The upcoming party vote will elect its nextleader and the province's next premier on Aug. 3 ahead of a provincialgeneral election which will be called within the next year.

LeGrow took to Twitter Wednesday morning with her concerns, with many people commenting that they, too, have received rejection notices.

Emails being sent to rejected voters include an opt-inreview process by the party.

"If our records are incorrect or you wish to have this decision reviewed, please respond to this email by9:00 PM (NST) on July 8, 2020," the email from Stoyles reads.

That leavesmany, includingLeGrow, with less than 12 hours before the deadline for appeal closes.

An appeals process will continue throughout the rest of the week, according to Judy Morrow, a member of the leadership election committee and past president of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The first part of the appeals involvesasking Stoylesto review thedecisionthat rendered the voterineligible. If the voter is not satisfied,then they have an opportunity to make an appeal to the party's appeals committee, which wasput in place in February.

The party plans to have a finalized list of voters by July 14, with voting starting onJuly 28.

LeGrowistaking the party up on its appeals offer, and says she has notified them she'll be pursuing it.

"My concern is that communications all along haven't been consistent," she said.

"It seems to me that they are creating the rules as they go, making decisions and then responding to them based on feedback from people who are on the other end of those decisions."

On Wednesday afternoon, the Liberal Party held a virtual news conference for anupdate on the election process.

Since voter registration closed on June 25, the election committee has been going through what its calling a "multi-faceted vetting process." Thatincludedcalls and email blasts to verify and authenticate registered voters, and waspartnered with a research company.

As of Wednesday roughly 33,500 voters have been designated eligible, according to Morrow, who took questions from reporters.

When asked if the vetting process included the research company combing through social media accounts of registered voters to find past comments which could find them in the ineligible category, Morrow said no.

"They were just given pure lists from our Liberal list database," she said.

Morrow saidanyone who signed up with the party to vote for itsleadership, and in a follow up robocallsaid they would vote for any other party, were automatically disqualified from voting.

Anyone who said they didn't support the aims of objectives of the Liberal Party were also disqualified. Those categories addedup to about 300 people.

There were about 1,000 ineligible voters total, Morrow said.

"They were for various reasons. That could be because their date of birth was missing, or they didn't have an email or telephone number, or they were no longer a resident of the province," she said.

"We found some individuals who had been deceased. There were different reasons for knockouts."

Read more articles from CBC Newfoundland and Labrador

View original post here:

Liberals rejected 1,000 voters in its leadership race. One of them is questioning why - CBC.ca

What is a Liberal Arts Degree? Why it can be a better career option for you? – Times of India

Liberal Arts refer to the study of social sciences, arts, and humanities. The students can choose their majors such as Psychology, Philosophy, Business Studies, Marketing, Journalism, Advertising & Public Relations, Economics, Political Science, English Literature, Finance and more.

The study of Liberal Arts focuses mainly on four 'Cs' - creativity, communication, collaboration and critical thinking. The Liberal Arts degree course curriculum is designed to teach students the art of effective arguments, communicate, and enhance their problem-solving skills.

For example, Liberal Arts students can make a career in the education field sharing their experience and passion with others. Those who incline towards giving back to society and communicating with people can choose to make a career in public service and politics.

The demand for Liberal Arts graduates is found in almost all industries and professions, mostly in STEM and business fields because of their critical thinking and quick problem-solving skills. With these skill sets, the students can choose traditional job roles such as - marketing, sales, relationship, and account management.

Benefits of Liberal Arts degree

Read the original post:

What is a Liberal Arts Degree? Why it can be a better career option for you? - Times of India

Hillsdale College stands out for its courage in face of liberal onslaught – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In the July 2nd issue of National Review, Victor Davis Hanson, in bemoaning our present state of cultural chaos, asks, How can so many so sheltered and prolonged adolescents claim to be all-knowing? In other words, how could so many of our nations 18-year-olds become so clueless?

The answer: Your colleges and universities have taught them to be.

The proof of the ivory towers culpability in creating this marauding monster is seen in the endless list of apologies now pouring forth from our academic leaders. Here are a couple of examples.

Threatened by Black Lives Matter discontent, a university president in Oklahoma informs his community, [Beginning immediately], our employees will reengage in training and development to build cultural competency and understand the role and impact of unconscious bias.

Another college president from California adds his lament: I want to offer a sincere, heartfelt, and anguished apology I want to ask for forgiveness for my lack of sensitivity, lack of nuance, and lack of perspective concerning Black Lives Matter.

And yet another president from an institution in Kansas writes, It is time to repent [for the] prejudice embedded deeply into the very construction of a society that benefits some at the expense of others

Anguished apologies. Heartfelt tears. Repentance for the very construction of society. Mandatory training in unconscious bias. One has to wonder if a Google search of capitulation would immediately bring these three men to the forefront as its poster-children.

But amid such fecklessness, one college stands alone, resolute, bold, distinct and different.

Consider Hillsdale College.

When pressured by the same juvenile hoards to issue similar statements as cited above, this colleges leadership responded as follows:

Amidst the events of recent weeks, a number of alumni and others have taken up formal and public means to insist that Hillsdale College issue statements concerning Black Lives Matter.

[We are] told that failure to issue [such] statements is an abandonment of principle.

Well, Hillsdale Colleges founding is a statement

[Our] curriculum is a statement, especially in its faithful presentation of the Colleges founding mission.

[Our] teaching is a statement, especially as it takes up with vigor the evils we are alleged to ignore, evils like murder, brutality, injustice, destruction of person or property, and passionate irrationality

Organizing our practical affairs so that we can maintain principles of equity and justice is a statement.

Dispensing unparalleled financial help to students who cannot afford even a moderate tuition is a statement.

Helping private and public schools across the country lift their primary and secondary students out of a sea of disadvantages with excellent instruction, curricula, and the civic principles of freedom and equality without any recompense to the College is a statement.

Postgraduate programs with the express aim of advancing the ideas of human dignity, justice, equality, and the citizen as the source of the governments power, these are all statements.

And all of these statements are acts, deeds that speak, undertaken and perpetuated now, every day, all the time. Everything this College does is for the moral and intellectual uplift of all.

There may be something deafening in the culture certainly there are those who cannot hear but it is not from the silence of Hillsdale College.

There is a kind of virtue that is cheap. It consists of jumping on cost-free bandwagons of public feeling and winning approval by espousing the right opinion

The fact that very real racial problems are now being cynically exploited for profit, gain, and public favor by some organizations and people is impossible to overlook.

It is a scandal and a shame that compounds our ills and impedes their correction. Hillsdale College, though far from perfect, will continue to do the work of education in the great principles that are, second only to divine grace, the solution to the grave ills that beset our times.

This is so good it bears repeating:

There is a kind of virtue that is cheap. It consists of jumping on cost-free bandwagons of public feeling [T]he fact that very real racial problems are now being cynically exploited for profit, gain, and public favor by some organizations and people is impossible to overlook. It is a scandal and a shame that compounds our ills and impedes their correction. Hillsdale College will continue to do the work of education in the great principles that are, second only to divine grace, the solution to the grave ills that beset our times.

Thank you, Hillsdale College. As nearly every other university president in the nation cowers in feckless fear before the tantrums of the spoiled children they have created, you lead.

Thank God for your clarity. Though you stand alone, you stand. Would that other colleges show half your courage. For, if they did, we wouldnt be in the mess were in.

Everett Piper (dreverettpiper.com, @dreverettpiper), a columnist for The Washington Times, is a former university president and radio host. He is the author of Not a Daycare: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth (Regnery).

The rest is here:

Hillsdale College stands out for its courage in face of liberal onslaught - Washington Times

The Willful Blindness of Reactionary Liberalism – The New Republic

Associative freedom is often entirely absent from popular discourse about liberalism and our political debates, perhaps because liberals have come to take it entirely for granted.

Overall, the liberal ideal is a diverse, pluralistic society of autonomous people guided by reason and tolerance. The dream is harmonious coexistence. But liberalism also happens to excel at generating dissensus, and some of the major sociopolitical controversies of the past few years should be understood as conflicts not between liberalism and something else but between parties placing emphasis on different liberal freedomschiefly freedom of speech, a popular favorite which needs no introduction, and freedom of association, the under-heralded right of individuals to unite for a common purpose or in alignment with a particular set of values. Like free speech, freedom of association has been enshrined in liberal democratic jurisprudence here and across the world; liberal theorists from John Stuart Mill to John Rawls have declared it one of the essential human liberties. Yet associative freedom is often entirely absent from popular discourse about liberalism and our political debates, perhaps because liberals have come to take it entirely for granted.

For instance, while public universities in America are generally bound by the First Amendment, controversial speakers have no broad right to speak at private institutions. Those institutions do, however, have a right to decide what ideas they are and arent interested in entertaining and what people they believe will or will not be useful to their communities of scholarsa right that limits the entry and participation not only of public figures with controversial views but the vast majority of people in our society. Senators like Tom Cotton have every right to have their views published in a newspaper. But they have no specific right to have those views published by any particular publication. Rather, publications have the rightboth constitutionally as institutions of the press, and by convention as collections of individuals engaged in lawful projectsto decide what and whom they would or would not like to publish, based on whatever standards happen to prevail within each outlet.

When a speaker is denied or when staffers at a publication argue that something should not have been published, the rights of the parties in question havent been violated in any way. But what we tend to hear in these and similar situations are criticisms that are at odds with the principle that groups in liberal society have the general right to commit themselves to values which many might disagree with and make decisions on that basis. Theres nothing unreasonable about criticizing the substance of such decisions and the values that produce them. But accusations of illiberalism in these cases carry the implication that nonstate institutions under liberalism have an obligation of some sort to be maximally permissive of opposing ideasor at least maximally permissive of the kinds of ideas critics of progressive identity politics consider important. In fact, they do not.

Associative freedom is no less vital to liberalism than the other freedoms, and is actually integral to their functioning. There isnt a right explicitly enumerated in the First Amendment that isnt implicitly dependent on or augmented by similarly minded individuals having the right to come together. Most people worship with others; an assembly or petition of one isnt worth much; the institutions of the press are, again, associations; and individual speech is functionally inert unless some group chooses to offer a venue or a platform. And political speech is, in the first place, generally aimed at stirring some group or constituency to contemplation or action.

Ultimately, associative freedom is critical because groups and associations are the very building blocks of society. Political parties and unions, nonprofits and civic organizations, whole religions and whole ideologiesindividuals cannot be meaningfully free unless they have the freedom to create, make themselves part of, and define these and other kinds of affiliations. Some of our affiliations, including the major identity categories, are involuntary, and this is among the complications that makes associative freedom as messy as it is important. Just as the principle of free speech forces us into debates over hate speech, obscenity, and misinformation, association is the root of identity-based discrimination and other ills. The Supreme Courts decision in Bostock v. Clayton County banning employment discrimination on the basis of LGBTQ identity last month was a huge step forward, but in practice, workers of all stripes often lack the means and opportunity to defend themselves from unjust firingsall the more reason for those preoccupied with cancel culture and social mediadriven dismissals to support just-cause provisions and an end to at-will employment.

What about the oft-repeated charge that progressives today intend to establish group rights over and above the rights of the individualthat, specifically, minorities and certain disadvantaged groups are to be given more rights than, and held as superior to, white people? If this were the case, the critics of left illiberalism would truly be onto something: Individual rights are, again, at the center of liberal thought.

But that divergence isnt anywhere to be found in any of the major controversies that have recently captured broad attention. A minority chef who says she wants to be paid as much as her white colleagues has not said that white people are inferior; an unarmed black man under the knee of a policeman and begging for his life is not asking to be conferred a special privilege. The goal is parity, not superiority. The heart of the protests and cultural agitation weve witnessed has clearly been a desire to see minorities treated equallysharing the rights to which all people are entitled but that have been denied to many by societys extant bigots and the residual effects of injustices past.

Ultimately, its the realities of our collective past that make the notion that progressives are dragging the country toward illiberalism especially ridiculous. Over the course of two and a half centuries in this country, millions of human beings held as property toiled for the comfort and profit of already wealthy people who tortured and raped them. Just over 150 years ago, the last generation of slaves was released into systems of subjugation from which its descendants have not recovered. August will mark just 100 years since women were granted the right to vote; Black Americans, nominally awarded that right during Reconstruction, couldnt take full advantage of it until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. The litany of other inequities and crimes our country has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate against Native Americans, immigrants, religious and sexual minorities, political dissidents, and the poor is endless. All told, liberal society in the U.S. is, at best, just over half a century old: If it were a person, it would be too young to qualify for Medicare.

View original post here:

The Willful Blindness of Reactionary Liberalism - The New Republic

‘Need Genuinely Liberal Party’: As Rajasthan Remains Tense, Tharoor Gives Formula to Strengthen Congress – News18

File photo of Congress MP and leader Shashi Tharoor.

As political turmoil brews in Rajasthan, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor took to Twitter on Sunday and said that India needs a "genuinely liberal" party led by centrist professionals, and those who believe in these values must throw their weight behind the Congress.

"I passionately believe that our country needs a genuinely liberal party headed by centrist professionals committed to inclusive politics and respectful of Indias pluralism. All who believe in the founding values of the Republic must work to strengthen @INCIndia not undermine it," Tharoor wrote.

The senior leader's comments come after Rajasthan Deputy CM Sachin Pilot arrived in Delhi with some of his loyalist MLAs to talk to party leadership regarding the developing political crisis in the state. The last straw is believed to be a notice served to Pilot to join investigations with the ATS, which was set up by Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot to probe attempts to topple his government.

Gehlot has accused the opposition BJP of trying to topple his government by offering his legislators large sums of money. He alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah were unable to "tolerate" him or his government and were therefore planning a conspiracy.

Rejecting Gehlot's allegations, BJP state president Satish Poonia said the political situation in the state was the result of infighting in the Congress and the chief minister was just trying to shift the blame.

Go here to read the rest:

'Need Genuinely Liberal Party': As Rajasthan Remains Tense, Tharoor Gives Formula to Strengthen Congress - News18

Shock bid for Liberal presidency turns party tensions to the Max – InDaily

Adelaide Friday July 10, 2020

A standoff is looming for one of the SA Liberal Partys most senior roles, with country medico Max van Dissel today nominating to replace former premier John Olsen as state president.

The move will surprise many in the party who had anticipated an uncontested ballot, with high-profile lawyer and recent failed senate hopeful Morry Bailes believed to be preparing for a run for the presidency.

Bailes did not respond to inquiries today and has previously not commented on the issue, but senior sources had expected him to be a candidate and to be unopposed.

But that changed today when van Dissel nominated for the role, with sources from both the left and right of the party telling InDaily he was expected to garner support from both wings, and questioning whether Bailes would still run in a contested ballot.

Both men are currently Liberal vice-presidents, with van Dissel coming to the end of the maximum-allowed three terms.

Olsen, who was brought in as president ahead of the successful 2018 state election, is tipped to be elevated to the presidency of the federal party, although a formal decision on that succession has been delayed by the Coronavirus pandemic.

Van Dissel, a Kapunda specialist and GP who ran for the Save the RAH Party in the state seat of Frome in 2010, confirmed he had lodged a nomination for the presidency this morning when contacted by InDaily.

He said he had toyed with standing for the Legislative Council, whose ballot is being held next weekend, but I then thought, Im 61 Id be 63 when the next election is held, and Id be 71 after one term and that, I think, was inappropriate.

I thought, how else can I serve the party, he said.

Van Dissel as a Save the RAH candidate in 2010.

Asked whether his candidacy would be a fly in the ointment of Bailes prospective bid, van Dissel said: He hasnt discussed it with me.

No-one has discussed it with me Ive made up my own mind to run [and] well see who else gets flushed out, he said.

I feel Ive got the credentials, having been a vice-president for three years and served on state executive.

Get InDaily in your inbox. Daily. The best local news every workday at lunch time.

Thanks for signing up to the InDaily newsletter.

Van Dissel, whose nephew Michael ran against Bailes in this years senate race that saw then-Legislative Council president Andrew McLachlan elected, said he brought a lot of experience to the table.

A country doctor for 30 years, he said he was passionate about rural health issues an area he argues was neglected by Labor in their 16 years because theres no votes in it for them.

He has also championed issues at odds with the partys right wing, having pushed a pill-testing motion at state council last year.

InDaily revealed last month Bailes had stepped down as managing partner of leading general practice firm Tindall Gask Bentley.

At the time, he left the option open for another senate tilt, saying: Youd have seen from my previous nomination that I was interested in the senate I was interested in the federal parliament [and] public life is something Id never say no to so, watch and wait.

But some in the party have baulked at the prospect of the next state president harbouring political ambitions, with several backing van Dissel on those grounds.

I believe the Liberal Party does best when theres some cooperation between the two factions, van Dissel said today.

Send us anemail, making it clear which story youre commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put Reader views in the subject.

Well publish the best comments in a regular Reader Views post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily.

Powered by PressPatron

Here is the original post:

Shock bid for Liberal presidency turns party tensions to the Max - InDaily

This Hindi book on Indian secularism could have exposed liberals, but it was ignored – ThePrint

Text Size:A- A+

When a card-carrying secular intellectual challenges the secular orthodoxy of our time and it draws a blank by way of a response, you know that secularism is indeed in a deeper crisis in India than you imagined. Either smug in its ever-shrinking cocoon. Or resigned to its defeat. Or both.

The intellectual is Abhay Dubey, a well-known scholar based at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), with an impressive body of published work. He is a trailblazer for doing social science in Indian languages and a familiar commentator on television. Once a card-carrying Communist, he is known to be a fierce critic of the Bharatiya Janata Partys (BJP) politics, unlikely to defect to their camp. The challenge to secularism comes from his latest book, Hindu-Ekta banam Gyan ki Rajniti [Hindu Unity vis--vis Politics of Knowledge, published by Vaani Prakashan] that was released in February this year, at the height of anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act movement. This is the first detailed, well-researched yet provocative book-length critique from a secular perspective of some of the most cherished beliefs of Indian secularism.

In any other country, such a publication would have triggered passionate political debates, responses, and rejoinders. Nothing of that kind happened in the last six months. I have not been able to locate a single serious review so far.

The initial non-response could be a function of language. Abhay Dubey writes in Hindi, and rather demanding Hindi at that (I had to consult dictionary a couple of times). You cant hold it against him, unless you believe that he must dumb-down to the level of babalog Hindi understood by the English-speaking elite. But it is not hard to see why his argument has not travelled to the secular intellectuals that he critiques. This underlines his point about the disconnect between the English speaking middle-class world of liberal-secular ideology and the rest of India.

The deeper reason for silence around Dubeys book could be that it confronts us with an inconvenient truth. It leads us to conclude that if the secular project stares at a historic defeat, it has no one else to blame. It is silly to think that secular politics has been defeated just by some clever and devious political machinations of Narendra Modi or Amit Shah. In the last instance, Dubey holds that the defeat of secular politics is a defeat of secular ideology. This ideology drew and started believing in a caricature of its adversary, floated self-serving myths about the past, subscribed to formulaic understanding of the present and trusted reluctant warriors and non-existent allies to fight the battle for secular India. Dubey holds a mirror to us: the harsh truth is that this defeat is very well earned. We cant refute his argument, for we know it to be true. Yet we cant accept it, for it unsettles our ready-made map of the world we inhabit.

Also read: Hate is hot in India. Colder ideas like constitutional patriotism must work harder to win

Abhay Dubey must be commended for picking up the courage to say that secularism tripped itself by systematically misunderstanding the Sangh Parivar. The arrogance of the Westernised Left-liberal-secular elite made them dismiss the intellectual lineage of Hindutva ideology because it drew inspiration from a religion. This hubris made secular ideologues overlook basic facts about the Sangh Parivar: that it draws upon the social reformist tradition within Hinduism, that its exclusion of Muslims has been successfully complimented by a campaign to include lower-caste Hindus, that it has successfully negotiated its way with modern constitutional democracy, that by demonising it as merely Brahminical and Fascist, we mislead ourselves and fail to understand the reasons for the rise of this ideology. The book prepares us to take on the real adversary, not just a straw-man.

We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.

Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrints future.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

This is related to the complacent reading of Indias past and present that secularists have perpetuated. Dubeys book shows us how secular historians had convinced themselves and everyone else that Hindu was merely a statistical majority, that the deeper diversities this label covers were more salient, that, therefore, a project of Hindu consolidation was ruled out. This led to the lovely yet lazy belief that the existence of pluralism, composite culture and the moderating logic of democratic politics would negate the possibility of Hindu majoritarianism. Dubey alerts that such a reading distracted us from recognising the historical truth that the self-description of Hindu evolved much before colonialism, mainly in reaction to then ruling political identity of the Muslims, that Hindu unification is a long term structural process aided by modern society, modern law and the logic of modern competitive politics. By moving from politically correct language to a historically correct account, this book helps us understand why Hindutva ideology hasbecome commonsense and why secularism appears anti-Hindu.

Also read: Hindutva rise must be pinned on historians who told us Hindus, Muslims lived peacefully once

No wonder, this distorted understanding led to a myopic politics. Abhay Dubey points out the well-known weaknesses of secular politics: exclusive focus on defence of minority rights, inability to speak against minority communalism with the same force as Hindu communalism, and the tendency to gloss over Congress inconsistencies and failures in upholding secular principles. He also makes bold to question many other secular political strategies: the idea of an imminent revolt against Brahminism, bahujan unity as an antidote to majoritarianism, dependence on dominant OBC castes and better-off communities within Dalits to carry out the project of social justice and fight for secularism, or the assumption of Dalit-Muslim unity. The failure of these strategies is for everyone to see.You may not agree with all of Dubeys critique, or with his historical interpretation in each case. Yet the books project ofidentifying and confronting the weaknesses of secular ideology and practice at this moment of its worst crisis must become a project of our times. This would be painful, but willingness to face it is a sign of confidence, evading this is a sure sign of death.

Abhay Dubey provides us with a resource to undertake this project. He identifiesalternative but overlooked voices within the secular camp that cautioned against such simplistic understanding and short-sighted politics. He draws upon historian Dharma Kumar, sociologists Satish Sabarwal, Imtiaz Ahmed and D.L. Sheth, political scientists Suhas Palshikar and partially Rajni Kothari and Rajeev Bhargav as sources of an alternative understanding that is prepared to look at the inconvenient facts and proposes a more nuanced course of action. We need to takethis quest further to MahatmaGandhis own candid engagement with the Hindu-Muslim question, to Rammanohar Lohia and his followers, and even to Right-leaning thinkers like Dharmpal and Nirmal Verma.

Any such attempt would obviously invite the charge of kowtowingto the powers-that-be, if not of being a closet Hindutva supporter. The author anticipates this reaction and offers a mature response: If so, I would overlook [such a reaction] as a product of despair born out of the continuous defeat of liberalism and secularism in our public life. The only way to respond to this historic setback is to face up to the mistakes of secularism and do a course correction. Abhay Dubey has started this conversation. Let us hope that this early silence would be followed by vigorous debates. An English translation of this book could be the first step in that direction.

The author is the national president of Swaraj India. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the medias economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the countrys most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building Indias most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we arent even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrints future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

Read the original post:

This Hindi book on Indian secularism could have exposed liberals, but it was ignored - ThePrint

After the liberal international order | The Strategist – The Strategist

Many analysts argue that the liberal international order ended with the rise of China and the election of US President Donald Trump. But if Democratic challenger Joe Biden defeats Trump in Novembers election, should he try to revive it? Probably not, but he must replace it.

Critics correctly point out that the American order after 1945 was neither global nor always very liberal. It left out more than half the world in the Soviet bloc and China and included many authoritarian states. American hegemony was always exaggerated. Nonetheless, the most powerful country must lead in creating global public goods, or they will not be providedand Americans will suffer.

The Covid-19 pandemic is a case in point. A realistic goal for a Biden administration should be to establish rules-based international institutions with different membership for different issues.

Would China and Russia agree to participate? During the 1990s and 2000s, neither could balance American power, and the United States overrode sovereignty in pursuit of liberal values. The US bombed Serbia and invaded Iraq without approval by the United Nations Security Council. It also supported a UN General Assembly resolution in 2005 that established a responsibility to protect citizens brutalised by their own governmentsa doctrine it then used in 2011 to justify bombing Libya to protect the citizens of Benghazi.

Critics describe this record as post-Cold War American hubrisRussia and China felt deceived, for example, when the NATO-led intervention in Libya resulted in regime changewhereas defenders portray it as the natural evolution of international humanitarian law. In any case, the growth of Chinese and Russian power has set stricter limits to liberal interventionism.

Whats left? Russia and China stress the norm of sovereignty in the UN Charter, according to which states can go to war only for self-defence or with Security Council approval. Taking a neighbours territory by force has been rare since 1945 and has led to costly sanctions when it has happened (as with Russias annexation of Crimea in 2014). In addition, the Security Council has often authorised the deployment of peacekeeping forces in troubled countries, and political cooperation has limited the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. This dimension of a rules-based order remains crucial.

As for economic relations, the rules will require revision. Well before the pandemic, Chinas hybrid state capitalism underpinned an unfair mercantilist model that distorted the functioning of the World Trade Organization. The result will be a decoupling of global supply chains, particularly where national security is at stake.

Although China complains when the US prevents companies like Huawei from building 5G telecommunications networks, this position is consistent with sovereignty. After all, China prevents Google, Facebook, and Twitter from operating in China for security reasons. Negotiating new trade rules can help prevent the decoupling from escalating. At the same time, cooperation in the crucial financial domain remains strong, despite the current crisis.

By contrast, ecological interdependence poses an insurmountable obstacle to sovereignty, because the threats are transnational. Regardless of setbacks for economic globalisation, environmental globalisation will continue, because it obeys the laws of biology and physics, not the logic of contemporary geopolitics. Such issues threaten everyone, but no country can manage them alone. On issues like Covid-19 and climate change, power has a positive-sum dimension.

In this context, it is not enough to think of exercising power over others. We must also think in terms of exercising power with others. The Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization help us as well as others. Since Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong met in 1972, China and the US have cooperated despite ideological differences. The difficult question for Biden will be whether the US and China can cooperate in producing global public goods while competing in the traditional areas of great-power rivalry.

Cyberspace is an important new issuepartly transnational, but also subject to sovereign government controls. The internet is already partly fragmented. Norms regarding free speech and privacy on the internet can be developed among an inner circle of democracies but will not be observed by authoritarian states.

As suggested by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace, some rules barring tampering with the internets basic structure are also in authoritarians interests if they want connectivity. But when they use proxies for information warfare or to interfere in elections (which violates sovereignty), norms will have to be reinforced by rules such as those the US and the Soviet Union negotiated during the Cold War (despite ideological hostility) to limit the escalation of incidents at sea. The US and like-minded states will have to announce the norms they intend to uphold, and deterrence will be necessary.

Insistence on liberal values in cyberspace would not mean unilateral US disarmament. Rather, the US should distinguish between the permitted soft power of open persuasion and the hard power of covert information warfare, to which it would retaliate. Overt programs and broadcasts by Russia and China would be allowed, covert coordinated behaviour such as manipulation of social media would not. And the US would continue to criticise these countries human rights records.

Polls show that the US public wants to avoid military interventions, but not to withdraw from alliances or multilateral cooperation. And the public still cares about values.

If Biden is elected, the question he will face is not whether to restore the liberal international order. It is whether the US can work with an inner core of allies to promote democracy and human rights while cooperating with a broader set of states to manage the rules-based international institutions needed to face transnational threats such as climate change, pandemics, cyberattacks, terrorism and economic instability.

Read the rest here:

After the liberal international order | The Strategist - The Strategist

Liberals’ Only Hope Against Neo-Marxists Is An Alliance With The Right – The Federalist

People have been asking me what I think of the HarpersLetter on Justice and Open Debate, a short statement opposing the cancel culture and signed by 153 prominent liberal intellectuals and cultural figures. Here are my thoughts after reading the letter.

First and most important, in the current atmosphere, anyone defending free speech and viewpoint diversity deserves support. We are living through a time of persecution, in which it is common for individuals to be publicly disgraced and to lose their jobs because theyve said something not in step with the latest theory of what constitutes social justice, or because they wrote something foolish decades ago.

So I support the general message of the Harpers letter. Still, I have to say that this statement is pretty messed up.

The most obvious way its messed up is that too many of the signatories have spent years systematically trying to stifle reasonable public debate by delegitimizing conservative voices and creating a context in which its too costly to engage with them in a public way.

Im not talking about those signatories who have strongly disagreed with conservatives, nationalists, Christians, populists, and so on. Vigorous disagreement is all fine and good and welcome, of course. Im talking about those who have accused conservatives of being authoritarian and anti-democracy; who have compared our views to Nazism, fascism, or Stalinism; whove said were theocrats, racists, sexists, and Islamophobes; whove said that were enabling and collaborating.

This campaign to delegitimize conservative views has been going on for years. Its been effective, too: A generation ago, conservatives were a minority in the mainstream media, academia, and other cultural settings. But we were considered legitimate participants representing a legitimate point of view.

Today this has changed entirely. Conservatism has been driven out or underground in one institution after another. And far too many of the signatories to this letter kept quiet or have actively taken part in bringing this about. But now that itsliberals whose standing is in danger, suddenly theyve realized they care immensely about free speech and viewpoint diversity!

Okay, so thats human nature. People tend to defend their own in-group and interests. Its easier for a liberal to worry about whether wereall free to be liberals than to worry about whether were free to be conservatives. I get it.

But now liberals are being persecuted and deplatformed. Now liberals thinking over the mistakes theyve made in the past. And theystilldont get how messed up it is to collect 153 signaturesin support offree speech and viewpoint diversity but to exclude conservatives fromthat as well.

That brings us to the heart of whats wrong with the Harpers letter: Even after all thats happened, the liberals who cooked this up still dont understand the most basic thing about democracy, which is that you need to have twolegitimate political parties for democracy to workone liberal and one conservative.,

This means that to have a democracy liberals need to grant legitimacy to conservatives (even when they dont like them much) and conservatives need to grant legitimacy to liberals (even when they dont like them much). Nothing else is going to work.

Heres what isnotgoing to work: Liberals trying to exclude conservatives fromevery kind oflegitimate discourse (because conservatives arethe real threat), while granting ever more influence to the very neo-Marxists who are working to bring them down. Its not going to work because neo-Marxists arent like conservatives: They dont believe in democracy. They dont believe in compromise. And they dont share power.

Nevertheless, thats what this letter is about, isnt it? Its about excluding conservatives from even the most elementary declaration of civic principles in order to throw a bone to the left in the hope that theyll take it.

Now, I know that not all the signatories are on the same page on this. Jonathan Haidt, for example, has risked much over the last few years trying to persuade liberals that the effective ban of conservatives in many universities is wrong-headed and self-destructive. Other liberals have stood with him, of course.

But far too many of the Harpers letter signatories have been toeing the line with, for example, Yascha Mounk, who on July 2 announced a new organization whose purpose is to ramp up the delegitimization campaign against conservatives, whom he says are the real threat to democracy. In his own words: The most pressing threat to liberal democracy comes from the populist right. From Brasilia to Washington, authoritarian populists are muzzling dissent, stoking racism, and concentrating power in their own hands. Were facing the fight of a lifetime.

So according to Mounk, the fight of his lifetime isnt against the neo-Marxists who are poised to take over the principal liberal institutions in America, but against conservatives, who are the most pressing threat to liberal democracy. And he said thisfive daysbefore appearing as a signatory on the Harpers letter, in anannouncementthat showcased the names of a dozen other Harpers signatories.

No big surprise, then, that the Harpers letter on free speech and viewpoint diversity includes no fewer than three (!) side comments aimed at delegitimizing conservatives. The reason for these asinine anti-conservative swipes is that the liberals behind the Harpers letter still think theyre going to get an alliance with the very same neo-Marxists who are out to destroy them. And they truly believe the way theyre going to get there is by putting conservatives down.

That leads us to the final reason this Harpers letter is so messed up: Its signatories dont seem to have a clue what time it is. They dont understand that the terrain has shifted beneath their feet.

The left has just scored dozens of victories, from taking down Opinions Editor James Bennet at The New York Times to taking out Woodrow Wilson at Princeton. Theres blood in the water and no one on the left is stupid enough to go for these little liberal bribes now.

Liberals only have two choices: Either theyll submit to the neo-Marxists or theyll try to put together a pro-democracy alliance with conservatives. There arent any other choices.

To be clear, I dont mean an alliance with theNeverTrumpersthat liberal outfits keep on their platforms so they can pretend to be dialoguing withthe other.Most of them arent conservatives and they certainly dont bring the conservative public with them.

Im talking about rebuilding a stable public sphere constructed around two legitimate political parties, one liberal and one consisting of actual conservativesmeaning people that the broad conservative public would recognize as their own.

Maybe liberals just arent smart enough to see that this is what theyve got to do. Maybe theydont have the gutsto do it. Maybe most liberal intellectuals are just going to keep hoping for love from the neo-Marxists until its all over. Could be.

But for now, two cheers for the Harpers letter on free speech and viewpoint diversity.Anyone defending free speech and viewpoint diversity at this time deserves support. So I support the general point of the thing. Even if it is pretty messed up.

Yoram Hazony is chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation and author of The Virtue of Nationalism. Follow him on Twitter @yhazony.

Read more:

Liberals' Only Hope Against Neo-Marxists Is An Alliance With The Right - The Federalist

Union-commissioned poll shows NDP with advantage over B.C. Liberals – Vancouver Sun

Her support generally would be 7.2 per cent among all respondents, but would have the support of 11 per cent of just decided voters.

The NDPs support is highest on Vancouver Island at almost 42 per cent, where B.C. Liberal support is lowest at 12 per cent and Green support comes in at 13 per cent, also its highest.

The gap between Liberals and NDP is narrowest in Vancouver, where NDP support was 29 per cent of respondents versus 22 per cent for the Liberals and Green support six per cent.

The survey asked several questions on community benefit agreements, which showed support among respondents and strongest sentiments among NDP confirmed voters.

For the poll, Strategic Communications surveyed a panel of 801 respondents that was statistically weighted to match the composition of B.C.s population by gender, age, region and mother tongue with an online questionnaire.

While a margin of error isnt applicable to such online surveys, a probability sample of this size would have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 per cent, 19 times out of 20, according to Strategic Communications.

depenner@postmedia.com

twitter.com/derrickpenner

Read the original:

Union-commissioned poll shows NDP with advantage over B.C. Liberals - Vancouver Sun

Liberal lawlessness sweeping our nation | Letters to the Editor – The Herald Journal

Dont look now my Democrat friends but you have lost total control of your party. Whether your panacea is defined as socialism, liberalism, communism or nirvana, the Everythings Free New World is the same bunch of lies, pandering and magic snake oil. It has never worked and never will but there will always be a parasitic appeal to freeloaders and the lazy.

We are surrounded with sickening evidence of liberal failure as lawlessness is sweeping across America. Because liberals are blind to raw evidence, let me start off by stating emphatically that the death of George Floyd by a rogue policeman is inexcusable! Was that clear enough? Liberal mayors and governors refused help to control lawlessness. They permitted criminals, not legitimate protestors, to destroy property and assault police. Now they want to defund police. What abject, total stupidity! And now your presidential candidate has called police the enemy!

In the exact same slippery slope as a womans right to abort a baby has now become the right to perform a post birth abortion in several states, cowardly liberal mayors and governors refusing to support their own police force has morphed into anarchy, lawlessness and unrestrained chaos. Do they seriously think that their wacko fringe minions will protect them? Now that I think about it, they have their own personal security so everyone else be damned. Not exactly the panacea they promised is it?

Whats the solution? The rule of law should apply to everyone: Clinton, Comey, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer and every single protestor that breaks the law. Jail isnt enough in my opinion. Anyone that attempts to dismantle America and the divinely inspired Constitution should be rewarded with a yearlong vacation in Afghanistan or Zimbabwe. If that doesnt prove what a bunch of absolutely ignorant spoiled brats they are then they literally dont deserve to live in the greatest country on earth. I will go so far as to repeat a great phrase from my era, America. Love it or Leave it. Another angle is Go back home and burn your own stuff down. Better yet, castrate the money source trucking in bricks, matches, bottles and protestors.

As long as Im out in left field, how about supporting the 99% of those that protect us. Im not afraid to say it, All lives matter. It doesnt matter the color of your skin, the shape of your nose, the number of limbs you possess, your sexual orientation, your address, being toothless, brainless or even helpless in that sacred location in the womb! We are all Gods children. So, I invite you to drop your hate and lets try and save America and freedom for our posterity.

View original post here:

Liberal lawlessness sweeping our nation | Letters to the Editor - The Herald Journal

Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper’s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism – CounterPunch

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Harpers Magazines July 7th Letter on Justice and Open Debate is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the PC cancel culture we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints.

The Harpers letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think its warranted to focus on the ways in which free speech is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the faade of a free exploration of ideas.

The ideas established in the Harpers letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of open debate and toleration of differences, and opposition to dogma[s], coercion, and intolerant climate[s] that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letters supporters celebrate the free exchange of information and ideas, which they deem the lifeblood of a liberal society, contrary to a rising vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. The letter elaborates:

But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.

Appealing to Americans commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harpers letter warns, restriction of debate invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.

One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened public political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.

Numerous passages in the Harpers letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes:

+ A lament that the emerging cancel culture threatens to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.

+ The claim that the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.

+ The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.

+ The call to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.

All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from mainstream political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions.

The lets engage in a diversity of competing views position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we dont really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content thats aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.

I dont draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into mainstream discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right.

Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As Ive documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans political and economic values, theres virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: theres very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate experience-oriented schooling system.

Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a professionalization culture that depicts political engagement as biased, unprofessional, and unacceptable. Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic professional norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, theres been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.

The reactionary professionalization thats celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who dont get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once theyve secured an academic job.

In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say theres no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.

Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isnt at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. Theres little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, its difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldnt dream of receiving in the first place.

I wont shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that theres no First Amendment free speech right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.

We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC cancel culture from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of free speech. But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.

Excerpt from:

Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper's Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism - CounterPunch

Understanding the collapse of liberal Zionism | Commentaries – St. Louis Jewish Light

Theres a reason why most Israelis find it difficult to listen patiently to lectures from liberal American Jews. For Israelis, their country is a real place filled with real people and perplexing dilemmas that have no easy solutions. But for all too many American Jews, Israel is a dreamlanda place for intellectual tourism where we can project our own insecurities and anxieties on the Jewish state while expressing our moral superiority over the lesser beings who live there and lack our wisdom.

Which brings us to the problem of Peter Beinart.

Beinart, the former editor of The New Republic and columnist for The Atlantic, sought to carve out a place for himself as the leading liberal critic of Israel with his 2012 book The Crisis of Zionism. The book was as spectacularly ignorant as it was arrogant in its refusal to acknowledge the reality of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The conceit of the work was that Israelis needed to rise above their fears and recognize that a two-state solution was within easy reach. Anything that contradicted his assumptionslike the nature of Palestinian political culture or the continued rejectionism and obsession with the fantasy of Israels destructionwas either rationalized or ignored. Too immersed in their unseemly quest for security and profit, Israelis could only overcome the crisis of the title by listening to the wisdom of Beinart, a righteous American pilgrim, whose manifest good intentions should have generated respect and deference from his recalcitrant Israeli pupils

Much to Beinarts chagrin, rather than take the advice of a leading American public intellectual to heart, Israelis ignored it. In the eight years since then, Israel has endured more violence and political controversy while the Palestinians have continued to reject peace, whether along the lines laid out by President Barack Obama (whose alleged bona fides as a friend of the Jewish people was discussed at length in his book) or the less generous terms offered by President Donald Trump.

Instead of moving closer to moral and physical collapse as Beinart has been prophesying, Israel has only gotten stronger. Much of the Arab world has tired of Palestinian intransigence and largely abandoned advocacy for their cause, as many now perceive the Israelis as a vital ally in the struggle against Iran, as well as a needed resource in the areas of technology, agriculture and clean water. Peace with the Palestinians is not in sight. But until it becomes possible, the Jews of Israel will hold on and continue to thrive.

All of this has left Beinart deeply troubled. He understands that events on the ground have refused to conform to his ideas. So rather than stick to his tired mantra about two states, Beinart has decided to junk it.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNSJewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

The result is an 8,000-word essay in Jewish Currentsthe far-left magazine where he now writes on Jewish affairs after having decided that the ultra-liberal Forward was no longer woke enough for himand a shorter version published in The New York Times in which he decides its time to give up on two states or rather the whole idea of a Jewish state. His Yavne: A Jewish Case for Equality in Israel-Palestine is a manifesto calling for the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state, replacing it with a binational entity where Jews and Arabs will share sovereignty over all of the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

Such a country will supposedly respect the rights of both peoples and provide a path to peace that was rendered impossible by the insistence of the Jews on having their own state in order to protect them from their unreasonable fears of another Holocaust. Having thus divested themselves of their unfair demonization of Palestinians, Israelis will prosper as Arabs mourn the Shoah and Jews will join them in lamenting the nakba (disaster) caused by the birth of the Jewish state.

There is, of course, nothing new about binationalism. It was championed by a small group of Jewish intellectuals in the 1920s and 30s whose naive and fearful approach was rendered obsolete by the Arab terror and rejectionism of that era. If Jewish life were to persist in its ancient homeland, sovereignty and self-defense were a must.

As scholar Daniel Gordis has written of Beinarts foolish essays, acceptance of his premise requires not so much imagination as ignorance even greater than that of the author. This means ignoring the fact that Palestinians still conceive of their national identity as inextricably tied to the destruction of Zionism and Jewish life, not a desire for peaceful co-existence. That Beinarts essays were published in the same week that the Fatah and Hamas movements announced their decision to join forces to oppose any compromise with Israel is not so much ironic as it is telling.

Beinarts call for a new Yavnea reference to the place where Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai built a yeshivah where Judaism could be revived after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.is also deeply symbolic. The real-life Jews of today are not defeated, but are flourishing in their reconstituted Jewish state. But thats meaningless to Beinart because he believes the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel is a good enough reason to abandon the whole project. So hes prepared to throw in the towel and with it, not only Jewish security but also the revival of Jewish life and culture that was made possible by Zionism.

Should Israelis treat his intellectual journey as if it were the epic event that he and his friends at the Times think it is?

Beinarts chutzpah and self-importance demand satire, not respect. The notion that the state created by the sacrifice, blood, guts and brains of millions of courageous Israelis should be trashed because it doesnt measure up to the hopes of one presumptuous intellectual living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan is something so silly that youd have to be an idiot (or an editor at The New York Times) to believe it.

While we do well to mock Beinart, we still shouldnt ignore him.

Beinarts anti-Zionist broadside in Americas leading newspaper represents more than just his own appalling egotism. His abandonment of the Jewish state is also indicative of the crisis of faith within much of American Jewry, whose loyalty to liberal patent nostrums exceeds their love of their fellow Jews or the vibrant society that has flourished in Israel.

His delusions are also to be found in the boardrooms of all too many liberal American Jewish institutions and philanthropies. Their talk of disillusionment with Israel and along with their judgmental attitude towards the hardheaded realism of the overwhelming majority of Israelis is not dissimilar to Beinarts ideas.

The contempt for the achievements of Zionism and the fearful refusal to contemplate a future in which Jews can succeed despite the fact that insoluble problems remain unsolved has become part of the narrative of American Jewish life. Though Beinarts ideas are as unoriginal as they are lacking in insight, they have the virtue of mirroring the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of much of the liberal American Jewish establishmentboth philanthropic and religiousthat is more interested in kowtowing to a Black Lives Matter movement linked to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism than it is to standing up for Zionism and the Jewish state.

The retreat of the defeated to Yavne is an image that has nothing to say to Israelis. Rather, it is an apt metaphor for the failures of an American Jewish organized world drenched in ignorance and Jewish illiteracy that is suffering both a demographic implosion and a crisis of faith. The surrender of the self-described leading exponent of liberal Zionism speaks volumes about the failures of American Jewry.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNSJewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Originally posted here:

Understanding the collapse of liberal Zionism | Commentaries - St. Louis Jewish Light

This is why Liberal Democrats should make history and name Layla Moran the first openly LGBT+ leader of a major party – PinkNews

Liberal Democrat leadership candidate Layla Moran. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

Lynne Featherstone, a member of the House of Lords and former equalities minister under the coalition government, explains for PinkNews why she believes Layla Moran should be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats, and make history as the first openly LGBT+ leader of a major political party.

As the first openly LGBT+ candidate for the leadership of a UK-wide political party, Layla Moran is a brilliant force in the Liberal Democrats and in the political landscape.

When she bounded into the news last year after coming out as pansexual, she clearly demonstrated that she treads her own path. Her vision for the Liberal Democrats is a fairer, greener and more compassionate country where everyone has the security to live life as they choose including her!

I know Layla well and have seen her in action as an energetic and passionate voice for our values.

She is incredibly active in standing up for the LGBT+ community. She recently tabled a motion to parliament to outlaw LGBT+ conversion therapy.

In an opinion piece for i, she excoriated the government for its lack of action two years on from pledging to ban this outdated and harmful practice As she stated: As a liberal, I believe that the right to love who you want is fundamental.

Lawmakers and the government have a responsibility to protect and support their citizens. That means all of us, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.

Protecting LGBT+ people isnt an optional extra, or a nice fluffy liberal add-on. It is a fundamental right.

Layla is also incandescent about reports that Boris Johnson is planning to scrap reforms to the Gender Recognition Act that would make gender change easier.

Her position is crystal clear: Trans rights are human rights. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

The trans community face a horrendous level of discrimination and harassment and Layla has vowed that she and the Liberal Democrats will stand in solidarity with them and tirelessly campaign for equal rights for all.

She is urging the government to remove the current ban on gay or bisexual men donating blood unless theyve been celibate for at least six months. She has argued that being able to donate blood should be based on scientific evidence not on sexual orientation, with individual risk assessments instead of arbitrary rules that exclude entire groups.

At a time when the NHS is urging men, in particular, to donate their blood and antibodies to use for research for treatments against coronavirus, the rules seem especially nonsensical.

Gay and bisexual men should not be denied the right to help in the fight against COVID-19. The health secretary should urgently amend these outdated rules and allow gay and bisexual men to donate blood and antibodies like everybody else.

But Layla is not just a great champion for LGBT+ rights. Her clarity of purpose and vision is carried through all that she believes in.

Her stance on education built on her experience as a former teacher, to invest in the early years to reduce inequality and introduce a nationwide adult retraining system.

On the economy consider wellbeing alongside GDP and introduce a Universal Basic Income so no one is left behind. On the environment have a green-powered recovery that ensures we become not just carbon neutral but carbon negative.

On all these areas, Layla has an ambitious, progressive and liberal vision to move the Liberal Democrats and the country forward and build a fairer and more compassionate country where everyone has a chance to thrive.

The face of the UK has transformed in recent years and it continues to change. Its time our country had a UK-wide party leader who embodies that and who can inspire future generations to be the best versions of themselves, reflecting the values of tolerance, inclusivity and diversity that are so integral to our modern society.

Today is the last day that people can join the Liberal Democrats and still vote for the partys next leader.

So I would urge anyone who isnt a member and agrees with these values to join us in making history and backing Layla so together we can continue fighting for a more equal future.

Layla is the fresh start we need. Just like Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy this potential leader of the Liberal Democrats will make liberalism mainstream once again.

Read this article:

This is why Liberal Democrats should make history and name Layla Moran the first openly LGBT+ leader of a major party - PinkNews

Liberals are right to ignore deficit bogeyman – TheRecord.com

Finance Minister Bill Morneau made one thing patently clear this week: As far as the federal Liberal government is concerned, deficits dont matter.

They really dont.

Justin Trudeaus Liberals have long been cavalier about deficits. In the 2015 election campaign, they promised to spend in order to get the economy moving even if that meant briefly running a deficit.

In the 2019 campaign, they dropped the word briefly, arguing that they could run deficits indefinitely as long as the federal governments debt as a percentage of the national economy was falling.

This week, they effectively abandoned even that target. Thanks to the pandemic, the debt-to- gross-domestic-product ratio has risen sharply. But that, said Morneau in his fiscal snapshot Wednesday, isnt reason to cut back spending or raise taxes.

In fact, he said, the government will spend $50 billion more. In the current fiscal year, the deficit is expected to balloon more than tenfold to $343 billion.

Dont get me wrong. I think the Liberals are right to abandon what had been, in the days of Paul Martin and Jean Chrtien, their fixation on deficits.

Since then, federal and provincial governments of all political stripes have used the deficit bogeyman as an excuse to slash social programs ranging from medicare to employment insurance.

Whenever a new social program, like pharmacare, is proposed, naysayers needed only raise the word deficit to scupper it.

So kudos to Morneau and Trudeau for acknowledging what many economists have long pointed out: countries like Canada can survive deficits quite handily. Government borrowing is not necessarily a recipe for disaster. In most cases, it involves Canadians borrowing from themselves.

Since April, for instance, the government has been borrowing at least $5 billion a week from the Bank of Canada. In effect, and properly so, the central bank is printing money to help fund the deficit.

Todays monster deficit stems from COVID-19. Shutting down the entire economy in order to preserve public health carries a cost. Morneaus fiscal snapshot predicts that Canadas gross domestic product will shrink by a stunning 6.8 per cent this year.

The governments response has been to devise a bevy of emergency programs designed to patch things up. Employers have been offered wage subsidies if they agree to keep workers on the job. Workers sideswiped by the virus have been offered benefits to tide them through temporarily.

Small businesses have been offered low-interest bank loans to stay afloat. Young people have been offered money for volunteering.

All of this is aimed at keeping the economy afloat until the pandemic has run its course. All of this assumes that the pandemic will run its course.

But what if it doesnt? What happens if the world doesnt return to a pre-pandemic normal?

Will people eat out as much? Or will they fear catching the virus? Will holidayers and business people be willing to travel as much as they did? Or will they try to avoid crowded planes and heavily frequented hotels?

Will we get through this first wave of the pandemic only to be sandbagged by a second? If so, do we just shut down again?

Most Canadians labour in the service industry. But it is workers in this industry, ranging from store clerks to nursing home workers to baristas, who have been hit hardest.

Never miss the latest news from The Record, including up-to-date coronavirus coverage, with our email newsletters.

The service industry was whacked by the first wave. Will it survive a second?

All of these questions were neither asked nor answered in Morneaus snapshot. They will have to be faced eventually.

But at least the finance minister made it crystal clear that hes not bothered by deficits. Thats not much. But its something.

Link:

Liberals are right to ignore deficit bogeyman - TheRecord.com

Lebanons neo-liberal wheels sped to a dream future, but the past applies the brakes – FRANCE 24 English

For decades, Lebanon was a poster child of the triumph of private enterprise, its failure to close its civil war chapter overlooked in the hopes that prosperity would overcome the weakness of the state. But now that the current economic crisis has ripped the neo-liberal band-aid, can the Lebanese confront the wounds of the past?

The trains in Lebanon are an unfortunate metaphor for the state. Theyre going nowhere. In fact, they havent budged since the national rail system ground to a halt during the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war.

But they live in the public memory, an object of yearning and a testimony to the limitations of private enterprise. Artists put up shows offering sepia-tinted nostalgia of a heritage service. Newspapers feature profiles of Lebanons last living train driver. NGOs raise awareness, via songs and video clips, hoping it will lay the groundwork for a modern railway system linking cities as they did under Ottoman and colonial rule.

The wheels of the dream however are stuck, like the countrys trains going rusty in yards roamed by packs of wild dogs.

Meanwhile, Lebanon has a Public Transport and Railway Administration or Office des Chemins de Fer et des Transports en Common (OCFTC) in French. The department is staffed by civil servants and has a budget of more than $8 million a year.

But the OCFTCs only transportation offering is a fleet of public buses with a grand total of 35 vehicles officially running nine routes nationwide. In reality, many OCFTC bus drivers never get behind a wheel. Some confess they havent driven for years because theyre afraid of being attacked by the drivers of private minibuses, who dominate Lebanons public transport sector.

Transport regulation services, meanwhile, range from corrupt to non-existent. Red registration plates necessary for public transport vehicles are issued by the Transport and Vehicle Management Authority (TVMA) under the Interior Ministry. But they can be bought and sold or simply forged, with the number of red plate vehicles on the streets far exceeding TVMA-issued registrations.

But Lebanon nevertheless kept moving, its estimated 4 million citizens famed for their enterprise, resilience and business acumen getting where they needed to somehow. The rich and upper middle classes in their cars maneuvered traffic snarls, the less fortunate hailed minibuses or service Lebanons celebrated shared taxis.

The money also flowed, with Lebanese banks the historic jewel of the countrys economy offering high interest rates, attracting currency from local and regional depositors as well as the large Lebanese diaspora across the world.

Little Lebanon has long been the hailed liberal island in an autocratic Arab neighbourhood. After the civil war, it turned into a neo-liberal dream, the absence of effective state services, it was believed, could be filled by private enterprise, mirroring the post-Soviet zeitgeist of privatisation against the sin of bloated governments. International attention instead was focused on Lebanons precarious political equilibrium in a volatile region. The Lebanese, it was believed, could manage finance.

But the neo-liberal bubble has burst with deadly consequences. A spiraling economic crisis driven by a currency collapse is driving the state and its people into destitution. The Lebanese pound in recent days fetched more than 9,000 to the greenback on the black market, hyper-inflation has wiped meat off many Lebanese tables including the armys menu and the desperation has triggered a spike in suicides.

Four Lebanese killed themselves last week in suicides apparently linked to the economic downturn.

In one case, a 61-year-old man shot himself before a Dunkin Donuts shop in the heart of capital, Beirut. A suicide note on his chest quoted a line from a popular song, I am not a heretic. But hunger is heresy, according to local media reports.

IMF as defenders of widows and orphans

Meanwhile talks between Lebanon and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for an emergency bailout have stalled over the countrys inability to overhaul its entrenched patronage systems.

Two members of Lebanons negotiating team resigned last month, including one of the main architects of the governments rescue plan. Alain Bifany, the top civil servant in the Lebanese finance ministry, told a news conference he refused to be part of, or witness to, what is being done.

A blame game has since dominated the Lebanese airwaves. But it hasnt changed the facts on the ground. The collapse of talks was not due to differences between Lebanon and the IMF, the two negotiating parties. It was sparked by infighting within the Lebanese team, pitting civil servants against bankers and politicians over the extent of losses accrued by the banks, particularly Lebanons central bank.

The governments assessment of central bank losses of around $50 billion equivalent to more than 90 percent of Lebanons 2019 total economic output was rejected by the central bank governor and some parliamentarians who maintained the amount was lower, according to the Financial Times. The IMF is more in line with Lebanese civil service figures, estimating losses of over $90 billion.

The collapse of IMF talks is really disappointing. Basically, there is no plan B and it was the last hope to inject badly needed foreign currency which could offer a respite to the economy, said Karim Emile Bitar, senior fellow at the Paris-based Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS) and director of the Institute for Political Science at St. Joseph University, Beirut.

While IMF bailouts, with the accompanying austerity and belt-tightening measures, tend to be unpopular across the world, the reverse is true in Lebanon, Bitar explained.

The irony in Lebanon is that theres such a degree of egregious corruption, political clientelism and kleptocracy that the IMF ended up being seen as defending the widows and orphans, said Bitar in a phone interview with FRANCE 24 from Beirut. This is one of the very few cases when the IMF is seen on the side of social justice against political elites in cahoots with private interests, banks and big depositors the few who have over $10 million each [in bank deposits] and dont want to contribute to a fair solution.

The IMF bailout of around $5 billion in aid after Lebanon for the first time defaulted on its sovereign debt would pave the way for contributions from France, the EU, and Gulf states keen to rescue the country, but wary of pouring money into the morass.

But overhauling Lebanons entrenched patronage systems has proved to be easier said than done. You would not think this would be difficult, a senior European diplomat told the Guardian. We have been begging them to behave like a normal state, and they are acting like they are selling us a carpet.

Beautiful, but threadbare national carpet

The Lebanese national carpet though is a structurally threadbare tapestry of sectarian divides that has been historically managed more often mismanaged by feudal lords, warlords and their families and friends.

The carpet is ripped in times of war, but when the conflict ends with an invariable division of spoils the fabric of the nation is rarely strengthened. The countrys once warring elites and weary populace instead place their hopes on the magic of the market and the memory of the last bloodbath as a deterrent against future man-made disasters.

The roots of the current crisis lie in the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war and the countrys failure to effectively close that historical chapter by addressing existential issues. The lessons of the past are important not just for Lebanon, but also for other countries in the region, such as Syria and Iraq, grappling with sectarianism and strife.

Lebanons brutal civil war between internecine sectarian groups backed by regional powers ended with the Taif Accord. The agreement reached in the mountainous Saudi city of Taif ended the fighting, but failed to effectively secure the peace. Instead of abolishing colonial era divide-and-rule policies, imperative for newly independent democracies, the parties merely updated the confessional equation.

Post-conflict justice and reconciliation was avoided in favour of national amnesia, encapsulated by the dictum la ghalib, wa la maghloub (no victors, no vanquished). The old system of zaims, or feudal overlords, providing protection and services in exchange for patronage survived with a few nomenclature tweaks: warlords became politicians, their funding sources switched to international business and finance, territories turned into ministries, and profiteering proceeded at usual unregulated levels.

>> Read more: Lebanons modern zaims, or feudal lords-turned-candidates

Mr Lebanon rebuilds corruption

The postwar healing focused on obliterating the visual signs of the conflict, particularly in Beirut with its bombed out buildings and pockmarked concrete carcasses.

But the national reconstruction, which was essentially a construction boom, soon became a symbol of the ailments infecting the state.

The countrys first postwar prime minister, Rafik Hariri, led a reconstruction that set the bar for politico-business enrichment. A businessman tycoon with close Saudi ties and dual citizenship, Hariri was the largest stakeholder in Solidere, a joint stock company that snagged most of his governments reconstruction projects. Hariri also owned Lebanons largest private construction company, whose director was appointed the head of the Council for Development and Reconstruction, leading an architect to explain to the Washington Post that the agency that the government used to control private development has now reversed its role.

The fact that Hariri was not a warlord and had the drive and pockets to rebuild his country made him a popular figure in Lebanon. The corruption was evident Hariri was called Mr. Lebanon but it was tolerated as the price of Lebanons reentry in the world as the businessman-prime minister repeatedly proclaimed.

Critics of his rebuilding particularly architects and heritage groups bemoaning the demolition of historic sites were brushed aside. Downtown Beirut turned into a glitzy giant shopping mall financed by debt on the detritus of Lebanons past, a perfect symbol of the reemerging nation.

We were sold a myth, that many had an interest in telling, that there was no need for a strong state, Lebanese resilience would always come on top. Today, those truly resilient are the oligarchs, ruling class and corrupt elites while average citizens are no longer capable of making ends meet, said Bitar.

The construction and reconstruction boom was financed by borrowing, increasing the countrys debt-to-GDP ratio to recent peaks of nearly 150 percent, putting Lebanon in the worlds top three most-indebted countries. Interest payments, meanwhile, covered more than a third of the governments annual spending.

But the banks, which own most of the debt, happen to be controlled by politicians and their families and friends who are sinking Lebanon.

Toward a zaim-less state

The Mr. Lebanon template for the state could be negotiated, with wry humour, by the affluent and upper middle classes. But it was never amusing for the less fortunate, who were driven to their communities Hezbollah for the Shiites, modern day zaim-politicians for others to survive. This entailed non-state patronage networks that often exploited the state.

The defunct railways was just one of several departments staffed by salaried cadres who secured jobs by wasta (influence) but did precious little. The system, at the very least, managed to prop a middle-class. But the current crisis has pulled the rug on that. The country had a solid middle class. Today, the middle class has all but vanished. Many are thinking of leaving the country, said Bitar.

The Lebanese, acutely aware of the brewing problem, have been trying to do something about it. Grassroots movements have included the 2015 You Stink protest campaign against the garbage collection problem. In the 2018 parliamentary elections, a record number of civil society figures, under an umbrella coalition called Kuluna Watani, stood for the long-delayed polls. But while that fired up hopes on the campaign trail, it did little to change the post-election power dynamic since electoral rules ensured the survival of the old guard.

Anti-government protests once again broke out in October, with demonstrators demanding an end to the system. They got, instead, a change of government with Prime Minister Saad Hariris resignation, but nothing changed. Ministry posts are still doled out on patronage terms, the trains are still stuck.

The only silver lining of the current crisis is that this time its so serious, the Lebanese will not be hoodwinked by a bailout band-aid on the national wound.

There must be a rejection of the old clientelist system. Many aspire to a new Lebanon based on citizenship rather than community affiliations, said Bitar. They want rights from the state without having to go begging to sectarian leaders begging for jobs, asking for money for medicine. Today, Lebanon needs a new social contract.

Go here to see the original:

Lebanons neo-liberal wheels sped to a dream future, but the past applies the brakes - FRANCE 24 English

Letter to the Editor: Liberals trying to push communist ideas – Delaware State News – Delaware State News

It was nice to see that Mike Apgar survived our initial wave of the COVID-19 virus. Im sad to see, however, that nothing happened to assuage his delusional hatred (Hail to Mr. Tough Guy, our divider in chief, June 17) for a person whose only offense was defeating a lying, traitorous Democrat, Hillary Clinton.

I particularly enjoy how the party line is so easily parroted by the liberal left wing. The most glaring was Mr. Apgars blind insistence on the mainstream media feed that all the demonstrations were about the summer of love and singing Kumbaya. Perhaps a trip to New York or Seattle in person might actually enlighten him, though I doubt it.

The distortions of fact and outright lies to push a communist agenda is simply amazing. No president has ever endured the continual harangue that President Trump has. The Constitution was subverted before the president was inaugurated. Using a fake dossier that the former secretary of state (who clandestinely sold a third of Americas uranium to Russia) had paid for, the Democrats began a Russian collusion scheme.

For three-quarters of his term, the president fought that, while managing to rid America of burgeoning bureaucratic requirements, bring about unmatched economic development and bring back manufacturers whod left during the previous eight years. A former vice president, having openly admitted to committing quid pro quo to stop investigation of his son, claimed that the president had committed quid pro quo in investigating his lawlessness.

President Trump closes the border to protect the nation from the COVID-19 virus and is castigated as racist and xenophobic. Yet when that move proved true, he was skewered for not having done it sooner. Forced to literally close the country, he halved the doom-and-gloom medias economic impact forecast. Unemployment was at its lowest point in 50 years, but just as soon as businesses were forced to close, these same doomsayers started blaming the president as jobs numbers plunged.

Now, Mr. Apgar plays the Democrat sound bite that the president hid in the bunker when his peaceful protesters tried to storm the White House grounds. (For someone whose cherished candidate has spent four months in his basement, he ignored that no president is given a choice by the Secret Service when and if he is taken to the bunker, as was the case here.) Presidents dont hide, they are protected.

Mr. Apgar is likely to have spent four years trying to set brush fires in peoples minds while one of our greatest presidents has, without a single Democrat supporting him, rebuilt this nations standing throughout the world, while waving what the former First Lady referred to as that damned flag.

During the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s, he was finally exposed by Boston lawyer, Joseph Welch, who stopped the proceedings and said, Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency? Thats the question I would love to ask these rabid liberals, but sadly, I fear I already know their answer.

George RoofMagnolia

The rest is here:

Letter to the Editor: Liberals trying to push communist ideas - Delaware State News - Delaware State News

Liberal Inches Ahead in Tight Polish Election: Surveys – The Globe Post

A liberal contender could narrowly defeat Polands right-wing incumbent president in a knife-edge election on Sunday, according to two final polls on Friday.

But a third survey handed President Andrzej Duda a 53-47 victory over Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski and most analysts insist that the race is too close to call, with voter mobilization seen as a decisive factor.

Backed by the main Civic Platform (PO) opposition party, Trzaskowski has gained traction with voters worried that a Duda win would help the Law and Justice (PiS) party government to push ahead with judicial reforms that have alienated Poland within the EU.

Duda supporters meanwhile believe he offers a better guarantee for a raft of popular PiS social benefits that propelled the party to win a second term last year.

Originally scheduled for May 10, the election was postponed by over a month due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Support for Trzaskowski tallied at 46.4 percent compared to 45.9 percent for Duda in a July 8-9 survey by the independent Kantar pollsters for the commercial TVN24 news channel.But 7.7 percent of the 1,500 respondents said they were undecided.

An IBRIS poll conducted July 8 showed 45.3 percent support for Trzaskowski and 44.4 percent for Duda, with 10.3 percent of the 1,100 respondents declaring they had not yet made a final choice.

A CATI Ipsos poll taken July 7-8 handed Duda a 53-47 victory, with only three percent of the 1,014 respondents saying they were undecided.

The election comes within the broader context of long-standing EU concerns about democratic standards in Poland.

The European Commission has launched four infringement procedures against PiS-authored judicial reforms, which it says test democracy and the rule of law by undermining judicial independence.

The rest is here:

Liberal Inches Ahead in Tight Polish Election: Surveys - The Globe Post

Justice John Roberts joins the Supreme Courts liberal wing in some key rulings – The Economist

But he is not tilting left

FOR A THIRD time in as many weeks John Roberts, Americas conservative chief justice, has sided with his liberal colleagues in a big case. After his votes on LGBT rights and immigrant protections, on June 29th he was the linchpin in a 5-4 decision striking down a law that would have limited abortion access in Louisiana. This brought cheers from liberals and howls from conservatives. Josh Hawley, a senator from Missouri and Chief Justice Robertss former clerk, called June Medical Services v Russo, the abortion decision, a disaster and accused his old boss (without naming him) of perpetuat[ing] bad precedent while barely bothering to explain why.

The precedent Mr Hawley deplores is Whole Womans Health v Hellerstedt, a decision in 2016 rejecting a Texas law that purported to protect womens health while regulating about half of the states abortion clinics out of existence. Chief Justice Roberts is no fan of Whole Womans Health, either: he was among the dissenting trio of justices in the 5-3 ruling. This week in June Medical he repeated his disdain for the earlier decision, but explained that stare decisisLatin for let the decision standrequired the court to treat like cases alike. Since the Louisiana requirement that abortion providers must secure admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles was nearly identical to the doomed Texas rule, and imposed a similarly substantial obstacle to abortion access, the outcome should be the same. The court must not upend its own judgment a mere four years on.

Yet, with an eye on future cases, the chief justice proceeded to undercut the very precedent he had relied upon to reject Louisianas law. Whole Womans Health said judges should consider both the benefits and burdens of a regulation. But weighing the two against each other, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is a job for the legislature, not the courts. If a regulation does not make it exceedingly hard for women to procure abortions it would probably pass constitutional muster, no matter how slight or illusory the benefit. This may be read as an invitation to Republican-run states to cook up restrictive abortion laws as long as they can be pitched as not too burdensomeand are not replicas of a law the court has already rejected.

A more radical opportunity to turn the tide on abortion lurks in the chief justices opinion. He emphasises that June Medical is not about Roe v Wade, the ruling in 1973 that protects a womans right to abortion. Though Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, charged that the courts abortion jurisprudence remains in a state of utter entropy and ought to be thrown out in its entirety, Chief Justice Roberts demurred. Neither party has asked us to reassess the constitutional validity of the abortion right itself, he wrote. If plaintiffs come askingas they are in Georgia and Alabama, where near-blanket abortion bans are working their way through the courtshe might be willing to reconsider Roe.

There are loopholes in the other liberal victories, too. Though Chief Justice Roberts joined the left side of the bench (and Justice Neil Gorsuch) to bar workplace bias against gay and trans people, the majority opinion leaves open whether employers with religious objections to hiring LGBT workers might, in some circumstances, have a licence to discriminate. And in the case halting President Donald Trumps cancellation of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the chief justice noted that the merits of ending Barack Obamas programme were not the question. Mr Trump could still kill DACA if he would only follow basic standards of administrative law. The chief justice sent the president the same message a year ago when he refused to bless the administrations flubbed quest to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, but hinted it could try again.

Two other decisions penned by Chief Justice Roberts this week also came out 5-4but with the liberals in their more familiar position as dissenters. The first of these was Seila Law v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a challenge to the design of a federal agency set up after the recession of 2007-09. The majority did not break up the CFPB but, dampening its independence, gave the president the power to fire its director whenever he pleases. Then, on June 30th, the chief justice anchored Espinoza v Montana Department of Revenue, requiring any state that funds secular private schools to fund religious schools, too. Both rulings, cloaked as inevitable outgrowths of earlier cases, were in fact profound shifts in the law.

Acting boldly through superficially small stepsand getting credit for aisle-crossing while giving liberals at best temporary solaceseems to be panning out well for Chief Justice Roberts. He is cultivating a reputation for non-partisanship at the Supreme Court while advancing primarily conservative goals. And hes winning: of the 53 cases decided so far this term, he has been in the majority in 52.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Hail to the chief"

Here is the original post:

Justice John Roberts joins the Supreme Courts liberal wing in some key rulings - The Economist

Colson’s liberal columns go to the extreme – Aspen Times

Colsons liberal columns go to the extreme

John Colson is a fine writer. It is clear from his opinions that he is a liberal voice, possibly the liberal voice, of The Aspen Times. Is there a conservative voice to provide an opposing narrative? A few days ago he wrote (New Normal) expressing concerns for bare-faced wanderers.

Yet my experieince in business and dining areas masks are commonplace, enforced, hiking not so much with no one around. He said little in the past about protestors and rioters irresponsibility, masks included. He clearly is anti the pro-Donald Trump crowd creating so-called controversies.

What about the Democrats ignoring running and protecting a nation? He enjoys invectives, like right-wing nut base or the pathetically ignorant swath critical of opposing thoughts as if he is a scientist. Oh well, when reading Colson I guess its just another day of bile boiling from the caldron of a biased opinionist, facts or truth aside.

Tom Balderston

Snowmass

Readers around Aspen and Snowmass Village make the Aspen Times work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.

Continue reading here:

Colson's liberal columns go to the extreme - Aspen Times