I ve seen Moonlight three times. And each time, the movie theater was packed with lots of White women, which came as no real surprise; they love a good story about Black pain and triumph.

White folks are often fascinated by stories about Black folks in the hood, in prison and in other cagesfeel good stories about those who survive the destructive conditions of birth. But it seems that many of them, liberals in particular, are less interested in Black stories that end in tragedy, or Black stories that are tragedy personified, or most significantly, the idea of Blackness as tragedy in the fiction of American post-racial discourse.

As I have previouslywritten, I am wary of White liberals. Even those who have read Michelle Alexanders The New Jim Crow and Ta-Nehisi Coatess Between The World and Me, or watch Netflixs Orange Is The New Black and Ava DuVernays 13th while doing the electric slide withTim Wise, who has been repeatedly accused of lifting words and intellectual ideas from Black activists and thinkers without proper citation.

As such, I was less concerned with the sea of White liberals that surrounded me as I watched Moonlight. This story is not theirs to tell, nor is it their story to discuss.

Indeed, White liberals are onlookers at what happens in the closed spaces within Black communities that have been wrecked and ruined by the War on Drugs, Reaganomics, and unrelenting anti-Black state violence. They arent at the center of this gorgeous story of Black sexuality, queer masculinities, and manhood. Nor are they the target audience for a talethat far exceeds any depiction of Black men as sexual beasts with rapacious lusts for White women or as thugs who rob and kill their own without any substantial examination of the pathologies that lead to crime.

The White liberal disrespect is not new

Moonlight gave us a fresh wind, and White liberals caught a whiff. I know because each time I watchedit, I noticed Black folks, especially Black queer men, lingering in their seatsmeditating and ruminating on what we had just witnessed. Meanwhile White folks scurried off without any tangible or easily identifiable connections to the beautiful and complex tableaux that had just been projected on the screen. They left with the same quickness as White women who clutchtheir purses or lock their car doors when they see Black men.

However, I think it important to consider what happened Sunday at the Oscars. The filmwhich based on a play called In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blueby a Black gay man named Tarell Alvin McCraney, directed by Barry Jenkins, a Black man, and edited by Joi McMillon, a Black woman who worked alongside Nat Sanderswas devastatingly disrespected by the Academy and its White liberal representatives.

But that disrespect is nothing new. Its the same disrespect that many Black people experience from some Whites who believe they do not resemble racists. They are liberal, nice, and good. Blacks are told to be thankful that they arent as depraved as their counterparts.

Still, those same White liberals tried to hand the Best Picture Oscar to a forgettable White film. We have seen La La Land beforealbeit in different iterations. Yet it is honored over and over again. Meanwhile, Moonlight in all its glory, nuance and complexity tells a singular story about Black life, Black childhood, Black boyhood, Black hoods, Black sexuality, Black queerness, and Black masculinity.

White liberals reward themselves for rehashing the same narratives. But Black artists are charged with telling new stories, told to rewrite the stories, or lies in the Black cultural sense; and to imagine and re-imagine a world where Black characters like Juan, Chiron and Teresa are free to live and have being.

Whites in La La Land

After the La La Land cast accepted the Oscar for Best Picture, they quickly heard disorienting news from Jordan Horowitz, who stated emphatically, No, theres a mistake. Moonlight, you guys won best picture. There was a mistake. Moonlight won best picture. This is not a joke. Moonlight won best picture. Im afraid they read the wrong thing. This is not a joke.

The error very well may have been a human onewhat is to be gained from humiliating the cast of La La Land? However, the moment was loaded. Considering how many times Black people lost out on something they so deserved, to watch it bestowed upon our folk in such a way, one could not help but to at least fantasize that Black Jesus and the ancestors snatched the honor back from the undeserving hands of White artists and placed it where it belongs.

But as others have noted, Black folks must question and critically assess the cultural significance of this honor, which comes from an institution that has a longstanding history of demonizing Black art and artists, and overlooking, if not invisibilizing, Black actors and actresses. We need not look too far. Just recall #OscarsSoWhite. Perhaps it is useful for us to pay close attention to Barry Jenkins words during his acceptance speech:

You know, there was a time when I thought this movie was impossible, because I couldnt bring it to fruition. I couldnt bring myself to tell another story. And so everybody behind me on this stage said, No, that is not acceptable. So I just want to thank everybody up here behind me. Everybody out there in that room. Because we didnt do this. You guys chose us. Thank you for the choice. I appreciate it. Much love.

The Academy and White liberals will continue to do what they do. And Black artists and Black people must do what we know best: We must choose us.

Ahmad Greene-Hayesis a doctoral student in the Departments of Religion and African American Studies at Princeton University. He also currently serves as an inaugural cohort fellow of theJust Beginnings Collaborative(2016-2018), where his project,Children of Combaheeworks to eradicate child sexual abuse in Black churches. Follow him@_BrothaG.

Also On News One:

Read more:

'Moonlight' Eclipses White Liberal Shade - News One

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

It gets to a point where whatever you say in class, if youre not left of center, you get booed, you get sneered at, and so pretty soon you just go quiet and let them run roughshod. And people who are not conservative will never understand this in a million years, Scarboroughsaid.

Scarborough suggested that liberal colleges are creating provocative students. If Im going to Dartmouth and I cant express what 53 percent of Americans believe.if I cant even say mainstream conservative thought in my class, I may as well go out on the quad and have an affirmative action bake sale, he said.

It is one of the great failings of this country, its one of the great failings of our academic system that is so the illiberal that unless you dont march in lockstep in the best college campuses in this country you are shunned. So what do you end up doing? You get shoved to extreme positions just to push back at the extreme hatred that you face the second you walk into an elite institution, Scarborough added.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about education and social justice for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

Read the original:

Joe Scarborough: 'Intolerance of Liberal College Professors' is Hurting Education - Breitbart News

The Liberal Party is riven by internal bickering, with various camps claiming to speak for its true values and traditions. The contest is leading not to any prospect of unity or discipline, but to the partys fragmentation. The war is fought in the guise of a contest over leadership appropriate to the partys soul and to the national interest.

In the process, the party is incrementally diverging from popular opinion on issues essential to future electoral success. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is currently in the crosshairs. But whether or not he survives to fight another election, whoever leads the party next time is unlikely to be the saviour of the party or Coalition government.

The predicament is best understood by analysing what is at the heart of this struggle: the pragmatic liberalism that was the Liberal Partys foundation; the divergence of the party base from majority opinion; and the contemporary obsession with the leader as solely responsible for the partys fortunes.

All exponents of Liberal Party values lay claim to the Menzies tradition. The most vehement contemporary claimants are on the partys right wing. Their plaint is that the commitment to individualism, private enterprise, small government, lower taxes and free trade has been forgotten. Cory Bernardi split with the Liberals to establish his own party, Australian Conservatives, to reconnect with voters and restore traditional Menzies-era values.

Others of like mind remain in the fold and threaten Turnbulls leadership. The most prominent is his predecessor, Tony Abbott. Abbott continues to advocate more extreme budget austerity, climate change scepticism, immigration restriction, market fundamentalism and regressive taxation reform than even Turnbull (who has compromised on everything he once promised in an attempt to mollify the right) has yet conceded.

Such claims depart from Menzies principles in two core texts. The first is his famous Forgotten People broadcast in 1943. The second is his essay on The revival of Liberalism in Australia in Afternoon Light.

Menzies championed thrift, self-reliance, private enterprise, individual responsibility and freedom, and the family as the bastion of our best instincts. He warned of the danger of an all powerful state. But he pitched his appeal to the middle class, excluding the rich and powerful (who did not need his help) and the unskilled people (protected by unions and with wages safeguarded by common law). Thus he mobilised an election-winning constituency between what he saw as the extremes of exploitative financial power and the incipient socialism of the organised working class.

Yet Menzies insisted:

There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation.

He never claimed that his was a conservative party. On the contrary:

We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary, but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise, and rejecting the Socialist panacea.

Still, the state had its part to play. Menzies supported protection, not free trade. He did not [believe] that private enterprise should have an open go. Not at all.

He identified the states obligation to address unemployment, and secure economic security and material well-being through social legislation. He advocated fierce independence, but the difficulties of those who fell through the cracks were to be ameliorated:

we have nothing but the warmest human compassion towards those compelled to live upon the bounty of the state.

This philosophy served Menzies well. Not until the late 1980s did the party change, when it torched its traditions as it sacrificed ameliorative liberalism in the interests of economic reform. Only then did the split between wets and drys lead to liberal moderates being increasingly marginalised. And only then party did hardliners begin to assert their claims as conservatives, a term that had never been indigenous to Australian anti-Labor politics, but was appropriated from the US culture wars of the time to serve the same purpose.

The bipartisan commitment to neo-liberal reform did what was intended. It increased prosperity, but at the cost of increasing employment uncertainty and astonishing inequity in the distribution of rewards. Inflation was defeated, but some communities were devastated as industry disappeared.

By the early 2000s, surveys revealed that the new consensus had not won popular acceptance. By 2016, there was pervasive distrust in the institutions of the new order and an unprecedented loss of confidence in the leaders who had brought this about.

It is a collapse that has impacted both major parties. Pointedly, for the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, after election, reverted to policies that mirrored the partys base now increasingly divergent from majority opinion on social issues, especially climate change.

Unable to garner public support, Abbott was supplanted by Turnbull, whose initial popularity depended on a progressive liberalism akin to a contemporary adaptation of Menzies stipulations.

But the broad church was gone. Progressive liberals have given up; the hard right has claimed Menzies mantle and threatens retribution if Turnbull offends against the much diminished and now atypical membership base. He is besieged on both sides: an uprising if he confronts those who claim to speak for the party; and a loss of popularity (and electorate support) as he compromises on the more progressive liberalism he promised the public.

It is not, finally, an argument about who is more and less Liberal, but a manifestation of the unravelling of the party. Who could break the impasse that looks likely to defeat Turnbull? Schisms between liberals and self-proclaimed conservatives will continue within, potentially with more splintering of populist, libertarian and hard-right fringe parties.

Any new leader would need to be a master tactician and negotiator without peer to achieve consensus across this morass. No-one currently in the ranks demonstrates such skills. And a return to Abbott or any of his ilk guarantees electoral oblivion. We may be witnessing the end of a once great party.

View original post here:

As the Liberal Party continues to fracture, we may be watching its demise - The Conversation AU

Posted February 27, 2017 17:04:42

Hillarys MP Rob Johnson says his chances of re-election have been dealt a cruel, but not fatal, blow by the Greens' decision to preference Labor ahead of him.

The independent MP said he was deeply disappointed when he saw the Greens how-to-vote card, because he believed the party understood the strategic importance of preferencing him ahead of Labor.

In order to beat Liberal candidate Peter Katsambanis, Rob Johnson has to outpoll Labor's Teresa Ritchie and rely on her preferences to deliver him victory.

Mr Johnson believes the Greens have sacrificed him, in exchange for Liberal Party preferences in the Legislative Council.

The Liberals are preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor in all Upper House metropolitan seats a decision they also took in 2013.

"They [the Greens] could be responsible for re-electing a Barnett government," Mr Johnson said.

"They [the Liberals] desperately want to get rid of me ... I am Colin Barnett's worst nightmare."

Mr Johnson said most Liberal supporters knew nothing about the party's preference arrangement with the Greens in the Upper House.

"Most Liberal members and voters will be absolutely horrified to know that the Liberal Party are preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor," he said.

"Liberal voters are diametrically opposed to the Greens because of their [stance] on drugs and various other things, they would be appalled."

Mr Johnson quit the Liberal Party last year after a lengthy period of verbal warfare with the Premier, triggered by his dumping from Cabinet in 2012.

The Greens' state preference negotiator Luke Edmonds said he would not confirm if there was, or was not, a preference deal with the Liberals.

He told the ABC the Greens ordered their how to vote cards by listing progressive candidates ahead of conservative ones.

Mr Johnson said the Liberal Party had virtually given the Upper House away, as a result of its preference decisions involving One Nation and the Greens.

"They've made fools of themselves in relation to the preference deal they did with One Nation, they have given the Upper House away to the One Nation Party and the Greens," he said.

"It shows you how stupid some of these people are in the Liberal Party headquarters."

Yesterday, Premier Colin Barnett was scathing in his criticism of the Greens.

"The Greens are a radical, destructive group of people," he said.

"They are worse than Labor.

"Labor's pretty bad but they are worse."

Mr Barnett said he had no involvement in the Liberal Party's decision to preference the Greens ahead of Labor in Upper House metropolitan seats.

A Liberal Party spokesman said the party had no preference deal with the Greens.

Topics: elections, political-parties, hillarys-6025, wa

Continued here:

WA election: Rob Johnson cries foul over Greens-Liberal preferences in Hillarys - ABC Online

David Fawcett told Labor senators in Senate estimates he questioned the ethics of nitpicking when your particular group perhaps brought the fleas in the first place. Photograph: Ben Macmahon/AAP

The Liberal senator David Fawcett has appeared to describe asylum seekers as fleas in Senate estimates, bringing cries of hear hear from other senators.

He made the remarks to Labor senators as they discussed boat arrivals during a hearing into the immigration department on Monday.

I just do question the ethics of nitpicking when your particular group perhaps brought the fleas in the first place, he told the hearing at Parliament House.

Unknown senators on the committee said hear hear, while Fawcetts fellow Liberal and committee chair Ian McDonald was heard on the microphones to say nicely put.

But the South Australian senator later sought to offer a clarification, saying he was referring to Labor senators pursuing small, process-driven details from the department when boat arrivals spiked on their watch.

The metaphor was that if they were nitpicking they were responsible for the cause of that irritation, he said. It is certainly not intended to apply to people who are refugees.

The Labor senator Kim Carr had asked a series of questions about an audit office report highlighting immigration department cost blowouts.

Fawcett asked the minister assisting the prime minister on the public service, Michaelia Cash, about the cost savings of having closed detention centres and stopped boats, and the stress placed on the department by high numbers of boat arrivals to Australia.

Cash said there had been large numbers of unauthorised arrivals under the Rudd and Gillard governments.

It is the unfortunate reality in terms of what occurred under the former Labor government that they wound back the former Howard governments strong border protection policies, she said. The statistics in terms of the unauthorised arrivals led to a course of events which, unfortunately, this government is still trying to clean up.

Fawcett then made his fleas remarks, directing his comment at Carr.

Originally posted here:

Liberal senator appears to describe asylum seekers as 'fleas' in Senate estimates - The Guardian

This week has not been great for free speech in the U.S. The Trump administration excluded certain news outlets from an informal briefing with Sean Spicer, Republican lawmakers across the U.S. have been introducing bills aimed at curbing protesting in at least 18 states, and Betsy DeVos decided to reinforce the dubious argument that universities currently pose a threat to free speech. In her words, she claimed that The faculty, from adjunct professors to deans, tell you what to do, what to say, and more ominously, what to think. They say that if you voted for Donald Trump, youre a threat to the university community. But the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree.

This is not a new argument, nor is it factual, but it is one that has gained an inordinate amount of support from many on the left and on the right. The right has been waging a campaign against liberal academics for decades and opposition to political correctness has proven to be a highly effective political strategy. The myth of the liberal campus functions as a broad generalization that paints all college campuses as bastions of liberal indoctrination without accounting for the differences and diversity in those institutions. This myth is particularly dangerous in that it diverts our attention from actual threats to some forms of speech on college campuses while serving as a useful tool for those who wish to divest in public education. What follows is a list of the current arguments that serve as the foundation for the myth of the liberal campus and an analysis of why their validity should be questioned.

Argument: Liberal Faculty Members are Using Classrooms to Promote Their Agenda

One of the assumptions in the myth of the liberal campus is that simply because one has progressive values they therefore teach progressive ideologies. Nicolas Kristof laments the fact that so few Republicans are represented amongst faculty on college campuses, but this presumes that ones party affiliation correlates with how one might teach math or science or english. A chemist who voted for Clinton or Sanders isnt necessarily going to teach a progressive form of biochemistry, yet we assume because someone is a Marxist or a progressive, they are necessarily teaching in their discipline using that lens.

Secondly, this presumes that all faculty members, even when the very nature of their discipline is political, are able to speak freely on these issues without fear of consequence. Given that most college faculty do not currently have the tenured protections of academic freedom, most professors are unlikely to even engage in any sort of political conversation for fear of termination or student retribution. Untenured faculty on the campus where I teach are fearful of discussing anything that could even be perceived as political for fear of termination. This chilling effect prevents even general discussions related to that which could be seen as political and therefore partisan. This fear has only increased with the knowledge that conservative groups are openly encouraging students to videotape their professors to try and catch them in the act of so-called indoctrination.

And, as many of us who teach in higher education know, due to massive budget cuts across across the nation, universities more heavily rely on adjunct and graduate student labor to try and save money. Kevin Birmingham notes that, Tenured faculty represent only 17 percent of college instructors. Part-time adjuncts are now the majority of the professoriate and its fastest-growing segment. From 1975 to 2011, the number of part-time adjuncts quadrupled. And the so-called part-time designation is misleading because most of them are piecing together teaching jobs at multiple institutions simultaneously. A 2014 congressional report suggests that 89 percent of adjuncts work at more than one institution; 13 percent work at four or more. And, as Trevor Griffey points out, The vast majority of college faculty in the United States today are ineligible for tenure.

Given the fact that most classes around the country are taught by adjunct professors who have no job security and even less academic freedom in the classroom, even if that professor despised Donald Trump or conservative ideologies, what is the likelihood that she would actually engage in a 30 minute Trump bashing rant simply because she either has the platform or the captive audience? Entirely unlikely. Yet again, when we generalize about all faculty, we fail to discern between who actually has the power and privilege to go on such a rant at all, let alone discuss anything that could be perceived as political in nature.

Lastly, this presumes that simply because one teaches in higher education, they arent actually a professional capable of divorcing their own political ideologies from their work. The progressive academic advisor is still capable of giving her students advice on transfer opportunities without delving into the political subject of the day in the same way the conservative math professor is capable of teaching calculus without telling students who he voted for in the last election.

Argument: Look At Whats Happening At Berkeley!

Those who criticize the free speech problem on all college campuses tend to routinely point to those campuses that make headlines like Berkeley or Yale. The reality is that the small number of campuses making headlines arent actually reflective of most institutions of higher education. According to Jonathan Zimmerman, author of Campus Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2016) There are over 4,000 places to get a B.A. in the United States. And most of them look nothing like the colleges that you see on TV, or if youre from the upper middle class like the one you attended. Those of us in that class assume that you start college when youre 18, that you live as well as study there, and that you graduate in four years. But most of our students dont fit those patterns at all. Half of all undergraduates attend community colleges, which are rarely residential and serve an enormous range of age groups.

As with most mainstream corporate news coverage, that which is the most sensational makes headlines. But most campuses dont look anything like Berkeley or Yale. My campus rarely makes headlines unless were asked to reduce more services to students due to funding cuts. But those stories of how my students lack advisors or mental health counseling because the state continues to cut millions from our budget arent as juicy as Milo Yiannopoulos getting yelled at by Berkeley protesters. These stories simply do not reflect the experience of many students, yet serve to reinforce only the most negative of stereotypes. My students are kind and tolerant but theyre also adults and dont shy away from difficult conversations. Most of my students work 2 or 3 jobs. They are parents and grandparentsmany of them the first in their families to pursue a college degree. If you truly think all college students are entitled snowflakes, I have a hard time believing youve ever met one. Sadly, however, these types of students arent the ones getting airtime.

Argument: Universities Silence Conservative Speech and Ideologies

One of the primary narratives surrounding campus speech is that universities are hypocritical since they claim to value diverse voices but actively work to silence conservative leaning speech or ideas. What this argument fails to point out is how conservative legislators and watch groups have been actively targeting what they consider leftist or radical views on campuses for decades. If those on the right claim to support all speech from all groups as a bedrock of freedom, why restrict or target certain types of speech? As Jason Blakely argues, One of the more troubling examples of this is the attempt to stigmatize certain professors through the website ProfessorWatchList.org, which compiles lists of professors that purportedly need to be monitored due to their radical agenda. This website professes to fight for free speech and the right for professors to say whatever they wish but at the same time it publicly isolates professors whose perspective is seen as offensive or shocking to conservative students. Through the use of this website students can now know before they ever walk into their college classrooms if their professor is too radical to take seriously (or perhaps even too radical to take the class). At best the website serves as a massive trigger warning for conservative-leaning students; at worst it is a modern Scarlet Letter.

This also ignores patterns of attempts by conservative lawmakers to try and legislate whose voices get heard on college campuses. In Iowa, Senator Mark Chelgren proposed that universities gather voter-registration data for prospective instructors to ensure a balance of conservative voices on campus. In Wisconsin, as Donald P. Moynihan writes, At least three times in the past six months, state legislators have threatened to cut the budget of the University of Wisconsin at Madison for teaching about homosexuality, gender and race. . . . At the University of North Carolina, the board of governors closed a privately funded research center that studied poverty; its director had criticized state elected officials for adopting policies that he argued amounted to a war on poor people. Amid broader budget cuts here in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker, without warning or explanation, tried to yank all the state funding for a renewable energy research center. On both private and public campuses, instructors who discuss race, gender, class, reproductive rights, elections or even just politics can find themselves subjected to attack by conservative groups like Media Trackers or Professor Watchlist. Faculty members in public institutions also have to worry about the possibility of having their email searched via Freedom of Information law requests. The ultimate audience for such trawling is lawmakers, who set the rules for public institutions. Indeed, a Media Trackers employee whose job included writing negative profiles of Wisconsin professors recently took a position with a state senator who likes to attack universities as being unfriendly to free speech.

Finally, this argument assumes all viewpoints are equally valid and good. The reason UW-Madison faculty criticized the state Department of Natural Resources for scrubbing its website of language that stated human activity is causing climate change isnt because those faculty members are tree-hugging lefties who hate jobs, but because human influence on climate is supported by sound peer reviewed evidence. The reason you wont find climate change deniers working in ecology departments on college campuses is because that idea does not hold up to scrutiny and hard evidence. As Caroline Levine argues, Say what you want about professors, but we spend our lives pursuing the truth. This means relentlessly interrogating what we think we know, and pushing ourselves to ask questions that feel, even to ourselves, uncomfortable. We insist on evidence and logic to support our claims. All of our publications are subject to rigorous peer review by experts around the world. We cant win tenure unless the most respected people in the field confirm that we have produced original and valuable knowledge. We are not paid by lobbyists. We do not earn more or less money if we take one position rather than another. And so were free to explore unpopular hypotheses, and some of these turn out to be true.

Yes, instructors demand that students use evidence to support their ideas. Yes, we demand that that evidence not come from the first website you may have stumbled on in your initial Google search. But thats a very different argument than saying faculty discriminate between conservative and liberal ideas. In my class, I ask my students to conduct library research and to use peer reviewed data so that they are making claims based on the best evidencenot simply a topic that aligns with my personal worldview. And this is where we tend to conflate evidence with liberal ideology.

As Bill Hart Davidson writes, Ironically, the most strident calls for safety come from those who want us to issue protections for discredited ideas. Things that science doesnt support AND that have destroyed livesthings like the inherent superiority of one race over another. Those ideas wither under demands for evidence. They *are* unwelcome. But lets be clear: they are unwelcome because they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny. The resistance I see is from people who cant take that scrutiny and who cant defend their ideas. They know it. They are afraid of it. So they accuse us of shutting them out. They cant win, and so they insist the game is rigged. The answer is more simple: they are weak. Bring a strong ideaone accompanied by evidenceand it will always win. Thats the beauty of the place where I work. Good ideas thrive. Bad ones wither and die, as they should.

In this post-truth era of fake news and my YouTube video is just as credible as your peer reviewed journal article, we must support those who are regularly pursuing truth and knowledge for the sake of pursuing truth and knowledge and challenge the false assumption that teaching critical thinking is the same as liberal indoctrination. This means supporting the few areas in the U.S. where this type of work is still happening, one being on college campuses.

Argument: The faculty, from adjunct professors to deans, tell you what to do, what to say, and more ominously, what to think

This is perhaps, I think, the most egregious claim of them all for it essentially presumes that students are so gullible and incapable of free thought, professors can shape their minds and turn them into bots in mere seconds. This line of thinking comes mostly from those who have never taught in a college classroom or who have never actually interacted with a college student. And this is where I would welcome anyone of any political stripes to come and sit in on my classes. My students are brilliant. They work hard, they are kind, and they are capable of thinking for themselves. My job is to get them to think critically; my job is not to tell them what to think. My job is to teach them to question the validity of sources, to learn how to conduct research, and asking them to question authority, even if that authority is me.

I am incredibly proud of the fact that I regularly have students of all political backgrounds enrolling in my classes semester after semester because they know they will be treated with dignity. Last year I won the teaching excellence award on my campus, an award voted on by the student body and given to an instructor of the highest caliber every year. I note this not because I enjoy bragging about my accomplishments but because I, like most everyone I work with, takes such great pride in teaching well and making sure every voice and every student in our classes feels valuedeven if those students are white supremacists or Holocaust deniers. We go to extraordinary lengths to make sure we dont stifle speech in our classes, but that we do create an environment where students must engage with each other civilly. If demand for civility and evidence based reasoning is liberal indoctrination, then yes, I am guilty of that.

So what has changed and why should we worry? Years of divestment in public education and the demonization of intellectualism and expertise has created a culture in which we need people who can teach critical thinking skills now more than ever yet those same people are routinely painted as enemies of the state. Arguments about faculty as thought police on college campuses only reinforces the narrative that these institutions no longer serve the public and that they are no longer a public good. The myth of the liberal campus allows legislators to threaten to withhold funding from institutions where they feel their voices arent getting a fair shake. And when legislators pit taxpayers against university faculty (forgetting faculty employed by the state are, in fact, also taxpayers) we set up a system whereby politicians can argue that states need not fund higher education since these institutions are just imposing liberal agendas in their classrooms. This not only defies logic but also reality. If liberal professors were so good at indoctrinating students, how did Trump outperform Clinton by a 4-point margin amongst white college graduates? If liberal indoctrination were real, how did Betsy DeVos make it through college without adhering to a radical political agenda? Sadly, for many, this reality doesnt matter. What matters is only the illusion that liberal campuses are real, that they are un-American, that those who work there hate free speech and expression, and that they serve no use to anyone. When enough citizens believe this to be true, asking states to invest in education will be impossible.

If you are truly worried about the state of college campuses, visit one. Come to my classes. See for yourselves the level of thoughtful debates and dialogues that happen in most classrooms. But please, stop demonizing faculty and students based on crude stereotypes. This is a dangerous fiction, one created by those who see no value in public education and who dont actually care about the welfare of students on these campuses. These discussions serve as a distraction from the real threats to higher education and we all need to do a better job of dismissing them as such.

See original here:

The Myth Of The Liberal Campus | The Huffington Post - Huffington Post

|

Posted: Feb 27, 2017 12:01 AM

Liberals constantly stake a claim to some religion-free moral high ground, which is laughable considering liberalisms ideology is immoral at its core. Since November of last year, leftists have been too blinded by inane hatred for Trump to see the irony.

Sure, there are liberals out there who lead decent lives and you can find some on the other side who dont. Difference is, though, the longer a liberal remains liberal, the harder it is for them to see the light...the truththat all their ideology does is cover them with a cloak of morality.

The false sense of morality gives them license to live a life filled with double standards. Whats wrong is wrong, right? No. Their skewed perception of right and wrong allows them to believe its okay to do wrong, but its not okay for those on the right, both religious and secular. Which is why they found it perfectly acceptable for recent womens marches, supposedly protesting a decade-old nasty Trump joke, to chant obscenities through a microphone and put on a display of vulgarity, filthy enough to make even Trump blush.

As a wise person once said: There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Enough already with the fake moral outrage.

Clear and simple, liberals hate Trump because he beat Hillary Clinton. Period. End of story. They are so overcome by anger and hatred, they fail to realize that until recently, Trump could have been their candidate.

I say until recently because Trump is transitioningtransformingchanging. Prayer works, and Trumps blanketedcovered with it. Surrounding himself with some incredibly adept advisors doesnt hurt either.

Another huge factor in this evolution is that with each fake news report or violent riot or piece of leaked information Trump is becoming less like a liberal and more like Ronald Reagan. Who Trump was during the primaries is not who he is today.

Liberals cant handle that this immoral man received a moral mandate to do what is right for America.

And, by gosh, hes doing it, despite the snotty-nosed brats who continue to throw tantrums and wet their pants every time Trump takes positive action to restore America to her former greatness.

Trump made no pretense about who he was and is doing exactly what he said he would do versus the self-serving candidates liberals typically choose, who put on a mask of morality every election cycle.

Thats why their beloved former Sen. Harry Reid had no problem telling a bold-faced lie about Mitt Romneys taxes during the 2012 presidential election. Years later, an unrepentant Reid justified his actions during a news interview where he refused to acknowledge wrongdoing saying, with an arrogant grin, Well, they can call it whatever they want, Romney didnt win, did he?

The Washington Post gave three Pinocchios to the lefts Coolest Prez, ever, Obama, who made a campaign promise that insurance premiums would decrease under Obamacare. Obama was also responsible for this fish tale: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.

But were not supposed to notice the duplicity, were supposed to dwell on the good intentions of a party devoid of conscience.

Folks, this really isnt about politics. Im genuinely concerned some of our liberal friends are drowning in an ideology every bit as dangerous as Eves apple. Every time they take a bite, they are tempted to believe its okay to lie and hate and suppose they are morally superior to everyone else -- for absolutely no reason at all.

'Moonlight' Wins Best Picture at Academy Awards After Chaotic Mistake

More:

Liberalism's Fake Sense of Morality - Townhall

WASHINGTON Speaking before a crowd of liberal American Jews, Arab Joint List leader MK Ayman Odeh denounced the Israeli Labor Party in biting terms Sunday, accusing it of betraying its principles and failing to stand up to the countrys right-wing coalition government.

He called on the American Jewish left to form a coalition with his own political union of Arab-majority and non-Zionist parties.

You showed up today because we know we cannot rely on the opposition we have, the one that is ready to sell out our values in exchange for power, he told a crowd gathered for J Streets 2017 National Conference in the Washington Convention Center Sunday evening.

He began his half-hour speech at the left-wing advocacy groups annual gathering by recounting the deadly clash last month between residents of the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran and Israel Police officers carrying out court-ordered home demolitions in the village. A resident of the village, Yacoub Mousa Abu Al-Qiaan, was shot by police and then drove his vehicle, possibly unintentionally, into a group of officers, killing 1st Sgt. Erez Levi, 34.

Police officials and politicians, including Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, insisted Abu Al-Qiaan had intentionally rammed the officers in a terror attack, but video footage released by the police seemed to show another officer shooting Abu Al-Qiaan moments before his car accelerated and hit Levi.

Odeh was at Umm al-Hiran that day, January 18, and was lightly injured when he was apparently hit by rubber bullets fired by police.

The Labor party did nothing to stop the order to destroy Umm al-Hiran and leave its residents homeless, he said. It has abandoned the human rights organizations and civil society groups that the right-wing parties attack. And it has failed to provide any real leadership toward ending the occupation and resisting the extremist agenda of the right-wing government.

He went on: They have called themselves the Zionist camp. The right-wing calls itself the national camp. We, Arabs and Jews together, are building a new camp, a democratic camp, that has already begun to show the world what real, principled, and strong opposition looked like.

This is the time for a real opposition, principled, fearless, he said. An opposition led by a Labor party that is a shadow of the right is no opposition at all.

Odeh, who leads the Hadash party within the Joint List faction, also sought to link Netanyahu with US President Donald Trump both of whom are intensely unpopular with his audience.

In Israel, around the world, and here in the United States, those who sit in the halls of power care only about their own power, he accused.

Trump and Netanyahu have cemented their power in the same way regimes have throughout history: with the language of fear and a slow-burning hate, by turning us against one another instead of reminding-us of our shared values and our mutual interests.

J Streets sixth national conference, which runs from February 26-28, will host a number of prominent Democrats on Monday, including numerous members of Congress like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine and California Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were invited but did not respond, the group said.

Then-secretary of state John Kerry and then-vice president Joe Biden spoke at last years conference.

Link:

Odeh tells liberal American Jews that Israel's Labor abandoned its principles - The Times of Israel

We tell ourselves stories in order to live. Joan Didion said that in 1979, and it is the phrase Ive had pounding in my head as America endures the early stages of the Trump administration. An uncharitable reading of Didions statement is We lie to ourselves to feel important but that feels reductive. Lies are tiny mistruths, told for profit or to shift blame. Stories are necessary fictions, and the meanings they create are as valid as the truths created from chaos. But which stories we tell ourselves matter. Occasionally, our stories get repeated so often, we forget to challenge them.

For instance, youve heard this one,that 2016 was the worst year in human history! Yes, in 2016 the death camps of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen were in full effect, the American slave trade raged on, manifest destiny created the Trail of Tears, the World Trade Center imploded, the trench warfare of the first world war kills thousands every day, as Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao murder millions of dissenters, and that was before an assassins bullet passed through Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, before lodging itself into the gas tank of the plane carrying Richie Valens, the Big Bopper and Buddy Holly, which then exploded into the city of Hiroshima incinerating thousands. Im not positive that all of those events happened in 2016, but George Michael died, and that caused a lot of well-paid pundits to declare it the worst year in history.

Of course, we all know 2016s mortal sin. Donald Trump promised the world an ocean of shit, and America decided to snorkel in it. President Barack Obama was an imperfect leader heading an imperfect system, but even his critics concede hes intelligent, thoughtful and doesnt routinely talk about how badly he wants to have sex with his children. We traded that for a man who treats women the way an arcade claw treats a stuffed animal.

Since the inauguration, great swaths of the left have accomplishedimpressive feats. The width and breadth of the protests has been staggering. The town hall protests are enlivening and reinvigorating debate. Still, while actual liberals are forming a resistance to Donald Trumps America, the fake liberalism of the cosmetic left as represented and served back to its audience by many online-media platforms, including at times this lovely website here tells us to double down on what weve been doing all along. Sure, it may not help anyone, but at least we can warm ourselves in the beaming light of our own smirk.

The legacy of the 2016 election is that it turned too many of us into a nation of children. Its hard to argue for our nations maturity when our leader tweets like an unmedicated preteen and thinks, No puppet! Youre the puppet! is a cogent debate response. But leftists have acted as tribal as conservatives. Am I saying liberals are more childish than conservatives? No, but if our reaction is They did it first it doesnt help our argument. But I am saying if liberals dont change who we are forget about the right-wingers were doomed to look back at 2016 as a golden age of nuance and tolerance. We are telling ourselves the wrong stories.

* * *

Donald Trump is a child, but he was elected because too many of us became children. How many times did you hear harmonica-playing Tim Kaine being called Americas stepfather? Or how Hillary Clinton talked to the electorate like a substitute teacher? Pundits say this with a smirk: The humor stems entirely from the assumption that we share their upper-class urban backgrounds. Every time I would hear this, Iwould look at the newscaster and think, But youre 40. Why are you talking like a child? Why do we look to the authority figures of our childhood when we talk about politics? Because, like children, we observe society and wait for it to be handed to us.

Our politicians treat us like children, our media talks to us like children, and so how does the cosmetic left react? By rolling their eyes and saying Ugh! and Thats not OK! With think pieces about multicultural emojis and by reveling in how many famous people agree with them. You know, like adults.

After President Barack Obama was re-elected, Republicans did an election postmortem and came up with a strategy to appeal to a broader base. They then ignored it and won with Donald Trump. Forthe 2016 postmortem, liberals, because we tend to lean toward compassion, blamed the poor. We didnt phrase it that way, of course. We blamed hillbillies, rednecks, trailer trash, as though this hasnt always been prep-school code for poor people. How, we asked, could they vote for someone so opposed to their own interests?

I dont understand why we look down on people who vote against their own interests. For one, why do you assume you know their interests? If you believe every abortion is the systemic murder of a child by the state, then whether you get an earned income credit on your taxes seems unimportant. Also, putting the good of the country ahead of your own pocketbook? I salute you, my noble friend, and wish you had a less idiotic idea of whats good for the country.

Because we are inundated with childish stories, we interpret reality in childish ways. Conservatives werent the people who disagree with us. In superhero movies or cowboy melodramas set in space, the bad guys dont disagree with the good guys as much as they want them sacrificed to their dark lord. Because were certain were the heroes, the election becomes about defeating an evil culture.

Culture matters. In fact, in politics, its all that matters. How many positions would Trump have to change for you to vote for him? When Trump said hed replace Obamacare with health care for everybody, did your mind change? We vote to tell others the sort of person we want to be. Thats why pollsters know who youre voting for by the music you listen to, the neighborhood you live in and a thousand other elements that have nothing to do with whether or not you read the news. Its why the next time Beyonc releases an album or Woody Allen releases a movie, you already know how your favorite websites will react. In art criticism, the aesthetic quality of the work matters less than what our opinion of the art says about us. In politics, the policy doesnt matter; its what our vote says about us.

* * *

Are people who voted for Donald Trump racist? Its tempting to look at a Confederate flag at a Trump rally and extrapolate that to symbolizing everyone there. When a couple of Bernie Sanders supporters waved a hammer and sickle flag to protest a Trump speech, did that delegitimize Sanders message? If people think Bernie Sanders is advocating communism and point to that hammer and sickle flag as proof, wed call that hysteria.

Trumps supporters say they are worried about jobs, about economic insecurity, but we, the enlightened we, know better. Really, they are racists, whether they know it or not. We have reached the saturation point of calling things we dont like racist, but havent offered a succinct, coherent definition of racist. All people have inherent biases, which surface even when we fight against them. If thats the qualification for racism, then the word racist is a useless adjective, as it can apply to any person or piece of art. It also defangs the word. Trump still believes the Central Park Five are guilty even after they were exonerated. That is so racist. Like in the way A Christmas Story was racist? Or are we talking white-women-who-belly-dance levels of racism?

Look, Donald Trump has been an asshole ever since he crawled out of his mothers asshole. Im not forgiving the racism of the Muslim ban, the border wall or his equivocating on David Duke. But the Washington Redskins have a racist name, and that doesnt mean their fans are racist. To say everyone who voted for Trump is racist is the logical equivalent of saying, If you voted for Clinton, you support the Iraq War. Maybe you personally didnt support the Iraq War, but by voting for a woman who voted for the war, you support carpet bombings and drone strikes. Its worth noting that as toxic as Donald Trump has been, he has not as of yet done anything as bad as voting for the Iraq War.

* * *

On her first show after the election, Samantha Bee, the comedic equivalent of a Facebook share if you agree post, said, America has done the diplomatic equivalent of installing an above-ground pool. Even in the best case scenario and it doesnt seep into the foundation, our neighbors will never look at us in the same way again.

Who has above-ground pools? Poor people of all races. Rural people with yards. The joke is simply Poor people who try to act rich are tacky. People who dont have the money to get a proper pool are an embarrassment, and they should be more concerned with the judgment of neighbors than their own happiness.

Does that attitude matter to people? One of my best friends a woman from West Virginia who organizes labor unions and has received commendations from the Obama White House said when she heard Bees above-ground pool joke, she instantly felt like the poorest kid in class. She organizes unions and had everything at stake in Clinton winning, but to Bee she was just the stupid, poor kid from astupid, poor state. That is the flip side of identity politics. It doesnt matter what she does only who she is.

Obviously, whites arent underserved by the media. But rural people who arent just white, Im embarrassed to have to remind the press are wildly underserved by the media.

Do you remember the storms last summer in Washington that caused flash flooding, killing 23 people and destroyed 1,200 homes? No? Because it didnt happen in Washington; it happened in West Virginia. As such, it was the fourth leading story on CNN, and it disappeared from the national news in a day.

But do you remember Hurricane Sandy battering New York and New Jersey four years ago? The storm that not only helped alter the 2012 election, but also the 2016 Republican primary? The one that led coverage of every TV channel and was on the cover of Time despite it being right before a presidential election? Of course you do because it happened to New York. Thirty-seven people died in Hurricane Sandy, and I dont want to minimize that loss but isnt there something unequal about the attention paid to an urban tragedy and to a rural tragedy? A neutral observer would conclude that a city life is more valuable than a country life.

The media is created in a few pockets of America but only in cities. If an actor plays a character from South Boston with a Worcester accent, they get savaged by critics and professional wiseasses for years. Yet when actors play characters from anywhere from southern Maryland to San Antonio, they throw the exact same accent think Foghorn Leghorn after drinking a bourbon laced with Rohypnol that no human has ever had and they walk away with Oscars. These are small slights, but they matter. These are subtle ways to tell people theyre unworthy of accurate representation.

The great secret about the white working class is that it doesnt exist. It is an arbitrarily divided subset of the working class, akin to the right-handed working class. Donald Trump did better with blacks and Latinos than Mitt Romney. Trump did worse with whites than Barack Obama. Im not dismissing the role race played in this election, but when we think about it in simplistic terms my side versus racists we tell ourselves a false story. We identify false separations: the white working class versus the black working class versus the Hispanic working class. We neglect the very real division between urban and rural or wealthy and the poor.

The rich people who run your favorite left-wing websites arent really liberal. At best, theyre progressive fashion police. Constant carping about which movies get awarded, which jokes are acceptable, which millionaire celebrities we lionize isnt about improving anyones lives. Its about identifying a uniform.

Uniforms are childish. They invite judgment and show pride. Our culture is our uniform, but what has our cosmetic-left culture given us? Half-wit comedians making endless jokes about poor people, dumbass websites that repost celebrity gossip as breaking news, flaccid sarcasm, corporate feminist lip service, circle-jerk op-eds about Star Wars and Ghostbusters? All of which are so persuasive that we have Donald Trump as our president? Im a liberal, but I dont want to wear this liberals uniform.

* * *

So what now? While smoke was still rising from the wreckage of the election, they told us to fight. Dont give an inch. Stay strong and fight. The people asking us to fight are the same people who lost the election. The method of fighting involves giving money.

Im done fighting. Im done with militaristic language. When we give our police tanks and automatic weapons and treat them like soldiers, they think the neighborhoods they police are war zones. If we talk about politics as a war zone, then we think of the other side as our enemy. Im fine regarding Donald Trump as my enemy. But what about someone who feels left out of the Obama recovery or who disagrees about the carbon tax? What about someone who hasnt forgiven Clinton for her Iraq War vote, or someone who, already insecure about her place in society, felt insulted when Clinton said deplorable? I disagree, but they arent my enemy.

Id rather work than fight. How do you work for a more humane, interesting and complex leftism? The same way you fight for it which is to say, I dont know. Theres a reason why the details of the fight turn as foggy as dreams as soon as anyone asks for specifics. Because they are basically telling you to keep doing what youre doing. Dig deeper into your culture. Feel more pride.

The cosmetic liberal believes this kiddie-pool tidal wave of snark, outrage and self-gratification is the only thing holding back the abyss. But if the fight consists of watching TV and yelling problematic! then what good is our fight?

On Sunday during the Oscars, we will more likely hear from someone who believes that the intergalactical lord Xenu sent aliens down to populate the Earth than hear from someone who supports Trump. You already know the jokes tiny hands, weird hair, Yuuuge and you already know the headlines. Celebrity DESTROYS Donald Trump. You also know no one will challenge the crowd or show actual courage.

When Meryl Streep lambasted Donald Trump at the Golden Globes, did she risk anything? She spoke to a crowd of people whoidolize her and already agree with her. That doesnt make her wrong but dont pretend she showed an iota of courage. But where this sort of fight turns from useless to insidious is when Streep takes pains to insult football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts. I plead ignorance to mixed martial arts, but I imagine the practitioners are born with natural gifts and then work to hone their talents until they can ply their trade professionally. That is no different than what an actor or a football player or a writer or a drummer or a dancer does. Why does Streep exclude football players and martial artists? Because their art makes too much of a difference, it touches too many people, many of whom dont already agree with her. Streep is the greatest actor Hollywood has ever produced, but does she think more people watch Florence Foster Jenkins than a random Week 7football game? Football has millions more blue-collar fans, more black fans, more female fans, more Hispanic fans, more gay fans than August: Osage County or whatever semi-compelling Oscar-bait movie shell be nominated for next year. But to reach them, we have to respect them enough to persuade them. That takes effort, so its better to dismiss that art and that culture.

Ive always thought that conservatives lived in a bubble. They do. That bubble isnt so close to reality that it brings the property values down, but its the suburb of realitys city. But this election has made me know I live in a bubble as well. My bubble is in reality (close, at least our kids go to the same school and we see each other in the grocery store) but it distorts my thinking. Understanding that and knowing that my story is subjective, I can meet the Trump administration like an adult.

Ultimately, thats the lesson of our election. Our media and our politicians treat us like children, and we subsequently act like children. Those squabbling about Ghostbusters or the Oscars, who genuinely think theyre improving the world by doing so, may be right or wrong, but they are childish. If we tell ourselves stories in order to live, lets also tell ourselves stories in order to grow.

When we blame a year, were blaming ghosts. When we regard our opponents as devils, were engaging in magic. I dont know the efficacy of marches or sit-ins. I dont know if financial boycotts will work, but if refusing to stay at Trump hotels, or not buying any product that advertises on far-right websites, or hiring Polish rather than Russian prostitutes to pee on you makes you a kinder and more complex person, then follow that path. I can say an activism that consists of hashtags, catchphrases, GIFs, celebrity worship and disdain for the poor is neither liberal nor effective. The cosmetic left needs to grow the fuck up.

Donald Trump isnt something that happened to us; its something we created. The Americans who disagree with you arent your enemies but your co-authors. Theyre struggling through the current moment as well, but whatever we create together, we will own forever. Instead of creating a false world of self-congratulations, of the personal affirmation of the like button, instead of the relentless promotion of who we are, lets talk about what we do. The cosmetic left embraced the simple story, with flawless heroes, predictable jokes and snarling villains. But if America is our creation and we are flawed but honest storytellers it deserves a complicated story rather than a morality tale.

Excerpt from:

Outgrowing the cosmetic left: A liberal plea for fake liberalism to grow up - Salon

Feb. 25, 2017 at 4:27 PM

Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected Democratic National Committee chair Saturday.

The race for chair of the Democratic National Committee came to an end today in Atlanta when former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected to the position, beating out Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison in a race that had come to be framed as a battle between the partys Obama-era establishment and the burgeoning progressive wing of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Conceding the race, Ellison, who was backed by Sanders, pleaded with his supporters to give everything youve got to support Chairman Perez. Some Ellison backers in the room, wearing the candidates green T-shirts and upset by the vote, chanted in protest.

The former labor secretary had appeared to be ahead, if only by a slim margin, in the final days before the election, which gave the party time to fret about potentially angry reactions from Sanders voters. Perhaps inevitably, given the power vacuum in the Democratic Party following the presidential election, the race became freighted with deeper meaning and led Sanders to condemn a failed status-quo approach embodied by Perez, who served under Obama. Well aware of the raw feelings lingering from a hotly contested presidential primary season, the two front-runners have been publicly adulating of one another and were spotted out to dinner in Washington the week before the election. Saturdays messages of unity were almost certainly planned ones.

More Politics

But Perezs win deals an undeniable morale blow to the Sanders-supporting wing of the Democratic Party, which feels that the partys loss in November was something of a referendum on the status quo. Nina Turner, a prominent Sanders-turned-Ellison surrogate, told The Washington Posts Dave Weigel that if Ellison lost, the future of the Democratic Party will walk away.

The argument from the partys Sanders wing was that Ellison was the best choice to put forth a message of progressivism that would reinvigorate the partys base, implying that Perez was something of an establishment centrist. But Perez and Ellison laid out essentially identical visions for the party during the DNC race. Both called for a more decentralized organization that placed greater emphasis on the particular political climates and needs of each state, better candidate recruitment, and well-honed messages of economic populism that would speak to the partys traditional base and beyond.

And both Perez and Ellison are well to the left of center on the spectrum of beliefs within the Democratic Party, though Ellisons views are more deeply left. In fact, hes more liberal than 90 percent of House Democrats, according to FiveThirtyEight ideological ratings that look at congressional voting records, donors and public statements. Ellison scores a -57 in our ratings (-100 is most liberal; +100 is most conservative). The average Democratic member of the House in the 114th Congress (2015-16) had a congressional record voting score of -40. Perez never served in Congress, but he did make an abbreviated run for attorney general of Maryland and has made public statements on political issues. Using these, we estimated his average score at -45, which is not as liberal as Ellisons but indicates that he may be further to the left than the average Democratic member of the House.

Taking the podium in the afternoon after hours of balloting and his win, Perez motioned for Ellison to be appointed deputy chair. The party, it seems, is looking to move past the drama.

Harry Enten provided analysis.

See original here:

Tom Perez Isn't As Liberal As Keith Ellison, But He's Still Pretty Progressive - FiveThirtyEight

The hysteria concerning the alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election appears to be a mirror projection of techniques that have been used against Russia, with little or no success, with the aim of interfering in its political processes. While the propaganda campaign aimed at Russia has sought to foster the impression that the countrys media is strictly controlled, in actuality the liberal opposition newspapers and radio stations have in the past run articles and stories that, due to their nature, would be unthinkable in the free West. Controversial stories over the last few years have included:

These media outlets main audience is not the Russian public but rather Western funders and supporters. Novaya Gazeta funding sources include the Netherlands and the Soros Foundation. The Dozhd TV Channel financing is opaqueits owners claim they are financing the project using own funds, which must be bottomless considering the channel has not turned a profit since it began operating. Ekho Moskvy is receiving financial support from the Voice of America Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is also supporting other liberal news outlets. These and other Russian media outlets figure prominently in the Fiscal Year 2017 proposed federal budget appropriation for the US State Department. Moreover, journalists working for these outlets have received a broad array of awards for journalism issued by a number of Western governments and West-controlled so-called non-governmental organizations.

Another example of a Internet media outlet created in order to push the pro-liberal agenda is Meduza. It was financed by opposition oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovskiy and so-called anonymous investors. In spite of Meduza being registered and based in Latvia, it focuses on the Russian audience and is promoting globalist agenda in Russia.

In addition to resources which are openly promoting anti-Russian propaganda, there is an array of major media outlets whose informational policy demonstrates they are pursuing political goals quite divorced from Russias interests as a sovereign state.

In the meantime, genuinely accomplished investigative journalists such as Julian Assange are facing politically motivated prosecutions, and there are efforts to exclude English-language Russia-based media such as RT and Sputnik from Western markets for allegedly spreading propaganda.

This state of affairs also raises the question why is the Russian government tolerant of media beholden to foreign sponsors. Part of the answer lies with the guarantees of the freedom of speech and press contained in the Russian Constitution, though the support of these outlets by important factions of the economic and political elite also plays a rolethe Ekho Moskvy radio station is part of the Gazprom Media Holding, for example. Ultimately, however, the relatively unfettered existence of these media is a reflection of the Russian governments confidence in its policies and its popular support, in sharp contrast to the panicked fake news reaction to the loss of Hillary Clinton that resulted in widespread calls to limit the freedom of speech in Western countries, lest the wrong candidates win elections.

Still, this is an intolerable state of affairs, a leftover from the 1990s era of Russias political and economic weakness, when it seemed it might become nothing more than a politically impotent supplier of raw materials to the West. Any genuine reset of Russia-West relations will require the West to respect the inviolability of Russias political institutions and processes in the same way that the West demands respect for theirs.

If youre able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldnt be possible without your help: PayPal: [emailprotected] or via:http://southfront.org/donate/or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Here is the original post:

Russia's Liberal Media's Foreign Sponsors - Center for Research on Globalization

President Donald Trump got an eyeful of red, white and blue after two liberal activists handed out nearly 1,000 Russian flags to unwitting attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Ryan Clayton, 36, and Jason Charters, 22 both members of Americans Take Action handed out the Russian Federation flags inside and outside of CPAC, which they emblazoned with the word "TRUMP" in gold letters.

Clayton and Charters said the prank went better than expected because most of the wavers did not recognize the flag's country of origin, forcing CPAC staffers to confiscate the free "souvenirs."

"The amount of people who didn't know the flag was astonishing," said Charters, who added that most attendees were excited to be given the flags.

Director of Communications for the American Conservative Union Ian Walters, the organization that puts on the conference, did not immediately respond for comment.

The two liberal organizers said the plot was hatched because they wanted to bring attention to the allegations that the Russian government was involved in an operation to interfere in the American election, which U.S. intelligence officials have said evolved into an attempt to help Trump win.

"It makes a great point. We shouldn't have foreign powers picking our president," said Clayton, who heads Americans Take Action.

"Some call it a false flag operation," Clayton added. "I like to call it a true flag operation because Trump's definitely the wrong kind of red, white and blue."

While Clayton and Charters handed out flags, they used Russian accents and shouted comparisons of Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

They said the prank was well-received by many who have reached out to them since it went viral on social media.

"Most people are telling us, 'Thank you for being our voice in that place to Donald Trump,'" Clayton said.

CPAC staffers kicked out Clayton three times from the conference, and Charters got the boot once. Charters was escorted outside by security after he stood up during Trump's speech and called Trump "Putin's puppet" and a "fascist."

"We think his values are fundamentally un-American and he is a danger to the issues we most care about," Charters said.

Americans Take Action is a liberal activist group that strives to have the president impeached and for three additional goals. They question the fairness of American elections and aim to better their quality, support a purpose-driven economy and want to fight any threat to internet freedom.

Charters and Clayton believe that the majority of Americans are worried that there is an unexplored relationship between the president and Russia. Trump said at a press conference last week that he has no deals with the country, and "I have nothing to do with Russia."

"Most Americans feel like something is wrong here," Charters said. "They feel it in their gut. There is a weird connection between this guy in the Oval Office and the people in Russia."

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said the two might not be wrong. More than half of Americans believe that Congress should investigate whether Donald Trump's presidential campaign had contact with the Russian government in 2016.

Their immediate future isn't quite clear, but this isn't the final statement for Americans Take Action. According to Charters and Clayton, they'll continue as long as Trump is in office.

"We've been doing these types of actions for a while," Clayton said. "And we'll continue to do them until President Trump gets impeached."

More:

Liberal Activists' Prank Had Some at CPAC Waving Russian 'Trump' Flags - NBCNews.com

Photo from Hans van Baalen Twitter

Key European Liberals on Saturday decried the arrest of Liberal Party (LP) Sen. Leila de Lima on what they said were politically motivated drug charges, vowing to rally European Union and global support for the release of the lawmaker, who described herself as the first political prisoner under President Duterte.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats Europe (Alde) Party is deeply concerned about the arrest of the Liberal Party Sen. Leila de Lima in particular and the deteriorating human rights situation in general, said Hans van Baalen, Alde President and Liberal International president of honor.

The Philippines, under the leadership of President Duterte, is turning rapidly into an illiberal state, where there is no respect for the law whatsoever, Van said in a statement issued in London by Liberal International.

The LP is a member of Liberal International, the world federation of Liberal and progressive democratic political parties.

Van Baalen said he had written the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, in order to see what action the European Union can take to free De Lima.

Liberal Internationals human rights committee chair Markus Lning, formerly Germanys commissioner for human rights, promised to push for De Limas release and called on Mr. Duterte to respect the rule of law.

Read more:

European Liberals slam De Lima's arrest - Inquirer.net

The Liberal Democrats have tabled a motion in the House of Lords to kill a Government bill that will severely restrict disability benefits.

It follows a written statement to the House of Commonsby Conservative disability minister Penny Mordaunt that the Government will introduce emergency legislation to tighten the criteria of Personal Independence Payments (PIP)to disabled people after they were told to cover a broader spectrum of claimants, including those with mental health problems.

The move could potentially deprive 160,000 people of state help which is rightfully theirs, disability charity Scope warned.

The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) was advised to expand the reach of the PIP scheme by two separate tribunals to give claimants more points for psychological stress.

The PIP scheme assesses claims on a points based for two different categories daily living and mobility and claimants must score at least eight points to receive a basic payment and 12 points to receive an enhanced rate.

It is designed to cover the extra costs that come with being disabled, such as specially adapted aids, cars and appliances, and measure how a disability affects a persons life rather than the disability itself, but critics say the criteria is too strict.

But the first tribunal ruled that claimants should receive more points for mobility if they suffer from overwhelming psychological distress when travelling alone.

The second tribunal recommended that people be given more points for daily living if they have to take medication and monitor a health condition.

Ms Mordaunt said urgent reforms were needed to restore the original aim of the benefit, citing concerns that otherwise the Government would end up paying 3.7bn extra in PIP payments by 2022.

She also insisted no claimant would see a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded.

But the Liberal Democratspokeswoman for Work and Pensions, Baroness Cathy Bakewell, said the plans were outrageous and accused the Conservatives of treating disabled people with total contempt.

The Government is using its recent losses in court as an excuse to severely restrict disability benefits. Rather than listening to the ruling they are using it to make matters worse for disabled people that is utterly outrageous.

What makes things even worse is that they have sneaked this announcement out under the cover of by-elections.

These decisions impact the lives of vulnerable people.Liberal Democrats will not allow the Conservatives to get away with treating people with disabilities with such total contempt.

PIP was introduced in 2013 as a replacement for the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) which was described as ridiculous by the then Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith because he said people who were given the benefit were no longer given any further assessments.

But the system has been frequently criticised by campaigners who say the scheme was designed just to save money.

Read the original:

Liberal Democrats to try to kill Government's bill to restrict disability benefits - The Independent

Former Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said Fridaythat fellow Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is too liberal to run the Democratic National Committee. Ellison is considered a front-runner in the election for DNC chair which will be held Saturday.

He made the comments to Vox, saying,Youre going to be shocked at me telling you this: Ellison is too liberal to run the DNC.

Ellisons greatest competition is former labor secretary to Obama, Tom Perez. Elleithee explained why he was favored over Ellison, explaining,Tom is not in bed with anybody he served President Obama; he knows the Clintons that doesnt make him establishment any more than it makes me establishment. I served in Clinton and Obamas administrations, but Im not establishment.

Backed by the Bernie Sanders wing, Ellison is seen as the more progressive alternative to Perez, perceived as the establishment pick and backed by the Obama and Clinton wing of the party. Also in the running is the dark horse mayor from South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg.

The Sanders wing is the far more animated and spirited portion of the party, but their far left ideology is considered a negative after the devastating 2016 election.

The average voter in the United States is moderate, Ellison explained. A lot of people in my circles agree with that. And Ellison is too close to Bernie Sanders.

Ellison has been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, something he addressed during the CNN debate for the DNC chair Wednesday.

These are false allegations, and thats why I have 300 Rabbis and Jewish community leaders who signed a letter supporting me, Ellison said, going on to cite works he had done on interfaith issues for the benefit of the Jewish community.

He also appeared to want to dish out some left-wing red meat for his progressive supporters during the debate, as he declared that President Trump was impeachable on the first day of his presidency. Some of the other candidates beat around the bush on the issue, wanting to not appear as extreme as Ellison. Perez, meanwhile, distinguished himself by touting cooperation among Democrats as being the worst nightmare of President Trump.

Democrats will vote for DNC chair Saturday in Atlanta, Georgia.

Originally posted here:

Keith Ellison is too liberal to run the DNC, says Muslim ex-spokesman for Clinton - TheBlaze.com

Updated February 24, 2017 18:27:34

Liberal preselection nominations for 18 South Australian state seats have closed, and among the candidates is a former Liberal minister who retired from politics more than 10 years ago.

Wayne Matthew was the member for Bright from 1989 to 2006, and held ministerial portfolios including police and emergency services in the Brown and Olsen governments.

He has nominated for the seat of Davenport and is one of many candidates who are taking a tilt at preselection, as boundary redistributions appear to have made a Liberal election win more likely.

Alex Brown, the son of former premier Dean Brown, has nominated for Colton, while six candidates are vying for retiring MP Isobel Redmond's seat of Heysen.

There is also strong interest in two Labor-held seats, with five nominees for both Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan's seat of Lee, and Sports Minister Leon Bignell's Mawson electorate.

Both seats have become more marginal under boundary redistributions.

"It is fantastic to see such a high calibre of people nominating for preselection to represent the Liberal Party at the next state election," Liberal state director Sascha Meldrum said.

"The party is calling for hard-working candidates committed to representing their local communities as part of a newly elected Liberal state government that will provide responsible leadership and deliver a clear pathway for the state's recovery and success."

Sitting MPs Rachel Sanderson, Corey Wingard, Vickie Chapman, David Speirs, Vince Tarzia and Dan van Holst Pellekaan have all been preselected unopposed.

The names of the other candidates remain confidential until they are endorsed by the party's review committee next week.

Topics: government-and-politics, states-and-territories, liberals, sa

First posted February 24, 2017 18:22:49

More:

Liberal candidates revealed as preselection closes for South Australia election - ABC Online

I get a kick out of the Republican members of Congress who claim the angry constituents at their town hall meetings are paid agitators. I remember how Democrats tried to dismiss noisy tea party protesters the same way in 2009.

Not surprisingly, President Donald Trump doesn't see it that way.

"The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans," Trump tweeted Tuesday, "are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!"

Gee, imagine that: Angry liberals are strategically encouraging people to come out and let their lawmakers know what's on their minds. Liberals are calling it grass roots politics while some conservatives are calling it "AstroTurf politics."

But that's what a lot of liberals called it when the conservative tea party movement erupted in 2009. Now many of those tea party critics are trying to employ the same tactic.

Angry constituents have made headlines across the nation, upset over everything from the Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and evidence of Russian interference in the U.S. elections and the Trump White House's travel ban, just for starters.

As for "liberal activists"? Republican have known since December that a growing number of liberal organizations and activists have been sharing strategies for ways to encourage voters to light up town halls with tough questions for members of Congress.

More than a thousand local groups have popped up across the country, organizing around an online how-to manual called "Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda."

Drafted by former Democratic congressional staffers who say they came up with the idea at an Austin, Texas, bar a couple of days after Thanksgiving, the manual has gone viral on the web, helped along by some prominent liberal groups such as Organizing for Action, in promoting the Indivisible Guide.

Following the tea party model makes more sense than the Occupy Wall Street movement, which captured public attention for a few months, then faded without much follow-up. By contrast, the tea party grew potent enough to help take away the Democrats' House majority in 2010, its second year. President Barack Obama's momentum was never the same.

Does Indivisible have a chance to do the same to Trump? That depends mainly on how well local organizers can keep their enthusiasm and momentum going.

The first big test for this new Indivisible movement may not come until next year's midterms, just as it did for Republicans in 2010.

That's a good test because Democratic Party turnout tends to drop in midterm elections. The most recent and notable exception was 2006. Dissatisfaction over President George W. Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War and a series of scandals involving Republican politicians, among other woes for the Grand Old Party, resulted in a Democratic sweep. The donkey party captured both houses of Congress and a majority of governorships and state legislatures.

Could they do it again? The election map doesn't look nearly as good for Democrats this time, but that, too, makes 2018 important. State lawmakers will be elected that year who will draw the electoral maps for 2020.

And Democrats have another unusual asset: President Trump. Defying traditions, as he loves to do, he has continued to focus on whipping up his conservative base without making the traditional pivot that others have made toward the political center.

The result has been approval ratings in almost all of the major polls that are historically low for a new president. A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, for example, found only 38 percent of voters think he is doing a good job while 55 percent said he is doing a bad job.

Worse for the GOP, a Pew Research Center poll released the day before showed rank-and-file Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are still so psyched up for Trump that 52 percent of them say they are likely to side with Trump in a dispute with party leaders.

If Trump fails to keep his promises, even his core support could erode.

But, of course, Trump only gives Democrats someone to vote against. Let's see whom they offer us to vote for.

Clarence Page, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/pagespage.

cpage@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @cptime

Related articles:

Trump toxicity has Republicans on the run from constituents

Donald Trump can't stop government leaks

Trump's immigration crackdown is a costly mistake

The dangers of having a weak president

See the article here:

Are town hall crowds stirring up a liberal tea party? - Chicago Tribune

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats join activists at a gun control rally at the Capitol last year. A new liberal group, Swing Left, is working to help House Democrats pick up seats in the 2018 midterm elections. Photo by REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Ethan Todras-Whitehall was disappointed when Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. After his victory, sitting on your hands and just reading the news was intolerable, said Todras-Whitehall, a 36-year-old freelance writer and GMAT tutor from Amherst, Massachusetts. It still is.

So in the weeks after the election, Todras-Whitehall called two friends, Joshua Krafchin and Miriam Stone, and proposed a plan of action: creating a grassroots organization aimed at helping Democrats win back control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections.

The result is Swing Left, part of a loosely-connected network of liberal groups, like Indivisible, that pundits across the political spectrum are calling the lefts answer to the conservative Tea Party movement that emerged after President Barack Obamas victory in 2008.

Democrats havent been as focused on the House because weve held the presidency, Todras-Whitehall said. But now that Republicans control the White House along with both chambers of Congress, he said, regaining control of the House went from the last thing [liberal activists] think about to being a top priority.

To that end, Swing Left was specifically designed to target competitive House races, while leaving safe Democratic seats alone. Volunteers sign up by entering their ZIP code. From there, Swing Left points them to the closest swing district, in the hopes of boosting engagement in areas where Democrats have the most potential to pick up seats.

The model is based on the idea that its easier for people to volunteer close to home, where they feel they can make a difference on a regular basis, Todras-Whitehall said.

The group is targeting 52 House districts where the winners margin of victory in 2016 was 15 points or less. If the party wins 80 percent of those races, Democrats can regain a majority in the House, the group says.

Republicans currently hold 238 seats in the House, the GOPs largest majority in eight decades. Democrats control 198 seats; there are four vacancies.

Given those numbers, flipping control in the House is a tall order for groups like Swing Left, whose founders dont have much political organizing experience. Krafchin and Stone have never worked on a campaign; Todras-Whitehill did some phone banking for John Kerrys presidential campaign in 2004 and ran a small get-out-the-vote campaign in Ohio in 2008.

Most political experts agree the Democrats chances of regaining control of the House and Senate next year are slim.

No one thinks they can take back the House or the Senate in 2018, Republican strategist Brendan Steinhauser, a former Tea Party organizer, said.

Congressional Republicans have taken note of the energy on the left since Trumps election, said Matt Gorman, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOPs campaign arm.

But House Republicans plan to stick to their agenda in the face of the top-down effort from liberal activists to oppose Trumps presidency and make gains in Congress, Gorman said.

Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event last August in Ashburn, Virginia, a town in GOP Rep. Barbara Comstocks district. Swing Left is targeting swing districts like Comstocks in the 2018 midterms. Photo by REUTERS/Eric Thayer

Despite Swing Lefts long odds, the group is gaining traction. Roughly 300,000 volunteers have signed up with the group, Todras-Whitehall said.

Linda Keuntje said when she saw an advertisement for Swing Left on her Facebook newsfeed after the election, she immediately signed up to volunteer in Virginias 10th congressional district, a swing seat now held by Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock.

My coping strategy is to act, said Keuntje, a Democrat who lives in Arlington, Virginia. I feel like Im doing something to improve the situation.

Experienced organizers including some former Clinton campaign staffers have also signed up with Swing Left, Todras-Whitehall said.

Swing Left is helping volunteers plan house meetings next week so activists can meet in person and start organizing. After that, Todras-Whitehall said he hopes volunteers will begin canvassing, knocking on doors and registering voters in swing communities.

I want people to know their local swing district better than they know their own [district], he said.

In addition to targeting swing districts, Swing Left also plans to play defense in Democratic seats where voters shifted right and voted for Trump, like Rep. Matt Cartwrights district in eastern Pennsylvania. Obama carried the district in 2008 and 2012. But in 2016, Trump won the district and Cartwright was narrowly re-elected by a 7.6 percent margin.

Voters in his district are desperate for economic change and backed Trump because he effectively painted himself as the economic candidate, Cartwright said in a phone interview.

Nevertheless, I dont intend to change my messaging one iota, Cartwright said. Those are core values for me, and theyre not going to change cause the wind changed directions.

Political observers said it was too early to tell if liberal groups had the kind of organizing Democrats need to defend districts like Cartwrights and make further gains in the House.

Its really easy to join a march, sign a petition, said Emily Ekins, a research fellow at the right-leaning Cato Institute. Its quite another [thing] to do the hard tedious work of local and political activism.

But Steinhauser, the Republican strategist, said he saw some similarities between the Tea Party movement and the grassroots activism growing on the left today.

When [voters think they] see a disaster coming, you fight like hell to say no, Steinhauser said.

Follow this link:

How one liberal group is trying to help Democrats win back the House in 2018 - PBS NewsHour

New York Times

Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity's Liberal Partner on Fox News, Dies at 66 New York Times Alan Colmes, who for 12 years was a mild-mannered and moderately liberal sparring partner to the conservative firebrand Sean Hannity in Fox News Channel's most conspicuous effort to fulfill its fair and balanced credo, died on Thursday in Manhattan. Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity's Liberal Foil on Fox News, Dies at 66NBCNews.com Remembering Alan Colmes, a liberal who could laughFox News Alan Colmes, co-host of 'Hannity & Colmes' and liberal in 'lion's den' of Fox News, dies at 66Washington Post Daily Beast -Chicago Tribune -Slate Magazine (blog) -Fox News Insider all 149 news articles »

Original post:

Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity's Liberal Partner on Fox News, Dies at 66 - New York Times

Liberals are getting rowdy at GOP town halls. Its become so intense that it appears that some of them are avoiding these events altogether, especially Republicans who are considered vulnerable in 2018. Thats still not good. This is part of their job and they just cant flee like scared wombats when a group of liberals confront them. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) has been dealing with these protesters, diffusing some of the tension with humorbut uncompromising in his positions. Cortney wrote about how Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) also voiced his support for people who attended one his town halls, even though they probably hate his guts. In a previous post, I wrote about how one groupIndivisiblewhich was launched by ex-Democratic aides, shows one of the reasons why this so-called movement will fail: its not organic. Ex-Republican aides didnt start the Tea Party, but before we get into whether the Democrats have a liberal Tea Partylets not forget that the Left tried this with Occupy Wall Street. They stuck around for a bit, but it ultimately failed. I feel that rowdy town halls will continue to be rowdy, but it will do next to nothing to change the composition of the next Congress. Case in point, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) had a rather intense town hall, but he was re-elected with almost 74 percent of the vote. I doubt hes going anywhere if even more liberals vote against him in the next election. Yet, one area that the GOP needs to get a better grasp on is what theyre going to do with Obamacare, which has been one of the main rallying cries with this group of people, but I digress.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) was on MSNBC with Hallie Jackson who was adamant that these are organic protests, though he cited the Womens March as his main example and admitted to Jackson that liberal activists were organizing these town hall protests.

Hallie Jackson: But congressman there are groups though. I mean, you dont deny that there are groups of more liberal activists who are helping to organize some of these protests at town halls

Rep. Lieu: Well, yes, there are groups that are organizing people to show up at town halls, but these are people who are constituents of these members of Congress. Thats what people do. They show up at town halls and they give their voices to these members of Congress and youre seeing this huge reaction to Donald Trumps extreme and cruel policies.

Okayso thats another reason why Republicans probably shouldnt panic with these town hall events, especially congressmen like Chaffetz and Amash who won in landslide re-elects. These are liberals who have probably never voted for you anywaytheyre just more vocal about it.At any rate, the GOP majority is fine thanks to the partys dominance at the state level, which keeps the congressional maps drawn in their favor. Second, moreDemocratsare livingin urban areas than ever before, so liberal organizers will have to tap into that well to bring havoc to the heartland in their campaign to stop Trump.The well of support is rather depleted on the Democratic side in rural America.

TheGOP should continue to hold town halls and engage with these people. Its not like liberal anger was going to be a factor once Trump beat Hillary Clinton. In all, to say that this movement is wholly organic, as some havesuggested iswellsimply not true. Congressman Lieu admitted it.

Originally posted here:

Democratic Congressman: Yes, There Are Liberal Groups Organizing These Town Hall Protests - Townhall