The American voters chose to give the Democrats the White House, but denied them a mandate. Even if Democrats somehow squeak out wins in both Georgia Senate races, the Senate will then pivot on Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Not only does this take much of the liberal wish list off the table, it also makes deep structural reform of federal institutions impossible. There will be no new voting rights act in honor of the late Representative John Lewis, no statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and no Supreme Court packing. For that matter, the filibuster will not be eliminated, which would have been the essential predicate for all of those other changes as well as expansive climate or health care legislation. Anything that Democrats want to do that requires a party-line vote is forlorn.

In response to this disappointment, a number of left-of-center commentators have concluded that democracy lost in 2020. Our constitutional order, they argue, is rotten and an obstacle to majority rule. The Electoral College and the overrepresentation of small, mostly conservative states in the Senate is an outrage. As Ezra Klein has argued, our constitution forces Democrats to win voters ranging from the far left to the center right, but Republicans can win with only right-of-center votes. As a consequence, liberals cant have nice things.

The argument is logical, but it is also a strategic dead end. The United States is and in almost any plausible scenario will continue to be a federal republic. We are constituted as a nation of states, not as a single unitary community, a fact that is hard-wired into our constitutional structure. Liberals may not like this, just as a man standing outside in a rainstorm does not like the fact he is getting soaked. But instead of cursing the rain, it makes a lot more sense for him to find an umbrella.

Liberals need to adjust their political strategy and ideological ambitions to the country and political system we actually have, and make the most of it, rather than cursing that which they cannot change.

There are certainly some profound democratic deficits built into our federal constitution. Even federal systems like Germany, Australia and Canada do not have the same degree of representative inequality that the Electoral College and Senate generate between a citizen living in California versus one living in Wyoming.

There is also next to nothing we can do about it. The same system that generates this pattern of representative inequality also means that short of violent revolution the beneficiaries of our federal system will not allow for it to be changed, except at the margins. If Democrats at some point get a chance to get full representation for Washington, D.C., they should take it. But beyond that, there are few if any pathways to changing either the Electoral College or the structure of the Senate. So any near-term strategy for Democrats must accept these structures as fixed.

The initial step in accepting our federal system is for Democrats to commit to organizing everywhere even places where we are not currently competitive. Led by Stacey Abrams, Democrats have organized and hustled in Georgia over the last couple of years, and the results are hard to argue with. Joe Biden should beg Ms. Abrams (or another proven organizer like Ben Wikler, the head of the party in Wisconsin) to take over the Democratic National Committee, dust off Howard Deans planning memos for a 50 state strategy from the mid-2000s and commit to building the formal apparatus of the Democratic Party everywhere.

This party-building needs to happen across the country, even where the odds seem slim, in order to help Democrats prospect for attractive issues in red states (and red places in purple states), to identify attractive candidates and groom them for higher office and to build networks of citizens who can work together to rebuild the party at the local level.

A necessary corollary of a 50 state strategy is accepting that creating a serious governing majority means putting together a policy agenda that recognizes where voters are, not where they would be if we had a fairer system of representation. That starts with an economics that addresses the radically uneven patterns of economic growth in the country, even if doing so means attending disproportionately to the interests of voters outside of the Democrats urban base. That is not a matter of justice, necessarily, but brute electoral arithmetic.

That does not mean being moderate, in the sense of incremental and toothless. From the financialization of our economy to our constrictive intellectual property laws to our unjust tax competition between states for firms, the economic deck really is stacked for the concentration of economic power on the coasts. Democrats in the places where the party is less competitive should be far more populist on these and other related issues, even if it puts them in tension with the partys megadonors.

We also need to recognize that the cultural values and rituals of Democrats in cosmopolitan cities and liberal institutional bastions like universities do not seem to travel well. Slogans like defund the police and abolish ICE may be mobilizing in places where three-quarters of voters pull the lever for Democrats. But it is madness to imagine that they could be the platform of a competitive party nationwide.

That doesnt mean that we should expect members of the Squad not to speak out for fear of freaking out the small town voters that Democrats like Representative Abigail Spanberger of Virginia represent. But it does mean recognizing that, unlike the more homogeneous Republicans, the Democrats have no choice but to be a confederation of subcultures. We need to develop internal norms of pluralism and coexistence appropriate to a loose band of affiliated politicians and groups, rather than those of a party that is the arm of a cohesive social movement.

The Democratic Party has a future within the constitution the country has. The question for the next decade is, will we withdraw into pointless dreams of sweeping constitutional change or make our peace with our country and its constitution, seeking allies in unlikely places and squeezing out what progress we can get by organizing everywhere, even when the odds of success seem slim.

Steven Teles, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center, is an author, with Robert Saldin, of the book Never Trump: The Revolt of the Conservative Elites.

Read the rest here:

Our Political System Is Unfair. Liberals Need to Just Deal With It. - The New York Times

The proposition seemed tailor-made for one of the nations most diverse and liberal states. California officials asked voters to overturn a 24-year-old ban on affirmative action in education, employment and contracting.

The state political and cultural establishment worked as one to pass this ballot measure. The governor, a senator, members of Congress, university presidents and civil rights leaders called it a righting of old wrongs.

Women and people of color are still at a sharp disadvantage by almost every measure, The Los Angeles Times wrote in an editorial endorsement.

Yet on Election Day, the proposition failed by a wide margin, 57 percent to 43 percent, and Latino and Asian-American voters played a key role in defeating it. The outcome captured the gap between the vision laid out by the liberal establishment in California, which has long imagined the creation of a multiracial, multiethnic coalition that would embrace progressive causes, and the sentiments of many Black, Latino, Asian and Arab voters.

Variations of this puzzle could be found in surprising corners of the nation on Election Day, as slices of ethnic and racial constituencies peeled off and cut against Democratic expectations.

We should not think of demography as destiny, said Professor Omar Wasow, who studies politics and voting patterns at Princeton University. These groups are far more heterogeneous than a monolith and campaigns often end up building their own idiosyncratic coalition.

Asian-American Californians opposed the affirmative action measure in large numbers. A striking number of East and South Asian students have gained admission to elite state universities, and their families spoke to reporters of their fear that their children would suffer if merit in college selection was given less weight. That battle carried echoes of another that raged the past few years in New York City, where a white liberal mayors efforts to increase the number of Black and Latino students in selective high schools angered working- and middle-class South and East Asian families whose children have gained admission to the schools in large numbers.

Theres more texture to California blue politics than you might think, said Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University and policy director for Mitt Romneys 2012 presidential run. Identity politics only go so far. There is a sense on affirmative action that people resent being categorized by progressives.

Latinos, too, appear sharply divided. Prominent Latino nonprofit and civil rights organizations endorsed the affirmative action proposition even as all 14 of Californias majority-Latino counties voted it down.

Latinos make up more than half of San Bernardino Countys population, although significantly fewer turn out to vote. More residents there voted on the affirmative action proposition than for president, rejecting it by a margin of 28 percentage points. In rural Imperial County, in the southeastern corner of the state, 85 percent of the population is Latino. The voters there who gave Joseph R. Biden Jr. a nearly 27-point margin of victory went against the affirmative action measure by 16 percentage points.

The results suggest that Democrats may need to adjust their strategy as the complexities of class, generation and experience, and the competing desires of these demographic groups become clear. Since the dawn of the 21st century, it has become commonplace for party leaders to talk of a rising demographic tide that is destined to lift the Democrats to dominance. That liberal coalition is seen as resting on a bedrock of upper-middle-class white voters, alongside working- and middle-class Black, Latino and Asian voters.

In broad strokes, that narrative held. Black voters, along with a shift in the white suburban vote, played a pivotal role in delivering Georgia to the Democratic column (although so closely that a statewide audit is taking place). So, too, Black voters in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia voted overwhelmingly for Democrats as did well-to-do majority-white suburbs and gave Pennsylvania and therefore the national election to President-elect Biden.

In Arizona, Latino voters piled up large margins for Mr. Biden and tipped the state narrowly into the Democratic column for the first time since 1996. Representative Ruben Gallego, the Democratic congressman from Phoenix who is a former Marine and a Harvard graduate, noted that several decades of aggressive tactics by Republican governors and white sheriffs had stirred activism among the young Latinos who dominate politics there.

The Republicans caught Latino lightning in the bottle in Florida and South Texas, but not here, Mr. Gallego said. We are very politicized. Its just important that white liberals dont impose their thoughts and policies on us.

Aside from those successes, however, the election presented complications wrapped one inside another for Democrats. In Texas and Florida, in California and in Colorado (where New York Times exit polls found that roughly 40 percent of white voters and 38 percent of Latino voters cast ballots for President Trump), the assumption that people of color would vote as a liberal Democratic bloc often proved illusory.

John Judis is a liberal writer and scholar who in 2002 co-wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority, which became a seminal text for those who saw the Democratic Party as a political tide rising. He has since backed off that a touch.

People of color is a term thats been adopted by the cultural left as a way of arguing that if these groups proportionately voted Democratic in the past, they will do so in the future, Mr. Judis said. I dont see how you can make the argument.

Viewing the Latino vote as monolithic fails, of course, to capture the often sharply varying politics and ethnicities of people hailing from nearly two dozen countries on two continents. The same is true when examining the behavior of Asian-American voters.

Philadelphia offers a snapshot: A record number of Latinos in the city, which is heavily Puerto Rican and Dominican, turned out and buoyed Mr. Biden. Yet exit polls also found that Latino voter support there for Mr. Trump leapt to 35 percent this year from 22 percent in 2016. In Milwaukee, an analysis by Urban Milwaukee reported an uptick in the Latino working-class vote for Mr. Trump, although a majority still favored Mr. Biden.

Along the Rio Grande in Texas, where some Mexican-American families, known as Tejanos, have roots that extend back four centuries, the vote margins shifted dramatically in 2020. Latino turnout soared, almost entirely to the benefit of Mr. Trump. Although Mr. Biden obtained more total votes in the four counties of the Rio Grande Valley than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, his margins of victory fell sharply.

The reasons offered for these results include poor field organizing by the Democratic Party, the cultural conservatism of some older Tejano families, and the fact that many in these often-dense counties find good-paying jobs with the Border Patrol.

Many voters, too, worried that Mr. Biden and the Democrats would impose a new coronavirus-driven shutdown, with dire consequences for the many thousands who own and labor for small businesses. Prof. Omar Valerio-Jimenez grew up in the Rio Grande Valley and teaches history at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Several of his old friends and cousins voted for Mr. Trump.

They faced this challenge: Do they continue to open our stores and restaurants and churches, which lets us pay our bills, he said, or do we quarantine and not have the money to pay our bills?

Muslim voters also confounded Democratic strategists with their support for Mr. Trump reaching 35 percent, according to The Associated Press. This, too, is a constituency difficult to pigeonhole, as it encompasses Africans, Arabs, South Asians and Europeans.

A sizable number of Muslims have experienced Donald Trump and to the surprise of Democrats they said, We want more of that, Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution said.

Analyzing vote shifts is a tricky business, particularly when trying to gauge why some Latino, Black or Arab voters moved from supporting a liberal Democratic candidate like Mrs. Clinton in 2016 to voting for a populist authoritarian Republican like Mr. Trump. Some analysts pointed to the appeal among male voters regardless of color or ethnicity of Mr. Trumps masculine persona. Others mentioned the performance of the national economy, which had hummed along until the plague arrived.

There were small, intriguing changes in the Black vote as well. The Timess exit polls in Georgia found that 16 percent of Black men voted for Mr. Trump. (Compared with 7 percent of Black women there.) And to chart the votes along the so-called Black Belt in Mississippi, which includes 10 counties along the Mississippi River, was to find that although Mr. Biden won handily, his margin in nearly every county was two to three percentage points smaller than Mrs. Clintons.

The unanswered question is whether the 2020 election will be a one-off, the voting patterns scrambled by an unusually polarizing president who attracted and repelled in near equal measure. If it signals something larger, political scientists noted, some Latino and Asian voters might begin to behave like white voters, who have cleaved along class lines, with more affluent residents in urban areas voting Democratic while a decided majority of rural and exurban residents support Republicans.

Then there is California, where the sands of change blow in varying directions. In 2018, Democrats swept the Orange County congressional seats. In 2020, the Republicans have rebounded and taken at least two of those seats.

The Republican candidate Michelle Steel, who is Korean-American, came out against the affirmative action proposition, a stance that proved popular with her Asian-American constituents, as well as many white voters. And on election night, Ms. Steel rode that support to a narrow win against the incumbent Democratic congressman, Harley Rouda.

This is the challenge for liberal Democrats, Professor Wasow said. In a diverse society, how do you enact politics that may advance racial equality without reinforcing racial divisions that are counterproductive and hurt you politically?

View post:

Liberals Envisioned a Multiracial Coalition. Voters of Color Had Other Ideas. - The New York Times

"Catching the Wind" is the first volume of Neal Gablers two-volume biography of Edward Kennedy. It is at once a human drama, a history of American politics in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Though he is often portrayed as a reckless hedonist who rode his fathers fortune and his brothers coattails to a Senate seat at the age of thirty, the Ted Kennedy in "Catching the Wind" is one the public seldom saw. He entered the Senate with his colleagues lowest expectations, a show horse, not a workhorse, but he used his ninth-childs talent of deference to and comity with his Senate elders to become a promising legislator. And with the deaths of his brothers John and Robert, he was compelled to become something more: the custodian of their political mission.

BPL President David Leonard will moderate this program, part of the Arc of History: Contested Perspectives series.

This conversation is part of the esteemed Lowell Lecture Series at the Boston Public library and is produced by GBHs Forum Network.

This virtual event will begin at 6pm Eastern Standard Time.

Forum Network events are free and available to the public, but you must register for webinar access.

GBH encourages you to use Zoom Webinar to watch for this event. Zoom is free to the public but you will need to download it to your computer first. You can download Zoom here. If you already have Zoom, you will not need to download the platform again.

Read the original:

Neal Gabler with Catching the Wind: Edward Kennedy and the Liberal Hour, 1932-1975 (Virtual) - wgbh.org

A woman browses her smartphone by the Huawei retail shop in Beijing on Oct. 11, 2020.

Andy Wong/The Associated Press

Opposition parties joined forces Wednesday to pass a motion calling on the minority Liberal government to unveil a comprehensive plan within 30 days to fight Chinese state-sponsored harassment and interference against Canadians.

In a rare government defeat in the House, the Conservative motion also called on the government to announce within 30 days whether equipment made by Chinas Huawei Technologies Co Ltd. would be allowed in Canadas 5G wireless networks. This is a question Ottawa has been studying for more than two years.

Although not binding, the motion, which passed 178 to 146, functions as a declaration of support or purpose. The governing Liberals mostly voted against the motion, aside from a handful including Beaches-East York MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Scarborough-Guildwood MP John McKay.

Story continues below advertisement

The Conservatives, Bloc Qubcois, NDP and other MPs voted in favour. Not all MPs registered a vote.

Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said the Commons vote is a sign that Canadians want action.

Canadians expect the Liberal government to uphold our democratic norms and respect the will of Parliament by taking action to defend Canadas national security and make a decision on Huawei and Canadas 5G network, he said, and by developing a plan to protect Canadians against Communist Chinas growing influence operations here at home.

In responding to the vote, the Liberal government made no commitment to bring forward a plan to further combat Chinese interference and said it requires more time to consider whether to exclude any gear from this countrys 5G networks.

It is unacceptable for China to interfere in domestic affairs here in Canada as is any intimidation of Canadians, including those of Chinese origin, a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Franois-Philippe Champagne said.

Press secretary Syrine Khoury said the Liberals felt they could not support a motion calling for a decision on Huawei within 30 days because Ottawa is still studying how best to protect Canadian telecommunication networks without stifling innovation.

Cheuk Kwan, former chair of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China, lauded the opposition parties for taking a stand and criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal caucus for voting against the motion.

Story continues below advertisement

The Liberals have for many years not had a backbone to stand up to China, he said. There is no excuse any more. How many more months or years are you going to study the Huawei situation and how many more years [do we] have to tolerate this Chinese influence and interference in our lives?

Mr. Kwan said some of Canadas allies have banned Huawei from their 5G networks and he urged the government to follow Australias tougher approach to Beijing.

Australia has not only joined the U.S. in banning Huaweis 5G gear but enacted tough measures to counter Chinese state intimidation and interference in that countrys immigrant community.

They have done a wonderful of job of recognizing the situation and instituting hard, aggressive legislation to respond to Chinese interference, he said, including a federal registry to shed light on the work individuals are doing on behalf of China and other foreign states.

The motion came one week after The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warned that Chinese state-sponsored harassment in Canada is part of a global campaign of intimidation that constitutes a threat to this countrys sovereignty and the safety of Canadians.

Last week, Mr. Trudeau told reporters recently we have seen an intensification of the aggressive and coercive diplomatic approach on the part of China.

Story continues below advertisement

Gloria Fung, president of Canada-Hong Kong Link, said her organization was pleased this motion passed because it shows there is a really strong urge in Canada for concrete action to be taken by our government to address all these major threats from China, including Huawei.

The Chinese Communist Party has been taking a very arrogant approach in intimidating and harassing Canadians they have also conducted a lot of espionage and infiltration here, she said.

Cherie Wong, executive director of Alliance Canada Hong Kong, said she remains hopeful that the Trudeau government will take the motion seriously. She added that, in recent months, Ottawa has suspended an extradition treaty with Hong Kong, banned weapons sales to the former British colony and opened the door to more Hongkongers becoming Canadian citizens.

But Ms. Wong said the Liberals can no longer sit on the sidelines, as agents of Chinas Communist Party make blatant attempts to threaten critics of the regime a campaign she says is widespread.

There is regular surveillance on Chinese Canadians but the surveillance they exert on Uyghurs, Tibetans and Hongkongers are at a different level, she said. Over the past few years, the harassment campaigns have actually targeted specifically on Uyghurs and Tibetans as well as mainland Chinese whose families are back in China.

Ottawa is being urged to set up a dedicated national hotline where individuals and groups can report intimidation or harassment by agents of China. In addition, CSIS and the RCMP are being encouraged to hold a continuing dialogue with community groups about the various methods that China uses to silence dissent among Hong Kong Canadians and those from mainland China, including Uyghurs and Tibetans.

Story continues below advertisement

Alykhan Velshi, vice-president of corporate affairs for Huawei Canada, declined to say whether his company wanted a decision within 30 days. Huawei has always supported, and continues to support, the Canadian governments evidence-based review of potential 5G providers.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the days most important headlines. Sign up today.

Read the original post:

Opposition defeats Liberals on motion to fight Chinese tactics - The Globe and Mail

A young ballerina is pictured fastening her pointe shoes alongside an ominous caption: Fatimas next job could be in cyber she just doesnt know it yet. Shared online just days after the chancellor had come under fire for comments he had made about retraining parts of the workforce facing redundancy as a result of the coronavirus, Fatima the Ballerina became the poster child for government insensitivity.

The message was read as a sign of Tory callousness, asking creatives to give up on their lifelong ambitions because the Treasury wouldnt bail them out. Liberals on social media were quick to go on the attack insisting that Fatima should be financially supported during Covid-19, while the singer KT Tunstall suggested the Government could be barred from enjoying any arts for the rest of time. The photographer behind the picture said she was devastated by its use.

Only it wasnt all that it was made out to be. Rather than part of a government push for retraining in the wake of the pandemic, the advert was part of a 2019 campaign for cyber recruitment that existed long before the pandemic hit. Even when users pointed this out online, the news failed to travel as fast as the initial outrage. For many the details were irrelevant, as the wider point of a government that cared for money not the arts in their minds held true.

This is not a unique scenario. While most of us are used to the concept of fake news by now, its often been viewed to be the preserve of angry American presidents, Russian trolls or conspiracy theorists. These days its more complicated. These kind of half-untruths are put out by all sides and used as weapons. And while the Right has a reputation for fighting dirty, the Left has sometimes been seen to be above this. It was Michelle Obama who coined the phrase, When they go low, we go high. But in the aftermath of the Labour Partys 2019 election defeat, the attitude on the Left seems split: between those on one side who argue for an if you cant beat em, join em attitude and those on the other who think they should rise above anything that can even be perceived as foul play. So, just how low should the Left go when it comes to taking on their opponents?

Adam McNicholas is the founder of One Rule For Them, a new grassroots group aimed at supporting the Left in marginal seats through political persuasion campaigns. While he supports a more aggressive stance, he says the focus should be on framing. We dont need fake news, these guys give us enough ammunition as it is, he tells me, citing Dominic Cummings trip to Durham during the first lockdown as an easy area on which to capitalise. Not that his campaigns avoid controversy. Last month his outfit released a new video on Dishy Rishi asking whether the chancellor was on voters side. The video argues that the smooth talking politician is not, citing his alleged celebrity lifestyle and career in finance.

The video was criticised from figures on the Left as well as the Right for being too personal and negative. However, McNicholas was satisfied with its impact and the more than one million organic views it received. The principle behind it creating rows about things we want to talk about meant the plan was to draw attention to Sunaks background as a hedge fund manager.

While some in the Conservative Party thought it unfairly suggested Sunak was living it up, figures close to the chancellor say they were not put out. If thats what they need to resort to then good luck to them, says a source close to Sunak.

One figure who can see some merit in this type of aggression is James Schneider, former Momentum organiser before working as director of strategic communications to Jeremy Corbyn. I think the One Rule For Them framing just as a name is quite good. That is quite a good narrative for attack, he tells me. However, he said it would benefit from a less personal focus on Sunaks possessions. There is no point taking the piss out of the fact hes got some expensive tea heating mug thing that sends data to his Apple Watch, but him having worked in hedge funds and wages stagnating for the past 12 years, those links are better.

Schneider has had to deal with the question of how the Left should win over voters: the tussle between positive messaging and the negative. He says the Labour Party has been too focused on incredibly long stat-based attack documents that basically dont do anything a 100 days of Tory failure or whatever, he says. Those are really ineffective so almost by definition any move away from that type of attack would be good for the Left. Under Corbyn, there was a push to focus on a more positive approach. While Schneider says that should still be the focus, it doesnt mean you cant criticise your opponents.

So, what cuts through when it comes to changing minds? Is it a Rishi attack video, Fatima the Ballerina or something else entirely? James Johnson is a former pollster for No 10 under Theresa May who regularly conducts focus groups in his role as co-founder of JL Partners. He says, Theres a difference between the things that people have heard of, which is one definition of cut-through, and the things that really change opinions of a brand. Fatima the Ballerina was an example of the former: People have referred in focus groups to that ballerina advert itself and they were sort of pretty critical about the whole thing but actually it hadnt really impacted their view of Rishi Sunak at all, he explains.

What impact then does it have when the things being discussed in the focus groups stretch the truth? In discussions on the ballerina advert, James Johnson said the fact it was a 2019 campaign did not come up. However, he still believes the public are better at questioning sources than they are often given credit for. There is always that interrogation and that feeling of is this really real, and its particularly accentuated if its seen on social media, he says. People are hyper aware of where they are getting their news from and how its painted.

If the public are switched on, do parties even need to bother to step in to correct the things put out by their supporters? Any effort could be futile. When something happens like that it can spread like wildfire particularly if celebrities join in, a Conservative aide explains. Theres not much you can do; often its bad luck.

Schneider says such dilemmas ought not to distract from the most important goal: getting your message out there. I think how progressive forces should think about all different forms of communications is how many times can you get your message in front of people and how effectively versus the other side, he says. That should be more the focus than trying to police how much due diligence someone should do before they retweet a meme because I think there, youre bumbling into an unpoliceable zone.

The Left has long believed that the press in this country tilts right so there is an argument that these attacks could level the playing field. But the challenge for them is walking the tightrope of getting peoples attention while keeping their integrity intact.

Read more:

Why is the liberal Left resorting to fake news too? - Evening Standard

Trade protectionism seems to be the official policy, with the government following the path of its ideological leanings

Indias External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently disapproved of free trade and globalisation. Sounding like a politician of the bygone era where the government shielded the domestic industry from competition by putting up protectionist barriers, he said, in the name of openness, we have allowed subsidi[s]ed products and unfair production advantages from abroad to prevail... justified by the mantra of an open and globali[s]ed economy. It was quite extraordinary that an economy as attractive as India allowed the framework to be set by others. He was speaking at a dialogue. Taking a dig at free trade agreements (FTAs), the Minister said, the effect of past trade agreements has been to de-industriali[s]e some sectors.

The fact that these observations were made just a day after 15 countries of the Asia-Pacific region signed, on November 15, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, the largest regional trading arrangement, is no coincidence. The Minister tried hard to rationalise the governments decision to walk away from RCEP last year. However, there are several flaws in Mr. Jaishankars arguments.

Also read | Leaving RCEP was a short-sighted decision, says former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran

First, by refusing to sign RCEP a sign of weakness, not boldness India is now truly at the margins of the regional and global economy. With trade multilateralism at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) remaining sluggish, FTAs are the gateways for international trade. By not being part of any major FTA, India cannot be part of the global value chains. Indias competitors such as the East Asian nations, by virtue of they being embedded in mega-FTAs, are in a far superior position to be part of global value chains and attract foreign investment.

Second, has India embraced the economic openness that Mr. Jaishankar laments about? While India is surely a much more open economy than it was three decades ago, globally, India continues to remain relatively closed when compared to other major economies. According to the WTO, Indias applied most favoured nation import tariffs are 13.8%, which is the highest for any major economy. Likewise, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, on the import restrictiveness index, India figures in the very restrictive category. From 1995-2019, India has initiated anti-dumping measures 972 times (the highest in the world), zealously endeavouring to protect domestic industry.

Third, in blaming FTAs for the woes of Indias manufacturing, the External Affairs Minister is contradicting his own governments economic survey presented earlier this year, which concluded that India has benefitted overall from FTAs signed so far. Moreover, impugning FTAs for deindustrialisation means being oblivious to the real problem of the Indian industry which is the lack of competitiveness and absence of structural reforms.

Also read | Jaishankars views reflect language used in 1970s, says Chidambaram

Fourth, the External Affairs Minister , following the finest traditions of the Narendra Modi government, criticised the past governments for compromising Indias interests by doing business as per the framework set by others. However, he did not share why his government utterly failed in the last six years to convince 15 other RCEP nations about a framework that would be advantageous to India.

Finally, in criticising economic openness and globalisation, the External Affairs Minister wholly ignored the fact that India has been one of the major beneficiaries of economic globalisation a fact attested by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Post-1991, the Indian economy grew at a faster pace, ushering in an era of economic prosperity. According to the economist and professor, Arvind Panagariya, poverty in rural and urban India, which stood at close to 40% in 2004-05, almost halved to about 20% by 2011-12. This was due to India clocking an average economic growth rate of almost 8% with international trade being a major engine of progress.

The comments of the External Affairs Minister give us a window to understanding the larger ideological moorings of the Narendra Modi government on free trade. When Mr. Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014, it was widely perceived that while his government might be socially conservative, it would be economically liberal and advocate globalisation and free trade. This was even though all ideological gurus of the Sangh Parivar, whether Deen Dayal Upadhyay or Dattopant Thengadi, championed swadeshi (indigenous products) over videshi (imports). Over the last few years, the Narendra Modi government has started walking on the path shown by its ideological gurus. Tariffs have been increased, FTAs are being demonised, and vocal for local, which strikes at the heart of international trade and globalisation, is the new mantra.

News Analysis | Vocal about local, but no snub to globalisation

The Prime Ministers desire to make India a global destination for foreign investment is a pipe dream because it is naive to expect foreign investors to be gung-ho about investing in India if trade protectionism is the governments official policy. The mask of economic liberalism is finally off and the real ideological colours are there for everyone to see.

Prabhash Ranjan is a senior assistant professor of law at South Asian University. The views expressed are personal

Read more:

India's mask of economic liberalism is off - The Hindu

MADISON, Wis. The Wisconsin Elections Commission issued an order Thursday to recount more than 800,000 ballots cast in two heavily liberal counties at President Trumps request.

The order, required by law after Trump paid $3 million for the recount, was agreed to after rancorous debate for more than five hours Wednesday night that foreshadows the partisan battle ahead.

Its just remarkable the six of us in a civilized fashion cant agree to this stuff, Democratic commissioner Mark Thomsen said hours into the debate. The commission is split 3-3 between Democrats and Republicans.

The recounts in Milwaukee and Dane counties, where Joe Biden outpolled Trump by a more than 2-to-1 margin, will begin Friday and must be completed by Dec. 1. Milwaukee County officials said they plan to finish the recount by Wednesday. Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said it would be great to be done by Thanksgiving, but he didnt have an estimate for when the work would conclude.

Biden won statewide by 20,608 votes. Trumps campaign has cited irregularities in the counties, although no evidence of illegal activity has been presented.

We understand the eyes of the world will be on these Wisconsin counties over the next few weeks, Meagan Wolfe, Wisconsins top elections official, said Thursday. We look forward to again demonstrating the strength, security, integrity and transparency of our election systems in Wisconsin.

The commission argued over changes to its manual that provides guidance to local elections officials over how to conduct recounts. Ultimately, they decided not to reference the manual in the order, but they did update some parts to reflect accommodations for the coronavirus pandemic.

The commissioners deadlocked on making changes to the manual that Democrats and elections commission staff said would bring the guidance into line with current state law. Republicans balked, saying the guidelines should not be changed after Trump filed for the recount.

Their inability to agree leaves in place guidance that says absentee ballot applications must be approved as part of the recount, even though commission staff said thats not required under the law.

Democratic commissioners said they were certain the recount was headed to court even though Trumps claims were without merit.

Board Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, said Trumps allegation that election clerks mailed thousands of absentee ballots to voters who hadnt requested them was absurd, factually bizarre and a vague, paranoid conspiracy.

What we ought not be doing is watering that plant of baloney, she said.

Republican commissioners Dean Knudson and Bob Spindell questioned whether election observers would be treated fairly by Democratic county clerks in Milwaukee and Madison. At one point, Knudson even appeared to question whether absentee ballots requested through the elections commissions state website were invalid because of how the requests are recorded.

I hope we havent created a system at WEC that entices people to request a ballot that actually isnt in keeping with the law, he said.

Knudson, a former state lawmaker, has been on the commission since 2017 and like many office holders in Wisconsin encouraged voters to sign up for absentee ballots on the website. In August, he tweeted a link to the site along with the exhortation to request absentee ballot now.

Democrats dismissed Knudsons concerns as outlandish, noting that the system has been in place unchallenged for years.

Thomsen said Trump was challenging the validity of the election only because he lost, but he had no problem with Wisconsins election rules in 2016 when he won by fewer than 23,000 votes.

Milwaukee County is the states largest, home to the city of Milwaukee, and Black people make up about 27 percent of the population, more than any other county. Dane County is home to the liberal capital city of Madison and the flagship University of Wisconsin campus.

The disputes at the commission had echoes of what happened in Michigan on Tuesday. Republicans on a canvassing board for the county that includes Detroit temporarily stopped certification of the vote after claiming that poll books in certain parts of the majority-Black city were out of balance. The deadlock brought claims of racism from Democrats before the board later voted unanimously to certify the results. The Republicans said they want to change their stance again, but officials said certification of the vote will stand.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Read more here:

Wisconsin issues recount order, paid for by Trump, in 2 liberal counties - pressherald.com

Liberals never learn. At a time when the erosion of public trust is more dangerous than the plague swirling around us, you would think they would be careful about displays of hypocrisy. Instead, the same technocratic elites who rail about the sin of privilege and criticize Donald Trumps unraveling of the social fabric are telling us by their actions: Do as I say, not as I do.

The latest example comes to us by way of Gavin Newsom, Californias Democratic governor, who was photographed maskless at a Nov. 6, birthday party for a lobbyist. In so doing, he violated his own state guidelines. Newsom apologized, but the incident only underscored the widening social distance between the elites and the plebesand the sense that lockdowns are for the little people, while parties, salon visits, and swanky dinners are for me, but not for thee. Hypocrisy, thy name is Newsom.

And Newsom isnt the only Californian who thinks hes above the rules. Sen. Dianne Feinstein was recently spotted walking around the Senate maskless, and Nancy Pelosiwho drew controversy for visiting a hair salon in Septemberwas forced to cancel a dinner she was planning to welcome newly elected House Democrats after the event caused an uproar.

This is a trendand not just in the Golden State. These conspicuous displays of hypocrisy reinforce the notion that progressive elites think theyre better than the hoi polloi lumpenproletariat who are forced to follow their guidelines. The public might have rejected Trumps handling of the virus, but its easy to see why average Americans, who have to comply with COVID-19 regulations, feel disgruntled by such decadent displays.

Its almost as if the perpetrators are unaware that cultural aggrievement is the most potent force in modern American politics, and that, for a lot of Americans, complying with COVID rules means shuttering a business, postponing a wedding, or never getting to say goodbye to a loved one in a hospital. And, for many of us, it will mean not seeing family members this Thanksgiving.

Now imagine doing all of these things, and then seeing Gavin Newsom and California Medical Association officials enjoying themselves at the French Laundry.

During times of crisis, leaders have to ask others to sacrifice. But this only works when they earn the credibility to do sowhen followers believe that the leader has their best interest at heart and is sharing in the sacrifice. Never mind enduring any real hardship, Californians cant even count on Gavin Newsom to stay home and watch Schitts Creek on Netflix. And this sort of let them eat cake! imagery is even more galling coming from members of a political party fond of lecturing others about their privilege.

So why is this happening? In some cases, of course, the problem is simply that elites view themselves as being above the rules. In other cases, there is more than mere class snobbery at play; theres also political snobbery. More specifically, there is the sense that progressive causes (like protesting the police or celebrating Joe Bidens election) are exempt from the rules, because, after all, the cause is so goodso importantthat the ends justify the means. A Trump rally, for example, is dangerous and irresponsible, while street celebrations for Joe Biden are not just tolerated, but commended.

Case in point: This spring, conservatives protesting Michigans harsh lockdown policies were criticized for not social distancing. Now, some of these protesters behaved in ways that were unbecoming. But the subsequent behavior of liberals did little to quell their sense of victimhood and unfairness. Thats because, in early June, as the Detroit News reported Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who's voiced concerns about other demonstrations potentially spreading COVID-19 in recent weeks, participated Thursday in a civil rights march in Highland Park with hundreds of people who did not follow social distancing rules. (Dont worry, we are assured by the experts that protests probably did not cause a COVID spike.) To be sure, protesting police violence is legitimate and important, but so are a lot of other things weve been asked to curtail.

A more recent example occurred when D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to Delaware to celebrate Joe Bidens presidential win. The problem? Delaware was on her list of states considered high risk for COVID-19. She skirted the rules by insisting that attending Bidens victory party was essential travel. Right.

So traveling to spend her last Thanksgiving with your grandma makes you irresponsible and dangerous, but traveling to celebrate Bidens win is essential travel? You can go to a conference in Hawaii, but you cant schlep to Cleveland for a family reunion?

To the laymans eye, theres a lot of hypocrisy here. But why shouldnt progressive politicians enjoy these perks? They are our betters, arent they?

More here:

Gavin Newsom Is the Face of Privileged Liberal Hypocrisy - The Daily Beast

ThursdayNov19,2020at6:16AM

Senate runoffs give chance to stand against liberals

If the two U.S. Senate seats up for grabs in January should swing to the left, how might a Democratic Senate overturn conservative gains on the Supreme Court? Would this allow the Democrats to "pack the court" in order to force its rulings to uphold the most despicable liberal agendas?

Evangelical Christians and conservatives generally are anchored in their belief that this country is moving in the wrong direction morally and ethically. We have been encouraged by having three recent Supreme Court vacancies filled by conservative, originalist judges who are committed to Interpreting the rule of law as originally intended our Constitutions framers. By their writings, these men clearly accepted that there are moral absolutes upon which our laws, and our behavior, both institutionally and individually, should be directed.

I believe President-elect Joe Biden will attempt to be moderate and reunite us for the common good. But there must be a balance of power to ensure that more progressive Democrats dont lead us off into a morass of "situational ethics, with every man "doing what is right in his own eyes rather than taking into account its impact on love thy neighbor as thyself.

John Sullivan, Savannah

Time to move on from GOP leaders

America has spoken. The majority of people in this democratic society have repudiated Donald J. Trump, his policies and his personality. Georgias two Republican senators have been loud and proud in their support, allegiance and defense of this man.

Now that this wanna-be king has been shown the exit door, why should we keep his court jesters?

Bennie D. Spaulding, Savannah

View original post here:

Reader letters, Thursday: Senate runoffs give chance to stand against liberals - Savannah Morning News

By her own admission, Caesar-Chavannes was guilty of erratic behaviour, as she battled mental health challenges and attempted to adapt to a House of Commons she felt was designed to reinforce power and privilege.

But this was a government that promised to do politics differently; that pledged to shake up the status quo; and, which was elected, at least in part, because it championed unconventional candidates like Celina Caesar-Chavannes.

In some ways, these flaws were my super-powers, she said, as she realized that she was not destined for the political heights and she should instead use her platform to amplify the voices of quiet, little Black girls who felt and saw injustices but could not say anything.

She said her feminism required her to be bold. It requires me to have uncomfortable conversations and to speak my truth.

Matters came to a head after an ugly online confrontation with Peoples Party leader, Maxime Bernier. Some of Caesar-Chavannes colleagues expressed support, using a #HereforCelina hashtag.

Trudeau was noticeable by his absence until the hashtag started trending on Twitter. She was upset that he had not come to her aid but agreed to meet him, at his request. The meeting lasted three minutes, which I felt was more of my time than he deserved.

When the whole controversy over his dressing up in blackface emerged in the 2019 election campaign, I thought I should have seen that one coming

As the SNC Lavalin affair unravelled, Caesar-Chavannes became ever more disillusioned and told the Prime Ministers Office that she did not intend to run again. Coincidentally, she planned to make her decision public on the same day that Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet. Trudeau called to say he couldnt have two powerful women of colour announcing they were leaving at the same time and asked her to delay.

View post:

John Ivison: The Liberal MP Justin Trudeau couldn't control. Memoir reveals final, angry call with PM - National Post

Allegations that colleges are bastions of liberalism are not new. The reality is its always been impossible to peg higher education writ large across the United States into any one ideological corner, when it comes to individual faculty members or institutions. Still, during the Depression, Republicans used to ask each other How do you get to Washington, D.C.? to which the answer was, You go to Harvard and turn left.

Max Yergan, an African American professor at City College of New York, was hired in 1937 only to be fired in 1941 after complaints that he expressed liberal and progressive views. He was among those ensnared when the New York State Legislature in 1940 launched an investigation into the political beliefs of professors in New York City, and more than 50 faculty and staff members at the City College of New York resigned or were terminated as a result. Historian Carol Smith called this purge of people based on their personal beliefs a "dress rehearsal for McCarthyism."

During the Cold War, conservatives routinely saw colleges and universities as hotbeds of Communism. Many faculty members were required to sign loyalty oaths to the United States, and some 100 faculty were terminated due to their alleged sympathy towards Communism. The concepts of academic freedom and free speech turned out to be such a poor defense for professors who were caught in the crosshairs of investigators that Yeshiva University professor Ellen Schrecker titled her study of the McCarthy era No Ivory Tower.

In the 1960s, public concerns over civil rights, student conduct rules, Vietnam and Watergate led to regular campus protests that included demonstrations, building takeovers, strikes and the destruction of property. They also led to renewed charges of a liberal bias. Ronald Reagan launched his political career by using colleges as a political foil, particularly the Free Speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley. While running for his first term as governor of California, he criticized both the students and professors at Berkeley and vowed to crack down on protests. And a Gallup poll in the wake of the shootings at Kent State University in 1970 found that 58percent of Americans blamed the students for the deaths and injuries, while only 11percent blamed the National Guard.

What are the popular perceptions -- and the actual facts -- today? Extensive research has concluded that individual faculty members may be liberal but that the recent allegations of an institutional liberal bias are overstated at best or, more likely, just flat wrong. In 2017, a Princeton University Ph.D. candidate, David Austin Walsh, addressed those misperceptions directly in a Washington Post op-ed, concluding, Higher education actually skews conservative. While it is true that large numbers of professors -- particularly in the arts and humanities -- identify politically as liberal or radical, it is emphatically not the case that institutions of higher education themselves are radical or even necessarily especially liberal. In fact, thanks to the power of regents, trustees, alumni, donors and -- at public institutions -- state governments, some of the most powerful voices in campus politics are politically conservative.

But unfortunately, in todays extremely polarized environment where facts, evidence and analysis are devalued or simply ignored, perceptions matter. So what voters think or believe matters a great deal.

That is why the question of how voters perceive the political orientation of colleges and universities is important. Do they see higher ed institutions as ideological or nonpartisan -- as left-leaning organizations, middle of the road or conservative?

Rating Higher Eds Ideological Orientation

To answer this question, pollster David Winston inserted, at the request of the American Council on Education, a question into a regular survey he conducts of 1,000 registered voters asking them to rate the ideological orientation of colleges and universities. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate colleges on a scale of one to nine, where one meant very liberal and nine meant very conservative. If voters thought the ideology of colleges and universities was in the middle of the road or moderate, they would rate colleges as a five.

Over all, the average rating of colleges and universities from all voters was somewhat left of center, at 4.48. But the complete picture is more complex and nuanced. Voters are not monolithic, and different subgroups of voters have different impressions.

Younger voters (those aged 18 to 34) gave colleges an average rating of 5.5 and are the subgroup that think colleges the most conservative. This group includes, of course, people who have had the most recent personal experience with higher education institutions. Other groups that think colleges and universities lean to the right include Hispanics (5.28) and African Americans (5.25). Voters with a high school degree or less (4.96), Democrats (4.91) and liberals (4.88) view colleges and universities as closer to the center.

By contrast, other subgroups of voters think colleges are very liberal places. Seniors (age 65 and above) rated colleges as 3.60 and see them as more liberal than any other subgroup. Other voters who believe colleges tilt in a liberal direction include conservatives (3.85), voters with some college (4.07), high-income households (4.20), whites (4.24), independents (4.25) and those with bachelors degrees (4.35).

At one level, this is not surprising. Groups that historically lean to the left politically see colleges and universities as institutions that are more conservative than they are. Indeed, during the 1960s student protests, one of the most common critiques people leveled at colleges was that they were impersonal, conservative institutions that did not care about individuals. Meanwhile, the subgroups of voters that tend to be on the conservative side of the political spectrum have long believed colleges are very liberal.

Again, its not that simple. On that same one-to-nine scale, voters over all rate their own political views as 5.53 -- significantly more conservative than where voters locate higher education institutions. In short, American voters over all, when asked to rate their own political views, choose a distinctly center-right position. When they look at colleges and universities, they rate them as center-left institutions. In short, a majority of American voters see higher education institutions as being significantly more liberal than they are.

When voters are asked to rate their own views relative to political actors, the very liberal senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont gets a 3.69 rating, congressional Democrats in general are at 4.18 and congressional Republicans score a 6.50.

Put another way: average voters (at 5.53) believe that their own political views are ideologically closer to congressional Republicans (6.50) than they are to colleges and universities (4.48). Similarly, voters believe that the ideological orientation of colleges and universities is closer to Bernie Sanders (3.69) than it is to voters themselves.

Interestingly, voters gave an ideological rating of 5.46 to corporations -- almost exactly where they place their own political views.

A Reinforcing Feedback Loop

In this hyperpoliticized era, voters will interpret events in ways that reinforce their world view. Especially given the rise of social media, with its tendency to reinforce messages for like-minded individuals, its hard to convince anyone to consider a different interpretation to a sincerely held belief.

Political polarization plays into this, as well. Those with a college degree are to a growing extent likely to vote for Democrats. Those without a college degree are favoring Republicans more and more, a sea change from the era when Democrats were more a part of the working class and Republicans more the party of business owners. But in a world where one set of voters watches MSNBC and another set sticks to Fox News, the public perception of all industries and organizations increasingly includes a reinforcing feedback loop.

Conservatives attacks on the alleged liberal bias of colleges, and mandates like the Trump administrations Free Speech Executive Order giving the U.S. Department of Education the authority to investigate alleged suppression of speech on campuses, are, sadly, some of the results. This is bad public policy, but good politics.

This is a particular problem for colleges and universities because their core values -- academic freedom and institutional autonomy -- depend on widely shared respect for what colleges do and how they do it. Higher education needs -- and deserves -- broad support from across the political and partisan spectrum.

Higher education has been viewed as liberal or unpatriotic in the past. But that didnt stop our institutions from becoming this nations greatest engines of economic and social mobility, not to mention the envy of the world and places that the globes most talented students and scholars have wanted to be. But as Americans increasingly divide individuals and institutions into on my side and not on my side categories -- and simply tune out those with whom they dont agree -- we need to redouble our efforts to show all Americans that colleges and universities are a public good, not an ideological weapon.

Read the original post:

The importance of how voters perceive the political orientation of colleges and universities (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

A large Trump rally faced a group of Black Lives Matter counter protesters in a diverse southwest Kansas community last month. The raucous but peaceful confrontations that followed shed a light on the hopes and fears driving competing visions for Americas future in the November general election.

A cool breeze blew through Light Park, situated prominently along the main drag in Liberal on a late summer Saturday evening.

The wind was a welcome respite from a warm, sunny day in Seward County but offered no relief from heated conversations as opposing groups faced off in the normally quiet park.

Lucy Myers stood back from the two crowds there were more than 500 supporters joining in a Pop Up 4 Trump parade and rally and about 25 supporters of the local Black Lives Matter movement protesting the show of support for the president.

It was a window into the anxieties and loyalties gripping the nation as Novembers presidential election between Republican incumbent Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden nears.

Myers placed her arm around her elementary-aged daughter Jordyn as she leaned in close to explain what was happening.

There are other people who dont believe the same way, and thats fine, she said.

When asked if she supports one political side or the other, Myers said thats not why shes here.

Those are my beliefs; those arent her beliefs, she said, looking down at her daughter. Im just here to facilitate and show her everything.

As a Trump defender and BLM supporter squared off, the young girl said the arguing made her nervous.

After reassuring her daughter, Myers said she feels its important for her to see both sides.

I just wanted her to see the atmosphere, she explained.

She looked down and said, Letting you see it through neutral eyes lets you decide.

The Pop Up 4 Trump event held in Liberal began with a parade that started at the Rock Island Depot and proceeded to Light Park. Onlookers Ashleigh Hall and her daughter, Kyleigh, watched the hundreds of President Donald Trumps supporters who were on hand, in addition to about two dozen Black Lives Matter activists.

Laura Tawater a huge smile on her face held up her phone to record Seward County Commissioner C.J. Wettstein giving a stump speech from the bed of a red pickup truck.

As the event organizer and Kansas GOP vice-chairwoman for the 1st Congressional District, shes pleased the Pop Up 4 Trump campaign has made its way across the state, east to west.

Liberal was the first community, though, where it has faced an organized protest, Tawater said.

Usually what we do is just pop up, and its a magnet, she said.

The demographics of Liberal stand in contrast to the state as a whole. Non-Hispanic white people make up only 28% of the communitys population but 75% of the people statewide, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. About 62% of the citys population is Hispanic or Latino, while 6% is Black.

Yet its also a place where identities span multiple categories. About 55% of Liberals residents identified as white in a 2019 survey.

While Biden leads in polls among Hispanics nationally, Trump is winning at least a third of them, and some political observers say their votes could be pivotal in a close election. So, it wasnt surprising to see an SUV sporting a Latinos for Trump sign cruising down Kansas Avenue in the parade alongside four-wheelers and massive flags.

While Tawaters group sells Republican T-shirts, hats and signs, she said the movement is about more than the merchandise.

Were really trying to get out the vote, she said. We have voter registrations. Were talking about President Trump and his accomplishments, and also were highlighting the state and local candidates too. Its the connections were making with people.

Tawater sees her mission as more crucial than ever.

This is a do-or-die election, she said. Freedom versus communism. We feel like its life or death. We feel like were on the verge of losing our country.

She said Republicans fear the Democratic Party is moving toward communism as it links itself to social and racial justice groups.

We have to get Trump reelected, because well keep our liberty, our constitution, she said.

Ashleigh Hall watched Wettstein intently while she wrapped her arms around her daughter Kyleigh. She shares Tawaters fears.

I feel if Trump loses, its going to turn into a communist country, she said. You get a certain amount of food, you cant do this and you cant do that. Its supposed to be a free country.

Another Trump supporter, Joseph Gentry who stretched out on his motorcycle while he watched the BLM group and occasionally revved its engine to drown out protesters chants said his support for Trump is largely based on economics.

Trump has done so much, he said. Hes helped me stay working. When Obama was in office, the oil fields shut down. Trump got the oil fields back up and running, and I needed it.

Gentry said he worries a Biden win will lead to a recession.

Then well become communist, he said. Yet pointing to the protesters, Gentry said the right to protest is an important one. But it only underscored the importance of a Trump win in November.

Im glad they are out here and they are protesting what they feel, he said. Were out here protesting what we feel. Its our right. And with communism, we will not have that.

Hundreds of President Donald Trumps supporters were on hand for the Pop Up 4 Trump event, along with about two dozen Black Lives Matter activists. Having Trump partisans in close contact with backers of racial equality has proved explosive in some cities across America, but this event was constrained.

Earlier in the evening, a group of friends gathered on a sidewalk as the Trump train vehicles bedecked with flags and Trump signs made its way north from the old depot.

They laughed and waved, eager to show their support for the president.

We love Trump, Karen Seibel said. Look at what hes done for this country. He loves America.

She was quick to voice disdain for other politicians, questioning their truthfulness compared with Trumps.

He lies less, Seibel said. And, I think he only lies to us when he needs to.

Her sister Donna Moody chimed in.

No, he doesnt lie, she said with a chuckle. He just doesnt tell it all.

Chris Wells jumped in and said she likes Trump because hes got guts and has an ornery streak.

But her husband, Greg Wells, said the upcoming election is about more than just admiration for Trump. Like Tawater, he fears what a Democratic president would mean for the nation.

You know what the Democrats are wanting to do? Greg Wells said. The Democrats want to get rid of everything. We need government. We need policemen. Trumps been good for the United States, and he had to fight everybody to get here, and hes still fighting.

Chris Wells said Americans will lose their rights if Trump isnt reelected.

In that sense, Seibel said the election is about securing rights for future generations.

Im old, she said. It wont matter to me, but it will matter to my grandchildren.

The most unfortunate part about the state of the U.S. government, Greg Wells said, is the politicians seeming inability to cross the aisle for the good of the people. He suggested term limits as a solution.

We have too much civil unrest because of the parties, Greg Wells said. Theyre not playing together. Its not the way its supposed to be. We put them up there, those people up there, to take care of us.

Seibel added, You forget who youre doing it for.

BLM supporter Abi Rivas said shes ready for her government to remember her.

Wearing a feather headpiece and a Mexican flag wrapped around her shoulders, she chanted Black Lives Matter with her fist in the air.

Just like the Trump supporters, Rivas said the upcoming election is important to her, too, as a visible brown person in this country.

I live in fear every day that some person is going to attack me because of my skin color, she said.

Or some person is going to attack my dad because of his skin color, because of his status in this country. Its important for me to be here because it represents not only me, but Black people, Mexican, Asians, South Asians. Im here to speak for people who cant physically be here, Rivas said.

Listing off the names Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, 18-year-old Jernell Martinez said the BLM movement goes beyond skin color.

When I was standing and going back and forth with a man, I said we were standing with white kids, white people who are dying at the hands of the police, she said. Its not just Black lives.

Its for all of our lives. But they kept thinking were just saying Black lives. We talk about all lives.

Martinez said she also speaks out for her loved ones, including her grandfather, who she said was killed after being deported to Mexico. Its all for equality, Shatarrika Ross added. Ross said it was worrisome to see children joining in the Trump rally.

I feel like thats wrong, to take the innocence of a child away, to just tell them to be a certain way instead of giving them that option to choose, she said. These babies dont know whats going on. There are some who are just taught like that, and its sad.

For Rivas, her concerns go beyond race.

Its about how the futures going to be for all of us, she said. I just turned 18. This is my future.

Although she couldnt vote in 2016, Rivas said she was devastated when Trump was elected.

I was very heartbroken, and I was in fear every day, she said. If Trump gets elected again, I feel like society is going to feel white people have more power.

While she said Biden isnt exactly who shed envisioned as a Democratic nominee, his election would be the first step toward change.

Its going to push a lot of minorities, especially a lot of young minorities, to be like, I need to voice my opinion. I need to change this country to be something even better, Rivas said.

And while Republicans worry about the spread of communism, Rivas said its not on her agenda.

A lot of us are fighting communists, she said. None of us want a communist country. Theres a variety of people who are Democrats. No one wants a country where people have to share everything.

Despite her worries about a Biden presidency, Tawater said she wants people to stay optimistic.

If we can keep people gathering up like this, people are happy, she said. People are excited. They love their country.

But at the same time, Tawater said she sees whats possible on the horizon.

I think in a fair election, Trump will win by a landslide, she said. Were just bracing. I think the left wing of America just wont accept a second term. And I think all hells gonna break loose.

And if Biden wins?

Its just going to get really bad, Tawater said.

Martinez said her fight for justice likely wont end with either Trump or Biden in office.

Ill fight till the day I die, like my ancestors, she said. Ill always sit there and fight for people. Its not going to stop me. Whoever wins, it dont matter. If things are still the same, then Im still fighting.

And even if the election doesnt go the way she wants, Martinez said shell still hope for change.

Thats all you can do hope, Ross replied.

A version of this article appears in the Fall 2020 issue of The Journal, a publication of the Kansas Leadership Center. To learn more about KLC, visit http://kansasleadershipcenter.org. Order your copy of the magazine at the KLC Store or subscribe to the print edition.

Sign up for email updates about The Journals content.

Visit link:

What happened when Trump backers and Black Lives Matters protesters met in Liberal - The Journal at the Kansas Leadership Center

British Columbia came into 2020 in good shape. Its economy was forecast to lead the country in growth, the provincial budget was in surplus, and the debt was small. Its no wonder there were already rumours of the New Democratic Party government calling an early election, aiming to turn its minority into a majority.

Then the pandemic hit. The first COVID-19 death in Canada was in North Vancouver, but the government took steps that contained outbreaks. The province, with a third of the population of Ontario, has recorded one-12th the number of virus deaths. And unlike many other provincial and federal politicians, B.C. Premier John Horgan never commandeered the microphone. He stepped back and let the experts do the talking. Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry has been the voice of B.C.'s pandemic response, supported, rather than upstaged, by Health Minister Adrian Dix.

Riding a wave of popularity, Mr. Horgan seized the moment in September and called an early vote, a year ahead of schedule. Oct. 24 is the official election day, but seven days of advance voting are already under way.

Story continues below advertisement

The script of this pandemic election features an interesting role reversal: The incumbent NDP are running as the provinces prudent stewards of the status quo, while the BC Liberals are trying to get noticed with immodest promises.

Mr. Horgan is running above all on his governments record. The centre-left NDP platform mostly promises a steady hand on the wheel. The centre-right BC Liberals, who have long billed themselves as fiscally conservative and the NDP as spendthrifts, have as their signature platform promise a plan to gut provincial revenues by temporarily axing the provincial sales tax.

Its an irresponsible proposal, and badly targeted to boot. The PST is budgeted to bring in $6.8-billion in 2020-21 12 per cent of the provinces total revenue. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson, desperate to gain traction with voters, has promised to scrap the PST for a year, and then peg at 3 per cent the following year rather than the current 7 per cent. The pitch definitely got attention. That doesnt change the fact its the wrong idea at the wrong time.

Mr. Wilkinson bills it as pandemic economic recovery medicine, but too many beneficiaries will be people who dont need government help. A targeted plan to support low-income or jobless British Columbians makes sense; borrowing more than $10-billion to finance a tax cut, whose benefits will flow to anyone and everyone regardless of income, makes no sense at all.

The political appeal of this deficit-boosting tax cut is obvious. Who doesnt want a tax cut? But in the face of a pandemic recession that has caused government spending to rise and revenues to fall, its hard to see the economic or fiscal logic.

The NDPs competing proposal, worth $1.5-billion, is a one-time grant of $1,000 to lower- and middle-income households, or $500 to individuals. It should also raise eyebrows, but at least its far less costly and more targeted than the Liberal scheme, and it fits in the NDPs overall plan of only modest increases in spending over the next few years. Beyond that, the NDPs main spending plan is for continued investments in child care, building on their $10 a day program. The Liberals, seeing the success of the policy, have copied it.

One stark divide between the parties is B.C.'s other epidemic, the opioids overdose crisis. The NDP promise more work on harm reduction, policies this page endorses, while the Liberals instead promise to focus on addiction treatment. There is no perfect plan to address this tragedy, but the NDPs is better and more complete.

Story continues below advertisement

The biggest immediate issue that faces the winner, outside the pandemic, is in neither main partys platform: the cash bonfire at the Site C hydroelectric dam. The Liberals recklessly pushed the megaproject ahead in the mid-2010s and the NDP reluctantly kept it going. The unfinished dam abuts a geotechnical morass and is in danger of becoming an ever more expensive liability.

On the unusually quiet pandemic campaign trail, Mr. Wilkinsons leadership has at times been unsteady, from ill-conceived promises to poor handling of issues with some candidates. Incumbency can sometimes be a disadvantage in politics, but not this time around for the NDP. On the whole, they have governed well and in particular during the pandemic. Thats why Mr. Horgans main pitch to voters is a promise of more of the same.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Read the original post:

In B.C.s pandemic election, the Liberals and NDP have reversed roles - The Globe and Mail

OTTAWA -- The federal government appears to be drawing a line in the sand with the opposition parties ongoing attempts to revive the WE Charity controversy, by stating that passage of a Conservative motion to create a new anti-corruption committee would raise serious questions about whether the House of Commons still has confidence in the government.

While the government has yet to confirm outright if they are viewing this proposal and the vote on it as a matter of confidence, in a letter to his opposition counterparts Government House Leader Pablo Rodriguez said that if opposition MPs agree on the need for a new probe, it would have implications for the confidence in the Liberal minority government.

The Conservative proposal is blatantly partisan. It is designed to paralyze the government. If passed, the proposal will raise serious questions about whether the House of Commons continues to have confidence in the government, Rodriguez wrote.

Rodriguez later told reporters that the motion is clearly an indication that the Conservatives have no confidence in what the government is doing, and further, would result in governments focus and time taken away from the ongoing fight against COVID-19 if the demands within the motion are to be met, such as having Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testify.

We think that its extremely irresponsible on behalf of the Conservatives, he said, but when asked outright if the Liberals would be willing to trigger an election, his response was well see.

Rodriguez is hopeful that ongoing talks with the Bloc Quebecois and NDP will result in common ground being found. Maybe we can agree on something.

Conservative House Leader Gerard Deltell is calling this claim simply ridiculous.

That you are even entertaining such speculation demonstrates to meas it would to all Canadiansthe desperate ends to which the Liberal government will go to further its coverup of a very troubling scandal which reeks of corruption, Deltell continued in a rebuttal letter send Monday afternoon.

Your government must acknowledge that it no longer enjoys a majority in the House of Commons and that it will, accordingly, begin to accept the legitimate and necessary exercise of parliamentary scrutiny without resorting to election threats, obfuscation and misdirection whenever you face the prospect of not getting your own way, Deltell said.

Meanwhile, in new disclosures both the Liberals and WE Charity are looking to satisfy opposition demands for more documentation in relation to the now months-long controversy surrounding a cancelled student summer grant program.

Tuesday will be the Conservatives first opposition day of the session, and Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole and his caucus have given notice they may be looking to force a vote on a proposal to create a new larger-than-usual parliamentary anti-corruption committee. The committee would take over investigating the WE Charity controversy as well as other lines of inquiry into alleged Liberal scandals and potential conflicts of interest.

This proposal includes a request for the same trove of documents the Liberals, WE Charity, and the public service are being asked to disclose at the House of Commons ethics and finance committees, where Liberal filibusters are underway to delay the votes on those motions.

The proposal is one of three motions the Conservatives could advance on Tuesday and OToole is set to reveal the direction theyve decided to head during a 9 a.m. press conference Tuesday morning.

A confidence vote on this motion means that, if it is defeated, the government could fall and Canadians could be thrust into a snap election in the middle of a pandemic.

The backing of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois is needed in order to give the Conservatives the majority of votes needed over the minority Liberal government to pass this proposal.

Asked about the prospect of making the vote a confidence matter, NDP MP Charlie Angus told reporters Monday that it would be completely irresponsible to call an election right now, not only because of COVID-19, but because as a result Parliament will not be able to reconvene for months.

I can't see the prime minister being that reckless so our message to the Liberals is just calm down. We have work to do, work with us, Angus said.

Also speaking with reporters on Monday, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said that the Conservatives will not relent, and questioned why the Liberals appear willing to make this vote a confidence matter.

Setting up a committee is not a matter of confidence, no government in Canadian history has been brought down because an opposition motion passed to set up a committee, he said.

The Conservatives will take any steps necessary within our parliamentary system to get at the truth, he said, adding that the government needs to get out of the way and let committees do their work.

On this point, the government agrees.

Rodriguez is doubling down on his proposal that there be a new special committee focused solely on COVID-19 spending, where its possible tangents of these Conservative-alleged scandals could be evaluated, but other committees could be freed up to do other studies.

He has shared with the opposition House leaders a proposal for this new committee, which could dig deeper into all aspects of the billions of dollars the Liberals have spent over the last seven months in an effort to keep Canadians, businesses and the health care system afloat amid the ongoing global health crisis.

The Conservative anti-corruption proposal would see the committee be chaired by the Conservatives, whereas the Liberals are proposing one of their MPs would have the top seat at the suggested committee.

Deltell called the counterproposal to establish this Liberal-chaired COVID-19 spending committee simply not acceptable, stating that its mandate is overly broad and would overlap with work underway at existing committees. His letter also went on to take issue with the way the Liberals are characterizing the oppositions handling of the entire affair, and accused the government of gaslighting Parliament.

Further, the Liberals have also disclosed a pre-existing list of 125 paid speaking engagements Trudeau had conducted between 2006 and 2013, before he became Liberal leader, that were organized through Speaker Spotlight, the organization that also co-ordinated Trudeau family speaking engagements with WE.

According to the documents, Trudeau made more than $1.3 million for speaking at these events, which range from appearances at association and corporate events, to speeches at universities.

Speaker Spotlight has confirmed the accuracy of the events and fees listed, Rodriguez said in his letter. While this list was presented as a proactive disclosure, the information has been available for years after the Liberals released it years ago. Alongside the speaking information, the government has issued new letters relating to the complaints of inappropriate redactions and information from who at the Privy Council Office knew what and when, in relation to the WE deal.

Since House of Commons committees got back up and running following Augusts prorogation, the opposition parties have put forward motions summoning troves of new documents related to the WE Charity controversy, and have balked at redactions made by government departments to the thousands of pages of documents already disclosed.

Among the additional information the opposition is asking for: more details on the speaking fee arrangements Trudeau, his wife, brother and mother had with WE Charity; and a series of emails, documents, notes and other records from the Prime Ministers Office and the Privy Council Office regarding prorogation.

The Liberals have offered up the public servants to explain the redactions theyve made, but have stated that the House ethics committee asking private citizensthe family members of the prime minister to provide personal financial information would be severely abusing its authority by doing so.

Rodriguez said that in normal times its a heavy lift for governments to produce the amount of documents the opposition have requested, but now with so many public servants working from home due to the pandemic, such sweeping document production motions with extremely tight timelines would be impossible to complete.

In an effort to compromise, Angus said hed be willing to remove some of the document requests that would double up or re-confirm aspects of the story related to Trudeaus family.

We have to finish this study, said Angus.

On Monday morning, WE Charity also released a new series of documents and information that was requested by MPs during testimony given by the organization at the House Finance Committee during its hearings on the controversy prior to prorogation.

Reacting to the new disclosure, prior to having studied its contents, Poilievre said he wont be thrown off his pursuit for transparency and answers from the government and the embattled charity.

Make no mistake, this old tactic of releasing a bunch of irrelevant documents that don't answer the questions while covering up the documents that matter will not suffice, he said. They can release five million irrelevant documents that will not distract us.

The documents detail more information about Sophie Gregoire Trudeaus eight speaking engagements at WE Day events between February 2012 and March 2020. She was paid a one-time speaking fee of $1,500 in 2012, which was disclosed by the organization back in July. At the time, WE said she was paid $1,400 but the Prime Ministers Office later clarified the exact amount.

Total expenses reimbursed for these events, including hotel stays, car services, and flights, add up to $23,940.76. Gregoire Trudeau also received $240 in gifts from the organization during this time. The prime ministers Chief of Staff Katie Telford, during her testimony to the finance committee in July, stated that the ethics commissioner approved Gregoire Trudeaus work with the organization, including the wellness podcast she hosts under its banner, and the reimbursement of expenses.

The documents also highlight that former finance minister Bill Morneau was not given a physical invoice for the $41,000 paid back to WE Charity for travel expenses incurred by him and his family in 2017. The documents also indicate that the $41,000 figure would be on the high end of the estimated costs incurred. Morneau resigned from cabinet after revealing this payment during testimony at the House finance committee this summer.

As well, the new documents show that WE Charity co-founders Craig and Marc Kielburger had conversations with several cabinet ministers over the last two years on a range of topics, but in terms of the student grant program between April 17 and July 7, one or both of the brothers engaged in 65 conference calls with top public servants related to the contract.

After having been fed one story, then another when caught out, and now yet another one in WEs latest disclosure, parliamentarians need to ensure that the truth does not, actually, constitute a fourth version of events, Deltell said in his letter.

Over the course of the controversy the Liberals and WE Charity have argued that the suggestion to outsource the $912-million student grant program came from the non-partisan public service, though Trudeau has conceded that he should have recused himself from the decision-making table given he and his familys past ties to the charity.

The federal conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is still investigating Trudeaus involvement in the affair.

With files from CTV News Sarah Turnbull

See the original post here:

Liberals, WE make disclosures as chance of confidence vote heats up on the Hill - CTV News

Labor and the Greens cannot quite believe it.

The Canberra Liberals are struggling to comprehend it.

The ACT election result is a striking rejection of the conservative pitch to govern Canberra.

The Liberals knew the task of winning government in the ACT was massive they had failed in their last five attempts, and had plenty of time to digest those results.

None expected this attempt would fail quite like it did.

It was hoped the result would at least be close. 2016 was close, and this time they hoped it would be even closer.

But from the minute the first dump of votes dropped in the reliably Liberal-leaning seat of Brindabella, it was clear something had gone terribly wrong.

The Liberals were going backwards. And it didn't get much better from there.

Before the result was even conceded, the Liberals were spinning the outcome.

"We know that a number of swing voters were concerned about changing the government during a pandemic despite having strong concerns about the direction of Labor and the Greens," read an early statement sent to reporters.

The pandemic was to blame. How could they compete, when Andrew Barr dominated the airwaves for most of the year, guiding the ACT through rolling disasters?

And with the economy slipping into recession, who would vote to change the government?

There is absolutely a level of truth to that theory. Labor agrees Barr's pitch has largely revolved around that very message.

But the Liberal leader must also take some responsibility.

The Liberal campaign was simultaneously simple, and somewhat confused.

Alistair Coe wanted the election to be a referendum on the cost of living. He wanted voters to think of their wallets, and little else.

His policies were shamelessly populist a rates freeze and a big slice off the cost of car rego would save the average family about $1,800, he promised.

And it wouldn't come at any cost. He would make up the revenue through population growth, and deliver better government services in areas like health and education.

It seems the voters did not buy it.

He deliberately left questions unanswered. How would his "growing the pie" theory actually work, particularly amidst a national recession?

How would he seemingly do more with less?

And instead of delivering detail, he opted for stunts. Boris Johnson-style gimmicks for the cameras, like literally freezing a rates bill, and smashing a cardboard wall reading 'cost of living'.

Some Liberals are already wondering if perhaps, at a time of such uncertainty, voters wanted strong and sensible leadership not a hardhat and a Liberal-branded mallet.

Coe will have to answer some tough questions from colleagues if he wants his grip on the Liberal leadership to hold.

This is undoubtedly a good result for Labor, but the party should not get too carried away.

As of late last night, their primary vote across the ACT had actually slipped just slightly down 0.1% on the 2016 result.

Their success came through the fall in the Liberal vote, and the surging Green vote.

Perhaps the centre is shifting while Labor gained from the Liberals, it lost in equal measure to the Greens.

And while the Labor vote has soared in the southern electorate of Brindabella, it fell even further in the north in Yerrabi.

The results are much less nuanced for the Greens. It is nothing but success.

Despite running a remarkably low profile campaign, the party has delivered one of its best results.

Opting to do away with roadside corflutes, and forever struggling to be heard in the media over the noise of the two major parties, the Greens silently succeeded.

It will leave many Labor strategists scratching their heads, wondering where it came from.

With at least three seats in the next assembly, and the possibility of five or six, the next ACT Government will have a much Greener tinge.

Amidst the celebrations, there should be at least some reflection.

The time will come when the ACT wants to change its government. The sentiment will only build.

The voters simply decided that even if change is needed, this Canberra Liberals team was not the change they wanted.

The steady Labor vote says while the electorate is satisfied with its government, it is not handing out a roaring endorsement.

While the cost of living campaign run by the Liberals did not deliver the success they expected, many voters did respond to the message.

There is plenty of room for improvement in areas like health and education.

The electorate expects to see an expanded Canberra Hospital, and trams running to Woden.

And it will want support, as the economy recovers from a heavy blow.

In 2024, the bar will be higher. Labor will be asking for nearly three decades in office.

The new ACT Government has quite a task ahead.

Originally posted here:

After 20 years, the ACT election was the Liberals' to lose what went so wrong? - ABC News

For many, that frustration with liberal culture is a more powerful unifying force than any problems with Mr. Trump. There are a lot of conservative people who are put off by the outrage that Trump spews, but also by the reaction against Trump, Mr. Nadler continued. Theres an audience to assemble there.

The idea for the Babylon Bee was born of a frustration with the anemic realm of conservative comedy. Mr. Dillon, an entrepreneur who bought the site in 2018, was a fan of The Onion, and was gratified to see a similar wry tone applied by the religious right. He felt that conservatives often took themselves too seriously, and with satire they could take a closer look at their own hypocrisies and double standards. The site positioned itself as a cultural outsider from the start Babylon refers to the idea of exile, feeling politically homeless. The site was launched without outside funding by its founder Adam Ford and now runs primarily on advertising, though it also sells branded merchandise.

To the Babylon Bees leadership, there has never been a more important moment for satire. Political humor, the editors said, can often reveal the truths that get lost amid the spin and bias of so-called real news sites. One of Mr. Manns guiding principles, which he shares often with staff, is a quote from the critic G.K. Chesterton: Humor can get in under the door while seriousness is still fumbling at the handle.

We wanted to communicate to a culture that it feels like no longer believes in truth, Mr. Mann said.

Their devotion to truth, Mr. Mann explained, means the Bee will continue to swipe at both political parties. We are one hundred percent committed to making fun of Trump, he said, but he does not buy into the idea that Mr. Trump is exceptionally bad.

If we make a joke about Trump being bad, its already been done a million times by the late night shows, he said. When people find the Babylon Bee they go, Hey this comedy makes fun of everybody, but its a little harder on the left, and when it makes fun of the right its not hateful. People can tell its loving humor.

Some media researchers believe that this willingness to mock both parties rarer in a climate where many mainstream comedic voices see the president as a disastrous leader, not a situation where jibes should be evenly distributed might be an important element to comedic success.

Read more:

What The Babylon Bee Thinks Is So Funny About Liberals - The New York Times

Photo Illustration by Alex Cochran

SALT LAKE CITY (Deseret News) When Facebook on Wednesday said it would temporarily reduce distribution of an article that could potentially damage Joe Bidens campaign, conservatives who have long sought to prove that the company is biased against them thought theyd found not just a smoking gun, but a five-alarm blaze.

Facebook said that a New York Post article about the Democratic presidential nominee and son Hunter Bidens dealings with Ukraine required fact-checking in accordance with new policies designed to stop the spread of misinformation.

But Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, among other Facebook critics, said the restriction was blatant censorship.

This is BigTech control of news and speech, nationwide, in real time all in an attempt to control an election, Hawley tweeted.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson also recently accused Facebook of bias after the company flagged a video about the origins of COVID-19 as misinformation.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE.

Read the original here:

Facebook, bias and the battle over conservative and liberal content on social media - East Idaho News

In January, in what now seems like a bygone age, the writer George Packer delivered a memorable speech, The Enemies of Writing, for the honor of winning the Hitchens Prize. Why is a career like that of Christopher Hitchens not only unlikely but almost unimaginable? Packer asked. Put another way: Why is the current atmosphere inhospitable to it? What are the enemies of writing today?

For a sense of what Packer meant, consider that in 2007 Hitchens wrote and Vanity Fair published an essay titled, Why Women Arent Funny. It was outlandish, but also learned, and maybe not entirely serious. Imagine that ever running today, in Vanity Fair or any other mainstream publication. Or take another Hitchens column from the same year, in which he called Islam simultaneously the ideology of insurgent violence and of certain inflexible dictatorships. Try finding a line like that today in Slate, where it first appeared.

What these examples show, and what Packer brilliantly captures in his speech, is what might be called the encroachment of the unsayable. Its an encroachment that, in its modern form, began with the Ayatollah Khomeinis 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie for the publication of The Satanic Verses, which was deemed blasphemous. In short order, the world got to see who in the liberal world really had the courage of liberalisms supposedly deepest convictions.

Since that episode which resulted in nearly a decade of hiding for Rushdie, the killing of his novels Japanese translator and the shooting of his Norwegian publisher there have been all-too-many similar moments: the slaying of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh in 2004, the Danish cartoon affair in 2005-06, the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, and, last week, the beheading of French teacher Samuel Paty by a Chechen refugee, according to authorities, for the sin of showing his students two caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad as part of a lesson on free speech.

As in all the other instances, the immediate reaction has been heartbreak, defiance, solidarity followed, typically, by a quiet moral concession. Often, this takes the form of a yes-but response in which the crime is condemned while also viewed as an answer to a provocation that is itself indefensible.

After the Rushdie incident, former President Jimmy Carter published an op-ed in The Times that called Khomeinis death sentence abhorrent but added that Rushdies book is a direct insult to those millions of Muslims whose sacred beliefs have been violated. After PEN American Center chose to honor Charlie Hebdo for its Freedom of Expression Courage Award, some members of PEN America protested the choice because the slain cartoonists had poked fun at the beliefs of a marginalized, embattled and victimized minority.

The upshot of these controversies has been a kind of default to a middle position that goes roughly as follows: Fanatics shouldnt kill people, and writers and artists shouldnt needlessly offend fanatics. Its a compromise that is fatal to liberalism. It reintroduces a concept of blasphemy into the liberal social order. It gives the prospectively insulted a de facto veto over what other people might say. It accustoms the public to an ever-narrower range of permissible speech and acceptable thought.

And, as Packer notes, it slowly but surely turns writers, editors and publishers into cowards. Notice, for instance, that I have just described the suspect in Patys murder as a Chechen. Why? Because its accurate enough, and its not worth dealing with the choice and precision of a single adjective.

It isnt entirely clear whether theres a causal connection between the way so many Western liberals have tried to dance around the subject of religious fanaticism and other encroachments on socially acceptable speech. But the two have moved in tandem, with equally destructive results. Our compromised liberalism has left a generation of writers weighing their every word for fear that a wrong one could wreck their professional lives. The result is safer, but also more timid; more correct, but also less interesting. It is simultaneously bad for those who write, and boring for those who read. It is as deadly an enemy of writing as has ever been devised.

In his speech, Packer notes that good writing is essential to democracy, and one dies with the other. The corollary to this thought is that the more some ideas become undiscussable, the more some things become unsayable, the more difficult it becomes to write well. We are killing democracy one weak verb, blurred analogy and deleted sentence at a time.

I should be more precise. When I say we, I dont mean normal people who havent been trained in the art of never saying what they really think. I mean those of us who are supposed to be the gatekeepers of what was once a robust and confident liberal culture that believed in the value of clear expression and bold argument. This is a culture that has been losing its nerve for 30 years. As we go, so does the rest of democracy.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read the original post:

The Encroachment of the Unsayable - The New York Times

The leader of the B.C. Conservative party believes the B.C. Liberals are worried because his party's platform is resonating with voters during the provincial election campaign.

On Saturday (Oct. 17), the B.C. Liberal Party called on B.C. Conservative Leader Trevor Bolin to answer for how he, as a business owner, handled a case of sexual harassment among his employees in 2018.

The incident ultimately resulted in Bolin firing the employee who complained about the sexual harassment, which WorkSafeBC called a discriminatory action in retaliation for her complaint.

The Liberals called on Bolin to publicly address his actions in a mass email sent to supporters and media, with a WorkSafeBC report attached (the report can be read below this story).

Bolin responded to the allegations during a campaign stop in Kamloops on Saturday.

"You know what, it's the B.C. Liberals trying to find anything they can because they're concerned we're resonating with voters, so the easiest thing they can do is find something that happened at one of my stores and release that," said Bolin, who is running for MLA in the riding of Peace River North and also sits as a city councillor in Fort St. John.

His B.C. Conservatives are fielding candidates in 19 of the provinces 87 ridings, including Dennis Giesbrecht in Kamloops-North Thompson. General voting day is Oct. 24.

In January 2018, the fired employee complained to the store's general manager that her supervisor had sexually harassed her, stating in a vulgar manner that he wanted to have sex with her, and previously telling her that he was willing to pay to do so, according to the complaint.

A meeting between the employee, store owner Bolin and the store's general manager did not resolve the matter, with scheduling conflicts standing in the way of changing shifts so the two employees did not have to work together.

After that meeting, the employee said she felt "completely unprotected and that nothing would be done."

As a result, the employee contacted the RCMP on the matter and, a week later, she was called in for a meeting with Bolin and the store's general manager. There, she was fired.

The employee insists she was fired because of the complaint, while Bolin claims the worker was fired due to her "hostility and insubordination within the restaurant."

"I let her go for actually yelling at the general manager across the store," Bolin told KTW.

In an emailed response to the B.C. Liberals email, Bolin said the woman's claims of wrongful dismissal are not true. But WorkSafeBC accepted the fired worker's complaint and that Bolin took "prohibited discriminatory action under the [Workers Compensation Act] in terminating the worker."

It also said Bolin, as the woman's employer, "[failed] to follow their own bullying and harassment policy."

Bolin said he regrets that the report was distributed by the Liberals during the campaign.

"It's unfortunate that they rolled this out and are making the families relive this after almost three years, he said. It doesn't belong in politics, it belongs in business.

With incidents of sexism and misogyny making headlines on the campaign trail, Bolin was asked by KTW how voters can trust he would be able to deal with similar issues in his own party, should they arise.

"We've now doubled those recommendations that [WorkSafeBC] has. We've also started an open door policy, right to me as the owner, he said. If they go to the general manager or manager and don't get the results they want, they can freely then come to me and ensure it's investigated at an owner level and not a manager level, which that one was.

Bolin claimed the incident was "the first and last issue any of my stores have had, noting he employs more than 150 workers at different establishments.

WorkSafeBC report BC Conservative leader by ChristopherFoulds on Scribd

See the original post here:

B.C. Conservative leader says B.C. Liberal leak of WorkSafeBC report shows party is worried - Kamloops This Week

In trying to make sense of the prime ministers decision to prorogue Parliament back in August, derailing the committee investigations into the WE Charity scandal always seemed like a plausible explanation.

But after witnessing the governments desperate attempts to prevent those committees from resuming their work, it now seems like an inescapable conclusion.

On Thursday, the finance committee was bogged down by 11 hours of filibuster from Liberal members trying to block a Conservative motion to lift some of the redactions in over 5,000 pages of documents pertaining to the scandal that the government released in August (coincidentally, right around the time Parliament was prorogued).

And then, Friday, the committee hearings were cancelled altogether.

Story continues below advertisement

Meanwhile, the ethics committee was subjected to the same delay tactics from Liberal members as the committee was trying to debate a motion concerning records from the agency that had arranged speaking engagements for Trudeau family members at various WE Charity events.

The Liberals defence of these tactics is to try and portray this scandal as old news and a distraction from more pressing matters. Thats rather disingenuous.

Again, had Parliament not been prorogued, these committees could have continued their investigations perhaps they might even have concluded much of that work by now given that were now about two months removed from the decision to prorogue.

This past Tuesday in the House of Commons, Trudeau suggested that this matter is closed as far as his government is concerned, and that instead it will remain focused on dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trending Stories

Story continues below advertisement

As the prime minister put it, We are entirely focused on this second wave of COVID-19. We will continue to stay focused on what we need to do to support Canadians facing a very difficult time right now.

The needless five-week delay caused by prorogation is hard to square with the notion of a government laser-focused on the pandemic and its rather hypocritical to be complaining of wasted time while simultaneously deploying filibuster tactics. Furthermore, that focus hasnt prevented the government from devoting attention to other issues (like its plans to ban single-use plastic, for example).

And even if one accepts the premise that the government is preoccupied with the pandemic response, the work of the finance and ethics committees or even the special anti-corruption committee proposed by the opposition doesnt have to interfere with that response.

Moreover, though, the WE Charity scandal is very much relevant to the question of the Liberals handling of the pandemic and what kind of economic response there needs to be from Ottawa.

This whole controversy arose because the Liberals were convinced that a $900-million Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) program was a necessary part of that economic response and that this program could only be administered by WE Charity, which of course had many close ties to the government.

Story continues below advertisement

Not long after it was announced, the CSSG arrangement was abandoned and its unclear whether the government still believes such a program is necessary.

So trying to understand the governments decision-making process when it comes to pandemic response, and what else might be motivating those decisions, seems like a very relevant and important undertaking at the moment.

As much as its in the Liberals vested interest to have everyone to forget about and move on from this scandal, we dont yet have all the answers here. Were it not for prorogation and these other delay tactics, we might actually be a step closer to finally moving on from this.

The government, though, continues to act like it has something to hide. Just because Canadians expect the government to be taking this pandemic seriously doesnt give the Liberals a free pass on this matter.

Rob Breakenridge is host of Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge on Global News Radio 770 Calgary and a commentator for Global News.

2020 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

See the original post:

COMMENTARY: The Liberals are being disingenuous in their push to end WE Charity investigations - Global News