Daily Archives: April 5, 2017

No sympathy: How Ayn Rand’s elitism lives on in the Trump administration – Salon

Posted: April 5, 2017 at 5:13 pm

President Donald Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says:

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements.

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabanderis a professor of philosophy at theMaryland Institute College of Art.

Original post:

No sympathy: How Ayn Rand's elitism lives on in the Trump administration - Salon

Posted in Atlas Shrugged | Comments Off on No sympathy: How Ayn Rand’s elitism lives on in the Trump administration – Salon

Why the alt-right loves single-payer health care – Vox

Posted: at 5:13 pm

When Mike Cernovich, one of the most prominent alt-right internet trolls supporting Donald Trump, was interviewed on 60 Minutes, he used the platform to spread conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton's health and to allege that she is involved with pedophilic sex trafficking operations. But he also declared his belief in single-payer health care.

"I believe in some form of universal basic income," he told CBSs Scott Pelley, citing concerns about technological unemployment. "Im pro-single-payer health care. Is that right-wing or is that left-wing anymore? Well, if you have a lot of people, a large swath of the company, or country, are suffering, then I think that we owe it to all Americans to do right by them and to help them out."

This might seem like a bizarre position for a far-right conspiracy theorist to take. Single-payer health care, after all, entails nationalizing most or all of the health insurance industry and having the government set prices for doctors services. Conservatives in America have spent the better part of the past century arguing that the idea is socialistic, would lead to long waits for lifesaving treatment, and would give the government power over the life and death of its citizens.

But Cernovich is less a traditional conservative than he is a Trumpist and Trumpism in its purest, alt-right variety cares more about white working-class identity politics than traditional conservatism. More and more, Trump fans are seeing single-payer as part of that.

Alt-rightists and other Trump-loyal conservatives Richard Spencer, VDARE writer and exNational Review staffer John Derbyshire, Newsmax CEO and Trump friend Christopher Ruddy, and onetime Donald Trump Jr. speechwriter and Scholars & Writers for Trump head F.H. Buckley all endorsed various models of single-payer in recent months and years.

Even elites in the alt-right mold who once deplored single-payer are changing their tune. Pat Buchanan, the paleoconservative three-time presidential candidate whose white identity politics and fiercely anti-trade and anti-immigration stances helped inspire the modern alt-right, had free market views on health care in the 1990s and condemned Obamacare as a scheme to kill Grandma in 2009. This week, he told me in an email he has not taken any position on single-payer, and [has] pretty much stayed out of the Obamacare repeal-and-replace debate.

Curtis Yarvin, a Silicon Valley programmer whose writings under the pen name Mencius Moldbug helped launch the neoreactionary branch of the alt-right, told me he welcomes the movements trend toward single-payer, viewing it as a sincere effort to think realistically in the present tense rather than in abstract ideology.

Insofar as the alt-right, and the Trump-supporting right more generally, have a coherent economic agenda, its a vehement rejection of the free market ideology crucial to postWorld War II American conservatism. While Paul Ryan reportedly makes all his interns read Atlas Shrugged, figures like Cernovich, Spencer, and Derbyshire are trying to build an American right where race and identity are more central and laissez-faire economics is ignored or actively avoided.

This has been most obvious on immigration and trade, where libertarians opposition to most or any government restrictions is in tension with the alt-rights economic nationalism. But its also true on health care, where the pure alt-righters are joined by more mainstream pro-Trump voices like Ruddy and Buckley and even some Trump-wary conservatives such as Peggy Noonan.

The Trump-supporting rights case for single-payer is part of a vision of a party where ideological purity on economic issues is much less important, and where welfare state expansion can be accommodated if it serves other goals like building a political base among working-class whites.

The welfare state has always been more popular with the Republican base than with its elected officials. Trump arguably won the presidency in part by being the first Republican in years to promise to protect Social Security and Medicare. My colleague Sarah Kliff has run focus groups with Trump voters where participants bring up their admiration for Canadian-style single-payer unprompted. The alt-right single-payer fad suggests that elites are finally catching up.

Some of the arguments that the Trumpists and alt-rightists offer for single-payer are the standard concerns about the plight of sick and suffering Americans that wouldnt feel out of place in a Bernie Sanders speech like Cernovichs insistence that we owe it to all Americans to do right by them, and to help them out.

Other arguments are offered more in sorrow than in anger. Derbyshire, for example, laments the fact that Americans are unwilling to accept a true free market in health care but argues that single-payer makes more sense than the current hodgepodge of insurance subsidies and regulations and tax breaks.

Citizens of modern states will accept no other kind of health care but the socialized or mostly socialized kind, he said on a 2012 episode of his podcast, Radio Derb. This being the case, however regrettably, the most efficient option is to make the socialization as rational as possible. Single-payer, he concludes, would involve less socialism, and more private choice, than what we now have. (Derbyshire doesnt really explain why socializing insurance is less socialist than not socializing insurance.)

But the main argument offered by Trumpists is about their movement. Donald Trump famously promised in May 2016 to turn the Republican Party into a workers party. The implication was clear: Republican elites before him like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney prioritized deregulation for businesses and tax cuts for the rich, and offered little or nothing for working-class people, specifically working-class white people. Instead, the party relied on social issues like abortion and immigration to earn their votes.

F.H. Buckley, the George Mason University law professor who led Scholars & Writers for Trump, even approvingly cites the leftist writer Thomas Franks Whats the Matter With Kansas? on this point. Frank asked how it was that the poor folks of his home state voted for a Republican Party that cared so little for their economic interests, Buckley wrote in the New York Post. Become the jobs and the health-care president, and you [Trump] will have answered Franks question.

Steve Bannon has said the Republicans will become a party of economic nationalism, Buckley continued. No one has bothered to define this, but heres one thing it must mean: Were going to treat Americans better than non-Americans. Were going to see that Americans have jobs, medical care and an enviable safety net.

Of course, the Trumpists are big fans of using racialized, not explicitly economic appeals on issues like immigration and crime to win votes. But whereas they see mainstream Republicans like Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush making those appeals as a smokescreen for unpopular economic policies, they want to pair the appeals with an nationalist economic agenda that is actually popular with these voters.

Unlike Paul Ryan and Rich Lowry, who masturbated to Atlas Shrugged in their college dorms and have no loyalty to their race, Donald Trump is a nationalist, Richard Spencer writes. We cant ignore the politics of this. If Trumpcare passes, leftists can credibly claim that Trump has betrayed his populist vision. They will recycle the hoary script about nationalism and scapegoating immigrants as a means of pushing through a draconian agenda. And theyll have a point!

Single-payer, Spencer insists, would "serve our constituency" (read: white people), give the right an answer to the appeal of social democrats like Bernie Sanders, and encourage the growth of the alt-right movement: "So many writers, activists, and content creators on our side shy away from becoming more involved, not just out of fear of social punishment, but out of fear of being fired and losing their health insurance."

Moreover, as soon as health care becomes a public issue, an alt-right government could use that power to promote a more vigorous, healthy white race on a number of dimensions. "When single-payer healthcare is implemented, issues like food safety, nutrition, and obesity become matters of public concern, Spencer writes. It will draw more attention to the alternative we are presenting to Americas current lowest-common-denominator society."

Of course, single-payer would overwhelmingly benefit a lot of nonwhite Americans as well. But programs like Social Security and Medicare do too, and their universal nature and the fact that theyre tied to work have led them to be less racialized and stigmatized than cash welfare or Medicaid. Single-payers universality is appealing because it helps the white working class without making them enroll in means-tested programs traditionally associated with black and Latino beneficiaries.

The ideological vision being offered here is hardly original. The political scientist Sheri Berman has argued that fascism and nationalism succeeded in Europe before World War II largely because unlike traditional conservative parties, fascist parties could provide a real challenge to the social democrats promise of relief from the suffering of the Great Depression.

"Across Europe nationalists began openly referring to themselves as 'national' socialists to make clear their commitment to ending the insecurities, injustices, and instabilities that capitalism brought in its wake, while clearly differentiating themselves from their competitors on the left," she writes in The Primacy of Politics.

And more recently, this strategy been adopted by some far-right parties in Europe. Marine Le Pen, the leader of Frances Front National, has relied heavily on "welfare chauvinism in her presidential bids, a promise to protect and expand social programs for (white) native workers against migrants who might exploit them and drain money that should be going to noble French citizens. Geert Wilders, the far-right leader in the Netherlands, used to be a small-government conservative but began publicly fighting cuts to health programs and calling for expanded pensions once it became clear that this appealed to the lower-income voters who loved his anti-Islam message.

This trend isnt universal; the Freedom Party in Austria, for example, was a traditional laissez-faire party on economics. But its become a popular strategy for several parties, from the Finns Party in Finland to the Danish Peoples Party to the Sweden Democrats, whose leader once tweeted, The election is a choice between mass immigration and welfare. You choose.

And American far-rightists have noticed. James Kirkpatrick, a fellow writer of Derbyshires at VDARE (an anti-immigration site named after the first white person born in the American colonies), has approvingly cited the nationalist, authoritarian Polish Law and Justice Partys strategy of tacking left on welfare to tack right on everything else. The countrys patriotic government, he swoons, outflanked the Left and strengthened its grip on power with universal health care.

The difference between those parties and Trumps would-be workers party is that European countries already have universal health care. And one thing that happened once it was established is that mainstream conservative parties got on board with its preservation. The British Conservatives and the Gaullists in France and the Christian Democrats in Germany dont try to repeal their countries universal health care systems. At most, they push for market-based reforms that retain universality but maybe introduce some more copays or an increased role for private insurers and providers.

When thats the mainstream right-wing alternative, a right-wing party that calls for expanding welfare and health benefits seems more plausible. More to the point, most of the countries enjoying a far-right resurgence employ some system of proportional representation, which allows new parties without much political base to quickly gain ground in the legislature. Tellingly, while Le Pen does well in Frances presidential elections, there are only two Front National members in its National Assembly, which elects by district la the US or UK.

So even if Trump were to be persuaded by his followers and embrace single-payer, hed face a tough task. He cant form a new right-wing party and sweep the legislative elections; he has to change the policies of the existent Republican Party, which has spent decades fighting proposals for universal health care, and get a quorum of members in the House and Senate on his side. Thats much harder, and suggests that the Spencers, Buckleys, and Derbyshires of the world wont get their wish on this anytime soon.

Read the original here:

Why the alt-right loves single-payer health care - Vox

Posted in Atlas Shrugged | Comments Off on Why the alt-right loves single-payer health care – Vox

‘It is time’: Tony Nutt resigns as Liberal party’s federal director … – The Guardian

Posted: at 5:12 pm

Tony Nutt has stepped down as federal director of the Liberal party. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Tony Nutt has resigned as federal director of the Liberal party, citing 35 years of service to the party and calling for renewal before the next election.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Nutt said he had told the federal president, Richard Alston, that a new director should be appointed to take the party to the next election in two years time.

Malcolm Turnbull has thanked Nutt for his extraordinary service to the party, describing him as the consummate political professional and the Liberal partys most loyal and dedicated servant.

Nutt said he had concluded it is time because of his work over six busy years, including three general elections (Victoria 2010, New South Wales 2015, federal 2016) as campaign director, his work on the 2013 federal election for Brian Loughnane, two transitions for prime ministers Turnbull and Abbott, and [managing] the very difficult Icac matter in NSW in 2014-15 before running Mike Bairds campaign.

In 2014-15 the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigated the New South Wales Liberal party and the Free Enterprise Foundation for allegedly taking donations in breach of electoral law, prompting a string of resignations and causing the NSW electoral commission to withhold public funds until it produced a full list of donors.

Nutt noted that the federal executive would meet later this week and receive a report from Andrew Robb on the 2016 election.

Tonys service over so many years is grounded in a deep love of Australia

Invariably a close result has been the subject of criticism, he said, adding that Robbs report will have a number of important recommendations.

This is as it should be because all parties must continually refine and improve their activities to remain competitive in a robust democratic system like Australias.

Since the 2016 election, Nutt has defended the governments decision not to go negative against Bill Shorten and declared Labors Medicare privatisation assault on the government a cold-blooded lie.

He has also supported a ban on political parties, associated entities and activist groups receiving foreign donations, reforms which have been taken up by the government.

Turnbull said that Nutt was central to the Howard government, in which he served as John Howards principal private secretary and chief of staff.

Tony took over the directorship of the federal Liberal party in late 2015 in very difficult circumstances, he then proceeded to direct the campaign which saw the government returned in the face of a ferocious fear campaign.

Turnbull said politicians and political professionals tended to be deprecated but the truth is they, and the parties they run, make our democracy work.

Tonys service over so many years is grounded in a deep love of Australia and an abiding commitment to our democratic values. I look forward to the next chapter of his remarkable career of public service.

Nutt said it had been a privilege to work for the Liberal party, its thousands of members, supporters and office bearers.

He thanked Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull, saying the prime minister had come into public life for all the right reasons and provided strong leadership for Australia during a challenging period.

Nutt thanked the rest of the current leadership team and former greats of the party and Howard government including Howard, Tony Abbott, Arthur Sinodinos, Peter Costello, and the former premiers for whom he worked: Baird, Ted Baillieu and Dean Brown.

See original here:

'It is time': Tony Nutt resigns as Liberal party's federal director ... - The Guardian

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on ‘It is time’: Tony Nutt resigns as Liberal party’s federal director … – The Guardian

Liberal Britain has nothing to say – New Statesman

Posted: at 5:12 pm

There has always been a type of conservative who believes that things were much better in former times and warns of catastrophe if we dont return to them. Today, it is the self-styled liberals who are peddling this apocalyptic gospel. If this country fails to obtain a deal with the EU, they say, we will fall into an economic abyss, while the risk of such a disaster is tearing apart the British state. Why cant we go back to the sunny uplands where we basked in the prelapsarian days before Brexit? Whether or not they admit it, a return to the past is the unspoken manifesto of pretty well all of those now parading as liberals.

There is no status quo to which we can return. The situation in Europe continues to be highly unstable. Geert Wilders may not have broken through in the Netherlands but his party remains the second largest in terms of seats, while Prime Minister Mark Rutte won only by adopting Wilderss inflammatory rhetoric. Even then, Rutte emerged with fewer seats than his party had five years ago. With the Dutch Labour Party achieving less than a quarter of those it had then, the countrys centre left has all but collapsed. In Italy, the chaotic Five Star Movement whose only clear policy stance is scepticism regarding the euro continues to garner support as the old parties crumble. Most people seem confident that Marine Le Pen will be seen off in May in the French presidential elections. But in a run-off against Emmanuel Macron, a semi-virtual politician who makes Franois Hollande look like a substantial figure, anything can happen. Unless Le Pen is trounced, the danger she poses to the EU is not going away. If she succeeds in making any significant advance in the final round, alarm bells will ring in the financial markets. There is no equivalent to Article 50 for the euro. If France or any other country threatens to leave the eurozone, the upheaval that results will be far greater than the impact of Brexit.

Again, Brexit has made a break-up of the Union less, not more, likely. If Scotland decides to leave the UK after a second referendum held in the aftermath of Brexit, it will have to apply to rejoin the EU. Such a move would be strongly resisted by Spain (whose foreign minister has already said Scotland would be at the back of the queue) from fear of Catalan nationalism. With its own separatist problem in Corsica, France would also try to block Scottish re-entry.

Where would this leave Scotland? There have been suggestions that until it joined the euro it would continue to use the British pound as its national currency. Would Scotlands financial system its banks and pension schemes, for example be backstopped by the UK for the duration? If not, the economic risks of independence would be enormous. Since the last Scottish referendum, the oil price has nearly halved and, with the US shale industry putting a cap on any future rises, only a reckless gambler would count on North Sea revenues returning to 2014 levels. Are Scottish voters ready to confront this uncertainty while being outside both the UK and the EU?

The existing settlement between Scotland and the rest of the UK is unlikely to endure. Some type of devo max is probably inevitable and not only in Scotland. But Scottish independence is further from reality than at any point since David Cameron nearly bungled the last referendum. Nicola Sturgeon may be a more intelligent and careful politician than Cameron was not a high bar to cross. Even so, she faces repeating his fate.

Of all the apocalyptic prospects brandished by liberals, none is supposed be more terrifying than a hard Brexit. Prophets of doom of the kind one used to see in sandwich boards on street corners, they warn that Britain is about to be hurled over a cliff edge. They have been joined in these feverish prognostications by the seemingly stolid figure of John Major, who declared in a recent speech that Britain had rejected the colossus of the EU. It is a curious way to describe a zone that despite a widely celebrated recent uptick remains among the slowest growing in the world. Youth unemployment is around 25 per cent in France and 40 per cent in Italy and Spain. Majors rosy view of the EU may be less surprising if one recalls a speech he gave in 1993 to the Conservative Group for Europe, in which he rhapsodised about Britain fifty years hence still being the country of long shadows on county [cricket] grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers. Echoing an essay by George Orwell that was published in 1941, Major was harking back to an irrecoverable and partly imaginary past. When he issues dire warnings against the danger of Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal, he is doing the same.

The real danger that Britain faces is of being locked into a deal with an economic zone that is incapable of adapting to the present. Britain will continue to be engaged in Europe whether or not a deal can be struck on trade. Issues of defence and security, including the need to prevent terrorist attacks (such as those in Paris, Brussels and now Westminster) make continuing co-operation imperative. Yet there is no advantage to Britain in any free trade deal with Europe that would curb our freedom to trade with the fast-growing countries China, India, the US and the rest that are shaping the worlds future. If that is what is on offer, no deal will be the best deal.

Liberal Britain is not being heard because it speaks incessantly of a past that cannot be retrieved. This is also why Britain lacks any serious opposition. Liberals who fulminate against Corbyn should remind themselves how he came to be the leader who has taken Labour to the brink of destruction. Has the stupefying banality of the campaigns of his rivals for the leadership already been forgotten? With the exception of Tristram Hunt, not one of the contenders showed any sign of fresh thinking. Corbynism is a consequence, not the cause, of the failure of the liberal centre ground.

After the shenanigans of the past few weeks, Labour is in a worse state than in the early Eighties. A change of leader will not be enough to make the party electable again. A radical shift in policies is needed that shows that the party respects the attitudes and values of the majority of voters. There is little sign of that at present, and it is not only Corbyn who stands in the way. By identifying liberal values with institutions and policies that cannot command democratic consent European federalism, continuing large-scale immigration and unfettered globalisation, among others the self-appointed guardians of liberal centrism in Labour and other parties have shirked the question of what liberalism means in the irrevocably changed conditions of our time. Until it can answer that question, liberal Britain has nothing to say.

Read more here:

Liberal Britain has nothing to say - New Statesman

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal Britain has nothing to say – New Statesman

Exclusive: Conservative poll showed party would "lose seats" to the Liberal Democrats – New Statesman

Posted: at 5:12 pm

Researching the life of the late Jimmy Reid, the Scottish political activist who came to prominence because of his work with the Upper Clyde Shipbuildershas afforded remarkable insight into the extensive roots of the Scottish Labour movement with home rule. Much of it has been obscured over recent years. Yet its both worthy of recollection and may offer clues to any possible Labour revival north of the border.

Reid, after all, was committed to both socialism and Scottish home rule hroughout his life. Though his party membership changed, his commitment to these valuesremained undiminished. It was the external factors, whether within his party, or the social and economic conditions in the country, that changed.

Reid leftthe Labour League of Youth to join the Young Communist League. Then, despite being seen as a future leader, he left the Communist party in 1976 for the Labour party. He contested a seat unsuccessfully in 1979, but remained heavily involved in both Tony Benns campaign for deputy leader and the election in 1983. Meanwhile, he had begun a career as a journalist, and in 1987 then-Labour leader Neil Kinnock felt his contributionas a columnist with The Sun and other media outlets was more valuable than any input he could make as an MP. However, disillusioned by New Labour, he drifted away. Ultimately, he left the partyand joined the SNP in 2005.

The story has relevance, not just because of Reid's input in Scottish life, but for the political journey he made. From pursuing a British road to socialism, he ended up supporting Scottish independence. It was a journey followed by many, judging by the 2015 general election results, when the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats. Understanding that journey may provide some answers to why Labour has declined, with further challenges ahead at the forthcoming council elections.

The Labour party north of the border was forged with a commitment to home rule and socialism. Not just Reid, but Keir Hardie had been clear in that. It was to be given greater prominence through the Red Clydesiders during the 1920s and 30s. Not just the Labour party, but especially the Independent Labour Party, which was prominent in Scotland, was in the vanguard on both issues.

As Labour climbed in the polls, the cause of home rule was not neglected. In 1924, during the first Labour minority government, a Scottish Home Rule Bill was proposed by George Buchanan, the ILP MP for the Gorbals. It envisaged a parliament with control over pensions and employment, as well as the power to vary imperial taxes. Joint institutions would remain such as for the Post Office and Customs and Excise but funds would be remitted north. Moreover, a joint board between Scotland and London would officiate on areas of dispute, with an appeal lying to the Privy Council.

What would happen to Scottish representation at Westminster was never fully explained. The Labour secretary of state for Scotland accepted that the Bill was wanted, and supported in the country. However, it ran out of procedural time - causing anger both within the Scottish grouping.

But, try again they did. In 1927, the Rev James Barr, the ILP MP for Motherwell, lodged a bill that was even more radical than Buchanans. He envisaged all taxes raised in Scotland falling to the Scottish Treasury and the withdrawal of all Scottish MPs from Westminster. The military and the Foreign Office were designated joint services and were to be shaped between the two parliaments. A joint council would be established to decide on issues of dispute. That bill fell due to lack of interest from south of the border but the Red Clydesiders had been united in their support for it.

Of course, that was at a time both before the creation of the EU, let alone Brexit. It was the time of the creation of the Irish Free State, and the advocates were more Redmondite (a moderate Irish nationalist)than Republican. However, it shows the radical nature of what was sought. Labour's commitment waned thereafter, but the likes of Jimmy Reid worked to keep the flame alive.

Ultimately, the Labour government established a Scottish Parliamentin 1999, though withpowers far less than those proposed generations before. Labour seemed to bethe national party of Scotland, speaking for the Scottish people. All that changed, though, with the referendum on independence and the alliance with the Tories in the Better Together campaign.

Labour has a proud history on home rule, but it has been overshadowed by recent events. The partyhas to restore its distinctive Scottish identity, not warp itself in the Union Jack. Moreover, it has to state what its for, not just what its against. It has to spell out more radical options than currently exist, and it has to mean what it says. Finally, it needs to ensure that it issupported in these aims not just in Scotland but in London. Otherwise, its effortscounts for nothing, as the 1920s showed.

Read the original here:

Exclusive: Conservative poll showed party would "lose seats" to the Liberal Democrats - New Statesman

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Exclusive: Conservative poll showed party would "lose seats" to the Liberal Democrats – New Statesman

How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party – The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Posted: at 5:12 pm


FiveThirtyEight
How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party
The San Luis Obispo Tribune
The frustration building in the longtime liberal activist finally broke: She wanted to thwart Gorsuch's nomination, but the federal judge buffeted by good press and a sense of inevitability was barely facing any resistance from Democratic senators ...
The Gorsuch Filibuster Shows The Liberal Base's CloutFiveThirtyEight
Liberals launch ads vs. Republicans over nuke optionPolitico
Many Liberal Legal Experts Think A Gorsuch Filibuster Is A Terrible IdeaDaily Caller
Washington Free Beacon -Conservative Review
all 2,948 news articles »

More here:

How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party - The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party – The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Anchorage voters opt for bonds, more liberal Assembly – KTOO

Posted: at 5:12 pm

Christopher Constant celebrates Tuesday, April 4, 2017, with a victory lap at Election Central in Anchorages Denaiina Center. (Photo by Zachariah Hughes/Alaska Public Media)

In Anchorages municipal elections Tuesday, liberals gained an edge in the Assembly, and residentssupportedall but one bond measure put forward passed.

Voters also opted to shake up the taxi industry.

There were few surprises in the six Assembly races, with incumbents Tim Steele and Pete Petersen holding seats in west and east Anchorage (respectively), and former lawmaker Fred Dyson winning an open seat in the Eagle River/Chugiak district.

Progressive candidates won by large margins in the downtown and midtown races.

In somewhat of an upset, a liberal-leaning political newcomer, Suzanne LaFrance, narrowly won the south Anchorage seat thats traditionally been held by conservative representatives.

LaFrance was slightlysurprised by the results, but thoughtthe positive tone in her campaign helped her efforts.

We had a lot of folks who definitely hit the ground, door-to-door and lit dropping, getting the word out on social media and word of mouth, she said during a brief interview. If you look at the folks who contributed financially to the campaign, its a very broad-based group.

The results nudge the Assembly slightly more to the left of where it currently sits, and likely mean a continued general alignment with the mayors administration.

The Assembly also will see its first two openly gay members, Felix Rivera in the midtown district, and Christopher Constant downtown, who believes Anchorage has changed a lot in the last few years.

Weve seen a sea-change in the last four years in this town, and in fact across the country, Constant said.

Voters also approved the majority of the bond proposals on the ballot, including $58.5 millionfor school improvements, infrastructure, public safety, and separate measures on parks and trail access.

One bond that failed, however, Proposition 2, had to do with attaching 14 staff positions to the operations of two new ambulances, a measure that would have cost $23 million over 10years.

Thats extreme, and I think that was a mistake by the administration to put that out there like that, said Former Mayor Dan Sullivan, who was part of an effort to defeat themeasure.

If you think that these ambulances are something thats that vital they could have rolled it into the regular budget, Sullivan said.

In a proposition about the future of the taxi industry, voters rejected a move to keep the system the way it is presently, and opted to move forward with a measure to open the permitting process.

The move will put more cabs on the road in the next few years.

In the two school board races, Dave Donley won seat C. And as of late Tuesday night, Andy Holleman was less than a hundred votes ahead of Kay Schuster, with two precincts still outstanding.

Turnout across town was slightly lower than usual in a municipal election, at just 19.5percentof eligible voters.

See more here:

Anchorage voters opt for bonds, more liberal Assembly - KTOO

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Anchorage voters opt for bonds, more liberal Assembly – KTOO

Why the Liberals are still struggling to change how Canadian democracy works: Aaron Wherry – CBC.ca

Posted: at 5:12 pm

Badgered again during question periodTuesdayabout her government's interest in changing the rules that govern the House of Commons,BardishChaggerprotested that Liberals "will not give a veto to the Conservatives over our campaign commitments."

It is on thisbasis that the House of Commons remained, for another day, no closer to reform.

Before a debate on parliamentary reform has even begun, there remains an impasse over how the discussion should conclude.

Wednesdayoffers another opportunity for progress, or continued stalemate.

The procedure and House affairs committee, which might otherwise be studying possible changes to the standing orders, has been stuck since March 21because of a Conservative and NDP filibuster.

Last month, the Liberals released adiscussion paperthat outlined various possibilities for change, including reforming question period, changing the way debates are scheduled and implementing new rules for committee business.

The Liberals then sought to have the committee study the possible changes and report back by June.

But the Conservatives and NDP joined forces to stall the committee, arguing that some of the proposed changes could erode the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account and alleging that the Liberals are trying to rush such reforms through the House.

The opposition are refusing to stop talking out the clock unless or until the Liberals agree to put in writing that no changes will be made without all-party support what Chagger, the Liberal House leader, called a veto.

After suspending its proceedings for a week, the committee was expected to resumeon Monday,only for the chair to abruptly adjourn proceedings again,apparently so the parties might have more time to resolve their differences.

Chaggermet with her Conservative and NDP counterparts twiceon Monday, but no deal emerged.

In the meantime, the Conservatives used a procedural manoeuvre in the House to force a vote on a motion calling on MPs to agree that the procedure committee should only recommend changes to the standing orders if all-party agreement exists.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen has condemned the way the Liberals have handled the issue of parliamentary reform. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

After Liberals voted to reject that motionon Tuesday, Conservative House leaderCandiceBergen and NDP House leader MurrayRankinissued a joint statement of condemnation.

"The Liberal government has confirmed its intention to run roughshod over the opposition's rights to hold the government to account," they declared."This is truly regrettable."

There is a certain logic toChagger'scomplaint of a Conservative veto.

In their 2015 platform, the Liberals vowed to pursue a number of reforms including implementing a "prime minister's question period," restricting the use of omnibus legislation and empowering House committees.

Liberal MPs now occupy a majority of the seats in the House. And that Conservative MPs could, nonetheless, have the collective power to veto any or all of those changesmight seem somehow unfair.

But the campaign commitments in question relate not to differences of opinion or policy, but to the rules of the House of Commons:the mutually accepted standing orders that govern the people's business and all of the people's representatives, both government and opposition.

Conservatives and New Democrats note there is history of such changes only being made with broad agreement. In response, Liberals have pointed out that changes have sometimes been made without unanimous support.

In fairness, the opposition might be getting ahead of itself: the government hasn't yet really had a chance to run roughshod, regardless of whether it actually wants to. But it's also not yet clear whether the Conservatives or New Democrats would necessarily try to veto anything.

In the meantime, there is the reality of a filibuster.

The Liberals could resort to extraordinary procedural steps to override the opposition's efforts, but at the risk of generating only louder complaint about running roughshod.

They could attempt to wait the opposition out, but at the risk of not getting anything accomplished.

Or they could compromise, at the risk of ending up beholden to the Conservatives or New Democrats.

Either way, the committee is due to reconvene at4 p.m.on Wednesday.

A little less than a year ago, the Liberals were fighting opposition complaints that they were preparing to ram through changes to the electoral system. In that case,the Liberalsbacked down on the composition of a special committee, surrendering their own majority.

Several months later, they abandoned electoral reform on the grounds there wasn't sufficient consensus to proceed.

In lieu of a new electoral system, they might hope to deliver other democratic reforms, but now they find themselves trying to assert a limit on how much support is necessary to proceed.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are looking to deliver parliamentary reforms after abandoning their big campaign promise of electoral reform. (Jim Young/Reuters)

Meanwhile, certain other hopes for reform remain unfulfilled.

Legislation toempower and reinforce the parliamentary budget officerhas yet to be tabled. The beleaguered access-to-information systemremains unreformed. The much-lamented estimates processthrough which Parliament approves government spendingremains unchanged.

On Tuesday, Liberal MPs approved a bill to create a special committee on national security. And the Senate, when it's not having todecide whether to discipline its own members, continues toshow new lifeas an independent forum.

But a party that promised real change would hope to have a substantial number of things to say for itself at the next election. And 2019is getting closer by the day.

If the House reforms they desire are worthy, the Liberals mighthave faiththey can convince Conservatives and New Democrats to agree.

If the Conservatives or New Democrats try to stand in the way, the Liberals might have to fight to make the case for change.

Follow this link:

Why the Liberals are still struggling to change how Canadian democracy works: Aaron Wherry - CBC.ca

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Why the Liberals are still struggling to change how Canadian democracy works: Aaron Wherry – CBC.ca

Complaint: Liberal ‘Hate Monitoring’ Group Repeatedly Violated Tax Exempt Status During 2016 Elections – Washington Free Beacon

Posted: at 5:12 pm

Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center / Getty Images

BY: Joe Schoffstall April 5, 2017 3:56 pm

An immigration reform group filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service today alleging that a liberal hate monitoring' organization violated their tax-exempt status on nearly 50 occasions throughout the 2016 elections.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), the D.C.-based legal affiliate of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), filed the legal complaint with the IRS alleging that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors "activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists," engaged in prohibited activities during a "flagrant, continued and intentional campaign" against Donald Trump and other Republican candidates this past election cycle.

"The IRS grants a special 501(c)(3)' tax classification to certain charitable' and/or educational' organizations (both of which the SPLC purports to be) that operate within strict public service guidelines," FAIR said in a press release. "Under the regulations, however, activities such as promoting or opposing certain political candidates for public office are absolutely not permissible communications for these types of privileged organizations. In other words, no electioneering taking positions in favor of, or against, any active candidate for public office."

Dan Stein, FAIR's president, said the SPLC used their website to openly try to discredit then-candidate Donald Trump by alleging on numerous occasions that Trump was not worthy of voter support. The group used "opinion-based smears and innuendos" to engage in "activity masquerading as teaching tolerance.'"

"According to IRS rules, organizations are not deemed educational, for instance, if their principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion', if they fail to provide a factual foundation for the viewpoint or position being advocated' or they lack a full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts'" which "permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion,'" the release says. "Educational organizations must be organized and continuously operated for instructing the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the public. FAIR notes the SPLC, however, made numerous sweeping, opinion-based statements about the current president during his 2016 campaign, accusing him of being 'embraced by right-wing extremists,' helping drive mainstream interest to racist memes' and manufacturing a "climate of fear' which might ultimately lead to hate violence."

Examples of the activities that SPLC engaged in throughout the election cycle include:

On July 6, 2016,the SPLC Intelligence Report featured a lengthy thirteen-page "report" by SPLC staff member Stephen Piggott, titled, "Hate in the Race," and subtitled, "A remarkable level of vitriol has characterized the Republican contest for president." The article contained at least 41 distinct unlawful and highly negative statements attacking then-Republican Party candidate and nominee Donald Trump or his campaign staff and supporters, and fourteen similar distinct unlawful statements attacking former Republican Party candidate Ted Cruz.

On May 11, 2016, aHatewatchproject article titled, "Donald Trump's Continuing White Nationalist Problem," by SPLC staff member Stephen Piggott, linked Donald Trump to what the SPLC styles "white nationalists." The term is not defined, but it is intended to discredit Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate.

On May 6, 2016, after Donald Trump was proclaimed by the national media to be the presumptive Republican nominee, theHatewatchproject published an article by SPLC contract writer DavidNeiwert, titled, "Right-Wing Extremists Hail the Ascension of Emperor Trump as GOP Nominee."

On October 2, 2015, the SPLCHatewatchproject published "How the Candidates, the Haters, and the Media Have CookedUpa Perfect Storm of Islamophobia," by SPLC contract writer DavidNeiwert. The article mainly focused on Trump's comments and positions. According to the article, Trump has "demonstrated how the fires of bigotry . . . keep escalating."

Stein says the SPLC went well beyond what they are legally allowed to do.

"The SPLC went way over the line in this last election. It publicly engaged in deep, deliberate, and unlawful participation during the 2016 presidential election cycle, flagrantly violating its non-profit tax status," Stein alleges. "The IRS should investigate all of these instances, and take appropriate steps toeither sanction andfine the SPLC, or remove its tax-exempt status as a public charity. We are alleging via meticulously-detailed documented evidence that it repeatedly engaged in widespread, illegal electioneering in 2015 and 2016."

Original post:

Complaint: Liberal 'Hate Monitoring' Group Repeatedly Violated Tax Exempt Status During 2016 Elections - Washington Free Beacon

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Complaint: Liberal ‘Hate Monitoring’ Group Repeatedly Violated Tax Exempt Status During 2016 Elections – Washington Free Beacon

Mulroney to attend Liberal cabinet meeting to advise on NAFTA – CTV News

Posted: at 5:12 pm

Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney will have a seat at the table at an upcoming Liberal cabinet meeting to discuss the North American Free Trade Agreement, the pivotal deal he helped negotiate more than 20 years ago that now faces an uncertain future.

CTV News has learned that Mulroney accepted an invitation to meet with the Canada-U.S. cabinet committee for the important meeting Thursday morning.

The discussion is expected to centre around the future of NAFTA -- a trade agreement that U.S. President Donald Trump intends to renegotiate.

Sources say Mulroney, a personal friend of Trump and neighbour in Florida, will not have a formal role in negotiations with the U.S., but will instead be consulted by Canadian officials as an elder statesman.

Mulroney helped negotiate NAFTA back in 1990 with George H. W. Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, and Liberal officials hope to tap his knowledge on the inner workings of the deal.

Mulroney is also familiar with U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a key player in the upcoming trade talks.

Other participants at the Thursday meeting include Derek Burney, the former Canadian ambassador to Washington who helped negotiate NAFTA, and current Canadian ambassador to Washington David MacNaughton.

With a report from CTVs Ottawa Bureau Chief Joyce Napier

This story has been updated to correct that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wont be at Thursdays cabinet committee meeting.

See the original post here:

Mulroney to attend Liberal cabinet meeting to advise on NAFTA - CTV News

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Mulroney to attend Liberal cabinet meeting to advise on NAFTA – CTV News