Daily Archives: January 13, 2021

We were all told that 2021 would be a better year for the country, but the first two weeks could hardly have been worse. The left is out to discredit not just President Donald Trump and his indefensible behavior since the election but also his ideas. They are triumphantly saying that free market conservatism is dead and that the era of big government is back with a vengeance. Not so fast.

Ive lived through two major Democratic takeovers of Washington in my 35 years inside the capital beltway. The first was in 1993, when Bill Clinton and the new Democrats seized complete control of power, and the second was in 2009, with the Barack Obama hope and change liberal agenda. In both cases, Democrats and their liberal allies outran their mandate from voters with Hillarycare and then Obamacare, obscenely obese spending bills, and a regulatory vice grip on American businesses large and small.

In both cases, within two years of unchecked liberal mischief, voters had had it and pummeled the Democrats with massive Republican victories from coast to coast from local dogcatcher races to congressional seats and governorships.

My prediction is this is precisely what Democrats will do. The dominant far-left wing of the party will feel uncaged. The squad in the House, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, will be demanding a take-no-prisoners rush to socialist policies on health care, education, student loans and climate change. President-elect Joe Biden has already announced that, right out of the gate, the Democrats will ram through a $2 to $3 trillion stimulus bill with the debt careening past the $30 trillion mark.

Yes, they will try to jerry-rig the rules in Washington to sidestep every check and balance that was installed by our Founding Fathers and nearly 230 years of speed bumps to protect the rights of the minority. This means adios to the Senate filibuster and hello to court-packing schemes. The House Democrats have already canceled the pay as you go budget rules requiring new spending to be offset with other deficit-reduction measures.

This whole leftist power agenda has a name: the Great Reset, which is a repudiation of capitalism and free markets and a grand tilt toward re-empowering the elites and the ruling class. The globalists are all for it. So is the pope. Putting America first is to be replaced with globalism.

As sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Americans will be repulsed by this anti-freedom agenda. The nation voted against Trumps antics and his bombastic personality, not his policies which were a spectacular success, particularly on the economy. Lets not forget that right before the November elections, almost 6 of 10 Americans said the country was better off today than four years ago i.e., the end of the Obama-Biden regime. Biden promised that the agenda of Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders would be kicked to the side of the road, but thats not where the party in Washington is. Thats not where last years most liberal senator, Kamala Harris, is at. Democrats will concentrate power in Washington and refill the swamp. Most voters still want it drained.

To save the country from socialism which voters in 2020 said they clearly do not want Republicans need to do what former Rep. Newt Gingrich did in 1993 and 1994 and the young guns in the House did in 2009 and 2010: play defense like its fourth down on the 1-yard line and lay out an alternative vision for America based on opportunity, freedom, free markets, choices and, yes, making America great again.

Conservatives may have lost the reins of power in Washington, but they won nearly everywhere else coast to coast in November. Meanwhile, the GOPs corps of superstar governors, from Ron DeSantis, of Florida, to Pete Ricketts, of Nebraska, to Kristi Noem, in South Dakota, among others, must show to the country the alternative and superior vision to progressivism.

The Biden-Pelosi-Schumer juggernaut is going to be like tanks streaming over the border. Of course, the victims of progressivism and redistributionism, as always, will be the very people who benefited the most from Trump policies: the poor, the working class and minorities.

Liberalism has been unleashed, but it has also been put on trial in 2021 and 2022. Id bet high odds that voters will convict it two years from now.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He is the co-author of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive the American Economy.

Read more:

Stephen Moore: Liberalism will rise and fall again - Kankakee Daily Journal

January13, 20216 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Whole Foods, whose 500 stores employ over 91,000 people, made waves in 2017 when Amazon acquired the company for $13.7 billion. Workplace messaging powerhouse Slack was acquired by Salesforce recently for a whopping $27.7 billion. And YouTube, the third most-popular website on the internet, has over 5 billion videos on its platform watched every single day.

What do these business success stories all have in common? Their CEOs leaders at the forefront of their industries have degrees in the liberal arts.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcickis original plan after studying history and literature at Harvard was to pursue a PhD and go into academia. A piqued interest in technology one summer led her to add a computer science elective in her senior year.

In 1998, she rented out her garage to two dudes named Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who during that time built the search engine that would become Google. Wojcicki later became Google employee no. 16, eventually persuaded the founders to acquire YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion an acquisition lauded as one of the best buys of the 21st century and eight years later was tapped for the CEO role.

Related: This One Video Convinced Google to Buy YouTube in 2006

Its an unusual twist for a literature major. But is it really? Liberal arts thinkers have used their smarts to get to the top of the business food chain more often than you might think:

Former Avon CEO Andrea Jung has a degree in English from Princeton;

Chipotle founder and former CEO Steve Ells studied art history at the University of Colorado;

Former American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault was a history major before becoming the third African American CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

This topic of career reinvention is a personal one for me. What I do now as a content marketing consultant couldnt be further from what I studied in school; with not one but two degrees in classical French Horn, I was an aspiring orchestra musician with big dreams and very little business acumen at first.

For years, I looked down at my music school experience as a waste of money and opportunity. But over time, Ive come to realize that the skills I honed creative thinking, tenacityand performing under pressure have become some of my greatest entrepreneurial weapons.

If youre a thinker or a performer, entrepreneurship mightbe a perfect fit for you. Here are three ways to leverage your liberal or fine arts background and get a running start.

Product development requires rigorous testing and a willingness to work through your logic all the way down to the bone. If you ever studied classics, you know that the trivium grammar, logicand rhetoric was taught first to pupils of the past because its fluency ensured the comprehension of all other studies.

Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield credits his passion for working through argument to his college degree in philosophy. According to the serial entrepreneur, studying the great thinkers taught him to write well and showed him how to effectively run and lead meetings.

Related: The Co-Founder Behind Slack Shares What He Did 140 Times Last Year Alone -- and How It Helped Prevent Burnout

Additionally, research from the Andrew W. Mellon foundation debunked the notion that studying the arts or humanities is a career death wish. Althougha liberal arts degree mightnot have you earning the same amount as engineers in your twenties, graduates achieve economic mobility more often than mainstream advice would have you believe.

What you will have in your twenties is a propensity for good ideas. Your value proposition is like a term paper or thesis, except that its more fun because it will potentially make you money. A lot of money. Be relentless with revisions and frequently test your value proposition in the market.

Markets and technology are constantly shifting, and as these tectonic plates move, new opportunities open up that have sudden and massive unmet demand. Before Whole Foods CEO John Mackey co-founded the health food giant in 1980, he and his girlfriend had a standalone grocery store, SaferWay, that was a market on the first floor and a restaurant on the second to capture multiple emerging markets.

Related: How Whole Foods CEO John Mackey Is Leading a Revolution in Health and Business

When you act fast and are first to market, youll get a head start on capturing market share. Liberal arts graduates are fantastic at these kinds of positioning puzzles; if you have a complex problem or need to blend together multiple industries, consider getting a liberal arts brain on it to generate winning ideas. Youll thank yourself later.

Sally Hogshead, author of the New York Times bestseller Fascinate: How To Make Your Brand Impossible To Resist, points out that different is better than better.Being the best usually requires extensive research, many product iterations over many yearsand huge expenses.

Instead of trying to become the best, be different instead. Youll need some creative thinking to find your way, so here are a few tips to jumpstart your left brain:

Capture ideas in the moment. Set up a way to quickly jot down the strikes of lightning that pop into your head throughout the day. Voice memos or a separate page in a note taking app on your phone are great options.

Practice finding an uninterrupted flow state. Im still haunted by that 2016 study on worker behavior that found employees are distracted an average of once every 40 seconds. To develop your focusing muscles, make your environment more conducive to concentration.

Read news outside your industry. Knowing your beat is important, but observing other industries can give you insights you wont find within your own echo chamber.

Its never too late to tweak your career trajectory or experiment with something new. Keep yourself in the know, lean in to past experiencesand you might find that critical thinking gives you a winning edge in business.

Read the original post:

The CEOs of YouTube, Slack and Whole Foods All Have Liberal Arts Degrees. Here's Why That Matters - Entrepreneur

Breyer, who before becoming a judge was chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, knows better than most how last week's surprise Georgia election has transformed the prospects for Biden to fulfill a progressive agenda related to the judiciary.

Still, a Biden choice would enhance the diversity and youth of the bench and open a new chapter for justices who have the last word on issues from abortion and LGBTQ rights, religious liberties and racial remedies, to federal power and corporate regulation.

President-elect Biden has vowed to name the first Black woman to the bench. When he initially made the pledge during a February 2020 debate in Charleston, he said, "I'm looking forward to making sure there's a Black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we in fact get every representation."

Among such candidates could be US district court judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, 50, in Washington, DC, a former law clerk of Justice Breyer. Another possibility would be California Supreme Court justice Leondra Kruger, 44. Other Black women of varying backgrounds would no doubt be in the mix if a vacancy arises.

Breyer, named by President Bill Clinton in 1994, declined to respond to questions related to any retirement plans.

Breyer is known for many off-bench pursuits, including an enthusiasm for architecture, and he has authored several books related to law and regulation. Such outside interests, along with the new Democrat dynamic in the nation's capital, might induce him to leave the bench, perhaps as soon as this summer when the current 2020-21 session ends.

His new book to be published this year, "Against Segregation in America's Schools," could be his valedictory. It explores retrenchment on school integration today and is tied to one of Breyer's leading opinions for justices on the left.

See more here:

Stephen Breyer gifted the chance for a liberal successor -- when will he take it? - CNN

Josh Hawley speaks during a Senate debate session to ratify the 2020 presidential election at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.

Handout/Getty Images

Wednesday will be remembered as the day the United States became a liberal and Democratic country again. And, as the Republican Party self-immolated in a nadir of violence, factional infighting and impotent extremism, its worth asking if its going to be that way for a long time.

The days most lasting milestone was the Democratic Party winning back control of the executive and both legislative houses for the first time in a decade. The congressional certification of Joe Biden and Kamala Harriss Nov. 3 presidential and vice-presidential victories occurred only hours after the electoral victories of two senators in Georgia gave the Democrats a controlling majority in the Senate to match their existing majority in the House of Representatives.

Those Georgia victories signalled the larger change behind this milestone. For the past couple of decades, a majority of adult Americans have held liberal views and expressed a preference for the Democratic Party; Republicans have only been able to win by corralling the votes of less populated and more rural states. Georgia is no longer such a state; its urban, educated, high-tech, darker-skinned majority will only expand. The United States is growing away from the Republicans, unless they can find a form of conservatism that appeals to parts of this new majority.

Story continues below advertisement

The other events of Wednesday the shocking insurrectionary violence in the Capitol unleashed by President Donald Trump, and the embarrassing attempt by eight Senators and 139 Representatives to block the certification of Mr. Bidens victory on the basis of discredited fictions showed how fast the Republicans corner is shrinking.

This is the larger problem facing the Republicans: They have been able to eke out narrow victories in the past 20 years by being the party of geography in a still quite rural country. That formula only really works when Republicans are able to find a leader and a message that pulls together two very contradictory sets of beliefs and impulses held by groups of Americans.

The first is a dislike and a distrust of government and taxation, either out of belief or opportunism an essentially libertarian, minimal-state impulse. The second is a yearning for the paternalistic family, the racially homogenous town and a sense of social and military order which implies a larger, more controlling state.

Uniting these impulses is no small task. It was accomplished by Ronald Reagan in 1980, then by George W. Bush in 2000 and, surprisingly, by Donald Trump in 2016. All three managed to peel off wavering Democrats by combining promises of tax cuts with fearful messages about hot-button liberal topics such as immigration, transgender rights or Black activism.

This strategy has suffered from diminishing returns Mr. Bush and Mr. Trump both lost the popular vote. The share of Americans open to these messages fell. Polls show Republicans appeal most consistently and strongly to low-education Americans a disappearing group. Between 2016 and 2020 alone, the share of voters without a college degree fell by five million, enough to account for all of Mr. Trumps 2016 Electoral College margin.

What has filled the late-Trump-era ideological vacuum has been a new politics whose intellectual guru is junior Senator Josh Hawley, the leader of the congressional effort to overturn Mr. Bidens certification. If Mr. Trumps message was fundamentally a negative reaction to liberalism it was literally reactionary Mr. Hawley and his cohort have turned that into a positive vision of an ideal of a society without liberalism.

In their books and speeches, Mr. Hawley and his colleagues describe an America liberated from cosmopolitans (he appears to be aware of the anti-Semitic implication of the term), where social media is strictly censored and laws force a return to what Mr. Hawley calls the genuine and personal love of family and church.

Story continues below advertisement

The Hawley Republicans describe this ideology as post-liberalism, and its attracted a strong following among right-wing and religious Americans who want to find some moral justification behind their otherwise hypocritical backing of Mr. Trump.

Its better described as post-fusionist that is, it rejects the union of economic liberalism and moral authoritarianism that defined the post-Reagan party, siding only with the latter. Americans who are okay with globalization, technology and diversity (not to mention gays) are relegated to the fast-expanding Democrats. If Mr. Trump was the Robespierre of post-Tea Party Republicanism, these are his Jacobins, out to purify the party at any cost.

That this battle for the soul of the party had its most visible moment on the day of Mr. Trumps violent disgrace, the day Democrats returned to power in an America increasingly defined by cosmopolitanism that suggests that the Republicans will be spending a long time in the woods, struggling to reconnect with an America that outgrew them.

Theres a significant number of Congressional Republicans who still back President Trump after the storming of the Capitol by a mob of his supporters Wednesday. Political scientist Stephen Farnsworth says some of these Republicans are utilizing Trump supporters to fuel their own ambitions, which will make deal-making by the Biden administration more challenging. The Globe and Mail

More:

Opinion: On Wednesday the U.S. turned liberal, and Republicans got lost in the woods - The Globe and Mail

Jan. 12, 2021 5:04 pm ET

Kudos to Andrew Delbanco and The Wall Street Journal for highlighting his work promoting the humanities (Weekend Confidential: Andrew Delbanco, Review, Dec. 19). Eighteen years ago at Millsaps College in Mississippi, I spent half my freshman coursework in what was then called the Heritage program, exploring all of human civilization through history, literature and the arts. It was taught by a team of faculty from the departments of classics, history, English and religious studies. I subsequently pursued a scientific career in medicine, but that course I took as a freshman remains the most formative educational experience of my life. The small-group discussions taught valuable listening skills while the coursework helped me see our current challenges through a larger historical lens. I know that early dive into the humanities has made me a more compassionate physician and given me a knowledge base to find historical precedents for these times, which are so commonly called unprecedented.

Mark Trahan, M.D.

Lake Charles, La.

Original post:

The Liberal Arts Inspire the Spirit and Enrich the Soul - The Wall Street Journal

The 905 is a key political battleground. And just as questions about a coming federal election grow louder in Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said goodbye to a top political lieutenant with strong roots and a solid track record in the crucial suburban region around Canadas biggest city.

Navdeep Bains is leaving electoral politics after an almost 17-year run. He left his post as Trudeaus Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, prompting a surprise cabinet shuffle on Tuesday as the prime minister fielded questions about his appetite for a federal election in the coming months. (Trudeau didnt rule it out, but said his preference is to hold off until the pandemic crisis is over.)

But while Bains said Tuesday that he will be there to help the Liberals whenever that campaign comes, his decision to step out of the spotlight brought his stature as a key political figure of the Trudeau era into high relief.

Hes been hard at work for quite a while, and at the centre of certainly the rebuild of the party, said Anna Gainey, the Liberal party president from 2014 to 2018.

I dont think you can (overstate Bainss) voice and his leadership and his contribution to this party, she said.

Scott Reid, a longtime Liberal strategist who was director of communications to prime minister Paul Martin, similarly described Bains as a powerhouse organizer who played a central role in the Liberal partys turnaround after the devastation of 2011, when Bains lost his seat as the Liberals were trounced and fell to third place in the House of Commons. Bains was part of the team that helped Trudeau take over and lead the party back to power with a majority government in 2015.

He was tapped as co-chair of the Liberal campaign in Ontario that year, and was one of five campaign co-chairs for the national campaign in 2019, when the party fell to minority status but maintained its grip on ridings across the Toronto area including all of Brampton and Mississauga, where Bains has spent his political career.

But Reid said Bains influence transcends the 905 region, describing him as the person who stood at the centre of the organizational, structural, political operation. And it delivered quite a startling victory in 2015, coming from third place.

For former Liberal strategist John Duffy, the loss of Bains will be felt less in the effort to attract votes during an election and more in his touch for organizing the machine around such efforts: fundraising, recruiting volunteers, and clinching good candidates to run under the Liberal banner.

A discussion with Nav about what life in politics was like and what the party could do to support a good candidate thats nominated thats been a big part of making everything happen, said Duffy.

Omar Alghabra, the Mississauga Centre MP promoted to transport minister on Tuesday, said the gap left by Bains is huge.

I dont think anybody is going to be able to fill that hole, he said. Navdeep had a massive impact on my life, on the Liberal party and I would say even in support of the prime minister over so many years. And nowhere do I think or I imagine Ill be able to fill that hole. I will hopefully play a part, I dont know what it is, but I dont expect nor do I think that I can fill that hole.

Bains himself said the Liberals were able to recruit some top-tier talent in 2015 that will help the party when he steps back.

Its not a new team. We have incumbency, we have experience, we have people that have done a couple of campaigns, and so thats why I have enormous confidence in the team, he said.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

Bains also said Tuesday that he will play a part in the next campaign, something Reid welcomed as a Liberal partisan with high praise for the outgoing minister.

He was the guy responsible for the political machine, Reid said. The federal Liberals would be very worried if he wasnt around on the next go around.

With files from Tonda MacCharles

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Q:

What do you think of Tuesday's cabinet shuffle?

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

View original post here:

Liberal insiders say Navdeep Bains leaves a big hole in Justin Trudeau's electoral machine. Who will replace him? - Toronto Star

Text Size:A- A+

The controversy over social media and Big Tech platforms banning US President Donald Trump and his supporters is not about free speech. It is about political power.

The right to free speech is only enforceable against the State. It is not enforceable against private entities like private firms or individuals however big or important they might be. It would have been a violation of the freedom of speech had an arm of the US government banned Donald Trump. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple and Amazon are private firms and are free to do whatever they please provided it is not illegal on their platform. Users who dont like it have the freedom to leave the platform and head elsewhere. While we can have debate on the Big Tech companies wisdom and sense of judgement in banning Trump and de-platforming Parler, the pro-Trump social media network, we cannot deny them the right to do as they please on their private property.

At a time when free speech is kicked around as a partisan political football than a universal principle that a free society must uphold, its very important to emphasise that the right to free speech protects citizens from their government. Why so? Because unlike big media and Big Tech, the government has a monopoly over the legitimate use of force. You dont want the person authorised to use the big stick to also be the one to determine what you can or cannot say. That is why liberal democracies, including our own, make fundamental rights enforceable by the citizen against the government. If the editors of ThePrint refuse to publish my article, they are not violating my right to free speech. If, however, the government censors my article, it violates my right. Lets take it even further if every publisher in the world refuses to publish my article, it is still not a violation of my right to free speech. There is no right to being heard.

Also read: German Chancellor Angela Merkel finds Trumps forced social media exile problematic

Making it about free speech distracts us from the real issue: the political power that social media and Big Tech platforms have. This is not new. Publishers and media companies have always had the ability to influence public opinion and political decisions. As Benedict Anderson argues, the advent of the printing press and availability of literature in vernacular languages led to the rise of nationalism and nation-States. In the pre-television era, Dileep Padgaonkar, the editor of The Times of India, was perhaps justified in boasting that he had the second-most important job in the country after the prime minister. Since the 1990s, we have seen the emergence of powerful television anchors, with the ability to shape public opinion. Newspaper barons were key players in the British politics of the 1980s. Rupert Murdochs media empire remains influential in more than one Western democracy. Before Twitter and Facebook, radio talk show programmes in the US served as the rallying point for both conservatives and liberals.

What distinguishes todays social media platforms is their scale, their instantaneousness and their interactivity, which is unlike anything that came before them. They thus enjoy the power to allow narratives to strengthen and become powerful, and also the power to cut them out if they please. As Trump himself admitted, he would not be in the White House if not for Twitter. Now Twitter might have decimated his reach. As for tech platforms like Google, Apple and Amazon, their power lies in the ability to control access to these social networks. Once Google, Apple and Amazon decided to get Parler off their servers, it becomes extraordinarily difficult but not impossible for the latter to acquire the reach it enjoyed.

Also read: Bans on Parler and Trump show the power Big Tech wields over web conversation

Free societies should always be wary of the concentration of any kind of power in any kind of institution. So liberal democracies must worry about the power that Twitter, Facebook, Google and others have come to possess. Democracies other than the US have the additional challenge of contending with the fact that the shareholders, executives and permanent establishments of these companies are located outside their jurisdiction. The problem is: we have yet to evolve ways to govern trans-national technology and social media companies in a manner consistent with the rights of citizens and the interests of sovereign States.

As I wrote in a column a few months ago: Democracies are trying to fit the problem into an anti-trust frame. They want to break up platforms citing the phone company analogy The European Union, always trigger-happy on the antitrust front, is likely to embrace ex ante competition regulations. Politicians in India are both throwing many of our abundant laws and regulations at Big Tech and thinking up new ones. Everyone is grappling for answers. The paradox all democracies face is that it is impossible to check platform power without cutting into free speech and economic freedom that the former seek to protect and the latter actually provide.

The Big Tech companies were right to use their power to take drastic action to reduce the risk of further violence and signal that mob attack on the US Congress would attract consequences. Yet, their continued failure to act to prevent or punish hate-driven violence in other countries exposes them to the charge of selectivity and opportunism. Their feet seem to have discovered the ability to kick the man only after he is down, their corporate consciences still subject to the exigencies of having to do business with whoever is in power. And now that they have used their power to de-platform individuals, how strong is their commitment to resist political pressures of various kinds to do the same to less exalted individuals?

Nitin Pai is the director of the Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

View original post here:

Liberal democracies must worry about the power that Twitter, Facebook, Google have - ThePrint

The federal opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, has attacked the Morrison government for $1.8m worth of communications contracts given to a firm with Liberal links and whose staff are registered as federal lobbyists.

According to AusTender records, Primary Communications Partners received the funding from the Australian Tax Office, the National Mental Health Commission and the attorney generals department between March 2019 and January 2021.

All but one of the contracts were awarded through open tender, and the company has rejected any claims of partisanship. One $36,330 contract, awarded by the NMHC for public relations work, was granted through limited tender.

The Primary Communications chief executive, Chris Hall, has described himself as the longest-serving NSW state government chief of staff. He worked as a battleground seat director for the Barry OFarrell Coalition government and was thanked by federal Liberal MP Craig Kelly in his maiden speech for work on his campaign.

Other senior employees with Liberal connections include the senior account manager, Craig Regan, who worked for federal ministers Paul Fletcher and Arthur Sinodinos, and the senior counsel, Frank Coletta, who served as senior media adviser to the NSW deputy premier.

The firm is listed on the federal lobbyist register, working for clients including Rugby Australia, Scouts Australia and eating disorder charity the Butterfly Foundation.

According to the ACT lobbyist register, the firm also has a former adviser to Labor senator Deborah ONeill on staff in Eliza Mitchell.

A spokesperson for Primary said three of its staff are registered government relations consultants, as disclosed on the register, but it does not lobby on behalf of any government departments.

Primary is also strictly non-partisan and does not work for any political party, they said. Primary provides all communication services in line with the professional and ethical standards of the Public Relations Institute of Australia and the Registered Consultancies Group.

Contracts awarded to Primary Communications Partners included $97,000 for media support to the NHMC related to Covid-19 and most recently a $199,000 contract with the ATO for public relations work.

Both the ATO and NMHC said their contracts were conducted in accordance with the commonwealth procurement rules. The NMHC said rules allowed the use of panel arrangements where agencies pick from pre-approved suppliers in open tender processes.

Primary Communications was chosen because it was assessed as representing the best value for money, the ATO spokesperson said.

Albanese accused Scott Morrison of treating taxpayers money as if it is Liberal Party money by showering his Liberal Party mates with PR contracts.

He is obsessed with wasting taxpayers money on advertising and marketing, the opposition leader said. This waste has to stop. Scott Morrisons gift to Australia is a trillion debt and a billion dollar bill for advertising.

In December, Guardian Australia revealed the Morrison government has spent a total of $128m on advertising in the past financial year, including $5.2m on market research for the ad campaigns.

Since 2013, total government advertising has cost $1bn, including high-profile campaigns spruiking government policies in the lead-up to the 2019 election although much of the cost is attributable to more mundane ads like defence recruitment.

Guardian Australia contacted the NMHC and Hall for comment.

Read more:

Federal Labor attacks government for awarding PR contracts to firm with Liberal links - The Guardian

Violence in the periphery always comes back to the center, eventually. On January 6, the world saw Trump-supporting protestors and conspiracy theorists coalesce in Capitol Hill before storming Americas legislative branch in open insurrection. Whatever we call it, the question is why it happened, and there are many partial answers.

A leader-obsessed analyst will point to Trumps acts of sedition; he played a unique role in encouraging the protestors toward violence and willful disorder. Some might draw our attention to polarization trends in American politics. Others might rightly point to structural racism or oligarchic capitalism causes that are far upstream of Trump or any singular event. Each of these takes has part of the story but misses other crucial aspects.

The Trump-centric explanation, for instance, is true but uninteresting, raising more questions than it answers. How was Trump possible? How could Trump command the violent loyalty of so many citizens when other presidents could not and would not? Polarization is a real thing, but not only reeks of whataboutism between right and left; it doesnt tell us why violence and insurrection is limited to Trump supporters with nothing comparable on the left. White supremacy, meanwhile, is unfortunately a constant in American politics, which raises the question of why now if its the underlying cause of an insurrectionist moment. And its true that extreme inequality deprives working-class conservatives of any material claim to American identity, leaving them open to radicalization because of their near total reliance on culture-war symbolism. But what, then, accounts for their material deprivation?

These answers all lay partial claim to the truth, but we should understand that what took place on Capitol Hill was a longstanding risk built into how the national security establishment thinks about foreign policy. There is a way in which we were long warned that Americas grand strategic commitment to an overmilitarized form of deep engagement abroad was always going to culminate in a direct affront to democracy.

This is bitter medicine for me, because I came up in the national security establishment before becoming a scholar and am still part of the tribe. I even believe in deep engagement, just a less militarized version thats impossible to realize as long as Washington collectively fails to see how militarized foreign policy decisions over the decades contributed to the shock on Capitol Hill. If policymakers continue to overlook the connections between what happens at home and what we do abroad, well see much worse than what happened on January 6.

A grand strategy of deep engagement sometimes gets described as liberal internationalism or liberal hegemony. Its basically US military superiority over all conceivable adversaries, forward positioned in key regions to preserve a favorable balance of power in turn necessitating US alliances to host US military presence and a global economic order structured to promote the free movement of goods and capital as well as human rights (in theory). Washingtons foreign policy mandarins have long believed that this collection of policies produces international security. For a time, it helped deter great-power wars, eschew arms-racing pressures, and incentivize prioritizing trade and diplomacy over conflict. To an extent, it arguably still does.

Speaking against the Vietnam War in 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.intoned, A nation that continues year after year to invest more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. Only a peoples experiencing spiritual death can think storming Capitol Hill is any kind of answer to their problems.

But this distinctly muscular way of engaging the world has a massive, costly blind spot overreliance on the threat and use of force. The idea that We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States wasnt just a Bush-era war on terror slogan; it echoes the logic of Washington grand strategy before and since the Bush days forward military everything is the best way to keep regions we care about stable.

Yet one of the classical insights from post-colonial studies and research on imperialism is that militaristic foreign policies breed militarism at home. Scholars have been writing about this for a hundred years. W.E.B. Du Bois lectured that European and American imperialism caused World War I; the perfection of killing techniques and norms of domination in far flung lands eventually made its way back home to ravage Europe, the metropole. John Hobson explained that instead of political enfranchisement and attending to inequality at home, governments used foreign threats and jingoistic foreign policy to bemuse the popular mind and divert rising resentment against domestic abuses. Distraction over progress could be the theme of the past four years. More recently, the essayist Pankaj Mishra noted how It was always an illusion to suppose that civilized peoples could remain immune, at home, to the destruction of morality and law in their wars against barbarians abroad. Weve been told in a million different poetic ways that its simply not possible to keep the destructiveness of war and its preparations quarantined overseas.

But this singularly important takeaway from the age of empires is utterly incompatible with a grand strategy of militarized liberal internationalism. US foreign policy betrays a jaundiced reading of history that skips over its most inconvenient lesson. It has given us this insurrectionist moment in unintentional but specific ways that are not hard to see if you comprehend how literal and structural violence abroad molests democracy at home.

Speaking against the Vietnam War in 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. intoned, A nation that continues year after year to invest more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. Only a peoples experiencing spiritual death can think storming Capitol Hill is any kind of answer to their problems. Dr. King witnessed anti-poverty programs in the early 1960s which were making a difference in the lives of Black people displaced by the need to pay for the escalating Vietnam War. As Michael Brenes has shown in a recent book, what King saw was the prevailing pattern of political economy in the Cold War, not an anomaly. Today, the massive cost associated with maintaining a dominant military and keeping up a horizon-less war on terrorism comes at the expense of domestic investment in programs capable of deflating anti-democratic attitudes and preventing right-wing radicalization in the first place public education, poverty reduction, public works, and realistic living wages for workers. We cant know how many of the Capitol insurrectionists were unemployed or otherwise disenfranchised, but we know that running perpetual deficits for the sake of the military apparatus rather than for national investment amounts to slow violence against civil society itself. The Cold War made a conventional wisdom of impoverishing the welfare state by substituting the warfare state. Fast forward to 2020, when the only thing Democrats and Republicans could agree on was ensuring that the National Defense Authorization Act overcame a presidential veto to commit $740 billion to defense spending. In the middle of a pandemic and great-depression economy, that kind of money could be spent giving people a brighter future than one where they believe insurrection is the only option.

War is also a powerful influence on culture, especially on masculinity. Kathleen Belews research, to take a directly salient example, exposed the Vietnam War as a wellspring for the white power movement of the 1990s, and by extension todays alt-right. So we should hardly be surprised that foreign policy would fuel a willingness to storm and occupy the Capitol in more subversive ways, like the bro culture born of endless wars.

In the ecosystem of bro culture, sharing common referents like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson means youre likely to know more about the unverified miracle benefits of CBD oil or the latest conspiracy theory than whats in the Constitution. But most people who identify with bro culture arent right-wing radicals. They simply seek something personal betterment, brotherhood, or to measure themselves against prevailing standards of masculinity. Im part of this world. I train in jiu-jitsu. I served in the military. Im a self-improvement junkie. I listened to Rogan for years. So Im not ready to condemn anyone simply for being part of a culture in which many men find fulfillment and constructive ways to channel their energy.

The problem is this way of living is capable of incubating fascism. And sometimes it does. Ive seen friends I train with go down the MAGA rabbit hole. Look at any photos of the insurrectionists at the Capitol and youre bound to see Punisher logos, camouflage fatigues, flak jackets, and any number of other accouterments of militarism even beyond the guns aplenty. Such garb accompanies the tactical life time at the shooting range, survival tactics, motivational YouTube videos by Navy SEALs, and depending on their information diet, a large dose of propaganda. The coolest parts of the culture glamorize prepping for violence and disaster without any specific purpose or intent. Its an outgrowth of a generation of (mostly) men that have lived in the ambient glow of continuous war amid everyday life. Many are veterans, and even those who arent still valorize soldiers fighting something, anything for most of my life its been terrorists and rogue states, but its quickly becoming China. Being immersed in bro culture means being ready to be activated for the right cause. A disturbing enough number of folks who live this way clearly thought storming the Capitol was the cause theyd been waiting for.

And then theres the promise of social cohesion and healing that a culture of endless wars deprives us of. Im haunted by Adam Serwers observation that War nationalism always turns inward, but in the past, wars ended. America is missing out on the boost to national unity in the civic sphere that normally follows recovery from wars because the logic of the war on terror has no end. How can we expect anything but national fracture when politicians agree on military superiority and endless war but little else?

You can dress up militarism abroad with rhetoric about liberty and freedom, but you cant escape the consequence that doing so poisons your own polity. To borrow again from Dr. King, there is a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war-centricity of American foreign policy and a degradation of democracy at home so great that waves of US citizens believe they need to launch an insurrection. The real shock is that we who make national security do not see how this nightmare was a risk built into our designs from the beginning.

Van Jackson is an American professor of international relations at Victoria University of Wellington, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and a distinguished fellow with the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. He also hosts The Un-Diplomatic Podcast and served as a strategist and policy adviser in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during the Obama administration.

Visit link:

The Liberal Internationalist Origins of Right-Wing Insurrection - Inkstick