Daily Archives: January 5, 2022

I'm very much in favor of treating the conventional political wisdom with a healthy dose of skepticism, so I was eager to read a recent, short tweet thread from Nick Gillespie, an editor at large for the libertarian magazine Reason, asserting former President Donald Trump will not be the GOP nominee in 2024. That's a dissenting line I expect to hear with increasing frequency as we approach the next presidential election cycle.

A defeated one-term president doesn't often receive his party's nomination after his loss. But Trump isn't a standard presidential candidate. For one thing, he's managed to forge a powerful and seemingly lasting bond with a sizable faction of his party's voters. For another, he claims and seems to have convinced an awful lot of Republicans that he actually won the 2020 election. In that story, he's a winner out for revenge rather than a loser who rather pathetically refuses to accept his own defeat.

Yet Gillespie isn't buying it. In his view, Trump never came close to winning a majority of the popular vote; he's damaged his brand further with his lies about election fraud in 2020; and his hold over the Republican base is waning.

As evidence of that last point, Gillespie points to some boos Trump recently received from a staunchly anti-vax crowd when he announced he'd received his booster shot and bragged about his administration's role in bringing the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines swiftly and safely to market. Add in "rising stars in the GOP," like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who will give Trump voters "95 percent of what they want," and it makes sense to conclude "Trump is as overcooked as one of his steaks."

The only problem with this analysis is ... there's no data to support it. An aggregation of early GOP primary polls has Trump pulling 52.4 percent of the vote, with the second-place DeSantis coming in with less than a third of that (16.4 percent) and everyone else deep into single digits. That's not a close race, andmuch stronger than Trump's polling through the entirety of the GOP primaries in 2016.

Moreover,when the polls are re-run without Trump included, the results show no similar consolidation around any alternative to Trump. DeSantis pulls in around 28 percent, followed by former Vice President Mike Pence at 16 percent, Donald Trump Jr. at 12 percent, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 9.5 percent, and everyone else at 5 percent or lower.

That's not a picture of a party rallying around a substitute standard-bearer.

But the least convincing thing of all about Gillespie's thread is his opening contention that after the 2022 midterms, GOP "leaders will cut [Trump] loose." If the past six years have taught us anything, it's that there is no safer bet in Washington than wagering against Republican leadership taking Trump down. That's because the party's leadership responds to the voters, and the voters want Trump.

Until that changes, Trump will be on an easy track to win the Republican nomination if he wants it.

More here:
Could Trump lose the 2024 GOP nomination? - The Week Magazine

Lee Feinstein| Guest columnist

This piece may be disturbing to some readers. It offers limited hope, optimism, and earnest language, with brief scenes of unity.

I found myself on the phone recently with a former senior official, whose political background, personal and generational history could not be more different from mine. We, nonetheless, found ourselves invigorous agreement as the former official said, For the first time in my life I am worried about the future of our democracy. It is the well-meaning sentiment that has brought conservatives and liberals together in a series of open letters on the need to join together to defend liberal democracy.

Glad as I am to take part in such private expressions of solidarity and to see published statements signed by people representing different political views, none of this gives me much optimism. The global democratic recession has evolved into a global anti-democratic wave.

Fact check roundup: Debunking false narratives about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot

For hope, I look elsewhere: to a suburban high school in central Indiana, as one of several dozen amateur judges at one of the first in-person debate tournaments since lockdown.

The student debaters are instructed to adhere to a judicious mask mandate: Wear them when youre not eating. Take them off, if you want, when its your turn to debate. The students and their parents react without a shrug. No complaining. No studied outrage. Just agreement to follow a reasonable request to keep everyone safe.

The debaters arrive at 8 a.m.from large and medium cities, and from suburbs, and small towns, from across the state. The teachers and coaches are a casually diverse and interactive bunch: white, black, and brown, as are their students. Some of the debaters have been in the Midwest for many years. Others are more recent arrivals to the United States. The state calls itself the countrys crossroads. Dare to think of it not as flyover country, but as Americas third coast.

In the debate rooms, young people face off against each other. To the students and the debate judges, the racial and gender differences are unremarked, and unremarkable.

Its not that the students dont have different points of view. If you listen carefully, you can detect political leans to conservativism, left activism, libertarianism, and mainstream politics. But there are no bubbles or algorithms in the debate room. Students are assigned to a side and are prepared to argue both for and against the stipulated resolution; in this case: Resolved: A just society ought to recognize an unconditional right to strike.

Join the conversation: How to submit a letter to the editor or guest column to The Herald-Times

Students slice the syntactical salami thin. One debater defends his assigned position, saying reckless actions by strikers would not be enabled in the affirmative. `Unconditional is not the same as `unlawful, he says.

Another debater for the Aff defends her chosen value criterion of utilitarianism. Moves toward equalizing power, she says, would provide the most benefit to the most people. Another says corporate gigantism makes recognition of a fundamental right to strike imperative now.

The debaters support their arguments in one direction or the other with historical cases. The U.S. postal strike in 1970 during the Nixon Administration, for example, yielded to postal workers the right to collective bargaining for the first time, but not the right to strike. COVID-19 was used as an argument for and against recognizing the right of health care workers to organize.

Some of the students injected global perspectives into the debate: an unconditional recognition of the right to strike is necessary to protect workers in countries with minimum wages even lower than in the United States, says one debater. She points to Egypt and Iran as examples maybe with some direct knowledge from discussions around the dinner table. Her opponent says granting an unconditional right to strike disincentivizes work and is impractical for the worlds poor.

The students adopt contending values and value criteria. Their values are justice or personal security. Their value criteria range from Lockes social contract to Kants ideas about human dignity, to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the end of the debate, the students set aside whatever emotion may have built up during cross examinations and rebuttals, with: Good debate, or Nice job, shaking off the enforced certainties of their debate roles, and the world around them.

Resolved: The future of democracy in this country is being decided at places like this central Indiana high school, which defies stereotypes of the Midwest in its ethnic and gender diversity, in the rejection of political polarization, and in the common striving of its students and teachers to navigate the world as best they can at this precarious time.

Lee Feinstein, a former State Department official and ambassador,is founding dean of the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies at Indiana University, and proud dad of a high school debater.

Original post:
Column: At this high school debate, the differences that matter are points of view - The Herald-Times

Coronavirus cases are once again exploding in the United Kingdom. Yet Prime Minister Boris Johnsons Conservative government, dominated by extremist ideologues who value their notion of individual freedom above the public good, is again unwilling to impose necessary measures a reluctance that has already cost innumerable lives in previous COVID-19 waves.

Last month, about a hundred Tory Members of Parliament voted against a very modest government plan that mandates the wearing of masks and vaccine certificates in some places. As hospitals fill up again with COVID-19 patients, they talk about an ancient British tradition of liberty. Were not a papers please society, Tory MP Marcus Fysh claimed, This is not Nazi Germany.

Given such anti-government rhetoric, you might not guess that Johnson, who has been dogged by reports he was partying at his official residence during a general lockdown last year, and has often appeared maskless in public spaces, matches Donald Trump in his disdain for public health regulations.

Or that the British media, overwhelmingly right wing, provides the background chorus for freedom from COVID-19 restrictions. In fact, it led the Tory celebrations of Freedom Day in July this year.

The celebrations were as foolish as they were premature. These days, the world watches again in appalled fascination as omicron spreads fast, and rowdy invocations of personal responsibility and individual choice delay preventive moves in the United Kingdom and, by extension, everywhere else.

Public-spiritedness is by no means alien to Britain; its present-day embodiment, the National Health Service, was widely applauded during the early weeks of the pandemic. Tory fanboys of Winston Churchill like to invoke his lonely defiance of Nazi Germany as they insist on their right to remain maskless. But there is no record of Tory freedom-lovers keeping their lights on at night during the blackout enforced by Churchills government in 1940.

Contemporary Tory libertarianism derives from the American ideologue Ayn Rand more than any ancient British tradition of liberty. And the present-day contempt for collective welfare is largely a legacy of the revolution launched by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Thatcher notoriously doubted the existence of society; Reagan claimed that the nine most terrifying words are Im from the government, and Im here to help.

The strange thing is that the battles launched by Reaganites and Thatcherites against tax rates, protectionist industry and labor union privilege were won a long time ago. Libertarians in the United States even managed to discredit major government involvement in health care.

So, what makes Anglo-American individualists so dangerously inflexible, even self-destructively fanatical, today?

Two recent events have spoiled the show for them. First, the rise of China, which proved again after the previous successes of Japan and the East Asian countries that government intervention is crucial to national success in education and health care as well as industrial growth and technological innovation.

The other, arguably more unnerving event, which has occurred right at home, is the increasing assertiveness of historically silent, often disenfranchised peoples: women, non-white immigrant populations, and sexual minorities.

During two centuries of Western expansion and hegemony, a minority of white men enjoyed a relative freedom to do and say whatever they wanted without much regard for the rights and sensitivities of others. Unsurprisingly, many of them loathe the demand from previously voiceless peoples that old attitudes ranging from the narcissistic to the selfish and cruel be re-examined and, preferably, abandoned. The demand is frequently and unfairly derided as woke.

Those still clinging to political power and cultural capital would rather stoke conflict and polarization than admit that their societies are irrevocably diverse, and ought to acknowledge the dignity of people who were once systematically degraded by the gender and racial hierarchies erected by white men.

They naturally fear and loathe scholarship that underlines long-established facts: that the unique wealth and power of a male minority in the West was built on slavery and imperialism rather than any innate superiority, and that the white mans burden was actually carried by black, brown and yellow men.

Instead, faced with the smallest challenges to their moral and intellectual authority, many historically advantaged males have chosen to double down, accusing activists and intellectuals of promoting cancel culture and historical revisionism.

Johnsons government has prosecuted its war on woke with remarkable zeal and clinical efficiency throughout the pandemic. Indeed, rightwingers talking of freedom are shriller than ever before in Europe and America. Their battle against COVID-19 restrictions has become part of their larger, and very desperate, war against political correctness an existential struggle, no less, something as urgent as the existential struggle of many today against severe illness and premature death caused by COVID-19.

The consequences for the rest of us are incalculable. While freedom-loving Tories make their last stand, the mounting evidence from elsewhere is that coordinated action by governments and solidarity among citizens are what will contain the pandemic.

Indeed, the lesson from the U.K. epicenter of delta and now omicron, and home to a dysfunctional government and failed ideology is profoundly ominous: That in societies deliberately divided by culture wars, trust and confidence in an unscrupulous ruling class will inevitably run low, and the pandemic is what will enjoy true freedom.

Pankaj Mishra is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. His books include Age of Anger: A History of the Present, From the Ruins of Empire: The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia, and Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond.

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

PHOTO GALLERY (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

More:
Boris Johnson and the woeful and costly Tory war on woke - The Japan Times

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Michael Kennedy, a gay libertarian, is suing the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms for breeching its own stated vision and values.

Author of the article:

Michael Kennedy was a 22, an idealistic, gay libertarian when he went to work for the nascent Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Now, hes suing the centre in a novel case, arguing that when an employer does something contrary to an organizations mission and values, it breaks its contract with employees and amounts to constructive dismissal.

The Justice Centre denies Kennedys claims in the lawsuit he filed in Albertas Court of Queens Bench in September.

Its a case without precedent in Canada, according to his lawyer Kathryn Marshall. Thats largely because unlike in the United States there are few think tanks, advocacy groups and other organizations with an ideological mission.

In fact, it was that scarcity that attracted Kennedy to the Justice Centre in 2011 as it was being formed.

He had just completed an internship in the Koch Associates program and a part-time contract at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education Washington, D.C. protecting free speech on university campuses.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I fell in love with that work and wanted the Justice Centre to be doing that same work, he said. Thats what my vision was and, in the early days (at the Calgary-based Justice Centre), it was our pet issue.

Kennedys sexual orientation was not a secret.

The JCCF founder and president, John Carpay, asked him about it before he hired him.

I was offended to be asked. I had had a taste of conservative movements homophobia but I was disappointed that it came up in the context of a job application, said Kennedy. But I was fresh out of college and desperate to get a job.

Even though by 2011, the Justice Centre had already taken on a case widely seen as anti-LGBTQ, Kennedy said his philosophy aligned with its vision of individual rights taking precedence over collective rights.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It intervened that year at the Supreme Court of Canada, defending Bill Whatcotts right to distribute anti-gay pamphlets. The court disagreed, upheld the tribunals ban and called it hate speech.

Four years later, it lost again at the Supreme Court when it argued that Trinity Western University should not be denied a law school even though students are required to pledge to abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriages.

Speaking at a Rebel Media event in November 2018, Carpay said the way to defeat totalitarianism was to think about the common characteristics:It doesnt matter whether its a hammer and sickle for communism or whether its the swastika for Nazi Germany or whether its a rainbow flag. The underlying thing is a hostility to individual freedoms.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It was a PR disaster. Kennedy said that, as communications director, hed had nothing to do with it. Still, Carpay asked him to resign.

By September 2019, Kennedy had had enough. He resigned after the JCCF decided to represent the Buffone family at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, who believe their daughter was discriminated against on the basis of sex, gender and gender identity. While explaining gender fluidity in class, a teacher is alleged to have said that there are no such things as boys and girls.

According to Kennedys statement of claim, it wasnt just that it was getting directly involved in the kind of tribunal that Carpay had previously called kangaroo courts.

It was also the JCCFs argument.

Kennedys claim says that when he expressed his concern about it feeding into a growing public perception that the Justice Centres Charter-oriented mission is a faade to justify attacking the LGBTQ community, Carpay justified taking the case saying it is a (perhaps the) majorissue of our time.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Kennedy told me, The day I found out about it (JCCF taking the case), I was sick to my stomach. I realized I cant work here any more. I dont believe in the mission.

JCCFs statement of defence offers a different view. When told that it was taking the Buffone case, Kennedy responded: Understood. Ill stand by.

Its defence statement acknowledges Kennedy had expressed his opinion that getting involved in the human rights complaint process was contrary to its mandate.

But it said that at no time did he suggest that if JCCF continued its involvement in human rights processes that Kennedy would consider it constructive dismissal.

This case isnt only potentially precedent-setting in terms of employment law. At the heart of it is the schism within the conservative/libertarian movement between those who believe LGBTQ people are protected by freedom of expression, association and equality and those who believe those rights must protect religious groups, organizations and others to freely express, say and act on what they believe.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Kennedy put it more pointedly when we spoke.

Do libertarians and conservatives oppose gender identity affirmation because nobody should be compelled to say things they dont believe or because they dont like transgender people?

And, do they believe in free speech as fundamental to protecting liberal democracy or because they want to protect homophobes, racists and bigots?

Since COVID-19, the Justice Centre has focused less on LGBTQ fights in favour of raising interesting constitutional questions while defending individuals right to not wear masks or to not get vaccinated.

But Carpay dealt his organization a substantial blow last summer.

He admitted in July that hed hired a private detective to spy on Manitobas chief justice and health officials to see whether they were breaching the provinces COVID restrictions. He took a leave of absence.

Carpay was back by September trying to rebuild trust in the brand when Kennedy filed his lawsuit and claim for $470,800.

This case wont make the renewal any easier.

dbramham@postmedia.com

Twitter: @bramham_daphne

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Vancouver Sun, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Vancouver Sun Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See the original post here:
Daphne Bramham: A fight within the conservative family over which rights trump others - Vancouver Sun