Monthly Archives: February 2023

The Idea of ‘Freedom’ Has Two Different Meanings. Here’s Why – Time

Posted: February 5, 2023 at 10:00 am

We tend to think of freedom as an emancipatory idealand with good reason. Throughout history, the desire to be free inspired countless marginalized groups to challenge the rule of political and economic elites. Liberty was the watchword of the Atlantic revolutionaries who, at the end of the 18th century, toppled autocratic kings, arrogant elites and (in Haiti) slaveholders, thus putting an end to the Old Regime. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Black civil rights activists and feminists fought for the expansion of democracy in the name of freedom, while populists and progressives struggled to put an end to the economic domination of workers.

While these groups had different objectives and ambitions, sometimes putting them at odds with one another, they all agreed that their main goalfreedomrequired enhancing the peoples voice in government. When the late Rep. John Lewis called on Americans to let freedom ring, he was drawing on this tradition.

But there is another side to the story of freedom as well. Over the past 250 years, the cry for liberty has also been used by conservatives to defend elite interests. In their view, true freedom is not about collective control over government; it consists in the private enjoyment of ones life and goods. From this perspective, preserving freedom has little to do with making government accountable to the people. Democratically elected majorities, conservatives point out, pose just as much, or even more of a threat to personal security and individual rightespecially the right to propertyas rapacious kings or greedy elites. This means that freedom can best be preserved by institutions that curb the power of those majorities, or simply by shrinking the sphere of government as much as possible.

This particular way of thinking about freedom was pioneered in the late 18th century by the defenders of the Old Regime. From the 1770s onward, as revolutionaries on both sides of the Atlantic rebelled in the name of liberty, a flood of pamphlets, treatises and newspaper articles appeared with titles such as Some Observations On Liberty, Civil Liberty Asserted or On the Liberty of the Citizen. Their authors vehemently denied that the Atlantic Revolutions would bring greater freedom. As, for instance, the Scottish philosopher Adam Fergusona staunch opponent of the American Revolutionexplained, liberty consisted in the security of our rights. And from that perspective, the American colonists already were free, even though they lacked control over the way in which they were governed. As British subjects, they enjoyed more security than was ever before enjoyed by any people. This meant that the colonists liberty was best preserved by maintaining the status quo; their attempts to govern themselves could only end in anarchy and mob rule.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

In the course of the 19th century this view became widespread among European elites, who continued to vehemently oppose the advent of democracy. Benjamin Constant, one of Europes most celebrated political thinkers, rejected the example of the French revolutionaries, arguing that they had confused liberty with participation in collective power. Instead, freedom-lovers should look to the British constitution, where hierarchies were firmly entrenched. Here, Constant claimed, freedom, understood as peaceful enjoyment and private independence, was perfectly secureeven though less than five percent of British adults could vote. The Hungarian politician Jzseph Etvs, among many others, agreed. Writing in the wake of the brutally suppressed revolutions that rose against several European monarchies in 1848, he complained that the insurgents, battling for manhood suffrage, had confused liberty with the principle of the peoples supremacy. But such confusion could only lead to democratic despotism. True libertydefined by Etvs as respect for well-earned rightscould best be achieved by limiting state power as much as possible, not by democratization.

In the U.S., conservatives were likewise eager to claim that they, and they alone, were the true defenders of freedom. In the 1790s, some of the more extreme Federalists tried to counter the democratic gains of the preceding decade in the name of liberty. In the view of the staunch Federalist Noah Webster, for instance, it was a mistake to think that to obtain liberty, and establish a free government, nothing was necessary but to get rid of kings, nobles, and priests. To preserve true freedomwhich Webster defined as the peaceful enjoyment of ones life and propertypopular power instead needed to be curbed, preferably by reserving the Senate for the wealthy. Yet such views were slower to gain traction in the United States than in Europe. To Websters dismay, overall, his contemporaries believed that freedom could best be preserved by extending democracy rather than by restricting popular control over government.

But by the end of the 19th century, conservative attempts to reclaim the concept of freedom did catch on. The abolition of slavery, rapid industrialization and mass migration from Europe expanded the agricultural and industrial working classes exponentially, as well as giving them greater political agency. This fueled increasing anxiety about popular government among American elites, who now began to claim that mass democracy posed a major threat to liberty, notably the right to property. Francis Parkman, scion of a powerful Boston family, was just one of a growing number of statesmen who raised doubts about the wisdom of universal suffrage, as the masses of the nation want equality more than they want liberty.

William Graham Sumner, an influential Yale professor, likewise spoke for many when he warned of the advent of a new, democratic kind of despotisma danger that could best be avoided by restricting the sphere of government as much as possible. Laissez faire, or, in blunt English, mind your own business, Sumner concluded, was the doctrine of liberty.

Being alert to this history can help us to understand why, today, people can use the same wordfreedomto mean two very different things. When conservative politicians like Rand Paul and advocacy groups FreedomWorks or the Federalist Society talk about their love of liberty, they usually mean something very different from civil rights activists like John Lewisand from the revolutionaries, abolitionists and feminists in whose footsteps Lewis walked. Instead, they are channeling 19th century conservatives like Francis Parkman and William Graham Sumner, who believed that freedom is about protecting property rightsif need be, by obstructing democracy. Hundreds of years later, those two competing views of freedom remain largely unreconcilable.

Annelien de Dijn is the author of Freedom: An Unruly History, available now from Harvard University Press.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

Read more:

The Idea of 'Freedom' Has Two Different Meanings. Here's Why - Time

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on The Idea of ‘Freedom’ Has Two Different Meanings. Here’s Why – Time

Persecution of Christians skyrockets worldwide as 360 million oppressed …

Posted: at 10:00 am

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Open Doors 2023 World Watch List brings much-needed attention to courageous Christians around the world who suffer because of their faith. Released on January 17, the annual World Watch List is a ranking of 50 countries where severe persecution and discrimination against Christians prevail.

Today, more than 80% of the worlds population lives in countries where religious freedom is highly or severely restricted. For millions of people, repression, violence, and discrimination are a part of daily life. Governments and hostile regimes prevent individuals from living in accordance with their faith.

As the latest World Watch List confirms, Christians are no exception.

PROMINENT NYC VENUES REPEATEDLY HOST CHINESE OFFICIAL WHO PRAISED CCP, DENIED UYGHUR GENOCIDE

According to the report, more than 360 million Christians face severe persecution and discrimination for their faith. The number of Christians who have been killed for their faith has also risen by 80% in the last five years.

March 2015: Nigerian soldiers hold up a Boko Haram flag that they had seized in Damasak, Nigeria. (Reuters)

The majority of these killings 90% have occurred in Nigeria. As militant Islamist groups use violence to advance political and ideological objectives, persecution against Christians is most severe in the north, though enforced Islamisation is gradually spreading toward the south.

Open Doors reports that groups such as Boko Haram, ISWAP, and Fulani militants kidnap, inflict violence upon, or kill their victims and appear to be increasingly conspiring together against Christians, as well as Muslims who oppose them. In northern Nigeria, Christians are also viewed as second-class citizens; converts from Islam may be rejected by their families or endure physical violence.

But as the report notes, Christian persecution extends beyond Nigerias borders. One-in-five of the worlds persecuted Christians live in Africa, and according to the report, "Violence against Christians in Sub-Saharan Africa has reached new heights."

While in Asia, the Chinese Communist Partys model for controlling Christian communities is expanding to other countries. According to the report, "Countries as diverse as Sri Lanka,MyanmarandMalaysiahave headed down this same authoritarian path, joining Central Asian states like Azerbaijan,Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan,and Russia."

Today, more than 80% of the worlds population lives in countries where religious freedom is highly or severely restricted. For millions of people, repression, violence, and discrimination are a part of daily life. Governments and hostile regimes prevent individuals from living in accordance with their faith.

In communist China, those under 18 are prohibited from attending church, crosses have been replaced with portraits of Chinas communist leaders, and the CCP is working to rewrite the Bible to align with its ideology. Utilizing oppressive restrictions, surveillance, and propaganda, the Chinese Communist Party is forcing Christians to put the ideology of the Party before the teachings of Christ.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

In Nicaragua, as in communist China, religious freedom threatens the power and authority of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo. As Open Doors reports, those who speak out against the Ortega-Murillo regimes human rights abuses and injustices are seen as destabilizing agents. Amidst increasing government oppression, Nicaragua was included in the top 50 countries on the World Watch List for the first time.

Nicaraguas Catholics, which make up 50%of the countrys population, have been a strong force of resistance and, as a result, are targeted for voicing their opposition to the authoritarian Ortega-Murillo regime.

Prominent regime critic, Bishop Rolando lvarez is standing trial following accusations of "conspiracy" and spreading "fake news." Moreover, hundreds of nongovernmental organizations have had their legal status canceled by the regime, including the Missionaries of Charity, a religious order established by Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Tragically, the government accused the sisters of failing to comply with the countrys strict and wide-reaching terrorism law, shut down their organization, and ordered their expulsion from Nicaragua.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

At the launch of this years report, Open Doors U.S. CEO Lisa Pearce affirmed, "The persecution of Christians is now sadly a global phenomenon." However, she also noted, "For all of us, there is something to do. None of us is powerless to help."

The findings of the 2023 World Watch List stand as an urgent call to governments, civil society, and activists to join together to advance and defend religious freedom around the world.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM AMBASSADOR CALLISTA GINGRICH

Callista L. Gingrich is the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.

Read more here:

Persecution of Christians skyrockets worldwide as 360 million oppressed ...

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Persecution of Christians skyrockets worldwide as 360 million oppressed …

HIGHLIGHTS: Notre Dame and Freedom girls basketball overcome double-digit deficits to win – WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

Posted: at 10:00 am

HIGHLIGHTS: Notre Dame and Freedom girls basketball overcome double-digit deficits to win  WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

Continued here:

HIGHLIGHTS: Notre Dame and Freedom girls basketball overcome double-digit deficits to win - WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on HIGHLIGHTS: Notre Dame and Freedom girls basketball overcome double-digit deficits to win – WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

‘Continuity and Consistency’ is the key for first place Freedom Irish girls basketball – WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

Posted: at 10:00 am

'Continuity and Consistency' is the key for first place Freedom Irish girls basketball  WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

Excerpt from:

'Continuity and Consistency' is the key for first place Freedom Irish girls basketball - WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on ‘Continuity and Consistency’ is the key for first place Freedom Irish girls basketball – WGBA NBC 26 in Green Bay

Attack on freedom of expression shows fear of governments, says South African playwright Brett Bailey – The Hindu

Posted: at 10:00 am

Attack on freedom of expression shows fear of governments, says South African playwright Brett Bailey  The Hindu

Read the rest here:

Attack on freedom of expression shows fear of governments, says South African playwright Brett Bailey - The Hindu

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Attack on freedom of expression shows fear of governments, says South African playwright Brett Bailey – The Hindu

Donald Trump Jr.’s Solution To Chinese Balloon Is Deservedly Mocked

Posted: at 9:51 am

Donald Trump Jr. decided not to let reality stop him from offering an impractical solution to that Chinese balloon currently flying over the skies of Montana.

Chinese officials claim the balloon is just for research and not spying, but its presence has some people, such as Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), worried that it is actually carrying bioweapons.

After the Pentagon decided against shooting down the balloon out of concerns of hurting people on the ground, Trump took to Twitter to suggest a plan that may not have been even slightly feasible as anything but red meat for his base.

Former President Donald Trumps eldest son advised Montana citizens to take matters into their own hands and shoot down the balloon themselves:

If Joe Biden and his administration are too weak to do the obvious and shoot down an enemy surveillance balloon perhaps we just let the good people of Montana do their thing I imagine they have the capability and the resolve to do it all themselves.

Yes, he asked Montana residents to shoot their guns in the air at a balloon, and many Twitter users felt obliged to note the idiocy of the suggestion.

Many also pointed out a nagging issue: The balloon is extremely high in the sky.

Some people noted that having bullets falling from the sky after failing to hit a balloon miles above might not be safe for bystanders.

Others pointed to the possibility that the balloon might be holding dangerous cargo.

And one person tweeted that Trumps plan proved he was indeed his fathers son.

See the article here:

Donald Trump Jr.'s Solution To Chinese Balloon Is Deservedly Mocked

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump Jr.’s Solution To Chinese Balloon Is Deservedly Mocked

Donald Trump Prophet Predicts Death of Democrats: ‘You Will See Many Die’

Posted: at 9:51 am

Scott Olson/Getty Images Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally at the I-80 Speedway on May 01, 2022 in Greenwood, Nebraska.

A video of a pro-Trump "prophet" saying that Democrats are going to die and be arrested has begun to circulate on social media.

Pastor Julie Green, who was previously a part of the far-right Christian nationalist ReAwaken America Tour, made the claim in a video she made last week.

Green, who claims her prophecies come directly from God, made the video on February 2, 2023.

The video has since begun circulating on Twitter after being shared by commentator Ron Filipkowski. The video has so far been viewed more than 70,000 times since being posted early Friday morning.

He captioned the video "Trump-loving 'prophet' Julie [Gren] says God told her a bunch of Democrats are going to be arrested."

In the clip she said: "You are about to see many people in leadership step away.

"You will see them step down, you will see them completely walk away, you will see them resign and you will see many die.

"These are days of great judgment the Earth has never seen.

"I made sure to destroy their Gods before their face but now you will see me judge.

"Now you will see judgments be poured out like never before. You will see things in front of your face, you never thought you would see.

"You will see many be hauled out of places in government buildings. You will see them be handcuffed and walked out.

"You will see them being marched out because I will make sure he world sees them fall."

Green has made bold political statement in the past. Following the loss suffered by many MAGA candidates during the midterm elections she claimed that "we are at war."

During an interview in November 2022 with General Mike Flynn, who served as Donald Trump's national security adviser, Green spoke about the ongoing conflict in politics.

She said: "One of the things that we do have to know is that we are in war, and we're in a different war than World War I or World War II. We're in a different war.

"This is a war for the soul of this nation. This is a war for basically the soul of human beings in general."

Green continued that authorities, without naming anyone specifically, want to create a "one-world government" and "put things underneath our skin" to track people.

"There's lots of people who are giving up on this country because of what they just saw for two elections in a row. It's not over.

"And I don't want anybody to think it's over, but it is going to look a little bit differently," she said. "The lord's been saying that it's going to look a little bit worse before it gets better."

Newsweek has contacted Julie Green for comment.

Related Articles

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial

Go here to see the original:

Donald Trump Prophet Predicts Death of Democrats: 'You Will See Many Die'

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump Prophet Predicts Death of Democrats: ‘You Will See Many Die’

How Donald Trumps Unusual Presidential Comeback Could Go

Posted: at 9:51 am

With his November announcement that he would seek the 2024 Republican nomination for president, Donald Trump joined a rarified subsection of a rarified group: a former president who sought a return to the White House.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

With this, former President Gerald Ford announced in March 1980 that he would not make a late entrance into the Republican presidential nomination race after long teasing a potential bid. For decades, this marked the nearest any former president had come to seeking a return to the White House in the modern political era until former President Donald Trump announced his presidential bid in November.

Trumps comeback campaign is unprecedented since the contemporary nomination system took shape in the 1970s. Yet in the broader history of presidential elections, his comeback effort is unusual but not unheard of. Former presidents like Martin Van Buren, Ulysses Grant, Grover Cleveland and Theodore Roosevelt each mounted serious post-presidency campaigns to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue between 1844 and 1912. In fact, five former presidents have won at least some delegates at major-party national conventions, as the table below shows.

Former presidents who won delegate support at a major partys national convention

Largest delegate percentage reflects the largest number of delegate votes won by the former president on a ballot for the presidential nomination, out of the total number of delegate votes at the convention.

*Van Buren earned a majority of the delegate vote on the first ballot at the 1844 Democratic National Convention, but the party required a candidate win two-thirds of the vote to win the nomination at conventions from 1832 to 1932.

The share of delegates that Roosevelt won does not include the approximately three-fourths of Roosevelt-supporting delegates who voted present, not voting on the decisive first ballot, in protest of anti-Roosevelt developments at the 1912 Republican National Convention.

Sources: Brookings Institution, Congressional Quarterly

The American political system has changed enough, at a structural level, that Trump cant expect to retread the paths that any of these men took. And why would he want to? Only one of them successfully made it back to the White House. Still, the broad circumstances surrounding a trio of presidential comeback attempts offer three paths for Trumps 2024 campaign. Like Grant in 1880, Trump could attract ample support for his partys nomination but ultimately fall short after a majority of Republicans coalesce around an opponent. Alternatively, after seeking his partys nomination, Trump could abandon the GOP and launch a third-party bid, as Roosevelt did in 1912. Or Trump could win his partys nomination, as Cleveland did in 1892 and maybe even reclaim the White House.

BETTMAN VIA GETTY IMAGES

If Trump could choose to be in the same shoes as anyone come January 2025, itd be those of Grover Cleveland, the only person ever elected to two nonconsecutive terms as president. Cleveland won the presidency in 1884, lost reelection in 1888, then won back the White House in 1892. Its very hard to say how likely Trump is to win the GOP nomination at this early vantage point, but compared with Cleveland, Trump could have much greater trouble coalescing support from across different factions of his party.

Clevelands comeback developed thanks to a vindication of his views on economic policies. Cleveland, a conservative Democrat, narrowly lost reelection to Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1888 partly because of his support for lower tariff rates, which Republicans criticized. Two years later, though, Democrats won massive majorities in the House after slamming the excesses of the Billion Dollar Congress and connecting rising prices to higher tariffs. Buoyed by the role his core issues played in the 1890 midterm campaign, Cleveland began a comeback bid. His main rival for the Democratic nomination would be Sen. David Hill, a fellow New Yorker who embraced a more pro-silver, inflationary approach to monetary policy a key divide within the party whereas Cleveland opposed weakening gold as the prime guarantor of the dollars value.

But Clevelands profile as a reformer in an era of graft and machine politics also contrasted sharply with Hill, whose reputation as a machine politician loomed as a potential weakness with general-election voters. By the time of the June national convention, Cleveland had become the front-runner, and on the conventions first ballot, he won enough to surpass the two-thirds share necessary to win the nomination. Cleveland went on to defeat Harrison in a rematch of the previous general election, albeit with just 46 percent of the national popular vote, as Harrison led a divided GOP hed struggled to win renomination and third-party efforts by the Populist and Prohibition parties combined to win 11 percent, somewhat scrambling the electoral map.

Jason Koerner / Getty Images for DNC

Clevelands successful comeback offers a precedent and hope for Trumps 2024 campaign. One broad similarity between the two is that Trump, like Cleveland, has remained his partys most high-profile leader after losing a close presidential election. Trumps reshaping of the GOP may not win him the 2024 Republican nomination but its certainly not to the detriment of his candidacy. Under and since Trumps presidency, the Republican Partys congressional membership has changed substantially, and its members are more aligned with Trumps style of politics. Similarly, more than half of the Republican National Committees membership has changed since Trump won the GOP nod in 2016, thanks to an exodus of old-school establishment Republicans. Among the broader electorate, a tad less than 40 percent of Republicans have told The Economist/YouGov in most recent surveys that they identify as a MAGA Republican, compared with a little more than 45 percent who didnt. While larger, that latter group may still embrace some of Trumps anti-establishment and combative approach that other Republicans have used to great effect.

However, Trump and Cleveland do differ in some critical respects. For one thing, Clevelands standing ahead of the 1892 election improved after his partys showing in the 1890 midterms; by contrast, Trumps image has taken a hit in the wake of the GOPs underwhelming performance in the 2022 midterms highlighted by the defeat of many Trump-endorsed candidates in key Senate races. Additionally, concerns about Hills electability in the general election also helped Cleveland build widespread support even among pro-silver southern and western Democrats but Trump might suffer because of worries about his general-election chances. Recent polls suggest another Republican, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, might be a stronger general-election contender against President Biden; although the value of such polls this far from November 2024 is highly suspect, donors and party activists are certainly looking at them.

At the same time, Trump has something going for him that Cleveland didnt: the primary process. Trump doesnt necessarily need to even win electoral majorities in presidential primaries to win a majority of his partys delegates. In 2016, the GOPs preference for primaries and caucuses that were winner-take-all or at least winner-take-most helped Trump win the Republican nomination even though he won only pluralities of the vote in most contests against a crowded field of opponents. We might be headed for a sequel if a sizable number of candidates decide to run in the 2024 Republican contest.

Charles Phelps Cushing / ClassicStock / Getty Images

It is entirely possible, on the other hand, that a majority or larger plurality of Republicans will coalesce around one of Trumps opponents, an outcome that would broadly parallel Ulysses Grants failed bid for the GOP nomination in 1880. Given the two politicians factional support and critics concerns about electability, it is the Grant comparison that arguably looms largest for Trump among those were examining here.

The preeminent hero of the Civil War, Grant left the White House in 1877 after serving two terms. But his image had suffered from his administrations myriad corruption scandals as well as his association with the turbulent Reconstruction era and a deep economic depression. Grants successor, Republican Rutherford Hayes, didnt seek reelection, and favorable press coverage of Grants two-year world tour resuscitated his profile as the 1880 election neared. Grant had support from a faction of the GOP led by a group of political bosses, but he also faced substantial opposition within a party that had lost its once-dominant position following the Civil War. Many Republicans worried that he would struggle to unify the GOP, given his administrations scandals and the fractures that had developed within the party during his presidency.

Like Grant, Trump remains relatively popular among those in his party: His favorability among Republicans sits in the low 70s in Civiqss tracking poll, while only around 15 percent have an unfavorable view of him. While hes lost ground in recent national primary polls, Trump still leads DeSantis and former Vice President Mike Pence Trumps most-polled potential opponents with a plurality across most surveys. And again like Grant, Trump also has received some early backing from Republican officials in Congress and around the country, a departure from Trumps first run back in 2016.

But one potentially critical difference is that Trump could benefit from his partys delegate rules just as he did winning pluralities in the 2016 primaries whereas Grant ended up losing in part because a pivotal rules decision went against him. At the 1880 Republican National Convention, the anti-Grant faction which was larger than the pro-Grant group defeated implementation of the unit rule, which wouldve required delegates to vote for the candidate preferred by most of their states delegation. Grants backers had supported the proposal, which wouldve been analogous to a winner-take-all primary in some delegate-rich states where Grant had the most support, putting him close to the majority necessary for the nomination.

BETTMAN VIA GETTY IMAGES

And unlike in modern times, the classic convention setting also gave Grants opponents a chance to find an alternative choice even one who wasnt actively seeking the presidency. After 35 ballots, as no candidate managed to overtake Grant, some delegates began turning to Ohio Rep. James Garfield, who had earlier made a strong impression when he gave a nominating speech for another candidate. Sensing things were turning toward Garfield and wanting to avoid Grants nomination at all costs, Grants main opponents called for their delegates to back Garfield on the 36th ballot. As the vote came down, Grant again captured more than 300 votes, but Garfield won 399, a majority that earned him the partys nomination and blocked Grants comeback.

However, as with Grant, many current Republican leaders, donors and voters would like to turn the page on the Trump era in the face of the former presidents struggles in the 2022 midterms, as well as legal proceedings concerning his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, his business interests, his personal life and his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Similarly, a majority of Republicans could rally around a Trump alternative, such as DeSantis, whose strengthening poll numbers, support from party leaders and plaudits from conservative media could make him the most likely preference for Trump opponents.

BETTMAN VIA GETTY IMAGES

Last and definitely least likely, Trump could leave the Republican primary race and run as a third-party candidate in 2024. Such a move would undoubtedly bring to mind comparisons with another former president who opted to run outside the two-party system after losing his partys nomination: Teddy Roosevelt, whose unsuccessful run in 1912 remains the strongest performance by a third-party presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Roosevelt became president following the assassination of William McKinley in 1901, and then won four more years in 1904. But having promised not to run again, Roosevelt positioned his handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, to win the Republican nomination and the presidency in 1908. Out of office, however, Roosevelt became frustrated with Tafts more conservative governing approach, and the Republican Partys divisions and losses in the 1910 midterms created space for a Taft opponent one Roosevelt filled when he decided to challenge Taft in the 1912 Republican nomination race.

Leemage / Corbis via Getty Images

The ensuing campaign broke new ground as some states (13 in all) would select most of their convention delegates via a presidential primary. Roosevelt had previously expressed skepticism toward primaries, but he embraced the popular movement to create direct primaries and encouraged many states to implement them as it became apparent they were the only way he could gain more delegates than Taft, whose allies controlled the party machinery in states where delegates would be picked by local and state conventions. In an unprecedented, popular campaign for president, Roosevelt ended up dominating at the ballot box: He won the popular vote in nine of the 12 primaries that had results, garnering 52 percent to Tafts 34 percent overall. However, heading into the 1912 GOP convention, Roosevelts primary success couldnt win the nomination on its own: Only about 2 in 5 Republican delegates came from the primary states (in 2016, that figure was about 4 in 5). Tafts allies also controlled the convention committees, including the credentials committee, which backed the Taft-supporting delegates on most of the numerous credentials challenges that had resulted from the contentious campaign. Taft narrowly won the nomination on the first ballot, so Roosevelts campaign decided to implement the third-party option.

Third-party bids usually struggle, but Roosevelts Progressive Party often called the Bull Moose Party had both serious financial support and proof of popular support demonstrated by his showing in the GOP primaries. In November, Roosevelt went on to win 27 percent of the popular vote to Tafts 23 percent. But because Roosevelt and Taft largely split the Republican vote, Democrat Woodrow Wilson easily won the presidency with just 42 percent.

Third-party candidates for president who won at least 5 percent of the national popular vote, 1832 to present

Source: Dave Leips Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

As with Cleveland and Grant, the political circumstances surrounding Trump and Roosevelt differ on many fronts. For one thing, in the 2024 campaign, Trump wont face an incumbent from his own party like Roosevelt did. Trump will also have far more access than Roosevelt to winning support through primaries, as those contests determined only a minority of delegates at the 1912 GOP convention. But if Trump were to actually pursue a third-party bid, hed likely have to make that choice much earlier in 2024 than Roosevelt had to in 1912, thanks to more rigorous and time-sensitive requirements for qualifying for the general-election ballot across the 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

But while the idea of a Trump third-party bid is unlikely, we cant completely laugh it off. After all, he has repeatedly raised the prospect himself, most recently in late December when he shared on his social media platform an article from a pro-Trump website advocating such a move. This is in keeping with a long-running pattern: Following the 2020 election, Trump talked of a new Patriot Party or MAGA Party, and during the 2016 cycle, Trump complained of being treated unfairly by the GOP hierarchy and suggested he might attempt an independent bid. Although this has perhaps been a bargaining tactic a split GOP vote would all but guarantee victory for Democrats its also true that a Trump third-party bid could win a significant number of votes. More plainly, Trump has often claimed that political opponents are conspiring against him. Roosevelt may have had more cause for such feelings in the face of Tafts control of the convention in 1912, but Roosevelt famously summed up his new partys platform as thou shalt not steal.

Todays presidential primary is night and day from the smoke-filled rooms and convention politics that decided the nominations 100-plus years ago. However, one thing remains true: The rules of the nomination, and how campaigns respond to them, matter. Cleveland won because he managed to unify the party sufficiently including support from those who disagreed with him on silver to win the two-thirds majority required by the Democrats. Grant failed in large part because his campaign couldnt outplay the anti-Grant faction to enact the unit rule. And while Roosevelt won smashing victories in the primaries, that wasnt the main mode of delegate selection yet, and his campaigns inability to make sufficient inroads in caucus-convention states cost him the nomination. For Trump in 2024, the partys delegate rules necessitate winning (at least) pluralities in primaries in the early and middle part of the nomination calendar to build up a delegate lead and to push out rivals. He did it once before it remains to be seen whether the GOPs anti-Trump forces can outmaneuver him this time around.

Story editing by Maya Sweedler. Copy editing by Andrew Mangan. Photo research by Emily Scherer.

Read the rest here:

How Donald Trumps Unusual Presidential Comeback Could Go

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on How Donald Trumps Unusual Presidential Comeback Could Go

The Real Disinformation Was The Russia Disinformation Hoax

Posted: at 9:48 am

(Getty Images)

Thanks to the latest release of the Twitter Files, we now know without a doubt that the entire Russia disinformation racket was a massive disinformation campaign to undermine US elections and perhaps even push regime change inside the United States after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Here is some background. In November, 2016, just after the election, the Washington Post published an article titled, Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, experts say. The purpose of the article was to delegitimize the Trump presidency as a product of a Russian disinformation campaign.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in US democracy and its leaders, wrote Craig Timberg. The implication was clear: a Russian operation elected Donald Trump, not the American people.

Among the experts it cited were an anonymous organization called Prop Or Not, which in its own words claimed to identify more than 200 websites as peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.

The organizations report was so preposterous that the Washington Post was later forced to issue a clarification, even though the Post provided a link to the report which falsely accused independent news outlets like Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and even my Ron Paul Institute as Russian disinformation.

The 2016 Washington Post article also featured expert Clint Watts, a former FBI counterintelligence officer who went on to found another outfit claiming to be hunting Russian disinformation in the US, the Hamilton 68 project. That project was launched by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a very well-funded organization containing a whos who of top neocons like William Kristol, John Podesta, Michael McFaul, and many more.

Thanks to the latest release of the Twitter Files, Matt Taibbi reveals that the Hamilton 68 project, which claimed to monitor 600 Russian disinformation Twitter accounts, was a total hoax. While they refused to reveal which accounts they monitored and would not reveal their methodology, Twitter was able to use reverse-engineering to determine the 600-odd Russian-connected accounts. Twitter found that despite Hamiltons claims, the vast majority of these Russian accounts were English-speaking. Of the Russian registered accounts numbering just 36 out of 644 most were employees of the Russian news outlet RT.

It was all a lie and the latest Twitter Files release confirms that even the woke pre-Musk Twitter employees could smell a rat. But the hoax served an important purpose. Hiding behind anonymity, this neocon organization was able to generate hundreds of media stories slandering and libeling perfectly legitimate organizations and individuals as Russian agents. It provided a very convenient way to demonize anyone who did not go along with the approved neocon narrative.

Twitters new owner, who has given us a look behind the curtain, put it best in a Tweet over the weekend: An American group made false claims about Russian election interference to interfere with American elections.

The whole Russia disinformation hoax was a shocking return to the McCarthyism of the 1950s and in some ways even worse. Making lists of American individuals and non-profits to be targeted and cancelled as being in the pay of foreigners is despicable. Such fraudulent actions have caused real-life damages that need to be addressed.

Courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Read the original:
The Real Disinformation Was The Russia Disinformation Hoax

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on The Real Disinformation Was The Russia Disinformation Hoax

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : The Real …

Posted: at 9:48 am

Thanks to the latest release of the Twitter Files, we now know without a doubt that the entire Russia disinformation racket was a massive disinformation campaign to undermine US elections and perhaps even push regime change inside the United States after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Here is some background. In November, 2016, just after the election, the Washington Post published an article titled, Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, experts say. The purpose of the article was to delegitimize the Trump presidency as a product of a Russian disinformation campaign.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in US democracy and its leaders, wrote Craig Timberg. The implication was clear: a Russian operation elected Donald Trump, not the American people.

Among the experts it cited were an anonymous organization called Prop Or Not, which in its own words claimed to identify more than 200 websites as peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.

The organizations report was so preposterous that the Washington Post was later forced to issue a clarification, even though the Post provided a link to the report which falsely accused independent news outlets like Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and even my Ron Paul Institute as Russian disinformation.

The 2016 Washington Post article also featured expert Clint Watts, a former FBI counterintelligence officer who went on to found another outfit claiming to be hunting Russian disinformation in the US, the Hamilton 68 project. That project was launched by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a very well-funded organization containing a whos who of top neocons like William Kristol, John Podesta, Michael McFaul, and many more.

Thanks to the latest release of the Twitter Files, Matt Taibbi reveals that the Hamilton 68 project, which claimed to monitor 600 Russian disinformation Twitter accounts, was a total hoax. While they refused to reveal which accounts they monitored and would not reveal their methodology, Twitter was able to use reverse-engineering to determine the 600-odd Russian-connected accounts. Twitter found that despite Hamiltons claims, the vast majority of these Russian accounts were English-speaking. Of the Russian registered accounts numbering just 36 out of 644 most were employees of the Russian news outlet RT.

It was all a lie and the latest Twitter Files release confirms that even the woke pre-Musk Twitter employees could smell a rat. But the hoax served an important purpose. Hiding behind anonymity, this neocon organization was able to generate hundreds of media stories slandering and libeling perfectly legitimate organizations and individuals as Russian agents. It provided a very convenient way to demonize anyone who did not go along with the approved neocon narrative.

Twitters new owner, who has given us a look behind the curtain, put it best in a Tweet over the weekend: An American group made false claims about Russian election interference to interfere with American elections.

The whole Russia disinformation hoax was a shocking return to the McCarthyism of the 1950s and in some ways even worse. Making lists of American individuals and non-profits to be targeted and cancelled as being in the pay of foreigners is despicable. Such fraudulent actions have caused real-life damages that need to be addressed.

Read the original post:
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : The Real ...

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : The Real …