Category Archives: Liberal

Mark Meadows came to the West Wing with big plans, hoping his friendship with President Trump would help him avoid turbulence. Then reality and the coronavirus pandemic hit.

The $1.4 million in Facebook ads is likely just a fraction of the money behind the Courier project, which includes a newsroom of at least 25 people and eight separate websites with content often focused on local issues in presidential swing states. But this activity creating an unregulated advertising stream promoting Democratic officeholders, more akin to a PAC than a newsroom diverges from other partisan news outlets that are proliferating online as local newspapers struggle.

And in setting up the enterprise, Acronym a sprawling digital organization whose programs include millions of dollars in traditional political advertising and voter engagement efforts, with financing from some of the deepest pockets in progressive politics, such as liberal billionaires Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, and Laurene Powell Jobs, the majority owner of The Atlantic has stirred outrage and provoked debate about the ethics of such political tactics and the future of the press.

Backers believe they are simply ahead of the curve. Courier, they say, is where news is heading in the Wild West of social media, where partisan stories often thrive and the old business model is failing. With public-facing editorial standards similar to other media organizations, Courier is an answer to the deluge of false partisan content consumers face, they argue. They also point to the long history of explicitly partisan news outlets in the U.S. and elsewhere.

More quality reporting with integrity even if it has a partisan bent and as long as that bent is disclosed anything to combat the spread of misinformation is important, said Nicco Mele, the former director Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, who is supportive of Courier.

But while some Democratic operatives concede the premise that their party needs to be more competitive online, they believe Courier and Acronyms tactics are unethical but also ineffective given the high cost.

Courier is not the first to experiment with versions of this model, but it is likely the most robust attempt so far. In 2014, the Republican Partys congressional campaign arm set up news sites that criticized Democrats and bought ads on Google to promote the pieces. At the time, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blasted the Republicans for deception. Asked if they approved of Couriers 2020 tactics boosting their members, the DCCC did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

We look forward to Democrats denouncing these dark money fake news groups meddling in our elections, said Bob Salera, a spokesperson for the National Republican Campaign Committee, who said the party no longer operates such sites. Since they represent everything Democrats claim to oppose in politics, this should be an easy call.

Couriers operations differ from the NRCC in that it is a for-profit newsroom, and election law doesnt regulate the press due to its First Amendment protections. As a result, Courier raises new digital-age questions about what is and is not a news organization questions that political ad regulators are unlikely to answer, according to election experts, leaving this murky space open for abuse, said Brendan Fischer, the federal reform director at the Campaign Legal Center.

I dont know how the FEC would treat Courier because the media exemption is the third rail of campaign finance, Fischer said. Neither the Democrats or Republicans want to be in the business of determining what is a media entity."

So far, Couriers web traffic has been light. Its signature site is ranked 76,004 in the United States, according to the Amazon-owned Alexa, and has under 6,000 likes on Facebook. The organization did not release any other traffic information. Its most-watched video on YouTube, with over 570,000 views, was a well-reported story showcasing Amazons ability to place laudatory stories about itself in local news broadcasts. But the next most-viewed video only had about 2,500 views, and the companys laudatory clips of their favorite congressional candidates have far less than that. Its YouTube channel has just 735 subscribers.

While campaign finance watchdogs worry about the trend of dark money influencing American politics and media experts say that Courier and similar endeavors only further undermine trust in news and shared facts, Courier and their supporters dismiss these concerns as liberal hand-wringing more concerned with being pure than with winning.

Coupling original, fact-based reporting with paid content distribution, Courier is reaching Americans in their newsfeeds and is providing a powerful counter to conservative misinformation which dominates platforms like Facebook, Courier Newsroom COO Rithesh Menon said in a statement through an Acronym spokesperson. Were so proud of what Courier has built in its first year, and hope others in the progressive space invest in this type of digital media ecosystem - because the Right has for years.

Courier and Acronym did not make anyone available for an on-the-record interview. After publication, Acronym's founder and CEO Tara McGowan wrote on Twitter that "Courier's reporters would also never publish drag pieces with anonymous critics that further weaken the standards of journalism just for cheap clicks to make their stakeholders richer [shrug emoji] but you know, here's to journalistic integrity!"

Go here to see the original:

Newsroom or PAC? Liberal group muddies online information wars - POLITICO

OTTAWA -- Federal opposition parties are continuing to demand answers from the federal government, and are calling for a quick solution to revive or rework the now-halted $900 million student summer grant program.

The program was initially awarded to WE Charity, prompting a series of headlines calling into question Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus ethics and the potential conflict of interest he and his finance minister may have put themselves in by not recusing themselves from the decision making table on the deal, given their close family connections to the organization.

On Monday both Trudeau and minister Bill Morneau apologized for their part in the controversy and vowed to recuse themselves from any WE Charity discussions in the future, though the federal ethics commissioner is still looking into the matter, and various House of Commons committees plan to continue to hear testimony and seek evidence that could further shed light on how this sole-sourced contract came about.

The government insists it was the public service that suggested WE Charity was the best, and only organization to administer the program, though now government departments and agencies are being looked at as alternatives to execute the program that was created to offer students grants for summer volunteer work related to COVID-19.

While the government has vowed to rework the program as quickly as possible, after WE Charity handed back over the program to the government along with the funding, thousands of students are left in limbo without summer jobs and, for now, no chance for volunteer grants to help cover costs like fall tuition.

This has prompted the Green Party to suggest shifting the funds to the Canada Summer Jobs program instead, a pre-existing program that connects young people to temporary job opportunities in their communities. That program was deemed oversubscribed this summer and the government has already put additional funding into it.

There are thousands of Canadian students who need jobs and thousands of Canadian charities and nonprofits which are dealing with a decline in revenue and an increase in demand in services that could benefit from students working with them. Organizations that applied through WE should be allowed to move their application to Canada Summer Jobs, Green Party parliamentary leader Elizabeth May said in a statement.

The grant to post-secondary students and recent graduates was designed to provide one-time payments of up to $5,000 for volunteering in pandemic-related programs, depending on the number of hours worked. For every 100 hours spent, a student would receive $1,000.

The whole premise of the Canada Student Service Grant was problematic, said Green Party MP and employment critic Paul Manly in the same statement, noting that the amount being offered for the volunteer work was less than the minimum wage in any province.

Students would not gain any EI eligible hours or have this de facto employment recognized next spring if there is another wave of the pandemic and a need for further financial relief programs, he said.

Diversity, Inclusion and Youth Minister Bardish Chagger said on CTV News Channel on Monday that the government will not be able to deliver the program to the same extent as was originally planned when WE Charity was involved.

"There was thousands of opportunities that were posted Right now we are looking to get the program out the door once again, looking at what needs to be done us to be able to deliver this program," she said.

Brandon Amyot was one of the students who was banking on volunteering through the program to help pay down their student debt. While the government says volunteer hours through to the end of October will count, by then many students will be back in class and preparing for the first round of midterms.

Amyot said WE Charitys involvement and the inference that students would only volunteer if paid was also a concern. It leaves me questioning how I am supposed to get through school, Amyot said. It weakens my trust in institutions in general when these sort of avoidable things happen.

Other students have opted to bypass the federal process altogether and set up their own volunteer positions, hoping that the federal government will still compensate them for those hours once the programs problems are sorted.

I dont even know if Ill still get compensated for my volunteering, said Jake Chabut, a student volunteer in Guelph, Ont.

Meanwhile, thousands of students like Kevin Caswell have not heard a word about their application.

I think its frustrating not knowing whats happening, the Carleton University student said. Were jut kept in the dark.

In a press conference on Parliament Hill on Tuesday, Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet doubled down on his call for Trudeau to temporarily step aside and let Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland take the reigns of Canadas COVID-19 response as the ethics probe into his potential conflict of interest is concluded.

I believe that now his attention is much more on his personal situation than about helping and taking care of Canadians and Quebecers. That by itself is a good reason for him to step aside, he said.

Though, given the ongoing health and economic crisis, Blanchet said now is not the time for an election so the Bloc Quebecois is not looking to bring down the minority Liberal government.

He wants to see Trudeau testify at the House of Commons Finance Committee, where one probe of the controversy is already underway. Speaking in French, however, he rejected the Conservative calls for an RCMP investigation, saying that its wrong for the Tories to think they can order a police investigation as if it was placing an order for a pizza.

With a report from CTV News Molly Thomas and CTVNews.ca Writer Ben Cousins

Originally posted here:

Opposition demand answers and action for students following Liberal WE apologies - CTV News

The world may be reaching a dangerous inflection point for liberalism. According to the latest reports from Freedom House, over the last 15 years the share of unfree countries in the world has risen while the share of free countries has dropped. Today, government deficits are spiking in response to the publics demand for intervention to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, and some warn that authoritarian leaders are seizing the opportunity to expand their control.

Still, this may be a time when liberalism starts to gain ground, not lose it. A new study by World Bank economists, drawing on data from 190 economies spanning the last 15 years, finds that fiscal crisesof the sort created by the pandemic in countries around the worldare likely to spur liberal reforms, particularly in the economic policy areas of property, investment, and trade.

How liberal advocates act on this glimmer of hope will be crucial. Post-Cold War efforts to spread liberal democracy have disappointed to date. Instead of ushering in the end of history, as Francis Fukuyama predicted in 1989, a know-it-all approach to proselytizing liberal institutions to other countries has engendered widespread resentment toward Western influences. And yet, its more complicated. The political scientists Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes recently argued that we should think of that resentment not as a rejection of liberalism, per se, but as an indignant reaction to its perceived imposition.

Whats the lesson here? Liberals must stop thinking of liberalism as theirs alone to give. Instead, they should recognize it as a universal ideal that has roots in many different traditions and cultures. It is on such foundations that enduring liberal institutions can be built in diverse places.

Extensive research on institutional change bears that out. There is a saying: People support what they help create. For liberal institutions to stick in new places, they must not be mere knockoffs of institutions that grew elsewhere. The Wests own liberal democratic institutions, including the division of powers, property rights, freedom of exchange, free speech, and public deliberation, are idiosyncratic versions of liberal ideals, but not the ideals themselves. They are successful, but theyre works in progress. They are worthy of thoughtful study, but theyre not suited for franchise-like plug and play.

This should prompt a tectonic shift in the foreign aid approach to development. A growing number of voices within development circles have been trying to do just that. They advocate a localization agenda, which means shrinking the role and influence of foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations and narrowing their focus to a few areas where they are better suited to help, such as information-sharing and providing operating support for local NGOs to increase their capacity to lead change for themselves.

With widespread belt-tightening across the development sector due to the coronavirus pandemic, including at major institutions such as Oxfam and the U.K. Department for International Development, such a radical change has become thinkable, perhaps even imminent, in a way we would not have imagined a year ago. This may provide a short window to permanently curb the undue influence of outsiders on local development questions.

Thats not to suggest a pure agnosticism about what to support abroad. Liberal reforms and liberal institutions should remain the priority. The same logic that commends federalism and its principles of subsidiarity applies equally to development work in other countries: Decentralization works. But if foreigners continue to hold the reins, even unwittingly, their efforts will continue to breed resentment and, more importantly, fail to serve local needs.

For maximum effect, we should look to private philanthropy for most grant-making to foreign NGOs. Voluntary nongovernmental philanthropy is less liable to special-interest distortions and political manipulation. Just as importantly, private philanthropy can be less rigid about predetermined compliance requirements.

Such flexibility is important. Through the grant-making our organization has administered to think tanks and other NGOs in recent years, we have learned to hold our tongues and listen. We invite our grantees to tell us whats possible, whats important, how they will do it, and, most importantly, how they will measure meaningfully their success for the projects they are proposing.

That model fits best with what we know about the diffusion of good ideas and practices. In their study on Regulatory Reforms after Covid-19, Simeon Djankov and other World Bank economists also found that countries that share borders or that trade heavily with each other are more likely to adopt for themselves the reforms of their neighbors and commercial partners. They see with their own eyes the successes and failures in neighboring countries and can, on their own initiative, decide for themselves what changes to pursue and how best to pursue them.

Decentralized liberalism is a prudent strategy for navigating this time of great uncertainty. In 2020, we have seen the limits of centralized models at work. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the Internal Revenue Service to the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and, at the global level, the United Nations World Health Organization, big institutions have failed. Its a stark reminder that there are very real limits to the types of problems that distant authorities are able to solve, no matter how well-funded or well-trained they are.

Early in this crisis, the Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates invested billions of dollars in seven different vaccine candidates simultaneously knowing that, at best, one or two might work. Gates knows what a big mistake it can be to place all your bets on one unproven solution. Not only does it raise the stakes considerably if you get it wrong, but it also severely limits any opportunities for learning, since there are no alternative results for comparison.

Liberal economies, with their presumption of decentralized decision-making, allow fast-acting, widespread, uncoordinated experimentation and learning. That model takes advantage of centralized knowledge and expertise, to be sure, but it also integrates the dispersed knowledge the rest of us possess about our individual circumstances. People close to the problems can find solutions that actually work, long before a large and distant bureaucracy ever could.

Our instinct when facing fear and uncertainty is to shift the tough decisions to the experts and to insist on one uniformand presumably bestsolution to our diverse problems. Experts play important roles in collating and disseminating knowledge, but they cannot know enough to successfully conjure up one great solution for us all. Its the lesson we have learned in our failed attempt to install liberal democracies throughout the world. In this moment of crisis, we now have a second chance to get it right. Lets keep making history.

Here is the original post:

The Pandemic Could Be the Crisis Liberalism Needed - Foreign Policy

When I started my first newspaper job with this paper 15 years ago, I saw conflicts of interest everywhere. I forget now what the exact issue was, but it was something with then-mayor Jim Davidson being involved in some enterprise that was on the council agenda.

I took it to the editor and his response was basically that in a town of 5,000 people, if being involved in things that eventually town council was going to have to vote on disqualified a person for office, we would not have a town council.

Of course, in these matters the problem is not that a potential conflict exists, but how the officeholder in question handles it.

As it turned out, Davidson did the right thing and recused himself.

So far, Ive tried to cut our prime minister a bit of slack, mainly because I shudder at the prospect of any of the alternatives to a Liberal government right now.

Merely by the celebrity of the Trudeau family, potential conflicts of interest are going to arise, as one did last week when the federal ethics commissioner opened yet another investigation over Justin Trudeaus role in awarding a $19.5 million sole-source contract to the WE charity to administer the $912 million Canada Student Service Grant program.

The WE organization hires all kinds of speakers, performers and leaders for events intended to inspire youth to take local action for global change. Two of those speakers over the past four years were Trudeaus mother Margaret and brother Alexandre (Sacha) who were paid $250,000 and $32,500 respectively.

His wife, Sophie Grgoire Trudeau is an ambassador for the organization.

On top of that, finance minister Bill Morneau is also drawing criticism because one of his daughters works with WE.

Im not convinced anything overtly nefarious happened here. There is a big difference between corruption and conflict of interest. The public service has said it was their recommendation to award the contract.

But good gracious, the cabinet still had to rubber-stamp it and at the very least two seasoned public figures should know, at the very least, to recuse themselves, especially after being sanctioned twice by the ethics commissioner.

What happened to transparency and doing politics differently?

I find it extremely discouraging that we cant get beyond these kinds of simple ethics issues. Weve had 153 years of political scandals from both of the seesawing governing parties. Can we ever expect something different? Is human nature really that intractable?

I have lots of friends who despise Trudeau. They believe he is only prime minister because of his celebrity. Theres some truth to that. There were better candidates in the Liberal leadership race, but its doubtful any of them could have won the election in 2015, or at least a majority government.

My Trudeau-despising friends think he is entitled, narcissistic, incompetent and insincere.

Its getting pretty hard to argue with that, not that I have ever whole-heartedly defended him, my only real defence being that the Liberals as a whole are the lesser of evils.

Of course, all the opposition calls for criminal investigations and for Trudeau to resign are political posturing. Ultimately, he will get his knuckles rapped for a third time and his fate will be in the hands of public opinion when the next federal election rolls around.

Unfortunately, at this point, I still dont see a viable alternative emerging.

Someone, please prove me wrong.

Go here to read the rest:

Oh, for a viable alternative to the Liberals - Smithers Interior News

Beinart is the High Priest of the Jewish American left. He is also J Street's unofficial ideolog. His is a perplexing notion.

You can argue about the rights of the Kurds to have an independent state or the Catalans, but there is no precedent in these times, to rescind an already existing state.

We clashed Beinart and I in 2005 in London, in a public debate. He presented the positions of a liberal Zionist, so I chose not to remind him of the pogrom tweet. Afterall one can make a mistake. A liberal Zionist is a person who has criticism of the Israeli government but does not deny its right to exist. A liberal is respectful of the right for self-determination on both sides. Beinart is no Zionist and is certainly not a liberal.

Not all of Beinart's claims are invalid. The settler movement has been trying to bring about a one-state solution to the question of the West Bank and enjoy the support of part of the Israeli government.

They are promoting the notion that the settlement movement has succeeded in upending the chances for a two-state solution, but that is not the case.

Today the settlements occupy 1.5% of the West Bank and have municipal reserves that would include 7.9% of the territory. Most Israelis oppose even a partial annexation unless it is part of a peace deal.

Ma'ale Adumin settlement on the West Bank

(: AFP)

But Beinart is throwing the baby away with the bathwater. He negates the rights of Jews to an independent state because a minority of them oppose the rights of Palestinians to have the same. He supports the far-right policies of settlers from his position on the left. The French call it " Les extrmes se touchent," The opposite ends meet.

Beinart refuses to explain how what had failed in Yugoslavia, that broke apart into seven separate entities after decades of unity, would work for Israelis and Palestinians, and how what is failing in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and is barely hanging on in Belgium would thrive between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

In what reality could two groups that have so much animosity, follow different religions, different languages, culture, and tradition succeed in existing in peace and harmony?

The situation we are living with now, which is in need of change, would seem like heaven on earth compared to the nightmarish prospect of a one-state solution.

Calls to exterminate Jews come not only from the Hamas terror group. They can be heard from members of the Palestinian Authority including its religious leader, who like his predecessor in the 1930s the pro-Nazi Amin al-Husseini, calls not only for the destruction of Israel but the extermination of Jews.

Beinart is mum in the face of those calls.

The Middle East is ripe with conflicts of national, ethnic, tribal, and religious groups waging war, slaughtering each other. But Beinart is mum in the face of that too.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, President Clinton and Yasser Arafat sign the Oslo Accords at the White House

(Photo: Reuters)

These words were soon followed by a massive wave of terror attacks. Beinart wrote nothing about that. Nor did he write about the Palestinian rejection of former prime minister Ehud Barak's offer of an independent Palestinian state in 2,000, or their rejection of the Clinton initiative to end the conflict - that same year, or the solution offered by Ehud Olmert when he was prime minister in 2008. They also rejected President Obama's proposal in 2014.

Why does Beinart only hold the Jews responsible for the ongoing Israeli control of the West Bank? Why has he never laid blame on the Palestinians? Relieving them from any responsibility is racist and condescending.

Jews have lived side by side with Moslems before. It had most often ended with persecution and expulsion. How can it now be expected to work? How can he and the far-right settlers believe that one big state would succeed where no other similar political entity had?

The Islamist movement Hamas is already gaining strength among Palestinians and according to the latest polling has 41% support. Is this terrorist group now expected to become part of a democratically governed entity?

A clear majority of Israelis and Palestinians reject the notion of a one-state solution that will end the conflict. But Beinart pays no attention to that fact because he believes his idea would invigorate the Palestinian cause. But to what end?

He is not motivated by a respect for the rights of both sides, he is fighting against the rights of one nation, out of all the nations in the world.

-A Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement's demonstration in New York

His words carry weight in some quarters in the West but there is nothing new in his message. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) campaign for the same thing and has been rejected as anti-Semitic by the European Union, the German parliament, the British Labour Party and elsewhere.

Denying the right of Jews to a national homeland is anti-Semitism.

Beinart is not Anti-Semitic. His intentions are different, but his position assists the anti-Semitic campaign.

A one-state solution works when it is made up of two nations that share the same roots, religion, language, and culture. Even the same family. Jordan's population that includes a Palestinian majority is a case in point. You would be hard-pressed to find the differences among Jordanians. Not that Beinart has considered that option.

He is not motivated by concern for the Palestinians or their rights. He is following the herd of anti-Zionists that has overtaken progressive thinking and is based on an industry of lies.

Beinart's column is another small win for the Israeli far-right and some Palestinians, who oppose to a two-state solution. He is not promoting peace and reconciliation.

The far-right deals in action as they work to achieve this nightmarish vision of one great state now supported by Beinart's words and ideas as part of their own propaganda.

Read the rest here:

Peter Beinart is neither a Zionist nor a liberal - Ynetnews

Editor:

The Shenandoah County School Board recently voted in favor of a resolution to retire the names of two local schools. The necessity of such an endeavor may be debated in accordance with varying viewpoints. Personally, I stand in opposition to the change along with all other liberal attempts to control society. Five of six School Board members made an arbitrary decision with next to no public commentary. Their method of operation would cause dictators, past and present, to swoon with admiration and envy.

Vote November 2021 to replace three School Board members. It is time to stand up to and stop this insidious liberal incursion that seeks to annihilate every aspect of all things conservative and decent, and I am not just talking about school names.

Michael Wakeman, Edinburg

View original post here:

Letter to the Editor: Stop the liberal incursion | Nvdaily | nvdaily.com - Northern Virginia Daily

Students of means can distribute food from food banks. They can mobilize voters. They can organize social media campaigns for advocacy groups and child care for essential workers and reading lists for libraries. If youre a volunteer for six months, she points out, in many places you can just take over the damn organization.

They can help remove Donald J. Trump from office. Theres an idea.

Darling notes that finding a way to be useful will be especially valuable (if challenging) to this generation, which hasnt had much experience in structuring its own time many of her students have been overscheduled since birth and often conceives of identity-building as a process of self-examination, rather than simple doing. Theyll also have a chance to discover the importance of civic engagement at a time when its in severe decline.

The irony is lovely: While social distancing, they can develop habits that will ensure they wont spend their adulthood bowling alone, to borrow the political scientist Robert Putnams shorthand for our disengaged lives.

Of course, most students already know what it means to be useful. A 2018 report from Georgetown University found that 70 percent of full-time college students work. Those in community college, for instance, are generally older and come from low-income homes. Many take for granted that theyll be organizing their educations around work and parenting schedules. One can only hope that asynchronous learning will to them be a boon. Its much easier to care for your kids and hold down a day job if youre liberated from the tyranny of a fixed lecture schedule.

But that assumes they can afford the technology and have internet access. Many students, at community colleges and elsewhere, now do not. Others find themselves in households with one or two unemployed family members, and its suddenly on them to make ends meet which may or may not mean dropping out. Its a burden that, like so many others right now, is disproportionately afflicting African-Americans and Latinos.

Having the chance to be useful not to their families, but to the world is a luxury at this moment. Students ought to embrace it. They may be astonished by what they find.

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

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

View original post here:

Dear Liberal Arts Students: Seize This Moment - The New York Times

Jul 9th 2020

LIBERALISMthe Enlightenment philosophy, not the American leftstarts with the assertion that all human beings have equal moral worth. From that stem equal rights for all. Libertarians see those principles as paramount. For left-leaning liberals, equal moral worth also brings an entitlement to the resources necessary for an individual to flourish.

Yet when it comes to race many liberals have failed to live up to their own values. We hold these truths to be self-evident, wrote Thomas Jefferson in Americas Declaration of Independence in 1776, that all men are created equal. More than a decade later the Founding Fathers would write into the countrys constitution that a slave was in fact to be considered three-fifths of a person. In Europe many liberals opposed slavery but supported despotic imperial rule overseas. Perhaps liberal theory and liberal history are ships passing in the night, speculated Uday Singh Mehta of the City University of New York in 1999.

What lies behind this failure? That question is especially important today. Norms are shifting fast. The global protests that sprang up after the killing of George Floyd denounced racism throughout society. Companies, often pressed by their own employees, are in a panic about their lack of diversity, particularly at the top. Television stations and the press are rewriting the rules about how news should be covered and by whom. There is a fight over statuary and heritage, just as there is over people forced out of their jobs or publicly shamed for words or deeds deemed racist.

It is a defining moment. At Mr Floyds funeral, the Rev Al Sharpton declared: Its time to stand up in Georges name and say, Get your knee off our necks. At Mount Rushmore on July 3rd, President Donald Trump condemned a new far-left fascism. To understand all this, it is worth going back to the battle of ideas. In one corner is liberalism, with its tarnished record, and in the other the anti-liberal theories emerging from the campus to challenge it.

During the past two centuries life in the broadest terms has been transformed. Life expectancy, material wealth, poverty, literacy, civil rights and the rule of law have changed beyond recognition. Though that is not all thanks to Enlightenment liberals, obviously, liberalism has prospered as Marxism and fascism have failed.

But its poor record on race, especially with regard to African-Americans, stands out. Income, wealth, education and incarceration remain correlated with ethnicity to a staggering degree. True, great steps have been taken against overt racial animus. But the lack of progress means liberals must have either tried and failed to create a society in which people of all races can flourish, or failed to try at all.

Americas founding depended on two racist endeavours. One was slavery, which lasted for almost 250 years and was followed by nearly a century of institutionalised white supremacy. Of the seven most important Founding Fathers, only John Adams and Alexander Hamilton did not at some point own slaves. Nine early American presidents were slaveholders. And although slavery is a near-universal feature of pre-Enlightenment societies, the Atlantic slave trade is notable for having been tied to notions of racial superiority.

The other was imperialism, when British colonialists violently displaced existing people. Many 18th-century European liberals criticised the search for empire. Adam Smith viewed colonies as expensive failures of monopoly and mercantilism that benefited neither side, calling Britains East India Company plunderers. Edmund Burke (a liberal in the broadest sense) decried the outrageous injustices in British colonies, including systematick iniquity and oppression in India, which resulted from power that was unaccountable to those over whom it was exercised.

But, argues Jennifer Pitts of the University of Chicago in her book A Turn to Empire, in the 19th century the most famous European liberals gravitated towards imperial liberalism. The shift was grounded in the growing triumphalism of France and Britain, which saw themselves as qualified by virtue of their economic and technological success to disseminate universal moral and cultural values. John Stuart Mill abhorred slavery, writing during the American civil war in 1863 that I cannot look forward with satisfaction to any settlement but complete emancipation. But of empire he wrote that Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. (Mill worked for the East India Company for 35 years.) Alexis de Tocqueville championed the French empire, in particular the violent conquest and settlement of Algeria.

A belief in the basic similarity of human beings, and of their march towards progress, led these thinkers to the belief that it was possible to accelerate development at the barrel of a gun. Even at the time, this paternalism should have been tempered by scepticism about whether it can be just for one people to impose government on another. Although Mill criticised the British empires atrocities, he did not see them, as Burke had, as the inevitable consequence of an unaccountable regime.

The turn in liberal thought was reflected in the pages of The Economist. From its founding in 1843 the newspaper opposed slavery, and early in its existence it criticised imperialism. But we later backed the Second Opium War against China, the brutal suppression of the 1857 Indian mutiny and even the invasion of Mexico by France in 1861. We wrote that Indians were helpless...to restrain their own superstitions and their own passions. Walter Bagehot, editor from 1861 to 1877, wrote that the British were the most enterprising, the most successful, and in most respects the best, colonists on the face of the earth. Although the newspaper never ceased to oppose slavery, it claimed, bizarrely, that abolition would be more likely were the Confederacy to win Americas civil war. It was not until the early 20th century that The Economist regained some of its scepticism regarding empire, as liberalism at home evolved into a force for social reform.

In America the big liberal shift took place in the mid-1960s. To deal with the legacy of slavery, liberals began to concede that you need to treat the descendants of slaves as members of a group, not only as individuals. Sandra Day OConnor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, argued that affirmative action, though a breach of liberal individualism that must eventually be dispensed with, had to stay until there was reasonable equality of opportunity between groups.

Plenty of thinkers grappled with affirmative action, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a politician, sociologist and diplomat, and Ronald Dworkin, a philosopher and jurist. However, the most famous left-liberal work of the 20th century, written in 1971, was notably silent on race. The key idea of John Rawlss A Theory of Justice is the veil of ignorance, behind which people are supposed to think about the design of a fair society without knowing their own talents, class, sex or indeed race. Detached from such arbitrary factors people would discover principles of justice. But what is the point, modern critics ask, of working out what a perfectly just society looks like without considering how the actual world is ravaged by injustice?

Liberalism as it is theorised abstracts away from social oppression, writes Charles Mills, also of the City University of New York. The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, a roughly 600-page book published in 2002, has no chapter, section or subsection dealing with race. The central debates in the field as presented, writes Mr Mills, exclude any reference to the modern global history of racism versus anti-racism.

As the gains of the civil-rights era failed to translate into sustained progress for African-Americans, dissatisfaction with liberalism set in. One of the first to respond was Derrick Bell, a legal scholar working at Harvard in the 1970s. Critical race theory, which fused French post-modernism with the insights of African-Americans like Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist and former slave, and W.E.B. Du Bois, a sociologist, then emerged.

Critical race theory first focused on the material conditions of black Americans and on developing tools to help them win a fair hearing in the courtroom. One is intersectionality, set out in a defining paper in 1991 by Kimberl Crenshaw, another legal scholar and civil-rights campaigner. A black woman could lose a case of discrimination against an employer who could show that he did not discriminate against black men or white women, she explains. The liberal, supposedly universalist, legal system failed to grasp the unique intersection of being both a woman and black.

In the three decades since that paper was written, critical race theory has flourished, spreading to education, political science, gender studies, history and beyond. HR departments use its terminology. Allusions to white privilege and unconscious bias are commonplace. Over 1,000 CEOs, including those of firms such as JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer and Walmart, have joined an anti-racism coalition and promised that their staff will undertake unconscious-bias training (the evidence on its efficacy is limited). Critical race theory informs the claim that the aim of journalism is not objectivity but moral clarity.

Yet as critical race theory has grown, a focus on discourse and power has tended to supersede the practicalities. That has made it illiberal, even revolutionary.

The philosophical mechanics that bolt together critical race theory can be obscure. But the approach is elegantly engineered into bestselling books such as How To Be An Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo.

One thing that the popular synthesis preserves is its contempt for the liberal view of how to bring about social and moral progress. To understand why, you need to start with how ordinary words take on extraordinary meanings. Racism is not bigotry based on the colour of your skin. Races, Mr Kendi writes, are fundamentally power identities and racism is the social and institutional system that sustains whites as the most powerful group. That is why white supremacy alludes not to skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan, but, as Ms DiAngelo explains, the centrality and superiority of whites in society.

Some acts also have an unfamiliar significance. Talking to someone becomes a question of power. The identity of the speaker matters because speech is not neutral. It is either bad (ie, asserting white supremacy, and thus shoring up todays racist institutions), or it is good (ie, offering solidarity to victims of oppression or subverting white power). The techniques of subversion, called criticism, unpack speech to reveal how it is problematicthat is, the ways in which it is racist.

Speech is unfamiliar in another way, too. When you say something, what counts is not what you mean but how you are heard. A privileged person sees the world from their own viewpoint alone. Whites cannot fully understand the harm they cause. By contrast, the standpoint of someone who is oppressed gives them insight into both their own plight and the oppressors world-view, too. To say that whiteness is a standpoint, Ms DiAngelo writes, is to say that a significant aspect of white identity is to see oneself as an individual, outside or innocent of racejust human.

Black people can also find themselves in the wrong. What if two black people hear a white person differently and disagree over whether he was racist? Critical race theorists might point out that there are many sorts of oppression. In 1990 Angela Harris, a legal scholar, complained that feminism treated black and white women as if their experience were the same. By being straight and male, say, the listener belongs to groups that are dominant along some axis other than race. The way out of oppression is through the recognition and empowerment of these group identities, not their neglect. Or one of them may have failed to grasp the underlying truth of how racism is perpetuated by society. If so, that person needs to be educated out of their ignorance. The heartbeat of racism is denial, Mr Kendi writes, the heartbeat of anti-racism is confession.

These ideas have revolutionary implications. One result of seeing racism embedded all around you is a tendency towards a pessimistic attitude to progress. Bell concluded that reform happens only when it suits powerful white interests. In 1991 he wrote: Even those Herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than temporary peaks of progress, short-lived victories that slide into irrelevance as practical patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance.

The second implication is that well-meaning white people are often enemies. Colour-blind whites deny societys structural racism. Ms DiAngelo complains that White peoples moral objection to racism increases their resistance to acknowledging their complicity in it. IntegrationistsMr Kendis term for those who want black culture and society to integrate with whiterob black people of the identity they need to fight racism. He accuses them of lynching black cultures.

Where does this leave liberalism? Cynical Theories, a forthcoming book by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, two writers, argues that the two systems of thought are incompatible. One reason is that the constellation of postmodern thinking dealing with race, gender, sexuality and disability, which they call Theory, disempowers the individual in favour of group identities, claiming that these alignments are necessary to end oppression. Another is Theorists belief that power is what forces out entrenched interests. But this carries the risk that the weak will not prevail, or that if they do, one dominant group will be replaced by another. By contrast, liberals rely on evidence, argument and the rule of law to arm the weak against the strong. A third reason is that Theory stalls liberal progress. Without the machinery of individual equality fired up by continual debate, the engine will not work.

But what will? The appeal of critical race theoryor at least its manifestation in popular writingis partly that it confidently prescribes what should be done to fight injustice. It provides a degree of absolution for those who want to help. White people may never be able to rid themselves of their racism, but they can dedicate themselves to the cause of anti-racism.

Liberals have no such simple prescription. They have always struggled with the idea of power as a lens through which to view the world, notes Michael Freeden of Oxford University. They often deny that groups (rather than individuals) can be legitimate political entities. And so liberal responses to critical race theory can seem like conservative apathy, or even denial.

Tommie Shelby of Harvard University, who sees himself as both a critical race theorist and a liberal, argues that scepticism regarding liberalisms power to redress racial inequality is rooted in the mistaken idea that liberalism isnt compatible with an egalitarian commitment to economic justice. Mr Shelby has argued that the Rawlsian principle of fair equality of opportunity can mean taking great strides towards a racially just society. That includes not just making sure that formal procedures, such as hiring practices, are non-discriminatory. It also includes ensuring that people of equal talent who make comparable efforts end up with similar life prospects, eventually eradicating the legacy of past racial injustices.

This would be a huge programme that might involve curbing housing segregation, making schooling more equal and giving tax credits (see Briefing). That is not enough for Mr Mills, another liberal and critical race theorist. He wants liberal thinkers to produce theories of rectificatory justicesay, a version of the veil of ignorance behind which people are aware of discrimination and the legacy of racial hierarchy. Liberals might then be more willing to tolerate compensation for past violations. They might also demand a reckoning with their past failures.

The problem is thorniest for libertarians who resist redistributive egalitarian schemes, regardless of the intention behind them. But even some of the most committed, such as Robert Nozick, concede that their elevation of property rights makes sense only if the initial conditions under which property was acquired were just. Countries in which the legacy of racial oppression lives on in the distribution of wealth patently fail to meet that test. Putting right that failure, Mr Mills says, should be supported in principle by liberals across the spectrum.

Plenty of people are trying to work out what that entails, but the practicalities are formidable. Having failed adequately to grapple with racial issues, liberals find themselves in a political moment that demands an agenda which is both practically and politically feasible. The risk is that they do not find one.

This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline "In the balance"

See the rest here:

Enlightenment liberalism is losing ground in the debate about race - The Economist

WASHINGTON (AP) Joe Biden stood in a Pennsylvania metal works shop, just miles from his boyhood home, and pledged to define his presidency by a sweeping economic agenda beyond anything Americans have seen since the Great Depression and the industrial mobilization for World War II.

The prospective Democratic presidential nominee promised the effort would not just answer a pandemic-induced recession, but address centuries of racism and systemic inequalities with a new American economy that finally and fully (lives) up to the words and the values enshrined in the founding documents of this nation that were all created equal.

It was a striking call coming from Biden, a 77-year-old establishment figure known more as a back-slapping deal-maker than visionary reformer. But it made plain his intention to test the reach of liberal populism as he tries to create a coalition that can defeat President Donald Trump in November.

Trump and his Republican allies argue that Bidens positioning, especially his ongoing work with progressives, proves hes captive to a radical left wing. Conversely, activists who backed Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic primary were encouraged, yet cautious, about Bidens ability to follow through while conceding that his plans on issues including climate action and criminal justice still fall short of their ideals.

Bidens inner circle insists his approach in 2020 is the same its been since he was elected to the Senate in 1972: Meet the moment.

Hes always evolved, said Ted Kaufman, Bidens longest-serving adviser. The thing thats been consistent for his entire career, almost 50 years, is he never promises things that he doesnt think he can do.

Kaufman, who succeeded Biden in the Senate when he ascended to the vice presidency, said Bidens core identity hasnt changed: progressive Democrat, friendly to labor and business, consistent supporter of civil rights, believer in government and the private sector. Whats different in 2020, he said, are the countrys circumstances a public health crisis, near-Depression level unemployment, a national reckoning on racism and the office Biden now seeks.

If you want to get something done, encourage it, Kaufman said. What he learned over history watching campaigns is that you put forth a program, and then you come into office, and everybody involved knows thats the program youre offering.

Bidens evolution has been on display from the start of his campaign as hes tacked left both in substance and style while trying to preserve his pragmatist brand.

At the start of the Democratic primary, Biden was positioned as offering a moderate alternative to Sanders call for a political revolution and Warrens push for big structural change.

The former vice president countered their proposed universal government-funded health insurance with a government insurance plan that would compete alongside private insurance. Progressives wanted tuition-free public higher education; Biden offered tuition subsidies for two-year schools. Biden called the climate crisis an existential threat and offered a clean energy plan with a trillion-dollar price tag, but resisted the full version of progressives Green New Deal. He promised hefty tax hikes for corporations and the investor class but opposed a wealth tax on individuals net worth.

Biden noted that his health care platform put him to the left of 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, who had jettisoned a public option from his 2010 health care law, angering liberal Democrats.

And on race, even before the recent national uprising against police violence, Biden spoke often of the nations systemic failure to live up to the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson didnt, he said often in early speeches, alluding to the fact that the Declarations author and the third U.S. president owned slaves.

Still, Biden isnt immune from the kind of internal party tensions that cost Clinton progressive support in 2016, and hes spent the last three months shoring up his left flank.

Biden and Sanders created policy groups to write recommendations for Democrats 2020 platform. Those committees unveiled 110 pages of policy plans Wednesday, ahead of Bidens speech in Pennsylvania. They left Biden short of endorsing single-payer health insurance and the most aggressive timelines to achieve a carbon-neutral economy, but ratified his claims of a more progressive slate than his predecessors.

Further, Biden already had moved toward Sanders tuition position, endorsing four years of full subsidies for most middle-class households. He adopted Warrens proposed bankruptcy law overhaul and her ideas for a government procurement campaign to benefit U.S. companies.

Progressives promise continued pressure.

I think our job is really to sometimes push him, Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal said. Jayapal, who helped lead the Biden-Sanders health care task force, said that means being alongside him, of course, and then sometimes be out in front.

Likewise, Varshini Prakash of the Sunrise Movement, a leading environmental advocacy group, said her group wont abandon the Green New Deal. But she credited Biden for embracing a level of public investment that would remake the energy economy during the pandemic recession.

Biden has managed party unity that wasnt present four years ago.

I dont consider Bidens proposals a political hat tip to progressives as much as rising to the moment were living in, said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and a Warren ally.

The former vice president also has amassed an impressive slate of endorsements and built a stable of regular campaign surrogates, including all his major primary rivals. Many of them held events in the hours and days following his speech Thursday in a show of force that Trump, even with his intense online presence and fervent base, would be hard-pressed to match.

For his part, Trump accused Biden of plagiarizing his economic populism but also tarred Biden as a leftist who cant win.

Its a plan that is very radical left, but he said the right things because hes copying what Ive done, Trump said Friday before departing the White House for Florida.

Kaufman said Biden will continue campaigning as a nominee unconcerned about such labels. Whats allowed him to survive all these years, Kaufman said, is that hes not into any of those characterizations.

Go here to read the rest:

Biden forges brand of liberal populism to use against Trump - The Associated Press

In an office in a university campus, there is a young woman the student and an older man, the teacher.

Shes in his office because of a poor grade. In that first meeting, hes patronising but magnanimous. Maybe he can teach her privately? He puts an arm around her shoulder.

The next time we meet the pair, a complaint has been made to the tenure committee. The young woman has found a group feminists who have put words around what she experienced in the office, and the power relations between the two.

In this meeting you see the power shift, and the professors magnanimity and ease liquify into fear.

Almost 30 years ago, David Mamets play Oleanna explored what it means when a gatekeeper an ostensibly liberal one has his position challenged and threatened by someone less powerful.

Oleanna was written in the shadow of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill sexual harassment case, and Mamets play very much sympathises with the older man.

His student shrill, young and wielding the borrowed intellect, talking points and nascent power of an organised group crushed the career and upward progression of a man who was just trying to help.

The plays lines could have been written now by someone recently cancelled: You think you can come in here with your political correctness and destroy my life?

But the fear at the heart of Oleanna a loss or transfer of power from establishment white men to young feminist women never came to pass.

The old order of centrist liberals have held out in places such as universities, the media and the arts. But for how long?

Our current moment also teems with anxiety around loss of power and, like in Oleanna, the threat comes from those lower down or outside the hierarchy.

Small l liberalism is being threatened like never before, as its failure to live up to its meritocratic ideals are being exposed. Foundations, supposedly built on fairness, are increasingly being damned for maintaining oppressive systems that, unwittingly or not, are racist.

Many people of colour who have gained entry to ostensibly liberal institutions have found that, once admitted, they face racism and dont rise beyond a certain level of power.

In late June at Australias SBS channel, staff sent a letter pleading with the board to appoint someone other than a white Anglo man as news director to reflect the stations multicultural charter (there has only been one exception since 1978).

Indigenous reporters posted Twitter threads about the racism they faced in the newsroom.

Things are, finally, moving fast. Its been the summer of rage in America (and then around the world) with the call to dismantle oppressive and racist systems, including the demands to defund the police in the US something that would have been unthinkable in the mainstream a year ago.

Amid calls for the systems to be dismantled, representations and symbols of the systems have been toppled: statues have been torn down, shows removed from Netflix, and some anxious liberals are trawling through their Facebook from years past to expunge any problematic costume party photos.

But does this shift mean that liberalism is on the way out? In the last few, fevered weeks, we have seen fretful claims about the death of liberalism at the hands of what some say is a new orthodoxy.

On Wednesday, an open letter in Harpers magazine was published, signed by more than 150 high-profile writers, public intellectuals, journalists and academics including JK Rowling, Noam Chomsky, Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie, warning of an increasingly intolerant intellectual climate.

The letter stated: The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

(The letter was predictably divisive, with many on social media asking the signatories to check their privilege.)

The issues raised in the Harpers letter echo the views published in a much-read piece by journalist Matt Taibbi on how the left is destroying itself because people fear being called a racist.

He wrote: The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats and intimidation.

This new orthodoxy or woke culture can be defined broadly as being alert to injustice in society, especially racism.

Writer Wesley Yang has described it as the successor ideology to liberalism. Yang sees the promise and the purity of woke culture that we can move from the individual wish to the collective demand.

But he believes it is a flawed ideology the idea that we really can be equal still seems to me an impossible wish, and, like all impossible wishes, one that is charged with authoritarian potential.

This struggle is of a different complexion from the culture wars between left and right. Instead it pits the liberal left and centrists against the woke left.

Established cultural gatekeepers, many of whom for years have been on the left side of politics are finding, like the professor in Oleanna, that they need to defend their position and hard.

And like the professor in Oleanna, they have anxiety that their power could be taken away not by a committee but via cancellation, deplatforming or online shaming.

After a wrongdoing is exposed on the internet, the sheer weight of public condemnation can be highly traumatic for the person being cancelled (although for many serial offenders on the right, who are regularly cancelled for their racist views, the blowback has no material effects).

The fear of cancellation, or of not being seen performing the correct activism, or of saying the thing that doesnt conform to the current thinking, is a form of Stalinism, according to some liberals and privileges fear of giving offence over freedom of expression.

Robert Boyers, a literature professor at Skidmore College, is one such liberal. In his book The Tyranny of Virtue: Identity, the Academy, and the Hunt for Political Heresies he charts what he sees as censorship on campus where people are too afraid to express ideas contrary to the new orthodoxy, lest they be hauled before a committee.

Boyers cites political theorist Stephen Holmes in defence of liberalism; That public disagreement is a creative force may have been the most novel and radical principle of liberal politics.

Writers such as Bret Easton Ellis have also complained about such groupthink (devoting entire chunks of his newish book White to the issue.) He writes, Everyone has to be the same And if you refuse to join the chorus of approval you will be tagged a racist or a misogynist.

Liberalism as he knew it in the past has hardened into a warped authoritarian moral superiority movement.

In Australia, novelist Richard Flanagan has defended the writers festivals hosting cancelled people such as Germaine Greer, Lionel Shriver and Junot Daz.

He wrote in the Guardian in 2018: The individual examples of Shriver, Daz, Carr and Greer all point to a larger, more disturbing trend. Writers festivals, like other aspects of the literary establishment such as prizes, have in recent years become less and less about books and more and more about using their considerable institutional power to enforce the new orthodoxies, to prosecute social and political agendas through reward and punishment.

Novelist Zadie Smith has often defended the need for freedom of expression and spoken about her need to be wrong, make mistakes, and to feel free in her writing.

I want to have my feeling, even if its wrong, even if its inappropriate, express it to myself in the privacy of my heart and my mind, she said. I dont want to be bullied out of it.

(In a 2018 short story Smith wrote for the New Yorker, everyone is eventually cancelled and on the other side is freedom: Maybe if I am one day totally and finally placed beyond the pale, I, too, might feel curiously free. Of expectation. Of the opinions of others. Of a lot of things.)

Apart from these voices and until the Harpers letter liberals have been accused of being passive when it comes to defending their right for free inquiry, their right to offend and their right to get it wrong.

Perhaps ... the real reason why liberals are reluctant to speak-up theyre afraid theyll be next, wrote Peter Franklin in Unherd. As Winston Churchill said about appeasers, each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.

Liberals are playing chess with pawns and keeping their important pieces in the back row, heavily defended. Speak out now and you may risk being put through the threshing machine of cancellation. Your colleagues might circulate a petition calling for your sacking. You can become an unperson in the moment it takes to send an ill-advised tweet.

The thrill and the danger of this present moment is in the apprehension that entrenched cultural power is shifting hands rapidly, and that once the pawns have been sacrificed, liberals could start playing a more aggressive game. One side will win and one will lose, because you cant integrate the two orthodoxies, such are the opposing characteristics that define each movement.

One (liberalism) is about the individual and their rights, the other comes from the position of the collective, alienated from liberal power structures and networks.

The latter demands the former reconsider and reconfigure language, gender, ownership, sexuality, representation, equity and notions of equality.

But for some liberal elders the freedom of the individual is paramount. The freedom they are talking about is their own to write, to debate, to think, to have unpopular opinions, or, as novelist Zadie Smith has claimed, to be wrong.

I believe in freedom of thought, says the professor in Oleanna. (To which the student replies; You believe not in freedom of thought but in an elitist, in, in a protected hierarchy which rewards you.)

Woke culture radically shifts the focus from the individual to the systems that the individual operates in. You may be able to have an unpopular opinion but thats because your privilege, position and your platform allow you to make mistakes and take risks, try out ideas, to be wrong. You are allowed to be free.

But while you are free, many, many more are voiceless, oppressed, unrepresented and and the system that oppresses them remains unchanged.

It is via the collective that woke culture defines and draws its power after all the individualism so central to the last 30 years of liberalism and so-called meritocracy has only advanced the careers and voices of the few. Problems of oppressive systems of deaths in custody, police brutality, sexual harassment and race and gender pay gaps still remain.

When the student threatens the power of the professor in Oleanna, she does so not as an individual but for the group; for those who suffer what I suffer.

Changing the systems that produce and sustain inequality can only occur via some sort of collective action. Liberalism has largely failed on this front.

For the liberal gatekeepers, were in an Oleanna moment.

Theres lip service to the struggle, but is there actually an exchange or relinquishing of power? Not yet. As we saw recently, two young white critics, Bec Kavanagh and Jack Callil, relinquished their platform as book reviewers for Australias Nine newspapers, in the hope that their positions could be filled by non-white critics.

But such actions are rare and even rarer at the top.

In Oleanna, the professor is about to lose tenure, his house, maybe his marriage. He defends his corner. You vicious little bitch. You think you can come in here with your political correctness and destroy my life? Here we see when the power is under real threat of being transferred, all talk of liberal ideals falls away.

The last scene of the play ends in a physical struggle. Shes on the ground, hes about to bludgeon her with a chair hes holding above his head.

The plays last words are hers: Thats right. In that context and the context we are now in those final words mean something. They mean of course of course you were going to defend your power by literally standing over me and threatening me with violence.

Woke culture sees this violence which explains in part, the vehemence of the fight.

Different but essentially the same social movements emerge every few years, its only the technology that changes, one friend told me recently on a walk, as we were speculating about that days fresh cancellations.

The sort of shift being demanded by the new orthodoxy is nothing short of radically transformative for society. For a start, it demands a move away from the liberal position of the individual to the collective position of the woke. The shift is from me to we.

Read more here:

Can liberalism and its gatekeepers survive the seismic changes in our society? - The Guardian