Category Archives: Liberal

The Liberal Democrats are in a state of shock after waking up the morning after the United Kingdom's general election without a leader and in a worse position than they were heading into the poll.

The anti-Brexit party went into the election with such high hopes. Jo Swinson, who up until a few hours ago was its leader, said she was confident of making numerous gains, and that she could end up becoming prime minister.

However, the Liberal Democrats went backwards. They ended the day with eleven House of Commons seats, one fewer than they won at the 2017 general election.

None of the candidates who this year defected to the Liberal Democrats from other parties succeeded in getting re-elected. Tom Brake, the party's popular Brexit spokesperson, lost his seat to Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

In probably the night's biggest upset, Swinson lost own seat to the Scottish National Party, and swiftly quit as leader.

Just a few months ago, the Liberal Democrats were polling at around 20% in the polls after performing strongly in European and local elections. The party had acquired its biggest ever spending war chest coming into the election thanks to increased financial backing. Insiders thought they were on the cusp of a major electoral breakthrough.

So what went so badly wrong?

Dinendra Haria/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

In case you might have missed it, the Liberal Democrats' biggest policy heading into this election was stopping Brexit.

However, the Liberal Democrats decided to go further than other pro-Remain parties like the Greens and Scottish National Party, promising to scrap Britain's exit altogether if elected to government by revoking Article 50.

The party took this decision at its autumn conference. Swinson and co believed it would be proof of the party's unequivocal status as the UK's leading Remain party and take votes away from both the Conservatives and Labour.

But a number of party figures and many members were uneasy about it. They were concerned that cancelling Brexit without consulting the public would be seen as undemocratic and risked alienating thousands of potential voters.

Sir Norman Lamb, a Lib Dem MP at the time, warned the party that it was "playing with fire" with its revoke policy.

The warnings turned out to be pretty accurate. On doorsteps during the general election campaign, even voters who described themselves as strong Remainers said they felt uneasy about the revoke policy, and that it was a step too far.

One party source said the policy was unnecessary because the Liberal Democrats were already clearly pro-Remain.

They told Business Insider: "Revoking Article 50 was odd I can see why they did it, but it's not as if anyone thought Liberal Democrats were anything but remain anyway."

Another party figure said: "Revoke was terrible and also just totally misread the public mood."

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Heading into the election, party insiders believed that one of their biggest strengths was Swinson as an individual.

They were keen to get her in as many television debates with Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn as possible, predicting that compared with the pair, she would come across as an impressive performer and a breath of fresh air.

This is why the party decided to run a campaign that was effectively presidential in how much it centered around Swinson. A common sight of this election campaign was the party's battle bus traveling up and down the country with a huge potrait of Swinson plastered on its side.

However, as the campaign went on, Swinson's personal ratings gradually dwindled. Some would a say a key moment was a Question Time special in Sheffield where she endured tough questions from a hostile studio audience.

There was also a feeling among some party figures that the focus on Swinson came at the expense of exciting policies.

"There was just nothing to it [the campaign] other than early arrogant assertions Jo would be prime minister and 'woo remain'," one told Business Insider.

Others argued that it was always going to be difficult to run a presidential-style campaign around a candidate who going until the election was barely known to the general public.

Ultimately, Swinson did not succeed in endearing herself to voters in the way that those around her had hoped and predicted.

Nicola Tree/Getty Images

A big question heading into Thursday's general election was how much of an impact tactical voting would have.

The Lib Dems were heavily involved in efforts by anti-Brexit parties and campaigners to block a Conservative victory.

The party agreed to stand aside for the Greens and Plaid Cymru in a handful of seats and in many other constituencies tactical voting websites urged pro-Remain voters to support Liberal Democrat candidates.

However, while tactical voting undoubtedly was a more prominent feature of this general election than any other before, it failed to deliver results in the key seats that the Liberal Democrats were hoping to win.

In the Cities of London & Westminster, for example, Chuka Umunna failed to get the cross-party support he needed to take it from the Conservatives. It didn't help Luciana Berger in Finchley & Golders Green, either.

The Lib Dems say that tactical voting would have been much more effective, and would have delivered more Lib Dem members of Parliament, had Jeremy Corbyn's Labour put party politics to one side and agreed to strike a pact.

Anti-Brexit campaigners who were pushing tactical voting also say that Labour's refusal to countenance an electoral pact with the Liberal Democrats imposed clear limits on what the initiative could achieve.

Nonetheless, the Liberal Democrats' mission to lead a cross-party, anti-Brexit movement did not produce the results the party wanted.

See the rest here:

What went so badly wrong for the Liberal Democrats? - Business Insider

A Liberal party member who helped organise a Chinese-Australian business fundraising dinner has denied links to the Chinese Communist party after references to Chinas Belt and Road initiative appeared on invitations to the event.

The Australia Chinese United Business Association Federation (Acubaf), representing more than 50 associations and 1,000 individual businesses, is hosting a charity dinner on Friday to raise money for the Salvation Army and its bushfire appeal.

Invitations to the dinner, seen by Guardian Australia, advertise Acubafs role as to provide a bridge between Australian Chinese business and to offer the chance to cooperate for all Chinese associations, meanwhile offering access to the One Belt, One Road policy in China.

The Belt and Road initiative is the Chinese Communist partys $1tn global infrastructure project, building trade and supply routes and subsequent influence across the world.

After inquiries from the Guardian, one of the dinners organisers, Lina Zhao, provided an alternative invitation, identical except that the reference to Belt and Road was absent. She suggested that the original invitation might be fraudulent.

There is no evidence of manipulation on the original invitation, and it was sent to Guardian Australia by several independent sources.

Zhao said the organising committee never approved or distributed the original version of the invitation, and Acubaf was not a vehicle for Belt and Road.

Acubaf is an independent and Australia-based business association, registered in NSW, which is not affiliated with any Chinese government organisation.

Zhao said the dinner was a charitable event to help people affected by these catastrophic bushfire conditions.

A Liberal party member, Nancy Liu, who was also on the organising committee, said she had no political connections or links to the Chinese government.

I have no connection at all to any foreign government or organisation, she said. This isnt anything related to any foreign countries. This dinner is a local fundraising event for our local community. It is a good chance for the Chinese business community to contribute to their mission of building our local community.

The website of the Chinese embassy in Australia says one of the purposes of Acubaf is to provide opportunities for the innovative development opportunities brought by Chinas Belt and Road.

The Australian government has declined to become involved in Belt and Road, though the Victorian state government has signed on, as have several Pacific Island states.

The Acubaf previously also known as the Australian Chinese Chamber of Commerce Association has hosted the prime minister, Scott Morrison, the immigration minister, David Coleman, and a suite of federal and state government ministers, Chinese embassy and government officials.

Acubaf is the peak body for Chinese business associations in Australia and was established at a meeting held at the Sydney premises of the Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China in 2016, when the exiled Chinese businessman Huang Xiangmo was its president. Liu served as vice-president of the ACPPRC and Jiang was on its executive committee during the time Huang was president. Lius name has been removed from the ACPPRC website.

Huang served for three years as president of the ACPPRC, which is regarded as the most significant of dozens of organisations in Australia controlled by the United Front Work Department, a Chinese government agency overseen directly by the Chinese Communist partys central committee.

The United Front Work Department leads operations outside China aimed at influencing overseas Chinese and western elites, in particular business leaders and politicians, to back Beijings policies and aims. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has described it as important magic weapon for the victory of the partys cause.

Liu, who sits on the Georges River council in Sydney and the Liberal party Chinese council in New South Wales, said she had ceased all involvement in the ACPPRC and had no personal contact with Mr Huang.

Huang said he did not retain any links to business chambers in Australia.

Huang is in Hong Kong after the Australian government rescinded his permanent residency last December on character grounds. His application for citizenship was withdrawn. Australian intelligence agencies had consistently warned political parties not to accept money from Huang, cautioning that he may have been acting as a conduit for Communist party influence.

Huang is currently locked in a court battle with the tax office which alleges he owes $140m in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. The tax office has won a freezing order over his assets worldwide, including over a $12m mansion in Mosman held in his wifes name, but which the ATO says he paid for.

Huang is contesting the charges and has accused the tax office of being a despicable tool for political persecution, and saying unknown dark forces within an Australian deep state were conspiring against him.

Since having his visa revoked, Huang has pulled more than $50m out of Australia, and the tax office may seek to bankrupt him as part of the federal court proceedings, arguing he no longer has the assets in Australia to pay his tax bill.

Huang has also been a significant if absent feature of the Independent Commission Against Corruption hearings into NSW Labor party corruption.

It was alleged by party figures that Huang was the secret donor who illegally gave $100,000 in cash delivered in person in an Aldi shopping bag which was then disguised by the party through a series of false straw donors.

Huang has denied the allegations made before Icac but has declined to give evidence.

Read this article:

Liberal party member denies links to Chinese Communist party after Belt and Road controversy - The Guardian

Now what? Boris Johnsons bonus for a stunning election victory is room for manoeuvre. He promised to get Brexit done and the UK will surely leave the EU in January. But he was careful not to say how. He only said that he would also leave Europes single market and customs union, a choice for which he will now claim a mandate. A mandate is not a plan.

British elections are good at hiding paradoxes. There was no great Tory swing. Johnson actually increased the partys vote share by just 1.2% on Theresa Mays ostensibly disastrous election two years ago. They won handsomely because of first-past-the-post. Labour and the Liberal Democrats could not bring themselves to do constituency deals and duly split the anti-Tory vote right across the country.

Had this been a transferable-vote presidency, Johnson, with just 43% of the poll, could well have lost. It was the fratricidal incompetence of the left that gave him victory. Evidence of this is that anti-Brexit parties secured more votes than the Tories and Brexit party together. If this really was a second referendum, it did not go for Brexit. But still Johnson won. And anyone fed up with the past three years of shambles must be relieved it was with a secure majority. Parliament can withdraw into the political background and attention turn to Johnsons use of his victory.

The prime minister knows that leaving the customs union and single market is fiendishly hard

Of course Brexit is not done, and will not be in January. Throughout the campaign, Johnson dodged all questions of what the UKs future relationship with Europe should be, trading or otherwise. For Britain to leave the EU is comparatively small beer compared with whether or not it disentangles itself from the colossal network of economic relationships governing the continent of Europe. Johnson has pledged just such disentanglement. It is a pledge he must break.

The prime minister must know that leaving the customs union and single market is fiendishly hard. He knows because he has just failed to bring it off for Northern Ireland. All experts claim a trade deal cannot be reached in the allotted year or without tearing up Britains relations with third parties who have existing deals with the EU. Withdrawing on WTO terms makes no sense.

Sooner or later, the grownups will have to take charge of this mess. Britain must, like Northern Ireland, remain in a relationship with the EU that is, as promised by the original leavers, frictionless. This will involve a long learning curve for Michael Gove or whoever negotiates it. It may require an ability to interpret the words customs union and single market in new and surprising ways. Either way, what matters is that Johnsons room for manoeuvre must be used to keep the British economy close to Europe however much his backwoodsmen protest. Nothing else about his government matters but the softening of Brexit.

For the rest, few prime ministers can have taken office with a cupboard so bare. Rightwing headline-grabbers on crime and immigration, vague promises on investment and welfare were classic election dross. Whether a big majority unleashes Johnson the social liberal, or whether it unleashes Johnson the cynical appeaser of the last lobbyist to gain his ear, remains to be seen. Most worrying was the sacking of his most able, and liberal, cabinet colleagues earlier this year. Johnson exchanged a ministry of talents for a ministry of toads. It must be the most underpowered cabinet in living memory.

This places even greater responsibility on Johnson personally for shaping the next chapter in British politics. The weight is awesome. Pessimism may seem in order. But for once let optimism have its day.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Read more here:

There is hope: Boris Johnsons big majority could unleash the social liberal within - The Guardian

Are there any surviving social-democratic paradises with a liberal vibe left on Gods green earth and ones that might actually consider letting you live there? Its surely a popular line of thought in many peoples minds today.

Traditionally, those seeking refuge from the UK would look to the Nordics. Indeed, the Swedes and their compatriots could make some claim to having made the welfare state and social security an everyday reality. Historically, they were also more equal societies with a Gini coefficient (how economists measure disparities in income, at globally modest levels).

Nowadays, there are two things wrong with that picture. First, various far-right and nativist groups have sprouted up, and made the most of their proportional representation systems. Theyre not a reassuring presence. Besides, now that the UK is outside the EU and will probably be outside the European Economic Area, all these states are probably ruled out for easy freedom of movement for the British.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Bhutan

Getty/iStock

England

iStock

North Macedonia

Getty/iStock

Aruba

Getty/iStock

eSwatini

Getty/iStock

Costa Rica

Getty/iStock

The Netherlands

Getty/iStock

Liberia

Getty/iStock

Morocco

Getty/iStock

Uruguay

Getty/iStock

Salzburg, Austria

Getty/iStock

Washington DC, USA

Getty/iStock

Cairo, Egypt

Getty/iStock

Galway, Ireland

Getty/iStock

Bonn, Germany

Getty/iStock

La Paz, Bolivia

Getty

Kochi, India

Getty/iStock

Vancouver, Canada

Getty/iStock

Dubai, UAE

Getty

Denver, USA

Getty/iStock

Central Asian Silk Road

Getty/iStock

Le Marche, Italy

Getty/iStock

Tohuku, Japan

Getty/iStock

Maine, USA

Getty/iStock

Lord Howe Island, Australia

Getty/iStock

Guizhou Province, China

Getty/iStock

Cadiz Province, Spain

Getty/iStock

Northeast Argentina

Getty/iStock

Kvarner Gulf, Croatia

Getty/iStock

Brazilian Amazon

Getty Images/iStockphoto

East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia

Getty/iStock

Budapest, Hungary

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Madhya Pradesh, India

Getty/iStock

Buffalo, USA

Getty/iStock

Azerbaijan

Getty

Serbia

Getty/iStock

Tunisia

Getty/iStock

Cape Winelands, South Africa

Getty/iStock

Athens, Greece

Getty/iStock

Zanzibar, Tanzania

Getty/iStock

Bhutan

Getty/iStock

England

iStock

North Macedonia

Getty/iStock

Aruba

Getty/iStock

eSwatini

Getty/iStock

Costa Rica

Getty/iStock

The Netherlands

Getty/iStock

Liberia

Getty/iStock

Go here to see the original:

As populism grows, this is the country that has the most progressive, liberal politics in the world - The Independent

The Montana native and Montana State University alum Lawrence VanDyke (LVD) was confirmed for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...but you already knew that. Here's the big news: with LVD's confirmation on the 9th Circuit,President Trump has taken theliberal dominance of the 9th Circuitand torn it to shreds. #Winning

Below you can see my blog post from back in September where I talked about the significance of the LVD nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

LifeNews.com has this: "Trump Ends Liberal Domination of 9th Circuit Appeals Court as Senate Confirms Lawrence VanDyke." Here's an excerpt from their piece:

With the confirmation this week of two judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, President Trump continues to make good on his promise to end liberal judicial activism on the federal bench. With 13 of 29 judges on the court appointed by Republican presidents, the liberal rubber stamp of the Ninth Circuit has been stilled.

PRIOR POST FROM SEPTEMBER 2019

Much like Obamacare, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been a train wreck. Liberal judges in San Francisco have been in the back pocket of the radical environmental groups and nearly every other Left-Wing lobby. But the train is now getting back on the tracks, thanks to President Donald Trump.

Last week, I was first to share the newshere in Montana that the president was nominating Montana's former Solicitor, Lawrence VanDyke to the 9th Circuit. This is big news not just for Montanans, but for all Westerners who simply want a fair shake out of the courts.

Biased judges put on the federal bench by Montana's Democrat senators, and Democrat presidents have served as a blank check for the extremists--blocking the Keystone pipeline, ruling against the clean-burning Powder River Basin Coal, and blocking fuel reduction efforts to save our national forests.

But now they don't have the top cover for their crazy decisions that they once had. President Trump is bringing about important, much-needed change to the 9th Circuit. Lawrence VanDyke is the latest example.

So, in addition to being a Montana State University alum, who is Lawrence VanDyke?National Review answered that very question. Here's an excerpt:

VanDyke was born,raised, and has lived most of his adultlife in the West; he has spent his legal career on thefront lines fighting against federal government overreach threatening the livelihoodofthis region. Few nominees understand the unique challenges faced by states within their circuits the way VanDyke understands the challenges faced by states in the Ninth Circuit. He has litigated a number of issues of particular concern to ranching, farming, and small business communitiesin the Western states.

Click here for more.

How significant is VanDyke's nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Kevin Daley has this for The Daily Caller:

If the Senate confirms the presidents remaining nominees, the 9th Circuit will have 16 Democrat-appointed judges and 13 Republican appointees, as compared to an 18-to-seven split when Trump took office.

The president named two more 9th Circuit nominees, Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke, on Friday.

View post:

Trump & LVD Break the Liberal Dominance on 9th Circuit - newstalk955.com

Parliament will set up a special committee to review all aspects of Canadas strained relationship with China amid a prolonged diplomatic and trade dispute with its second-largest trading partner.

The Liberals opposed such a committee but suffered their first defeat as a minority government, with the opposition parties voting overwhelmingly in favour of the Conservative motion on Tuesday. The Liberals were out-voted 171 to 148.

Conservative foreign affairs critic Erin OToole tabled a motion to appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings to examine and review all aspects of the Canada-China relationship including, but not limited to consular, economic, legal, security and diplomatic relations.

Story continues below advertisement

Liberal MPs, including International Development Minister Karina Gould, argued there was no need for a special China committee, saying the Commons foreign affairs committee could handle any reviews of the troubled relationship with Beijing.

Justin Trudeau now leads a Liberal minority government. Here's what you need to know about the nuances of governing in a minority.

But Mr. OToole said a special committee gives MPs the opportunity and time to explore complex consular cases, such as the arrests of Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, as well as efforts by Chinese telecom giant Huawei to sell its next generation 5G mobile technology in Canada.

The United States is pushing Canada and other allies to ban Huaweis 5G gear, citing cybersecurity concerns.

In this context, when there are sensitive information that could hurt a complex consular case or relate to 5G networks, for example, the committee could be held in camera, Mr. OToole told the House.

NDP Foreign Affairs critic Jack Harris said the committees studies and recommendations could be used by the Trudeau government to help reset Canada-China relations.

The motion also sends a powerful message to the Liberal minority government that it has to listen to the other parties, Mr. Harris said.

This motion would actually put into effect the kind of collaboration that Canadians wanted the government in Canada to be. We still have a Liberal government and we still have the same Prime Minister, but we also have a situation where there are other voices who are at the table and are going to be able to have some influence," Mr. Harris said.

Story continues below advertisement

Bloc Qubcois MP Christine Normandin said a separate committee offers an opportunity for MPs to work as a team with a clear mandate to improve relations with China.

Since Canada detained senior Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou last December on a U.S. extradition warrant, Beijing has responded with the arbitrary arrest of the two Canadians and blocked imports of Canadian canola and soy beans.

We have a very aggressive Chinese policy in many parts of the world and we have not taken this issue seriously. We have Canadians on trial. We have affected canola, NDP MP Charlie Angus told the House. We can come together and establish a special committee so that we can apprise and look at this issue and find solutions and look at the threats that are being posed.

Veteran Liberal MP John McKay offered support for greater scrutiny of China, including the cybersecurity risk from Huaweis 5G technology and the countrys human-rights abuses.

He said that China is acting like a 21st-century colonial power by affirming that the Uyghur, Tibetan and Hong Kong situations are all internal matters and that it is saying to the world, and particularly to Canadians, not to involve themselves in these affairs.

See the original post here:

Opposition parties vote to create China committee, handing Liberals first defeat of minority Parliament - The Globe and Mail

The American mainstream news media made many mistakes in its coverage of the 2016 presidential election.

It treated Donald Trump as a harmless curiosity because he was a reality TV show star and professional (alleged) billionaire.

Hillary Clintons shortcomings both real and perceived were amplified. Trumps were downplayed if not largely ignored.

The mainstream media thought Trump was a harmless amusement, and not a demagogue, racial authoritarian or fascist in waiting. He was good for their ratings and profits. This meantthe threat he posed to democracy could be overlooked because money apparently matters more than civic duty.

Too many reporters, journalists and other members of the commentariat hoped that Trump would mature into a more traditional candidate and then president. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, this foolish hope was the dominant narrative through the 2016 presidential campaign and Trumps first year in office.

At the end of the third year of Trumps presidency the American media continues to enable Trump and his partys assault on democracy and the truth. Few mainstream voices are willing to consistently state the truth that Donald Trump is a fascist, a racist and mentally unwell, and that he is likely beholden to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

In all, the mainstream media cringes in terror before Trump and his supporters threats of violence and other and acts of intimidation. It all too often defaults to fairness and balance and both-sides-ism, elevating Trumps most outrageous lies into reasonable opinions about alternative facts.

Yes, there have been successes, including important investigative reporting on Trumps corruption, his abusive treatment of nonwhite migrants and refugees, and, of course, the Ukraine scandal. But overall, the mainstream news media has learned few lessons from the many postmortems on how it failed in its responsibilities as guardians of democracy in the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, it now appears ready to repeat the same errors in 2020.

Eric Boehlert is an award-winning journalist who has written for Media Matters, Rolling Stone and Billboard. He was previously a senior writer for Salon. Boehlert is also the author of the books "Bloggers on the Bus:How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press" andLapdog: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.

In this conversation he explains how the mainstream American news media helped to elect Donald Trump because of a deep dislike for Hillary and Bill Clinton. Boehlert also warns that the media has helped to normalize and protect Donald Trump because of an unwillingness to explain that he is a true aberration in American history. Under Trumps regime, Boehlert tells me, the United States really does not have a president.

Boehlert also highlights how the American mainstream news media is both cowardly and complicit with Trumps assault on democracy because of its unwillingness to tell the truth about the threat he and his regime represent to the country and the world.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

We are now approaching the end of the third year of Trumps regime. Are things better, worse or about how you expected?

I am not surprised. In fact, I think it was the night of the election or the day after when I put up two tweets that I remember quite vividly. One was, It is going to be so much worse than anyone can imagine. I also said that the American press is not going to save us from Donald Trump. Unfortunately, both of those observations were true.

Why were so many people in denial?

There was all that chatter about how Americas political institutions were so strong and they would keep Trump in check. People were also saying that we should have a businessman as a president and Hillary Clinton is so conniving and in the end it will all be fine. That was the Beltway conventional wisdom: Trump won't be able to break anything, this country has been around for so long, we'll be fine. And then of course the exact opposite happened.

Given all the evidence to the contrary, how were members of the mainstream media able to tell themselves such a thing? By what logic were they operating?

A lot of it was driven by their contempt for Hillary Clinton. There is a hostility towards Hillary among the news media that goes back to the 1990s. There was an attempt to normalize Trump because the mainstream, inside-the-Beltway corporate media types did not like her. Of course, almost everyone was convinced Hillary was going to win. In the fall of 2016, I believe that the American news media saw its job as to make sure her win was as unsatisfying as possible, that it wouldn't be historic and she would limp across the finish line.

Ultimately, Hillary Clinton would not be able to take a victory lap and too many in the American news media miscalculated in the end. By being so relentlessly negative towards Clinton and letting Trump get away with so much stuff, the news media did not calculate that he could ever win. And in the end, that is what happened.

Given their error of overcompensating against Hillary Clinton why didnt the American news media go after Donald Trump with more zeal?

One would reasonably think that the press would just be chomping at the bit. Trump is corrupt. He's dishonest. He lies about everything. In theory one would think the press would have a field day with Trump. This is what the press loves to do. They're going to knock this guy down, they are going to expose him. But exactly the opposite happened. Why? There are many reasons.

Trump effectively bullied the American news media during the campaign. They were shocked that he won. The press felt like they missed a big story. Because Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by 70,000 votes, the American news media felt like there was this huge white middle-class rural movement that they had missed. One fluke election made them feel like they were fundamentally out of touch. The American press is also perpetually afraid of the Republican Party.

The American news media is possessed by a deep fear of Republican hardball. Therefore, they were nervous about being portrayed as out of touch because Trump had won and they missed the story. They're nervous about being portrayed as part of the liberal media and they had never experienced anything like Trump before. They got a taste of it during the campaign with all of Trumps fake news and such things. That knocked the American news media back on their heels and they didn't have the courage to stand up against Trump. This happened in many different ways and important moments.

The American mainstream press was cowed, and they embraced this timidity. In turn, they decided, particularly the New York Times, that they need to go write a story literally every week for the next two years about white voters in red states and how much they love Donald Trump.

But when Barack Obama was president for eight years, I don't think there was one story in the New York Times about how black voters in Baltimore love Barack Obama. It wasn't news. The New York Times didn't care about love for Obama among black voters. But wow, the New York Times loves to go to those diners and find those white folks who love Donald Trump.

In total, the press has been bending over backwards because they were afraid of Trump. We are almost three years into this administration. Now, recently, the press certainly has shown signs that they're going to stand up to Trump. This is mostly just because of the facts of the Ukraine scandal facts which are mind-boggling. Moreover, there is really no other way to portray the facts of what Trump did with Ukraine than as a crisis for Donald Trump. But not calling him a racist, not calling him a liar, not questioning his mental stability? Those should have been basic journalism tasks from March and February of 2017 forward, and it just never happened.

Could it be that there are many people in the American news media, journalists and reporters and others, who have never had to contemplate that their work would put their lives at risk from Trump and his supporters?

Certainly, the American press, for the most part, has never had to deal with this. The American press has no history or tradition of covering authoritarian rule. That is a skill necessary in Eastern Europe and in Third World or developing countries. The idea that the press is under attack in the United States institutionally, by a ruling party or from the president of the United States and the overall creeping loss of press freedom has been revelatory for many reporters and journalists.

If you had said four years ago, "There will never be another White House press briefing under the next Republican president," most people would have looked at you with incredulity. Such a prediction would be viewed as ridiculous.

We've been having press briefings televised since the '90s. We've had them at the White House since the Kennedy years.

President Trump is going to come in and cancel the press briefings? The press would never let that happen. That was thought to be inconceivable. But now here we are in America with Trump. It has been almost 250 days since the last press briefing.

Trump hired a new press secretary, and she will likely never host a press briefing in the White House. That is a perfect example of the creep that happened over the first two years of the Trump administration. The press could have done many things in response. To say there was nothing the press could have done is total nonsense. These news organizations did absolutely nothing and they let it happen. These news organizations could have pulled their teams from the White House, for example.

Now we are left with these chopper talk sessions where Trump walks from the White House to the helicopter. The blades are whirling, people are shouting questions at him. Trump doesn't answer follow-ups. That's the press access. The press in the White House is supposed to be the people's representative by providing some sort of transparency. Trump has totally rigged the game.

How do we make sense of the dividing line between cowardice and complicity in the press?

Cowardice versus complicity? It's all the same stew to me. The biggest problem in the last two or three years is just refusing to tell the truth. There are so many examples of Trump and his administration not doing that. There is all this talk about Donald Trump as a chaos agent or some type of disruptor and things like that. We are so far beyond that description.

We don't really have a president of the United States anymore. The American press should be talking about that fact. In no traditional or historical sense is Donald Trump filling the role that every other president of the United States has. When America has a foreign policy based on complete incoherence or payoffs to Turkey or Russia, the American press does not really know how to portray those events.

The American press knows that Trump is not a healthy, mentally stable person. The press can see that day in and day out, and yet they are not allowed to put that in their news stories. The news media often has to invent fantasies and narratives to make Trump look cogent.

If we in America were talking about a president being a Manchurian candidate for another county the idea would have been rejected as irresponsible. The president of the United States would never act in the interest of a foreign country. Yet, here we are.

If the American press were to talk about Trump as a racist, a fascist or a pathological liar, or say that he is not mentally well, then it changes the dominant narrative and terrain. Once you start addressing those issues in the news coverage any one of those that has to be the only story you cover every day and for the rest of Trumps presidency. One can't acknowledge the president of the United States being an open racist and then cover it for two days. It is a defining story in American history.

The press does not want to have to cover those stories every day for the rest of the Trump presidency because they know it would unleash a torrent of attacks from Trump, the Republican Party, conservatives en masse and Fox News and the right-wing echo chamber. The press wants to keep a lid on it all. So the American press says things like "Trump uses 'racially tinged rhetoric.'" We all know what those euphemisms really mean.

You have had access to editors and newsrooms. How are these decisions being made?

How is it that the New York Times decided we're not going to call Trump a liar? That was clearly an editorial guideline decision the Times made during the campaign and certainly during his administration. How is it that the New York Times came to the very peculiar decision that we can't read Trump's mind, therefore we can't call him a liar? And every other news organization came to the exact same bizarre decision?

How come McClatchy Newspapers aren't calling Trump a liar? How come CBS didn't decide Well, yes, we can call Trump a liar. Such a rule was invented for Trump out of thin air. This guideline does not go back decades or centuries in American newsrooms. It was invented for Trump. The mainstream news media all decided to adopt the same invented bizarre guidelines.

I'm not conspiratorial. I don't think they all got together like a cabal. But I do think within the Beltway that there is a collective mindset. There's such a collective fear of the Republican Party and Donald Trump. It is completely unspoken. In many ways it comes down to the stories being pitched and published or not within many of the major journalism institutions.

So much of this is unspoken. Journalists and reporters understand how career tracks operate. For example, if you wrote for the New York Times about politics and in particular if you are a woman writing about politics for the New York Times and you bashed Hillary Clinton, that is a green light to a fast track. Likewise, if a black liberal decided they want the free money on the Trump or conservative side it works much the same way.

In the mainstream news media, people understand how the game is played. If you work for the New York Times and you see that editors literally cannot publish enough stories about white Trump rural voters in Ohio, guess what stories you're going to pitch. A reporter would say, Send me to Ohio! I want to interview these people. It will end up on page one even though the Times just had one of those stories on page one three weeks ago.

People are smart and savvy that way. They understand the culture of the newsroom. People know which way the wind is blowing. So that's how a lot of these collective news decisions get made.

Lets conduct a thought experiment. What if there was a reporter at a major journal of record, such as the New York Times, who was tired of these TrumpLandia white Republican voter stories. He or she wants to go to the same areas and talk to black and brown folks, progressives and liberal Democrats. Or what about people who live in Trump country who are in fear of their lives from Trump supporters? What would happen if such a story was pitched?

Since impeachment has been on the radar, I do not think that the New York Times has interviewed a voter of color. I've read so many pieces and they're always about how impeachment might be a problem for Democrats because that's the dominant media narrative. One of the dangerous things about Trump is this assumption that white voters, especially white middle-aged voters, are the most important part of the public.

If you look at the demographics, it's just not true. Let's send someone to the rural Ohio diner, but let's not just interview white middle-aged men. Let's interview Democrats. Let's find out if impeachment is igniting grassroots fire around the country for Democrats.

The fourth estate is not supposed to be neutral. It is supposed to be objective. There's a difference.

Trump has represented such a shock to the system that many people in the news media, journalists and reporters, have decided they cannot have a moral compass. Moreover, if one were to suggest that journalists and reporters have a moral compass then that is somehow liberal media bias. It all goes back to that fear the press has of being accused of bias. Trump has obviously turned that narrative up to the extreme with his fake news hatred of the press.

News organizations aren't supposed to be soulless and they're not supposed to be incapable of suggesting when something is right or wrong.

In response to Donald Trump and all that is wrong, many journalists just decided, Well, we know what's going on but we're not going to tell the public. Hopefully they will figure it out because we dont have the moral courage to explain just how bizarre Trumps presidency really is.

Given the importance of ad revenue, there appears to be an unhealthy contradictory relationship between Trump, his movement and the corporate news media. On one hand, the media needs Trump for viewers. But on the other hand, Trump is threatening reporters and journalists and the very idea of the free press with Nazi slogans smearing them as fake news. Lgenpresse.

It should not be an issue. The newspaper industry is struggling across the country. That is a terrible threat to democracy. Donald Trump does not drive circulation. Trump news is not going to save any of these newspapers. People are going to read Google and Facebook for their news no matter who the president is. It could be the most boring president ever in our history and newspapers would be tanking. Conversely, it could be the most exciting whirlwind president ever and newspapers would still be tanking.

In terms of television, there is this assumption that Trump is great for ratings. In reality, cable news was up a little bit when he took office. ABC ran this ridiculous prime-time interview with Trump a couple months ago. The ratings were a disaster. Nobody tuned in. There's such a saturation at this point with Donald Trump.

The Mueller report is a damning indictment of a criminal president. Why was it greeted with such relative lack of interest whereas the Ukraine scandal has really taken on a life of its own. Why the difference?

The Mueller story was botched the day Bill Barr put out that three-and-a-half-page press release saying, I read the Mueller report. Everything's fine. Exoneration. No collusion. For almost a week the press ran with that. To me it was just absolutely stunning. There were journalists with no access to the Mueller report relying on the summation of a U.S. attorney general who had clearly been put into office with the goal of protecting Donald Trump. The White House and the Republicans were able to immediately muddy the waters. They lie about everything.

The idea that this White House was ever going to ever tell the truth about the Mueller report is a fantasy. The press bought that line, though. When Mueller testified, they then went into theater criticism mode. Why is the Ukraine scandal resonating? It is a simple story. Trump asked a foreign country for dirt on Joe Biden. Most importantly Trump admitted to it in public.

What do you think is going to happen with Trump and impeachment and the 2020 election?

There will be an impeachment in the House. I believe that Trump will lose a few votes in the Senate. I do not think it's going to be smooth sailing for the Republicans where it is done in a day in the Senate. The Republicans are going to lose some votes.

The idea this is going to happen during an election year is just absolutely mind-boggling, not only for Trump, but for the Republican Party. Their public officials cant answer basic questions such as, Is it ever OK for an American president to ask a foreign government to interfere in a presidential election?

I don't know how the Republicans are going to campaign on any significant issues when that is happening. The Democrats won 40 House seats in the midterms. Trump wasn't even on the ticket. That was widely seen as a condemnation of Trump. Trump is going to be on the top of the ticket acting like a lunatic every day of 2020.

Trump and the Republicans can make an argument that will excite part of their base, but I think most people are just going to be so exhausted of the insanity. That is particularly true of suburban voters who helped flip those 40 seats in 2018.

Does Trump win 2020?

Donald Trump will lose those Midwestern states. Those are gone. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are a problem for Trump. I think Arizona is a problem for the Republicans too. Unfortunately, I think Ohio and Florida are Republican states now. I don't think Democrats should bank on those states anymore. I don't think it's a blowout. Donald Trump is never going to fully crater because he has a cult of personality in terms of his following.

Continue reading here:

Eric Boehlert on how the "liberal" media put Trump in the White House - Salon

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Dec. 11, 2019.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

So much for parliamentary reform, and political transparency. Liberal MPs have no time for that stuff.

They voted against giving MPs more power four times on Wednesday, and then tried to keep the whole thing secret.

In their first official caucus meeting of the new Parliament, Liberal MPs held the votes on governance required under the Reform Act of 2014.

Story continues below advertisement

These are questions that define some of the power relationship between backbench MPs and their party leaders. Can the party leader unilaterally expel an MP from caucus? Can MPs remove the party leader? Can they choose an interim leader? Do MPs have the right to elect their own caucus chair?

On each, Liberal MPs voted against giving themselves more authority.

We now know that most Liberal MPs just dont believe they should be entrusted with real authority. They would rather have a leader such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or his staff, tell them what is allowed.

Last spring, when Mr. Trudeau was engulfed in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Prime Minister unilaterally expelled former cabinet ministers Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. Ms. Wilson-Raybould had testified at committee hearings, embarrassing Mr. Trudeau. Ms. Philpott had resigned her cabinet post, and suggested that the government should be forthright.

But the truth is, when Mr. Trudeau kicked them out, most Liberal MPs felt relieved.

On Wednesday, there was little appetite among Liberal MPs to curb the PMs power.

Maybe we shouldnt be surprised. But this was, after all, a Liberal Party that came to power in 2015 promising a new era of transparency and openness. Mr. Trudeau went around pledging to empower MPs.

Story continues below advertisement

In opposition, Liberal MPs including Mr. Trudeau had voted for the Reform Act, proposed by Conservative MP Michael Chong as a way of shifting influence back to individual members of Parliament.

It was supposed to establish new rules of governance: Each party caucus could choose its own rules, but it had to decide on each one in a recorded vote.

But in 2015, the Liberals didnt even bother to vote.

This time, at least, Liberal MPs voted as the law requires. But they said nothing about it. Caucus chair Francis Scarpaleggia insisted that the results were a secret. Its internal, he said.

This was a pathetic retreat into the political ethos of a previous century.

For some reason, MPs still think that the governance of their caucus is akin to the rules of a private club. It is not. MPs have a responsibility to Canadians for holding the executive to account, and for holding their party leaders to account. The public has every right to know the rules of the relationship between them. That is minimal transparency.

Story continues below advertisement

This is not, as Mr. Scarpaleggia claimed, a matter of caucus confidentiality. MPs from each party invoke that concept to speak freely among themselves. The Reform Act results, on the other hand, are the outcome of a legislatively mandated vote on the governance of parties in Parliament. Yet the Liberal Party still thinks it is none of your business.

But Liberal sources said the partys MPs voted against empowering themselves in each instance. The Globe and Mail is not identifying the sources because party officials do not allow MPs to speak publicly about caucus discussions.

The MPs were generally in consensus, the sources said, with many arguing that the Reform Act was Mr. Chongs bill, and if Liberals want to do caucus reforms, they would do it their way.

Dont hold your breath.

The MPs even voted against giving themselves the power to elect the chair of their caucus, and then voted to elect the chair of their caucus. Liberal MPs didnt like the fact that the Reform Act rules also gave MPs the power to remove the caucus chair, one source said.

Unfortunately, the Reform Act is now a shadow of its original intent. Conservatives adopted some of the rules, but the NDP voted them all down, too. Many MPs worry more about caucus unity than a parliamentarians independence.

Story continues below advertisement

And in the end, MPs have power if they have the guts to exert it. The Reform Act was only supposed to shift the balance a little, and provide some accountability.

Still, it provided a clear signal that all the 2015 campaign rhetoric about MPs empowerment and transparency is now dead-letter politics: The Liberals wouldnt even tell the public how they voted.

Link:

Liberal MPs still seem to think they operate like a private club - The Globe and Mail

The battle for 1989 was won by illiberal populism. Thats one thing we can say with certainty 30 years on from the fall of the iron curtain. In the narrative spun by Jarosaw Kaczyski, Viktor Orbn and their supporters, democratic transformation turned out to be a fraud, liberal democracy an illusion, and integration with the EU an upmarket form of foreign occupation. The illiberal populists, under the cover of such rhetoric, simultaneously dismantle the rule of law and independent institutions. Meanwhile, liberals seem devoid of ideas or initiative, agreeing only that somehow, it all went wrong.

This is not just about melancholy and misunderstanding. In a sense, post-communist countries became a testing ground after 1989. Both our families came from Warsaw and they struggled not only to survive the upheavals of that era, but to create better lives, if not for themselves, at least for their children. Individually, some succeeded, but it came at a high price. The revolutions of 1989 meant the almost overnight disintegration of entire ways of life. That had an immense impact, even if most people would not have wanted to hang on to their experience of pure socialism.

Todays populists tend to focus only on the downsides of what came after 1989. But how have they been so effective at imposing their interpretation of events, even now, 30 years on?

In the last year of the cold war, the west of our collective imagination was a place of hope Moscow we were more familiar with, and viewed with fear. Yet, contrary to the image often conveyed, the reaction in our countries to the end of communism was far from euphoric.

The promise of freedom and a better life lay on the distant horizon. Day to day, though, we experienced a poverty more humiliating than anything that had come before especially after seeing the west with our own eyes. It is a common mistake to think that illiberal politicians in post-communist countries are popular despite these countries successes. The contrary seems more plausible: their popularity is a consequence of the success.

At a time when populist leaders are in power in other parts of the world, including the US, it may be instructive to look at the causes of illiberal populism generally.

Our focus is on an aspect of human nature that is underexplored in political analysis: namely political emotion, and in particular, the feeling of loss.

It is astonishing to us to hear people in the US, the UK, France or Italy express views so familiar to us: Our jobs are being stolen, The world is changing too much, I dont recognise my country. This is where 1989 meets 2019 at least in the populists narratives. Their pessimistic interpretation of the fall of communism is mirrored in the current over-simplifications.

The year 1989 was one of those breakthrough moments in human history whose impact is felt in contradictory ways. As Charles Dickens wrote about 1789 in A Tale of Two Cities, it was the best of times and the worst of times. It was a spring of hope, and a winter of despair, it was indeed the age of wisdom and the age of foolishness.

The same duality was felt elsewhere. As well as the fall of communism, 1989 marked the beginning of an era of global change and acceleration. Quality of life and longevity improved, as revolutions were occurring in technology, communication, and social mobility. There was simultaneous gain and loss.

Central and eastern Europe has registered extraordinary economic growth on almost every parameter since the end of communism. But change, when it happens so swiftly and completely, can also involve great loss for the individual. We dont just mean the disappearance of jobs or bankruptcies. We mean something much deeper. A loss that relates to the micro-world of secure long-term relationships, identity and feelings of security, so important in the classical liberalism of Adam Smith and JS Mill.

In German, there is a word that captures this disruption: schleudern, which means to spin round and round as in a washing machine. In the social sense, our world spun repeatedly as we strived for a better future. This is the context in which we can see that illiberal populists are effective not because they buy voters, or manipulate negative emotions, such as fear or rage. Their skill is to recognise and empathise with feelings of loss when liberals tactlessly disregard or ridicule them.

And it is how we can explain the reactionary aspect of populism in eastern Europe, and beyond. Brexiters won with the slogan Take back control, and Donald Trump cut through with Make America great again. Kaczyski in Poland, Bjrn Hcke in Germany and Thierry Baudet in the Netherlands all talk about protecting the traditional values of their societies (usually without being specific about what this would mean).

Liberals often feel overwhelmed by this kind of politics. A peculiar defeatism surrounds the failure of liberal democracy to deliver. Liberals also fear that pandering to emotion plays the same game as populists. They prefer to calm feelings down or just steer clear of them.

Enemies of democracy have, of course, always manipulated feelings. Yet we believe that theres a key lesson from 1989 that liberalism can learn. We need a passionate defence of liberal democracy and the liberal order. We also need to embrace the feeling of loss and translate it into something positive and enriching, into a feeling about political community.

How could this be done? The collective sense of loss we have been describing is akin to the grief that follows the death of a loved one. In bereavement our first reaction is to look back, to dwell on the loss. Reactionary populisms concentration on the negative aspects of transformation might be compared with bereavement. As humans we know that after bereavement comes the recovery phase. And this means looking to the future and building networks of friends. It requires courage, hope and compassion especially for those who think so differently that they vote for populists.

This is what the liberalism of the future could mean. It could retell the story of 1989, while doing justice to this great and complex moment. Central and eastern Europe still has an important message for the world. It is the knowledge that the greatest successes of liberal democracy, including 1989, were enabled by passionate hope.

Karolina Wigura is a historian, political editor of the Polish weekly Kultural Liberalna and a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Berlin

Jarosaw Kuisz is a historian, editor-in-chief of the Polish weekly Kultura Liberalna and a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Berlin

Read the original:

Populists understand the power of human emotion. Europes liberals need to grasp it, too - The Guardian

featured newsDecember 13, 2019 at 11:00 amAlistair Carmichael MP (pictured in 2017).

Alistair Carmichael said that, in the immediate aftermath of being voted in as Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland, representing the people of the Northern Isles is the greatest privilege of his political career.

Mr Carmichael fended off a challenge from his main rival, SNP candidate Robert Leslie, by more than 2,500 votes, receiving 10,381 in contrast to Mr Leslies 7,874.

The Liberal Democrats took 44.8 per cent of the votes in Orkney and Shetland with 23,240 votes were cast.

To make myself available for local people when they need and to speak up for these very special communities is an enormous privilege, said Mr Carmichael following the announcement of results on Friday morning.

It has always been my first priority as member of parliament and it will continue to do so now.

While it was delight for Mr Carmichael and his team, nationally, it wasnt such a good night for the Liberal Democrats.

They lost one seat their leader Jo Swinson lost her Dumbartonshire East seat to the SNP and currently hold 11 with just one more seat to declare.

The Conservatives surged to a huge victory, winning 364 seats so far, up from 47 in 2017, to secure their biggest margin of victory since the 1980s.

Mr Carmichael said: The prospect of Boris Johnson in Number 10 with little or no restraint on him is a grim one for those of us of pervasive politics who care about human rights and who care about the rule of law.

The next five years is going to be a difficult and dangerous time for the United Kingdom. But at a time when so much of our politics seems to be about division and disruption, the need for liberal voices to put the case for unity and solidarity is greater than ever before.

That is the task to which I dedicate myself tonight. I am enormously grateful and massively delighted that the people in Orkney and Shetland have again declared today that that is how they want to do their politics and they again have chosen the politics of unity over the politics of division.

Similar posts

See more here:

'The need for Liberal voices is greater than ever before' Carmichael - The Orcadian