Category Archives: Liberal

It took a little more than a year for Glioblastoma to kill Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Beau Biden, the son of the last vice president, held it off for about three years. More than likely, the cancer will soon claim the life of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Realistically then, McCain is a dead-man walking and that's what makes his speech on the Senate floor Tuesday so remarkable -- and some of his critics so despicable.

Listening to McCain speak, one would doubt his dangerous medical prognosis. Shortly after confronting his own mortality, he decided to try tackling some of the Senate's most enduring problems like blind faction, a broken deliberative process, and brutally-raw political power.

It was the kind of speech only Jimmy Stewart, or for that matter John McCain, could deliver. And it had the qualities we want from our politicians: bipartisanship, intelligence, and, most of all, bravery.

Listening to the opposition, though, it's easy to wonder if honest deliberation is even possible anymore.

"Are you ashamed of the legacy you're going to be leaving the Republican Party with, one hell-bent on the destruction of the poor and the disabled?" one woman shrieked, summarizing the liberal position.

"Are you going to die and leave us with this legacy?" she taunted as McCain walked to the Senate floor.

While that was the verbal assault on Capitol Hill, plenty of liberals didn't hold back on Twitter either. For example:

To be fair, not every liberal was on board with trashing McCain.

In a particularly classy bipartisan gesture, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., walked over and actually embraced the senator after the speech.

A class act through it all, McCain didn't flinch. Most likely at the end of his career and possibly his life, the elder statesman offered instead the picture of dignity. One wonders if that calm will succeed McCain in the great deliberative body or if it will be drowned out by the contempt we witnessed today by protesters.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

The rest is here:

When shrieking liberal protesters went low, John McCain went high - Washington Examiner

The State

The real liberal critique: Republicans aren't liberals The State James Fallows, in The Atlantic, describes their behavior as the most discouraging weakness our governing system has shown since Trump took office. He singles out Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse for scorn because he leads all senators in his thoughtful, ... and more »

Read more here:

The real liberal critique: Republicans aren't liberals - The State

Only 36% of Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, believe colleges and universities have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, versus 58% who say they have a negative effect. Among Democrats, those figures are 72% and 19%, respectively. That finding represents a crisis.

For it to be a crisis does not depend on you having any conservative sympathies. For this to be a crisis requires only that you recognize that the GOP is one of two major political parties in American life, and that Republicans lack of faith in higher education will have practical consequences.

Further, it helps if you recognize that, in the present era, Republicans dominate American governance, with control of the House, Senate, presidency and crucially for our purposes, a significant majority of the countrys statehouses and governors mansions. They also have built a machine for state-level political elections that ensures that they will likely control many state legislatures for years to come.

As an academic, I am increasingly convinced that a mass defunding of public higher education is coming to an unprecedented degree and at an unprecedented scale. People enjoy telling me that this has already occurred that state support of our public universities has already declined precipitously. But things can always get worse, much worse.

And given the endless controversies on college campuses in which conservative speakers get shut out and conservative students feel silenced, the public relations work is being done for the enemies of public education by those within the institutions themselves.

Whos to blame for the fact that so few Republicans see the value in universities? The conservative media must accept some responsibility for encouraging its audiences to doubt expertise; so must those in the mainstream media who amplify every leftist kerfuffle on campus and make it seem as though trigger warnings are now at the center of college life.

But academics are at fault, too, because weve pushed mainstream conservatism out of our institutions. Sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons have found that about half of professors identify as liberal, versus only 14% who identify as Republican. (At the time of their study, in 2006, only a fifth of American adults described themselves as liberal.)

In Whats Liberal About the Liberal Arts? Michael Berube describes and defends a philosophy of non-coercion and intellectual pluralism that isnt just an intellectual curiosity, but an actual ethos that he and other professors live by. I grew up believing that most professors lived by that ethos. I dont anymore. And when I suggest its a problem that academics are so overwhelmingly liberal, I get astonished reactions. You actually think conservatives should feel welcome on campus?

In my network of professional academics, almost no one recognizes that our lopsided liberalism presents a threat to academia itself. Many would reply to the Pew Research Centers findings with glee. They would tell you that they dont want the support of Republicans. My fellow academics wont grapple with the simple, pragmatic realities of political power and how it threatens vulnerable institutions whose funding is in doubt. Thats because there is no professional or social incentive in the academy to think strategically or to engage with the world beyond campus.

Instead, all of the incentives point toward affirming ones position in the aristocracy of the academy. There are no repercussions to ignoring how the university and its subsidiary departments function in our broader society, at least not in the humanities and, for the most part, not in the social sciences either.

Universities make up a powerful lobbying bloc, and they have proved to be durable institutions. I dont think youll see many flagship institutions shuttered soon. But an acceleration of the deprofessionalization of the university teaching corps through part-time adjuncts? Shuttering departments such as Womens Studies or similar? Passing harsh restrictions on campus groups and how they can organize? Thats coming, and our own behavior as academics will make it easier for reactionary power, every step of the way.

Our public universities are under massive pressure and at immense risk, and those who should be defenders of public universities still dont understand that theyve created the conditions for their destruction.

Fredrik deBoer is a writer and academic at Brooklyn College in the City University of New York.

Sights, sounds, and the people that made the first day of 2017's Comic-Con a sight to behold.

Sights, sounds, and the people that made the first day of 2017's Comic-Con a sight to behold.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook.

Excerpt from:

Republicans don't trust higher ed. That's a problem for liberal academics - Los Angeles Times

Updated July 24, 2017 15:29:51

The WA Liberal Party's long-held financial advantage over its political opponents has all but been erased, with its fundraising difficulties ahead of March's state election laid bare by official figures.

Returns released by the WA Electoral Commission showed the Liberals were forced to reduce campaign spending ahead of the election while a financially resurgent Labor Party was able to dramatically ramp up its advertising effort.

The Liberals had to reduce spending by 4 per cent, compared to the 2013 election, while Labor was able to spend 66 per cent more - almost eliminating the long-running financial disparity between the two major parties.

In all, the Liberals spent $4.9 million on the 2017 election while Labor spent $4.6 million.

It is a far cry from the 2013 election, when the Liberals spent nearly double what Labor did.

The campaign culminated in a landslide election win for Labor, with the Barnett government suffering a disastrous loss which saw the Liberals reduced to holding just 13 seats in the 59-member Legislative Assembly.

Unions also spent nearly $2 million in their campaigns, more than double their effort in 2013.

Both ahead of and during the campaign, many Liberals privately voiced concerns about the party's fundraising difficulties - with the Barnett government's soured relationship with parts of the business community seen as a significant factor.

Political analyst Peter Kennedy said the figures painted a concerning picture for the Liberals.

"The party's stocks in WA are at a low ebb and that makes it harder for the party to go out and raise funds from business," he said.

"If your party is on the ascendency, money seems to roll in, but if you're on the decline then you tend to get neglected.

"Financially, the Liberals in the west are going through a tough time."

Labor poured much of its additional resources into broadcast advertising, nearly quadrupling what it spent in that area compared to four years earlier.

The Nationals ($682,471), Greens ($575,901) and One Nation ($170,260) were the next biggest campaign spenders among political parties.

The Australian Nursing Federation spent an extraordinary $844,449 on its election activities, while other unions also splashed the cash.

The Australian Services Union, which oversaw the campaign against the Barnett government's proposed Western Power sale, spent nearly half a million dollars.

Other big spenders included the RAC ($361,421) and Chamber of Commerce and Industry ($80,871).

Topics: liberals, elections, wa

First posted July 24, 2017 14:59:25

Read more:

WA Electoral Commission returns show extent of Liberal fundraising struggles - ABC Online

Tony Abbott at the NSW Liberal Party Futures convention at Rosehill Racecourse in Sydney. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

A motion championed by Tony Abbott to introduce one member one preselection voting has passed at the Liberal partys New South Wales convention.

NSW Liberals voted for the Warringah motion with a 61% majority on Sunday afternoon, following brief delays after the electronic voting system went down.

There were 784 votes from a total pool of 1,224 cast in favour of the first Warringah motion.

A vote for a second Warringah motion was also passed, 769-423, according to the former MP Ross Cameron, a supporter of the changes, who tweeted the empire is imploding.

The motion is for one vote to be given to all MPs and office-bearers in the NSW Liberals during preselections. Current rules give votes to branch representatives and central party officials.

Abbott said the NSW Liberal party would no longer be an insiders club after the convention.

We didnt like the insiders club, the closed shop which the NSW Liberal party has been for too long, he said. We will do even greater things now that weve got this mandate to be a genuine peoples party.

A key proponent of the reforms, the Warringah electoral conference president and powerbroker Walter Villatora, said the party membership had clearly spoken on Sunday. He said the reforms would make NSW the most democratic division in Australia.

Abbott described the reforms as true democracy versus the fake democracy proposed by the partys moderate and soft right factions, which wanted to restrict the party members influence.

Villatora said: Somewhere up above in Liberal party heaven Robert Menzies is looking down and smiling.

The era of brutal factionalism is over. I want to thank the hundreds of members whove made this happen. I especially want to thank the prime minister and the premier for their clear support for democratic reform.

The motions still need to be ratified by the state council. Villatora said he expected that to take place in three months.

Another reform proponent, retired major general Jim Molan, received loud applause in moving the motions on Sunday.

Other motions, proposed by Liberal MP Alex Hawke, were proposed to temper the reforms. Hawkes motions would protect sitting members from the new system with a grandfather clause and place eligibility criteria on voting members, including activity tests and waiting times.

Hawkes motions were voted down.

There were a large number of motions yet to be debated when the meeting concluded on Sunday. It is currently unclear what will happen to the remaining motions.

A how-to-vote card issued by backers of the so-called Warringah motions called on members at the special convention to vote yes only to the two motions, and no to the dozens of others, which have yet to be voted on. Stop the factions, stop the stacking, take control of your party, the card reads.

One NSW Liberals member, Kevin Brennan, tweeted before the debate: If the one member one vote motion doesnt get passed in the NSW Liberal party convention today then the election is lost + the party finished.

About 1,500 members had registered to attend the NSW Liberal Futures convention.

Two sources told AAP the electronic voting system went down just before 3pm as members were about to vote on the motion to introduce plebiscites to select candidates for state and federal parliament. The online voting system can be accessed via smartphones, tablets and computers.

A party insider told AAP it was likely several of the motions could get a majority of votes on the floor, and it would then be up to party officials to weave them together into what has been described as a modernisation plan.

The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, spoke in favour of plebiscites at the convention on Saturday as a way of giving more power to members and building the partys membership base.

He described plebiscites as a fundamental element of party democracy.

However there are differences of views over the checks and balances in the system, including a minimum period of membership of the party.

Abbott, who has been criticising the direction of the government under Turnbull, said the victory wasnt about him but about the party.

Now we can go forward as one united party, he said.

Abbott told reporters on Saturday those who oppose his one member one vote motions were advocating fake democracy.

Cameron and a fellow Warringah backer, the former NSW president John Riddick, warned the moderates against trying to stymie the changes by bogging it down at state council.

You cannot ignore the will of the people that has been so clearly demonstrated today, Riddick told reporters outside the meeting. If they dont ratify it in three months, they are risking a terrible war of ratification.

Moderates put on a brave face, with Mackellar MP Jason Falinksi hailing the vote as the beginning of a new start for the party that would allow it to reform and address external challenges.

I think this conference today will be a unifying moment in the history of the Liberal party in NSW, the factional powerbroker told reporters.

When asked if it was a win for Abbott, he said it was a win for all Liberals wherever they may be.

I dont believe it will be a shift to the right, he said as he was heckled by Cameron in front of reporters.

The current preselection practice involves a combination of branch-elected local delegates and central electors from outside the seat.

It is understood Turnbull did not support part of the Warringah motions.

Read more from the original source:

Tony Abbott-backed motion for NSW Liberal preselections wins party support - The Guardian

Recently, Gallup published the results of its annual Values and Beliefs poll.

The headline of the report speaks for itself: "Americans Hold Record Liberal Views on Most Moral Issues."

Gallup has been doing this poll since 2001, and the change in public opinion on the moral issues surveyed has been in one direction more liberal.

Of 19 issues surveyed in this latest poll, responses on 10 are the most liberal since the survey started.

Sixty-three percent say gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable up 23 points from the first year the question was asked. Sixty-two percent say having a baby outside of marriage is OK up 17 points. Unmarried sex, 69 percent up 16 points. Divorce, 73 percent up 14 points.

More interesting, and of greater consequence, is what people actually do, rather than what they think. And, not surprisingly, the behavior we observe in our society at large reflects these trends in values.

Hence, the institution of traditional marriage is crumbling, Americans are having fewer children, and, compared with years gone by, the likelihood that children are born out of the framework of marriage has dramatically increased.

Undoubtedly, the liberals in academia, in the media, in politics, see this as good news. After all, doesn't removing the "thou shalt nots" that limit life's options liberate us?

Isn't the idea of freedom supposed to be, according to them, that you have a green light to do whatever you want, as long as you're not hurting someone else?

But here's the rub. How do you measure if you are hurting someone else?

No one lives in a vacuum. We all live in a country, in communities. We are social beings as well as individuals, no matter what your political philosophy happens to be. Everyone's behavior has consequences for others.

For instance, more and more research shows the correlation between the breakdown of the traditional family and poverty.

In 2009, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution published his "success sequence." According to Haskins, someone who completes high school, works full time and doesn't have children until after marriage has only a 2 percent chance of being poor.

A new study from the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies focuses on millennials those born between 1980-1984. And this study reaches conclusions similar to those of Haskins.

According to this study, only 3 percent of millennials who have a high school diploma, who are working full time and who are married before having children are poor. On the other hand, 53 percent of millennials who have not done these three things are poor.

Behavior increasing the likelihood of poverty does have consequences on others. American taxpayers spend almost a trillion dollars a year to help those in poverty, a portion of whom would not be in this situation if they lived their lives differently.

But the same liberals who scream when Republicans look for ways to streamline spending on antipoverty programs like Medicaid, scream just as loudly at any attempt to expose young people to biblical values that teach traditional marriage and chastity outside of marriage.

The percent of American adults that are married dropped from 72 percent in 1960 to 52 percent in 2008. The percentage of our babies born to unmarried women increased from 5 percent in 1960 to 41 percent by 2008.

This occurred against a backdrop of court orders removing all vestiges of religion from our public spaces, beginning with banning school prayer in 1962, and then the legalization of abortion in 1973. In 2015, the Supreme Court redefined marriage.

Losing all recognition that personal and social responsibility matters, that the biblical tradition that existed in the cradle of our national founding is still relevant, is bankrupting us morally and fiscally.

We are long overdue for a new, grand awakening.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at http://www.urbancure.org.

Go here to see the original:

Column: Liberal values are bankrupting us - Aiken Standard

Liberal Leave was formed as a part of Vote Leave during the EU referendum. It had the slogan Liberal. Democratic. Internationalist. and it mainly operated through social media. The most high-profile figure in the Group was an ex-MP called Paul Keetch who wrote an article in the Independent called Think that if you are liberal you should vote to stay in the EU? Think again. I was part of that group during the EU referendum and I now chair it.

I have tried to change the group so it is about a compromise between Remain and Leave, one that can be found in the Icelandic option which differs from the Norway option due to its use of safeguard measures. Compromise is what I feel Brexit should now be about, because otherwise hard-line groups on either side will shape it for us in the years to come.

We are against a second referendum. The argument used by Tim Farron during the recent election campaign was that we didnt vote for a destination, just to leave the EU and thats right. Therefore, we should have a referendum on just that, the destination. Do we want to remain members of the single market and do we want to remain members of the customs union? We should ask that rather than replaying the EU referendum.

During the referendum, the European Free Trade Association +European Economic Area (EFTA+EEA) model was the object of attacks from both Remain and Leave supporters. I often heard people say things like They accept all EU laws when they only accept laws related to the single market. Pay, no say was another popular one and it brings up two important areas. They do have a say just in global bodies where they always have their own seat and their own voice rather than a say in the EU. The pay part is better than it sounds with the EFTA+EEA countries paying for EU programs like Erasmus+ which we would probably take part in anyway, EEA grants which go towards poorer EU countries and payment for EFTA membership. Most importantly EFTA+EEA countries dont contribute towards the EUs central budget. They are also under the EFTA court, not the ECJ as many expect. Finally, They have to accept the four freedoms. Liechtenstein doesnt and the rest have safeguard measures that can be triggered solely by them, when they want and for however long they want. More on Free Movement controls can be found here.

Brexit is not going to be a single event and even if during the two-year negotiations we completely drop out of the single market we should aim for the Norway model. Why? Because it offers fairness, stability and security.

* Torrin Wilkins is Chair of Liberal Leave and a Liberal Democrat member.

Read more:

Reintroducing Liberal Leave - Liberal Democrat Voice

Old tweets from incoming White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci show that he embraced some liberal policy stances in the last few years, just as President Trump did before he committed to running as a Republican.

"I am not a partisan just practical. I voted for Clinton and Obama," Scaramucci wrote on Twitter in November 2011.

In 2012, Scaramucci reacted to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings with a call for gun control.

"I have always been for strong gun control laws," Scaramucci wrote in December 2012.

Earlier that year, he wrote, "We (the USA) has 5% of the world's population but 50% of the world's guns. Enough is enough. It is just common sense it apply more controls."

The 53-year-old Long Island native also urged conservatives to embrace gay marriage and rights in 2012.

"Republicans should support Gay marriage," he tweeted.

Unlike his new boss, Scaramucci believes the climate is changing.

"You can take steps to combat climate change without crippling the economy. The fact many people still believe CC is a hoax is disheartening," he wrote in March 2016, weeks after the GOP primaries started.

But Scaramucci's most recent critique of Trump occurred during the 2016 campaign. In a December 2015 tweet, Scaramucci lambasted Trump's campaign pledge for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border.

"Walls don't work," he wrote. "Never have never will."

Trump on Saturday seemed to forgive Scaramucci for not adopting his policies early on in the 2016 election, and said Scaramucci backed different candidates before he knew Trump was running.

"In all fairness to Anthony Scaramucci, he wanted to endorse me 1st, before the Republican Primaries started, but didn't think I was running!" Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday morning.

Read more from the original source:

Anthony Scaramucci's old tweets reveal liberal views on climate, abortion, gay rights, border wall - Washington Examiner

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian expects a "robust and at times heated" debate at a Liberal Party reform convention in Sydney on Sunday.

Malcolm Turnbull has urged the convention to back changes to party rules which would ensure grassroots members have a greater say on candidates and policy.

Ms Berejiklian has also thrown her weight behind the idea of plebiscites to select candidates for state and federal seats, but said she understood members had different ideas as to how this could be achieved.

"I know that this issue ... will be robust and at times heated, but that is a good thing, that is normal for a healthy thriving organisation," she told the convention on Saturday.

Mr Turnbull says plebiscites are a "fundamental element of party democracy" and will help boost party membership and motivate members to be more active.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott says the convention should pass a set of motions proposed by his Warringah federal electorate conference, which would ensure sitting members can be challenged under the plebiscite system and members would need to be signed up for two years before they can vote.

However, Mr Turnbull's moderate faction is working with members of the "soft right" on alternatives to Mr Abbott's motions - including a longer timeframe for members to wait and the protection of sitting members from the new rules.

Mr Abbott says those who oppose his "one member one vote" motions are advocating "fake democracy".

It is expected some disgruntled conservative party members could quit the Liberals if the reforms don't go far enough.

But the former prime minister said his message to those people was "stay and fight".

Liberal president Nick Greiner told the convention it would be "unfortunate" if the party steered away from it being a "broad church", incorporating both moderate and conservative wings.

He said he had noticed in recent times some "lack of civility" in the party and urged all members to advocate with passion but do so in a respectful way.

The final result of the convention will go to the NSW Liberals state director and president, who will prepare the party's modernisation plan to go before a future NSW state council meeting for endorsement later in the year.

Follow this link:

Liberal reform voting system crashes - NEWS.com.au

The University of California Berkeley is back at the center of controversy in another battle over free speech, but this time there's a surprising twist of events.

A Berkeley radio station has canceled an August 9 speaking engagement with atheist author Richard Dawkins, according to Berkeleyside.

In recent months, the liberal university has generated widespread outrage for canceling speakers with conservative views, like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Ben Shapiro.

But this latest cancellation targets a well-known liberal.

Dawkins was going to speak about his new book, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Atheist, in the engagement sponsored by KPFA.

Although Dawkins is outspoken against conservative values and Christianity, the radio station doesn't cite that as the reason for cancellattion. Instead, KPFA sent a letter to those who bought tickets for the event saying it's because his views against Muslims could be taken as offensive.

"We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn't know he had offended and hurt in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people. KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech," it says.

The letter condemns what they call "abusive speech."

"While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive sphttp://eech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier. We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellattion." In the past, Dawkins has criticized aspects of Islam on Twitter. In one tweet, he highlights the abusive treatment of some Muslim women.

In another, he references suggestions about what Mohammed would be doing if he were alive today.

Dawkins ended up responding to the radio station in a letter of his own: "I used to love your station when I lived in Berkeley for two years, shortly after that beloved place had become the iconic home of free speech," he wrote. "I have criticized the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticized the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand as perhaps you do not that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women."

In the letter, he points out what he sees as a double standard: "I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticize Christianity but not Islam?"

"You say I use 'abusive speech' about Islam. I would seriously I mean it like to hear what examples of my 'abusive speech' you had in mind. When you fail to discover any, I presume you will issue a public apology, which I will of course accept in a spirit of gratitude for what KPFA once was. And could become again," he added.

Link:

'Why Do You Give Islam a Free Pass?' Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Got Booted from Berkeley - CBN News