Category Archives: Liberal

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 35 percent of Democrats believed that a friends vote for Donald Trump would strain their relationship. Among white Democrats, the figure is even higher, with 40 percent saying that they would have trouble maintaining a friendship with someone who supported Trump. Nearly half (47 percent) of those who described themselves as liberal Democrats said their friendship would suffer with someone who favored Trump.

By contrast, the share of Republicans who say that a friends vote for Hillary Clinton would strain their relationship was a mere 13 percent, just over a third the number of Democrats who say that a friends vote for Trump would do the same:

With these data in hand, Vermeule, who is the Ralph S. Tyler professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, tweeted that, indeed, white liberal college graduates are the least tolerant in society, highlighting the three categories most radically affected by a persons contrary political ideas:

In a Twitter conversation that ensued, Vermeule suggested that on average Democrats and Republicans look at politics differently, which explains its differing effects on ones personal life and relationships.

Liberalism, he stated, makes an idol of politics, and thus, political dissent is looked upon as heresy. In the case of conservatives, however, politics plays a different role. The data show that Republicans are more politically tolerant, he said, because politics isnt as likely to be an idol, on average.

In other words, Republicans tend to be more politically detached, with politics playing a less central role in their existence, meaning that they can more easily overlook a friends contrary political opinions without it jeopardizing their relationship.

Citing a recent piece from the Washington Post, one commenter proposed that perhaps Democrats live in a bubble and, therefore, are more hostile to contrary opinions. The WaPo article declared that Democrats tend to be more insulated from dissenting political voices, and, therefore, they dont hear and dont want to hear those voices coming from their friends mouths.

To this theory, Vermeule responded that he believes such sociological explanations are insufficient to fully get to the bottom of the differences between liberals and conservatives in relation to politics.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read this article:

Harvard Law Professor: 'White Liberal College Graduates' Are 'the Least Tolerant' - Breitbart News

A Pew Research Center survey found thatnearly half of liberal Democrat respondents admit that discovering that a person voted for Donald Trump would make a friendship with that person difficult. The other half of respondents did not admit this.

In contrast, a large majority of conservative Republicansindicated topollsters that they could put politics aside for the sake of a friendship with a person who voted for Hillary Clinton. Almost three-fourths of conservative Republicans said a persons vote for Hillary Clinton would not put a strain on their relationship. Just a quarter of them said such a vote would strain the friendship.

The resultsreflect (and perhaps influence)the increasing partisanship in Washington and take the longstanding advice to keep politics out of polite conversation to a different level by keeping people with opposing political views out of the conversation entirely. The results also clash with stories in the not-so-distant past of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans buddying up.

Political history overflows with ideological enemies becoming personal friends. Democrat Jack Kennedy forged a friendship with Republican Joseph McCarthy, who hired his brother Bobby, dated sisters Eunice and Patricia, and served as the godfather to niece Kathleen Kennedy Townshend. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the HouseTip ONeill, occupying places closer to the opposing poles of the political spectrum than to one another, famously, and perhaps apocryphally, enjoyed beers together after legislative fights. The late Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most conservative member of the Supreme Court in recent times, found his closest friend on the bench in Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members in recent times.

The poll, released July 20, reinforces other polling data and anecdotal reports that suggest that politics so subsumes the lives of some liberals that friendships with conservatives remain off-limits

Gay writer Michael Musto, for instance, recently advocated dumping friends who disagree politically.

Everything in a friendship that might have seemed good suddenly goes sour when I learn that they advocate Trump and his hideousness, which involves attempting to diminish rights for women, LGBTQs, Muslims, immigrants, the arts, and the non-rich, not to mention all those treasonous-sounding doings with Russia, he explained. Am I supposed to understand that a gay friend is simply concerned about tax breaks and therefore cant be bothered to devote any energy to little things like human rights? Bye, Felicia!

A Public Religion Research Institute poll taken after last years presidential election showed that almost three times as many liberals as conservatives blocked others on social media based on their political postings.

The political dealbreaker extends for some to romantic relationships.

[I]m left-leaning politically, and, truth be told, cant see myself ever developing feelings foror being in a relationship withanyone that supports [T]rump, one Wayne, Pennsylvania, Craigslist lonely-heart wrote potential beaus. A male professional Seeking College Student for Dating in San Francisco added this postscript to his Craigslist ad: No Republicans or Trump Supporters need apply.

How pervasive is the political intolerance? A recent OKCupid blog headline explained: In 2017, Trump Is a Major Dating Dealbreaker. Golden Showers Are Not.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

View post:

FLYNN: I Unfriend You! Polling Shows Half of Liberal Democrats Troubled by Socializing with Trump Voters - Breitbart News

Trent Zimmerman says all members should approach the NSW Liberal Futures convention prepared to compromise. Photograph: Toby Mann/AAP

A long-time Liberal member has threatened to tear the party apart and push fellow members to Cory Bernardis Australian Conservatives if the Warringah motion for one member-one preselection vote does not succeed this weekend.

The motion will be debated at the NSW Liberal Futures convention in Sydney, an unprecedented event called specifically to discuss the party rules.

The convention will be open to the media to hear Malcolm Turnbull and the NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, address 1,500 registered members before the convention closes to discuss the contentious rule changes.

John Howard recommended plebiscites following his review of the party after he left office. Turnbull favours more open preselections but has not backed any particular model.

John Ruddick has been campaigning for all members to vote in their local preselections since 2011. He said the only good outcome was the defeat of all motions apart from the Warringah motion.

He labelled attempts by Liberal MPs Julian Leeser and Alex Hawke to broker a compromise as a con. The Leeser/Hawke motions would place eligibility criteria on members such as activity tests and waiting times before being eligible to vote, and would protect sitting members from the new system with a grandfather clause.

Opponents of Warringah say that this would reduce the chance of branch stacking, though no Liberals would talk on the record as it is against party rules. Ruddick is no longer a party member.

If the Hawke/Leeser con-job compromise motions are supported, then I will be joining Cory Bernardis Australian Conservative party on Sunday afternoon and will launch a high-velocity campaign to bring as many Liberal party members as possible to join me, Ruddick told Guardian Australia.

I single-handedly launched the democracy campaign within the NSW Liberal party and I will gladly tear it apart if they explicitly reject simple democratic principles.

The outcome may feed Bernardis plans to cannibalise the Liberal party membership base. While the membership numbers are held secret, Warringah supporters have previously stated the NSW membership is as low as 8,000, though other Liberal sources say the numbers are closer to 12,000.

Bernardi has planned an event in Sydney next week and claims 4,000 paid-up AusCon members in NSW. He is also due to speak to the Roseville branch of the Liberal party next month.

Ruddick, also a conservative, won nearly 40% of the vote when he ran for NSW party president in 2012. He had been threatened with expulsion and suspension for speaking about party matters publicly, before he resigned his membership in 2015 when Turnbull became leader.

Ruddick was one of a number of conservatives who had lunch with Bernardi, the former Liberal senator, last month. They included another key preselection campaigner and conservative, Walter Villatora, who is also Tony Abbotts federal electorate conference president. Abbott has argued for the change since he lost the leadership.

Even if the Warringah motion passes the convention, it has to go to the partys constitutional committee, and also pass the partys state executive, which is controlled by the moderate faction, which remains opposed to full plebiscites. Ruddick says he does not trust the party machinery to expedite the move to plebiscites.

If Warringah only is approved we still have a battle ahead the war of ratification, Ruddick said. The lobbyists are banking on bogging down ratification for years as they have done in the past. I cant disclose strategy at this point but I promise we will win the war of ratification within three months.

The current preselection practice is that branches vote in local delegates, who vote for a candidate from a central pool. In some circumstances, the state executive can use special powers to intervene and change the rules to expedite the process.

NSW is one of only two states that does not have some form of plebiscite for preselection.

The NSW party state executive and its immediate past president, Trent Zimmerman, have long opposed plebiscites, arguing that the current system is appropriate because MPs are local representatives as well as flag bearers for the party.

On Friday, Zimmerman said all members should approach the convention prepared to compromise, which could mean support for either the Leeser or Hawke motions. But it is also possible that the convention could support two motions, such as the Warringah motion and one other compromise motion, if some members vote for both.

The convention is unprecedented in that any member could register to take part and vote. Electronic voting will be used, via smartphones, tablets or laptops, which had caused concern among some quarters of the party, given its ageing demographic.

Original post:

Former NSW Liberal member threatens to 'tear party apart' if Warringah motion fails - The Guardian

By Star Parker Syndicated columnist

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 not's" 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 (contact her at http://www.urbancure.org) is an author and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. She writes for Creators Syndicate.

See the article here:

Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us - News Chief

Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, speaks to a crowd in Ankara during the inauguration on 16 July 2017 of a monument to commemorate the victims of the coup attempt a year earlier. Photograph: AP

Some readers bristled when the Guardian published an article with the byline of Recep Tayyip Erdoan, the president of Turkey. Why had the increasingly authoritarian leader been given space to say online, as the headline put it, Turkey, a year after the attempted coup, is defending democratic values, and in print, Turkey, a year on, has a strong democracy (Opinion, 15 July, page 35)?

A selection of readers reactions:

I was genuinely shocked Apart from the tens of thousands of academics, civil servants and teachers hes imprisoned, he has locked up thousands of journalists and closed down every non-compliant newspaper, TV channel and radio station.

Ive read your own counterbalancing editorial piece on post-coup Turkey published a day later, but this doesnt explain the rationale behind providing media legitimacy to Turkeys de-facto dictatorship.

Running this item shows a depressing lack of judgement, and one I do not expect from the Guardian [T]he actions of the government he represents are universally regarded as a threat to democracy in his country. In running such a story the Guardian can now be accused of aiding the attempt to legitimise the actions of such governments.

I like the Guardian and the way that it offers a different opinion on the world but to actually provide a platform for a man like Erdoan is a step too far. The damage he has done to Turkey and the wider region should preclude him from securing a platform like the Guardian.

I asked the relevant editors about their decision and they replied: It is part of our role to let our readers know what people in power are thinking. Erdoan is the elected president of Turkey and represents one of the most significant countries in the region. Publishing his argument does not in any way legitimise his repression or imply the Guardians endorsement of his actions.

The Guardian, along with the rest of the international media, has in its editorials and reporting of Turkey been relentless in holding Erdoan to account since the coup. In the last couple of months alone we have covered the dismantling of the judiciary, the opposition mobilising for a justice march, the hunger strikes, the prosecution and trials of journalists, and much more.

In recent months we have hosted numerous columns by international and Turkish writers condemning Erdoans autocratic tendencies. We have also published Amnesty Internationals opinion on the crisis in Turkey. Just days before the first anniversary of the attempted coup, we ran an op-ed both online and in print by the head of the opposition, Kemal Kldarolu. It was following this that the Turkish government approached us, arguing that the president should, for balance, be allowed to set out their thinking in the Guardian so readers could hear both sides as they marked the coup anniversary.

Clearly Erdoans crackdown in the last 12 months has been reprehensible but in the piece we published, he raises what is arguably a legitimate point about the numbers of Turks who came out to defend the system against the military. He also used his piece to issue a warning to western governments about the price of not supporting those Turks who stood against the coup and that in news terms justified its inclusion.

I substantially agree with the editors perspective. But not for all the same reasons. In this context a foreign leader with constant media attention and many platforms at command balance is not a weighty factor.

A major international media outlet like the Guardian must try to be a forum where those who wish to be informed can find a range of leading views, including views with which they may vehemently disagree.

Leading views include those of leaders of countries, howsoever they obtained, use or extend their power. What they put on the record under their own names, even the cant, becomes a reference point. The public record has a way of turning on public figures.

For ironists, here is Vladimir Putin in the New York Times in November 1999: Because we value our relations with the United States and care about Americans perception of us, I want to explain our actions in clear terms

And here is Putin in the Washington Post in February 2012: True democracy was not created overnight.

Let political leaders speak too much, not too little or at too few. Let history hear them and judge.

The gradually closing White House briefings, a part-shuttered state department, the erased sections of public agencies websites, the minimalism of sometimes incoherent tweets these are the political communications techniques that trouble me more than authoritarians exploiting abroad the free press that they lack the confidence to permit at home.

Readers can be trusted to weigh the words of a politician like Erdoan, with a record like his before and after the attempted coup, and to reach their own conclusions within the context of the coverage the Guardian and others continue to provide as Turkey and its neighbours convulse.

Go here to read the rest:

A byline for Erdoan? Liberal megaphones for illiberal voices | Open ... - The Guardian

With Fridays appointment of Sarah Huckabee Sanders as the new White House press secretary, its never been more evident that liberal feminists are selecting their Joan of Arcs based on their political slant rather than on the fact that they are women.

If youre sitting there, scratching your head, wondering why a self-proclaimed feminist would attempt to diminish another womans successes, youre not the only one, and there is an answer.

Its called selective feminism, and the concept is exactly what it sounds like: Women who support other women so long as they fit into the mold of what they consider acceptable feminist standards.

From the very moment that Sanders was revealed to be the latestWhite House press secretary for the Trump administration, she faced attacks on her education, her qualifications, and perhaps, worst of all her appearance.

See some choice tweets targeting Sanders for shattering her own glass ceiling.

Even an article written by a Mediaite author decried Sanders success, and chalked it up to well, not much at all.

An excerpt from the article titled How Sarah Sanders and the Women of Trumpland Hurt Women reads:

With the decision to promote Sanders, expect the topic of gender and the Trump administration to surface once again, and with this discussion, expect plenty of tokenism. Expect Sarah Huckabee Sanders to respond to every question about imminent future questions about Trump sexism by lavishing praise on the obviously open-minded, pro-woman boss who entrusted her with this high-level position. And expect Kellyanne [Conway] to bring up something about how women dont care about casual sexism from their president because ISIS and violent crime and jobs, but in either case, expect valid criticisms of Trumps sexism problem to be wholly tuned out.

Dee Dee Myers and Dana Perino two previous White House press secretaries who also happened to be female, and maybe just maybe got the jobs because they are qualified were celebrated, lauded for their groundbreaking work in a mans world.

Sanders, however, seems to have gotten the rougher end of the stick, and because she had the audacity to accept a position that many women in the political arena would give their life for no matter what their political affiliation, shes automatically forced to turn in her feminism card if she even cared to carry one at all.

If conservatives or Republicans said even half of the things about prolific liberal Democrats in power that liberals have said about Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway, and now Sanders over the last six months and more, youd have a liberal lynch mob on your hands.

Feminism isnt selective. Feminism is all-encompassing. Its about supporting all women because if its about supporting all women, its about supporting zero women. Picking and choosing which women should be supported because of their race, age, experience, physical appearance, or political affiliation shouldnt fly with die-hard feminists because that boils down to sexism, elitism, racism, and xenophobia all of the important tenets that the most vocal of feminisms claim to be against.

Is Sanders the best choice for White House press secretary?

Only time will tell, and if shes not, its certainly not because shes a woman. But liberals will likely tell you that theyll tell you that should Sanders be forced out of or resign her post, it was because shes a woman, and in Trumps sexist administration, women can never thrive.

But the excoriation of Sanders based on the fact that she is a conservative, Republican woman in power is worse than liberal feminism at its worst because its not feminism at all.

Read the rest here:

Commentary: Liberal feminists destroy their own cause by diminishing Sarah Huckabee Sanders' success - TheBlaze.com

The best horror movies expertly prey upon primal fears, and in the process, dissuade us from wanting to do things wed otherwise normally love to do. Like go swimming in the ocean (Jaws). Or attend sleepaway camp (Friday the 13th). Or go to bed (A Nightmare on Elm Street). Or, as any gore-hound knows, spend a weekend escaping civilization (i.e. the cultured city or suburbs) for the seclusion and tranquility of the great rural outdoors. In classics such as The Old Dark House, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, Eaten Alive, Motel Hell, Tourist Trap, Wrong Turn, Calvaire and Wolf Creeknot to mention more straightforward thrillers like Straw Dogs, Misery, Breakdown, and A Perfect Getawaytheres no place on Earth more deadly for a modern man or woman than the middle of nowhere, where the rule of law is replaced by a survival-of-the-fittest ethos, and where animalistic savages assert their dominion in the most ghastly ways imaginable.

Theyre paranoid liberal fantasies about the degenerate horrors that lurk off the beaten path, and the latest nail-biting member of that club is Australian writer/director Damien Powers debut feature Killing Ground (in theaters Friday, July 21), which follows in the footsteps of its homelands Wolf Creek and, coming on the heels of Ben Youngs Hounds of Love, suggests that theres a horror renaissance burgeoning Down Under.

Powers film is indebted to innumerable predecessors, and in terms of its basic plot outline, does little to radically reinvent the subgenre to which it belongs. Nonetheless, as far as cannily orchestrated cat-and-mouse nightmares go, it works ones nerves over with skill, jumbling up its storys chronology in disorienting ways, and delivering a survivalist saga whose unnerving impact stems in large part from its refusal to shy away from the suddennessand uglinessof violence.

With a title like Killing Ground, an atmosphere of disaster naturally hangs over the peaceful opening moments of Powers tale, which finds couple Ian (Ian Meadows) and Sam (Harriet Dyer) taking a drive out to Gungilee Falls, where they plan to spend some quality time together hanging out in the wild. As they motor down a two-lane road, they jokingly sing-song about human skeletal structuresince Ian is a doctorand, upon realizing that theyve forgotten the champagne, stop at a local liquor store to procure some booze. Its the sort of offhand decision that comes back to doom pretty young people in movies such as this, and sure enough, after Sam is startled by a dog in a nearby car, Ian makes the classic mistake of asking that canines owner, scraggly-bearded German (Aaron Pedersen), for directionsthus informing the local hillbilly that he and his out-of-towner wife will be stranding themselves in the deep, dark forest for the foreseeable future.

After panicking over the thought that German is following themleading to an automotive spin-out that will only compound problems laterthey arrive at their destination. There, they discover an SUV parked at the entrance to the hiking trail, and an abandoned campsite on the beach at which theyre setting up temporary residence. Puzzled but hardly perturbed, they pitch their tent, and then out of the blue, get engageda decision that comes courtesy of Sams spontaneous proposal. Sam then attempts to call her sister to report the good news, only to discover that she has no cell service (a detail thats now a de facto requirement for any horror movie intent on keeping its characters in isolated peril).

Cut to a young teenage girl named Em (Tiarnie Coupland), who as it turns out, is one of the peoplealong with her dad (Julian Garner), mom (Maya Stange), and baby brother Ollie (Riley and Liam Parkes)who established that now-deserted riverside tent, where they all shared fireside tales of massacres and, later that evening, suffered traumatic bad dreams. Powers thus unexpectedly sets up concurrent narratives, one past and one present, that only dovetail after hes spent considerable time providing background on all his would-be victims, as well as the duo destined to cause them so much harm. That would be German and his barking-mad buddy Chook (Aaron Glenane), two deviants who live together in a ramshackle one-story abode with Germans hungry dog Banjo, and who have a fondness for taking advantage of any unwise souls who think they can use their untamed backyard as a playgrounda fact that becomes clear when, shortly after first running into Ian and Sam, German returns home to find a note left by Chook on the kitchen counter that reads Gone Hunting.

Killing Grounds fractured narrative strands progress at a leisurely pace, the better to create trepidation for inevitable calamity. Even though its obvious that nothing good is going to come of this scenario, however, the way in which brutality and bloodshed emerge remains surprising thanks to Powers shrewd understanding that it often arrives without warning. Thats most true of a particular encounter between Chook, Sam and Ollie that epitomizes the films realistic approach to cruelty and carnagerealistic in that, for all of the horror-movie flourishes utilized here, the unimaginable manifests itself with a swiftness and thudding bluntness thats far from dramatic. The materials most wrenching moments are amplified by their severe matter-of-factness, which helps to create a level of awful unpredictability that carries through to the far-from-heartening conclusion.

Powers direction is assured without being overly showy, such that he stages a few prolonged single-take sequences that are at once formally graceful and yet reasonably understated, refusing to call direct attention to themselves. Be it a gorgeous shot in which the presence of an unnoticed, stumbling background figure creates intense anxiety and anticipation, or the many compositions in which claustrophobic darkness threatens to snuff out any faint flickers of light, the filmmaker infuses his somewhat routine setup with both polish and gut-punching dread. An us-vs.-them cautionary tale about enlightened people thinking they can master the dog-eat-dog wildernessas a weekend-getaway pastime, no lessits a B-movie in the best sense of the term: rugged, no-nonsense, slyly unconventional, and fully aware that sometimes, imprudent decisions and bad luck conspire to beget unthinkable tragedies.

See the article here:

A Paranoid Liberal Nightmare About Rural Horrors - The Daily Beast - Daily Beast

Six months into his presidency, activists and journalists on both sides of the political divide are still struggling with how hewon and what his victory should mean for their own behavior. Just as a minority of conservative writers are beginning to understand the value of journalism in holding the powerful accountable, some liberals seem to be recoiling from the idea that their own side deserves mockery and ridicule.

The Democratic establishments failure to win against the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of public polling has led to a resurgence of left-liberalism in the country. Even many former supporters of Hillary Clinton have become willing to admit that the partys elderly and wealthy elites have lost touch with the majority of Americans they claim to represent. Activists repeated calls for single-payer finally appears to begaining some traction with Democrats in Congress as well.

For decades, pushing toward universal coverage was the goal of many Democratic politicians, particularly that of former president Harry Truman who made it the centerpiece of his agenda. All that changed, however, after Bill Clintons attempt to address the issue crashed and burned early on in his administration. Ever since, Democratic politicians have been afraid to pursue health insurance for all Americans, including Barack Obama.

Since Hillary Clintons loss to Trump, these and other center-left policy decisions have begun to come under fierce criticism from left-liberals who have felt shut out of Democratic politics since neoliberals (including former Republicans like Clinton) effectively took control of the party in the 1990s. The stronger-than-expected primary challenge of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016 served as the galvanizing agent for left-liberalism.

With social media platforms like Reddit, Facebook and Twitter, like-minded progressives who supported Sanders campaign began to explicitly challenge Democrats they identified as sell outs. The left has also taken to webvideos to resuscitate itself. Right now, the TYT network on YouTube has more subscribers than CNN or MSNBC have viewers.Podcasts have also exploded in popularity among left-liberals.

One podcast, in particular, has been taking left-wing politics by storm.Chapo Trap House, sarcastically named after a drug house, is a highly irreverent, pop-culture-inflected group discussion that frequently features parodies of mainstream media figures.

The show also frequently ridicules Democratic politicians and neoliberal leaders for their willingness to go along with the desires of Wall Street. The hosts of Chapo who jokinglyrefer to themselves and their listeners as the dirtbag left also frequently point out that most of the architects behind the second Iraq invasion have never really had to face accountability for their disastrous policy ideas.

Thats why making fun of them is so important, co-host Matt Christman told Mediaite last year. One of the reasons theyre able to pass off their really sophomoric claims to authority is that they have this aura around themselves of wonkery and really the only way to pierce that you could, I guess, do point by point rebuttals but I think viscerally the most effective way to pierce that is just mockery.

Obviously, their targets arent laughing at the jokes but another person who doesnt find the material funny is New Republic senior editor Jeet Heer. In his view, the ridicule that Christman and his co-hosts dish out to Democrats is unproductive and evocative of the masculinist politics of the neofascist alt-right. Heer recently described Chapo Trap House as an example of the dominance politics which lies at the core of Donald Trumps appeal to his supporters:

Its easy enough to prefer insult comedy to milquetoast liberalism, the latter being too timid to go to blows with the right, but Chapo directs its barbs rather democratically. Chapo is fighting a two-front war, one against the Republicans and another against moderate Democrats. About half the time, the Chapo crew attacks right-wingers like Mike Cernovich, Sebastian Gorka, and Alex Jones. Just as often, though, they go after Clintonites like Jonathan Chait, Matt Yglesias, and Neera Tanden.

To redeploy the alt-right style of unruly jokes against alt-right figures like Cernovich or Jones makes a certain amount of sense. Thats a choice many of us would make. But the humor becomes very different when used against people of the same party, since the goal then is not to defeat an opposing side but dominate people who are part of your political coalition. you cant really build a coalition of egalitarian politics by browbeating a key segment of that coalition.

Besides the contradiction inherent in the argument that ridicule is counterproductive but still permissible to use against Republicans, Heers contention also reflects a lack of familiarity with the Chapo Trap House manner of dishing ridicule. Almost invariably, the hosts targets are political leaders and media figures instead of average Americans. The shows populist message is also apparent in the fact that it is one of the few media outlets willing to take an openly progressive message into parts of the country where run-of-the-mill Democrats refuse to tread.

Heers allergic reaction to intraparty debate and ridicule is actually rather similar to the arguments raised by conservative talk show host Mike Gallagher in a debate he had last week with Guy Benson, the political editor of Townhall.com.

Six months into the new administration, Benson is still refusing to make excuses for Trump on Russia the way that many others on the right have done. Gallagher, a co-host on the radio network which also owns Townhall, went after his colleague, essentially saying that he has no right to offer opinions on the president in light of his previous NeverTrump position.

Youve got a credibility problem, Gallagher told Benson. The two conservative commentators disagreed about the revelation that Donald Trump Jr. and other top aides had met with a woman they believed to be working with the Russian government.

I want people like you who are smart and sophisticated who appear to have the pretense of objectivity to acknowledge and maybe even via a disclaimer in your current work that youre a NeverTrumper, Gallagher said to Benson. You didnt want the guy to win and youre not happy that he won.

Contacted afterward about his exchange with Gallagher, Benson said that his colleagues attitude is in line with that of many on the right.

I think a lot of conservatives believe that theres so much antipathy toward conservatives in the mainstream press that any internal criticism or firing inside the tent, so to speak, is simply piling on, he told Salon in an interview. And therefore, they view it as some kind of a betrayal.

Benson continued: While I share the view that the media is disproportionately hostile to Republicans and conservative thinking, I dont think that fact requires conservatives analysts or journalists to abandon intellectual honesty.

One doesnt have to agree with Bensons view of media coverage to agree that hes right about the need for more intellectual honesty. Both conservatives and progressives got where they are today because neither side has been willing to clean its political house. Until thats done, Democrats wont be able to win and Republicans wont be able to govern.

The left and rights elites have been living in bubbles that Donald Trumps victory should have completely burst. Instead, theyve just been leaking.

See the original post here:

The Dirtbag Left can prevent the liberal elite bubble that brought us Donald Trump - Salon

Liberals don't just hate President Trump; lots of them don't even like the idea of being in the company of his supporters.

That's the big takeaway from a new Pew Research Center survey, which is just the latest indicator of our remarkably tribal and partisan politics. And when it comes to Trump, it's difficult to overstate just how tribal the left is and how much distaste he engenders. Indeed, that distaste apparently extends even to people whodecided they would like to vote for Trump.

The poll shows almost half of liberal Democrats 47 percent say that if a friend supported Trump, it would actually put a strain on their friendship. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters more broadly, the number is 35 percent. White and more-educated Democrats are more likely to feel that it's tough to even be friends with a Trump supporter.

And while partisanshipand tribalism are pretty bipartisan things in American politics today, Democrats are actually substantially less able to countenancefriends who supported the wrong candidate:Just 13 percent of Republicans say a friend's support of Hillary Clinton would strain their relationship.

Part of the reason for the imbalance is likely that liberals tend to live in more homogeneous places and don't even associate with conservatives. Another Pew study last year showed a whopping47 percent of people who planned to vote for Clinton didn't have any close friends who were Trump supporters. By contrast, 31 percent of Trump supporters said they didn't have any friends who backed Clinton.

Because of the way our population is sorted, with liberals clustered in urban areas and Republicans more spread out, Democrats tend to be more insulated from dissenting political voices. So perhaps it's no surprise that they don't hear and don't want to hear those voices coming from their friends' mouths.

The prevalent belief on the left that Trump isn't just a bad president or person, but is also racist, xenophobic and misogynistic is undoubtedly at play here too. And at one point during the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton even suggested half of Trump's supportersweredeplorables who were also racist or xenophobic or misogynistic. (Her campaign later clarified that she meant only people at Trump's rallies. But still.)

Despite that, it's noteworthy just how many people think supporting the nominee of a major American political party reflects poorly upon the people they know. Fully 46 percent of Americans who voted for president chose Trump, and that isn't really an acceptable position for a friend to take for half of liberal Democrats.

One final data point from the new Pew study: 68 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters say they find it stressful and frustrating to talk to people who have a different opinion of Trump. About half 52 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning voters say the same.

When people ask why politicians in Washington can't get along, this is why: Americans can't even talk to each other about politics anymore withoutgetting flustered.

See original here:

Nearly half of liberals don't even like to be around Trump supporters - Washington Post

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 not's" 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 only has a 2 percent chance of being poor.

A new study from the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies focuses on millennials. 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 per 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, such as 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 still is 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 urbancure.org. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at creators.com.

Read more:

Star Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us | National Columnists ... - Kankakee Daily Journal