Category Archives: Liberal

Altmann has built a following after raising integrity issues in Warrnambool institutions through her website The Terrier and advocacy journalism via social media.

She has been a divisive figure, settling several legal matters due to her journalism, and many local observers believe she was instrumental in all seven Warrnambool councillors being voted out in 2020, including her Labor opponent at this election Kylie Gaston.

This is the job that we need doing in Warrnambool, people to step up and be leaders and take on the hard tasks, Altmann said.

She predicts that if the Liberals retain the seat, but lose the election, their calls to upgrade regional roads, open an alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre, and for better planning for renewable energy projects will be ignored by a state Labor government.

[Electing an independent] puts both parties on notice that this seat is no longer one that it can just sit back and relax about, Altmann said.

Incumbent Liberal MP Roma Britnell, who was returned in 2018 after Labors Kylie Gaston reduced the seat from its safe 11 per cent margin to 2.3 per cent, said she had never taken her electorate for granted.

Liberal incumbent Roma Britnell insists she has never taken her seat for granted. Credit:Nicole Cleary

She said regional residents missed out on opportunities and infrastructure because the state government considered Melbourne to be more important.

If people think an independent will make it better, theyre so wrong, she said.

While Altmann may take away from the Labor vote, pundits are uncertain how much support she can wrestle from the Liberals. Gaston was unavailable for comment.

In Polwarth, incumbent Liberal MP Richard Riordan said he is facing the fight of his political career.

Riordan has held Polwarth since 2015 when he won a byelection following the retirement of former transport minister Terry Mulder.

Richard Riordan, the Liberal MP for Polwarth.

He said each town had its own local issues but improving healthcare and overhauling the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority were among his main campaign platforms.

Riordan said the inclusion of Torquay had changed the demographics of Polwarth, but he expected a substantial anti-Dan Andrews sentiment would emerge in his electorate at the poll.

If youre [living] along the coast youve had two terrible years of trying to keep your business afloat and managing things, he said.

But Labors Hutch Hussein, who lives in Torquay, argued many Polwarth residents felt the Andrews government supported them in the toughest times during the pandemic.

There are a lot of disillusioned former Liberal voters in Polwarth who have been telling me that they were grateful and valued the state government putting their health first and keeping them safe before we had access to COVID-19 vaccines, she said.

Hutch Hussein speaking at a state Labor conference.Credit:Scott McNaughton

Hussein said even voters in conservative parts of the electorate were aware that having a marginalised Liberal MP shut them out of conversations at the state and federal level.

Deakin University politics lecturer Geoffrey Robinson, who lives near Colac in the Polwarth electorate, said it was no longer assured the Liberals would be returned in both electorates.

Loading

He said while a boundary redistribution had shifted Torquay into Polwarth, which favoured Labor, the party would need a strong campaign to win over conservative voters in Colac.

In the South-West Coast, Altmanns challenge could be appealing to the broader rural electorate beyond her Warrnambool following, Robinson said.

La Trobe University adjunct research fellow Ian Tulloch said a rising Green vote was likely to favour Labor in Polwarth, but that may be counterbalanced by a swing back to the Liberals after the 2018 landslide.

I think its going to be lineball, he said.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the days most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Read more:

Its going to be lineball: Liberals in fierce battle for previously safe coastal seats - The Age

The confidence-and-supply agreement between the Liberals and the NDP looks to be in good shape as Parliament returns for the fall, say strategists, even as both parties look to address growing frustrations with the rising cost of living, and prepare for the election of a new Conservative leader.

Sheamus Murphy, a former senior staffer to federal and Ontario Liberal governments, told The Hill Times that, a year into its mandate and free of the need for any pre-election positioning, the government will be looking to make progress on its key priorities.

This is the time for getting things done, said Murphy, now partner and federal practice lead at Counsel Public Affairs. You look at those mandate letters and this is when the government really needs to be ticking items off that list.

Besides the cost of living, Murphy highlighted health-care reform, the housing shortage, and the governments overhaul of the legislative framework for the online world as other key issues that the Liberals will be working on this fall.

Sheamus Murphy from Counsel Public Affairs says this is the time for cabinet ministers to work through their mandate letters and tick items off. Photograph courtesy of Sheamus Murphy

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) was expected to announce on Sept. 8, the last day of the cabinet retreat in Vancouver, that the government was taking three steps to address affordability, according to a Canadian Press report. These included $650 a year to pay for dental care for children under the age of 12, a one-time $500 top up for renters, and a temporary doubling of the GST tax credit for low-income households.

The first two items are directly from the Liberal-NDP agreement, and the increase to the GST rebate is also something the NDP has called for. But Trudeaus planned press conference was delayed, and when he did appear before the cameras several hours later it was to react to the death of Queen Elizabeth.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, B.C.), in Halifax for his partys first in-person caucus retreat since the pandemic began, had also been scheduled to deliver the NDPs response to Trudeaus announcement on Sept. 8, but that press conference was also cancelled.

NDP caucus chair Jenny Kwan, right, says her party will continue fighting for the government to address the affordability crisis. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Speaking to The Hill Times earlier in the day, NDP caucus chair Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, B.C.) said her party pushed for dental care to be included in the agreement with the Liberals because it was something Tommy Douglas envisioned many years ago. Universal health care means head-to-toe care, and that includes dental care.

Kwan declined to discuss the NDPs response to the governments anticipated affordability measures, but said the NDP would continue fighting for the government to address the affordability crisis. She said Canada was seeing corporate greed at its max, and called on the government to double the GST rebate, increase the Canada Child Benefit, increase support for housing, and address the rising cost of food.

Former Liberal staffer Christian von Donat told The Hill Times that it was up to the NDP to decide if it was satisfied with the agreement with the Liberals, because the governing party would always be in the drivers seat in terms of determining what is achievable.

Von Donat is the vice-president of government relations and strategy at Impact Public Affairs, and was previously chief of staff to Liberal MP Yvonne Jones (Labrador, N.L.). He predicted the NDP would show some flexibility in terms of how exactly the dental care plan and other elements of the deal are rolled out, because they are not in a position to walk away from the deal at the moment. But he added that if the NDP sticks with the deal now and then decides to walk away from it at a later date, when it makes more political sense to do so, it will have to explain why certain compromises that were once acceptable are no longer acceptable.

Cam Holmstrom, who was an NDP staffer under former leaders Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair, told The Hill Times he expected to see the NDP continue pushing the government to hold up its end of the bargain on dental care and other elements of the supply-and-confidence agreement.

Holmstrom, now the head of the government relations firm Niipaawi Strategies, said the NDP needs to continue speaking about inflation and the cost of living, especially when you have the Conservatives coming in, giving a very populist spin on it.

He said Singh had already begun to speak more about corporate price-gouging and emphasizing the large profit margins for grocery companies and some other large retailers and manufacturers during the pandemic. Holmstrom said these companies were taking advantage of the moment to spike their profits and put money into their own pockets, beyond any increase to their input costs, and called for an excess profits tax similar to those being considered in other G7 and G20 countries.

My wife and I just did our grocery shop, and weve never spent so much on groceries in our lives, he said. It cannot be a new normal for society to have 17 per cent inflation on basic goods like soup.

Christian von Donat from Impact Public Affairs says the government needs to be seen to be making a difference on the cost of living. Photograph courtesy of Christian von Donat

The Liberals and the NDP each announced ahead of time that their respective post-Labour Day gatheringsa cabinet retreat for the Liberals in Vancouver and a caucus retreat for the NDP in Halifaxwould focus on affordability and the economy.

Singh said in a Sept. 7 press release that his party has been calling on the government to double the GST tax credit, increase the Canada Child Benefit by $500, provide $500 in rent support through the Canada Housing Benefit, and provide assistance for childrens dental care.

Murphy said the government will look more towards targeted measures to help people on the margins who are most affected by the increased cost of living, instead of broad-based measures that, by putting cash into everyones pockets, will end up counteracting what the Bank of Canada is trying to do on inflation.

Everyone wants to see new programs, but [the Liberals] have to roll out the initiatives theyve already introduced.

Murphy emphasized the continued rollout of the governments childcare program, describing it as a massive social program that affects one of the core expenses for young parents.

Deeper into the fall, Murphy said there is a chance the Liberals will arrive at a health-care deal with the provinces. And theyll also be starting to set the stage a little bit more for pharmacare, which is in the latter half of the Liberal-NDP agreement. Theres work to be done to set the stage for that. Im expecting to see some more developments on that front.

Von Donat said he did not think the governments existing programs and affordability measures would be enough to address the general populations frustration at the rising cost of living. In my opinion, the government has to look at other measures. I have heard too many stories from people who are not political, who are concerned about the current state of the economy, said von Donat. Canadians are facing the pinch.

He said the promised dental care program and existing programs such as the Canada Child Benefit may be good programs in their own right, but that they do not catch the attention of a broader voter base the way a wider rebate might, or the temporary easing of the gas tax that some premiers have tried.

Von Donat clarified that he was not advocating for similar federal cuts to taxes for gasoline, but that instead he was pointing out that, for political reasons, a government needs to be seen to be making a difference on the cost of living question. I dont mean to be crass about it, but thats something the government has to have in their calculations. Theyre tied with a Conservative Party that doesnt yet have a permanent leader, he said.

Cam Holmstrom from Niipaawi Strategies says dental care is a cost of living issue for families who dont already have dental coverage. Handout photograph

Holmstrom disagreed with the idea that providing support for dental care for children under 12, which is the first phase of the rollout of dental care in the Liberal-NDP agreement, does not address cost of living concerns for many households.

The people who I hear saying dental care is not a cost-of-living issue are people who already have dental coverage, said Holmstrom. There are a lot of people out there who do not have dental coverage who have to pay out of pocket. Or theyre making other choices. Its an impediment for getting people back into the workforce, and its part of good health.

If youre a young family and youre talking about trying to keep your kids teeth clean, or having to pay for surgery, or having to pay for braces, trust me, that factors into your costs. Am I paying for gas or am I paying for groceries or am I paying for my rent or my mortgage?

kphilipupillai@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

Read the original post:

'This is the time for getting things done,' says former Liberal staffer after retreats wrapped up - The Hill Times

Ottawa, ON Dan Albas, Conservative Shadow Minister for Finance, and Grard Deltell, Conservative Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Industry, today released the following statement after the Bank of Canada increased interest rates by 75 basis points:

Todays 75 basis point interest rate hike means more pain for Canadians struggling to keep up with record cost of living pressures.

Despite being warned that out-of-control spending would continue to put enormous upward pressure on inflation and interest rates, Justin Trudeau and his NDP allies have refused to change course. As a result of continuing with their reckless tax and spend agenda, Canadians are now being forced to contend with a fourth consecutive outsized interest-rate hike.

For Canadians, this means less of their hard-earned money in their own pockets. Canadians with mortgages will see a sharp increase in their payments, while those looking to buy a house for the first time will see the dream of homeownership slip out of reach.

Anyone who has taken on debt to afford basics like food, rent, and utilities will see their purchasing power eroded by increased debt repayment. Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP allies have rejected Conservative proposals to reduce inflationary pressure by getting their reckless government spending under control.

Instead, the Liberals and their NDP partners seem to be out-of-touch with the cost-of-living crisis Canadians are facing. As a result of their failure to control spending and provide cost-of-living relief, Canada appears poised to face a significant economic downturn.

Canadians deserve a government that will fight the cost-of-living crisis and make life more affordable. That is why Conservatives will continue to call on the government to tackle inflation by getting reckless spending under control.

Conservatives will continue to fight to leave more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, protect the value of the money that they earn, and end the governments inflation-fueling reckless spending.

Here is the original post:

Liberal made cost-of-living crisis gets worse as interest rates rise again - Conservative Party of Canada

Vicki Horn| Guest Columnist

Live on the Green is back

Live on the Green is back

Nashville Tennessean

Out of curiosity, I looked up the word liberal in the dictionary. According to Websters, liberal is defined as one who is open-minded; giving freely and unstintingly; open handednessin the giver and largeness what is given.

That definition made me proud to be described as liberal but made me wonder why people who identify as liberal are so vilified. Arent open-mindedness and generosity admirable traits? Shouldnt we all strive to be more liberal?

More open-mindedness among people would lead to less judgment. Less judgment would lead to fewer barriers that are often caused by being "different."Being open-minded allows us to put aside differences, which results in more cooperation and progress.

Hear from Tennessee's Black voices: Get the weekly newsletter for powerful and critical thinking columns.

Psychological studies have shown that generosity tends to reduce stress, enhance ones sense of purpose in life and fight feelings of depression. Generosity has been shown to increase a persons lifespan. Think back to an incident in which you were truly, unselfishly generous. How did that make you feel? I bet it made you feel good in a hard-to-describe way.

When I graduated from college in 1990 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mass Communications, I had my life planned out. I was going to get a job working in the creative department of an advertising agency. (Think Darren Stevens on Bewitched.) Unfortunately, that dream quickly fizzled out, as I was unable to find work in that field. With student loans that would soon be due, I had to do something. I went to the universitys placement office for assistance. After describing my dilemma, I was asked what else I enjoyed. Without thinking, I said, I like helping people. Just like that, a career in social services was born.

I worked in social services for over 30 years.

I never got rich in a monetary sense, but I consider myself rich in the human experience. I was able to improve the lives of the less fortunate on countless occasions. I met people from different walks of life, people who had lived different experiences than me, people who had different ideologies than me. None of those differences mattered. Skin color, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation; none of that mattered. Help was needed and I could offer that.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

At what stage in life does a person become liberal? In my experience, a person is born that way.

When my daughter was 5 years old and in kindergarten, we were shopping one weekend and she fell in love with a 101 Dalmatians fleece jacket. The jacket was expensive but when I saw how much she loved it, I splurged and bought it. She could not wait to wear the new jacket to school.

The following Monday, my daughter proudly set out for school in her new jacket. When she got home from school that afternoon, I noticed she was not wearing the jacket. I asked if she left it at school. My daughter told me that a little girl in her class didnt have a jacket and was cold on the playground so she gave it to her.

I reminded her how much she loved that jacket. She said, I know, Mommy, but she loved it, too, and I have other jackets. She doesnt.

At only 5 years old, my daughter met the definition of being "liberal."Imagine what this world would be like if we all applied the word liberal as it is defined.

Vicki Horn recently retired from the State of Tennessee after a 30 year career in social services.

Read more:

Opinion: Learning the true meaning of liberal through acts of kindness - Tennessean

By Sachi McClendon

The liberal political group No IDC NY was accused of playing with antisemitic tropes following a post from its Twitter account that jeered at the last names of two Jewish politicians Congressional-candidate Dan Goldman and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz.

The jerk buying a House seat with inherited money is Goldman the IDC-adjacent Assembly member is DINOwitz. Who came up with these names, Dickens? the post read.

U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, who is running for the new seat serving greater Riverdale, was the first to call attention to the since-deleted post. A tweet dripping with antisemitism. The normalization of antisemitism is a sign of how poisonous our politics has become, he wrote.

Assemblyman Dinowitz responded to the tweet soon after, writing, Ive been the target of antisemitic attacks from both the far right and the far left. This tweet from an extremist, anonymous account selectively singles out two Jewish politicians and is disgusting. Its a classic display of antisemitism and should be condemned.

Following the swift backlash, the No IDC NY account wrote, It was a joke about the names that certainly would have been better not made, e.g. DINO stands for Dem in name only, and was not supposed to be riffing off their Jewishness, we do not tolerate anti-Semitism.

The next day, the steering committee of the group said it suspended the social media account manager who sent the original tweet.

No IDC NY was initially formed to help take down members of the Independent Democratic Conference, like former Sen. Jeff Klein, who caucused with Republicans in the state senate as a way to maintain the GOPs majority, even when Democrats would have otherwise had control.

The New York City Districting Commission has received more than 8,300 submissions from the public on how to improve upon the first draft of the new city council district lines.

Thats way more than the 1,500 submissions the commission got in the previous round of redistricting. In fact, the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, responsible for state legislative and congressional districts, last year generated only 3,700 submissions by comparison.

We made a decision early in the process that we were going to throw as wide a net as possible to solicit public opinion for the preliminary plan, said Dennis Walcott, who is the chair of the commission. In order to get as much public input as possible, the commission has been advertising in community and ethnic weeklies, on Twitter and Instagram and providing a wide array of information sessions to community groups across the city.

We had such a tremendous response we had to extend our Queens hearing past midnight and added a morning Zoom hearing because demand to testify was so high, Walcott said.

The commission is expected to submit its second round of drafts to council on Sept. 22.

State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi, who still represents greater Riverdale, was easily defeated by incumbent Sean Patrick Maloney in the newly drawn congressional district 17 Democratic primary, managing to capture only about a third of the vote.

Common sense won. Democrats want candidates who get results and bring home the win, Maloney said after the race was called in his favor.

Biaggi decided to run an against-the-odds campaign against Maloney shortly after the new congressional maps were finalized back in May. Just minutes after the new maps dropped, fifth-term Maloney went to Twitter to say that he would be running in the new district 17, which is currently represented by first-term progressive Mondaire Jones.

That announcement quickly drew the ire of several lawmakers, and propelled Biaggi to take on Maloney. While she is no stranger to upset victories, Biaggi was no match for Maloney in the end.

Although she already bought a home in the new congressional district 17, Biaggi will continue to serve as state senator until the new lines go into effect next year.

Read more:

Liberal group accused of antisemitic post - The Riverdale Press

To the degree possible, without engaging in excessive political correctness, I have believed that its best to allow politically active people to describe their own views. You could go too far with it, of course, if someone is clearly lying about positions he or she has taken or refusing to acknowledge words and labels that apply to their views.

But I long noted that, for obvious and dishonest purposes, actors on the political right have seen an advantage in labeling progressive/liberal players in the U.S. political drama as socialists.

There are some, a very few like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who embrace the s-term. But most Democrats dont. They call themselves liberals or progressives, meaning that they generally favor more, rather than less, government action, especially action to help the needy.

The exact spot on the spectrum where liberalism crosses the line into socialism is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. But, to the degree possible, and leaving room for discussion over just where the line is, I would say its best to err on the side of allowing people to choose their labels unless they abuse the courtesy.

Article continues after advertisement

The same might be said of the terms conservative and fascist. Conservatives are right of center on the ideological spectrum, and fascists are farther right. But the precise border-line is hard to specify. I suppose fascists are also known for a tendency to admire radical, even violent leaders who are often not respectful of democratic norms. You know: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco.

For what seems like many years, Americans on the right have arrogated to themselves the power to define the line between liberals and socialists or, to put it more bluntly, have started calling liberals socialists and their liberal policy proposals socialism, even though the authors and promoters of those programs do not generally embrace the s-word for themselves or their policies.

Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer was particularly obnoxious in this regard in his role as leader of the National Republican Congressional Committee, referring in the committees communications to dozens and dozens of liberal Democrats, who do not call themselves socialists, as socialists.

Emmers motives were obvious. Swing voters, and Americans in general, are leery of the s-word and will tend to balk at any policy proposal that can be successfully labeled as socialism.

As a lifelong liberal myself, the motives behind this rhetorical strategy were obvious, and obnoxious. Instead of arguing the merits of a proposal, just label it with a politically toxic term, specifically the s-word.

It has long occurred to me that if liberals adopted the same strategy, they would start labeling conservative policy ideas as fascist and our public policy argument could devolve into an insipid youre-a-socialist; yeah-well-youre-a-fascist idiocy, roughly the opposite of a constructive discussion of policy differences across left-right lines.

But, strangely, I suppose, at least pre-Trump and even in the early days of Trump, the name-calling came mostly from one side.

Republicans and conservatives have taken to labeling as socialists many liberal political figures who do not call themselves by that term. And Republicans have done so with ever-increasing frequency over recent years. But, for whatever reason (feel free to speculate on the reason), left-leaning American political figures have not replied to the repetition of socialist-socialist-socialist with chants against right-leaning political figures as fascists-fascists-fascists.

Maybe, after the long grotesque incivility of the Trump era, thats changing. I still dont want to go there, but since the dawn of the Trump period I certainly felt the impulse.

Article continues after advertisement

I would gladly argue that Trump and his enablers were closer to being fascists than many liberals were to being socialists.

So I perked up when longtime liberal (and former Secretary of Labor) Robert Reich decided that, turnabout being fair play and all, he would drop an f-bomb (the f-word in this case being the word fascist) on a leading Republican and see what happened.

Reich, referring to some recent far-right rhetoric coming from Floridas Republican Gov. (and likely 2024 presidential candidate) Ron DeSantis, put out a tweet that read:

I dont mean to condone Reichs little experiment in turnabout-equals-fair-play play. But it resonated with that old thought of mine that if Republicans could decide which Democrats could be labeled with the s-word, maybe Democrats will decide which Republicans can be labeled with the f-word. (Fascist, that is, not the other f-word.)

Reich got, I suppose, the reaction he expected from conservative publications like The Washington Examiner,for example, which huffed:

Ultra left-wing elitist and former secretary of labor during the Clinton administration Robert Reichtweetedearlier this week, Just wondering if DeSantis is now officially a synonym for fascist. This insulting slur has no basis, of course.

This is just what left-wing ideologues do when they discuss Republican politicians who pose any threat to the existence of their political ideology.

Its not grounded in any reality and is a sham. Yet, it never stops any of them from repeating the lie. Anyone the Democrats dont like or disagree with is a fascist. Any person using such hyperbolic, unhinged name-calling is not a serious person, and anything they say should not be deemed credible.

Reich noted that Fox Newss digital outlet took umbrageas did manyothers, with rightwing rage at my tweet ricocheting through the echo-chambers of Republican social media.

Maybe I hang out in the wrong circles, but the idea that liberals are constantly calling conservative fascists did not resonate with my experience.

Article continues after advertisement

And I dont really want to see liberals start throwing around the f-word (fascist) too loosely when talking about conservatives. Mostly, I was just amused at the outrage of the right, which uses the s-word to describe liberal policies roughly a million times (or do I mean a billion, who cares when youre having fun) more often than liberals call them by the f-word.

Id be interested to know if Fox has ever taken any right-wing journal or personality to task for overusing the s-word (socialism) when denouncing any liberal Democrat who advocated policies that would tax rich people a bit more so the government could help poor people a bit more and other Bolshevik ideas like that.

The full Reich piece is here.

MinnPost's in-depth, independent news is free for all to access no paywall or subscriptions. Will you help us keep it this way by supporting our nonprofit newsroom with a tax-deductible donation today?

Go here to read the rest:

A liberals experiment in calling DeSantis a fascist and what it says about labels - MinnPost

Is a progressive in the United States just a more extreme version of a liberal? New research suggests that is not the case. Self-described progressives and self-described liberals have significantly different views on a number of issues related to free speech, equality, diversity, and identity, according to a series of studies published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

The rise of progressivism is an era-defining shift within the Western left-wing, said study author Travis Proulx, a senior lecturer at the Cardiff University School of Psychology. Rivalries with traditional liberals play out across social media, academics and electoral politics. While progressivism has been deemed the successor ideology by some on the Left, no prior psychological measure has assessed the attitudes and behaviors that characterize this distinct worldview. We set out to devise a measure that could examine this split: the Progressive Values Scale (PVS).

To develop the scale, Proulx and his colleagues used the Prolific research platform to recruit 182 U.S. participants who identified as either progressive or liberal. The participants indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with 78 statements regarding persuasion, equality, identity, free speech, historical determinism, activism, and cultural appropriation.

Proulx and his colleagues narrowed down the issues to four general tendencies that distinguished progressives and liberals. First, progressives supported imposing immediate changes to increase diversity, such as maintaining diversity quotas. Second, progressives were opposed to cultural appropriation. Liberals, in contrast, were more likely to agree with statements such as People should be permitted to adopt whatever cultural characteristics that appeal to them [music, fashion], regardless of status inequalities.

Thirdly, progressives supported publicly censuring those perceived to hold discriminatory views. In other words, progressives tended to agree with statements such as Those who express bigoted views should be exposed and deserve the backlash that follows. Finally, progressives were less likely than liberals to express a desire to incrementally promote equality for the long-term and tended to disagree with statements such as Most progress has been made by ignoring social identity and appealing to our shared experiences.

Relative to traditional liberals within the U.S. left-wing, it appears that progressives are more likely to 1) advocate for Mandated Diversity within institutional settings, 2) show Cultural Appropriation Concerns regarding creative expression, 3) apply Public Censure of divergent views, and 4) are less likely to pursue a Recourse to Existing Institutions to bring about political change, Proulx told PsyPost.

In three subsequent studies, which included more than 1,200 participants in total, the researchers confirmed the four factor structure of the Progressive Values Scale. We also find that holding certain progressive values is associated with personality traits, Proulx said. For example, supporting Mandated Diversity is associated with heightened empathy, Cultural Appropriation Concerns are associated with anxious tendencies, and advocating for Public Censure is associated with negative views of oneself.

Importantly, the researchers tested the Progressive Values Scale against the Left-Wing Authoritarianism Index, which assesses a persons support for anti-hierarchical aggression, top-down censorship, and anti-conventionalism. There was not substantial overlap between the two measures, indicating that the Progressive Values Scale was measuring a distinct construct.

In spite of common characterizations of this distinction (e.g., progressive vs. moderate liberals), progressives appear to differ from traditional liberals more as a matter of kind (i.e., holding different beliefs) than degree (i.e., being extreme left-wingers), Proulx said. It remains to be determined whether these same differences in kind manifest within non-U.S. left-wing cultural contexts.

We hope that greater acknowledgment and understanding of these divergent values might be the first step in resolving or at least accommodating these perspectives within a broader left-wing worldview.

The study, The Progressive Values Scale: Assessing the Ideological Schism on the Left, was authored by Travis Proulx, Vlad Costin, Elena Magazin, Natalia Zarzeczna, and Geoffrey Haddock.

Read the original:

New study helps pinpoint the key differences between liberals and progressives in the United States - PsyPost

(September 1, 2022 / JNS) Though the majority of American Jews identify ideas about social justice as the essence of Judaism and vote accordingly, they nonetheless support policies that are both unjust and penalize the poor to help the better-off.

JNS editor-in-chief Jonathan Tobin said that by backing both open borders and especially President Joe Bidens student loan bailout, Jews are prioritizing partisanship and personal interest over social justice.

According to Tobin, No one should confuse a policy that will benefit some of the most privileged and ultimately wealthy people at the expense of the hard-earned taxpayer dollars paid to Washington by truck drivers, food servers and manual laborers with justice.

Tobin is then joined by columnist and author David Harsanyi, who discussed the dishonest way democracy is being discussed by Biden and the Democrats.

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicateby email and never missour top stories

Well, I think most of the time when you hear someone say that democracy is being threatened, its just a euphemism for whatever policies they want, he said.

Harsanyi agreed that the student loan bailout was deeply wrong, saying, I think there are two aspects to it that bother me. One is that it is Robin Hood in reverse. Thats just unjust and an unfair policy that seems like vote-buying to me. But the other side of it is that its unconstitutional. Joe Biden does not have the right to do it.

He was also scornful of the way liberal Jewish groups were backing such proposals.

Its gotten to a point where Jewish organizations are the same as the Democratic Party, and thats terrible, said Harsanyi. A lot of Jews are now just anti-Zionist. And that was something you didnt see on the left when I was growing up.

The two also discussed the rise of anti-Semitism on the left. It is functionally anti-Semitic to say that the Jews should not have their own nation. There are some right-wing anti-Semites, and they should be called out. But theyre not embraced by the Republican establishment in the way that Ilhan Omar is or AOC is or other members of the squad.

Top Story also airs on JBS-TV.

Listen/subscribe to weekly episodes on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts.

Watch new episodes every week by subscribing to the JNS YouTube Channel.

See original here:

Liberal Jewish groups are the same as the Democratic Party - JNS.org

In the first ever intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity survey taken at Floridas 12 public universities, 61% of students agreed that their campuses provided an environment for free expression of ideas, opinions and beliefs.

Asked to share their political leanings, the 36% of employees who identified as moderates made up the largest single group. And a plurality of students 45% said they did not feel intimidated about sharing opinions in front of their professors, compared to 28% who said they did.

The results were discussed at Fridays meeting of the Board of Governors, which oversees the State University System. The survey, circulated in April, was mandated as part of a 2021 state law pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and advanced by Republican lawmakers who asserted that the states public colleges and universities are indoctrinating students with liberal ideas.

At a Board of Governors meeting in St. Petersburg that year, Senate President Wilton Simpson said some state universities had become socialism factories.

Of the 368,000 students who received the voluntary survey, 8,835 about 2% completed it, according to a 55-page report. The largest number of responses came from students at the University of Florida and the University of South Florida.

The survey attracted a lawsuit from a group of professors and the states faculty union, which also called on students and employees to boycott it.

About 25% of the students who participated agreed that professors or instructors use class time to express their own social or political beliefs without objectively discussing opposing social or political beliefs, but more than 50% disagreed with that statement.

Students were more split on whether they felt comfortable speaking up about controversial topics. About 44% said they were comfortable and 35% said they werent. Similarly, 41% agreed that their campuses did a good job of promoting differing viewpoints, while 27% disagreed.

In addition to the 36% of employees who identified as moderates, 21% said they were conservatives and 17% said they were liberal.

Of the 98,000 employees who received the survey, 9,238 participated, for a 9.8% response rate that was slightly better than that for students. Most were not faculty, instructors or administrators.

Forty-six percent agreed that their campus was tolerant of differing viewpoints, but 33% did not. And of those who disagreed, more felt the dominating viewpoint was liberal.

Most employees disagreed that tenure was tied to a political viewpoint or that they injected their beliefs into classrooms.

Board of Governors member Deanna Michael, representing faculty senates around the state, expressed concerns about the integrity of the survey, which also were raised in the lawsuit.

This was a first time, it was a big haul and it was very impressive, Michael said. But the faculty are interested in student experiences and atmosphere on campuses so we have some suggested directions to go in. For one thing, were concerned about the security of the survey because we really, really want statistical relevance of the data.

Subscribe to our free Gradebook newsletter

Well break down the local and state education developments you need to know every Thursday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

Board chairperson Brian Lamb said the report was an important first step. Im sure theres a lot for us to think about and learn, he said.

Andrew Gothard, president of United Faculty of Florida, said in an interview that the results are completely invalid, not statistically reliable and represent nothing of value about the nature of higher education in Florida. The union is a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the law.

If the board were to create a survey that protected anonymity and sought to seek a more statistically significant representation on campuses, he said the union would likely support it. While survey participants were not asked to share their names, union officials contend some questions could reveal identifying information.

Divya Kumar covers higher education for the Tampa Bay Times, in partnership with Open Campus.

See more here:

Are Floridas universities too liberal? Heres what new state survey said. - Tampa Bay Times

President Barack Obama took greater steps towards normalizing relations with Iran and Cuba than any U.S. president in decades. Obama supporters had promised that greater links with the United States would help liberalize both Iranian and Cuban societies.

Hawks fought tooth and nail to stop those connections from forming, arguing that regime change is the only solution. After the hawkish Trump administration took office, it worked to put Iran and Cuba under greater U.S. pressure than ever before. While the Biden administration has tried reducing tensions, it has shown little appetite for a major diplomatic opening.

Now a cohort of liberal hawks advertises itself as the middle path. Both naive diplomacy and aggressive isolation campaigns failed, they argue, leaving world-weary moderates to forge a more practical path. Economic sanctions will stay, but with humanitarian exemptions. The military pressure will continue, but in the form of precision defensive strikes. Regime change is still the goal, but it will come as a result of playing the long game.

None of these camps are willing to deal with Iran and Cuba as they are. Diplomacy cannot simply be a means to secure U.S. interests but has to bring the triumph of the American way of life. The hawkish liberal center, which prides itself on moderation and pragmatism, is often the most obsessed with ideological victory.

Tehran and Havana have given up their dreams of permanent global revolution. Washington has not.

One of the most articulate liberal hawks is Karim Sadjadpour, analyst at the Carnegie Endowment and expert on U.S.-Iranian relations. In a series of essays, he has argued that normalization with Iran is impossible because the Islamic Republic needs anti-Americanism to survive. Sadjadpour proposes a permanent cold war aimed at throwing the Iranian leadership off balance, which would open space for a liberal democratic revolution inside Iran.

In a recent New York Times article, Sadjadpour compared Irans Ali Khamenei to Cubas Castro brothers, as both sets of leaders wanted to rule their states sequestered from international capitalism and civil society.

For Mr. Khamenei, the ideal position is just the right amount of isolation. Mr. Khamenei wants to be neither North Korea nor Dubai, Sadjadpour writes. He wants to be able to sell Irans oil on the global market without sanctions, but he doesnt want Iran to be fully integrated in the global system.

There is a much shorter phrase for what Sadjadpour describes: national sovereignty. Iran and Cubas leaders would like to deal with the world on a pragmatic basis, while maintaining their own systems of government. Nation-states are supposed to work this way.

Modern international relations are based on the Peace of Westphalia. Europe had suffered decades of religious warfare after the Protestant Reformation, so in 1648, major European powers agreed to a treaty based on the principle of cuius regio, eius religio. To each kingdom, its own religion.

States may be disgusted and horrified by each others values, but they can put aside those differences for the sake of peace and pragmatism. Catholic princes believed that Protestant kings were buying their people a one-way ticket to Hell; capitalist parties believe that communist parties are suffocating their peoples self-expression. All of them can conduct trade and diplomacy based on the principle of respecting each others borders.

U.S. special envoy Brian Hook was fond of claiming that Iran is not a Westphalian state but a corrupt religious Mafia. On the contrary, it is American leaders who have forgotten Westphalian principles. Washington does not really know how to accommodate countries who want to do business without importing a whole suite of American-style institutions or accepting a state of U.S. vassalage.

Iran and Cuba may once dreamed of spreading Islamism or Communism around the world in the same way. Three decades of U.S. superpower statusas well as isolation from neighboring stateshave ended that vision.

Cuba now has normal relations with almost all capitalist states in the world, and some of the Islamic Republics closest allies are Islamophobic regimes. For that matter, theocratic Iran and secular Cuba are willing to cooperate with each other because of the common threats they face. Some may call this hypocrisy or ideological bankruptcy, but Americans could benefit from a little more flexibility in the way they deal with different societies.

Nationalism is the new name of the game. Iranian politicians try to blend Islamic symbols with references to pre-Islamic empires. A visitor to Havana is more likely to see portraits of the national poet Jos Mart than Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin; the late Fidel Castro, who once tried to stamp out religion, eventually learned to embrace Afro-Cuban saints. Regime hardliners in Tehran and Havana speak in terms of independence and security, rather than spreading the banner of Islam and Marxism.

Of course, anti-Americanism is part of both states ideologies. That is because of the material threat that the United States poses to their sovereignty. One does not have to believe in Islamist morality or Marxist economic theory to wave the flag in the face of an outside enemy. In fact, those who oppose state ideology may still be swayed by the language of patriotic struggle and sacrifice.

If god forbid a war begins, then I a man who assumes no adjective but godless, will return to Iran to defend my motherland, wrote the exiled Iranian musician Mohsen Namjoo in 2019.

When push came to shove, Tehran and Havana accepted Obamas outreach. Iran traded away much of its nuclear program for sanctions relief, while Cuba welcomed American diplomats, businessmen, and tourists in droves. Although diplomacy did not resolve everything at once, Tehran and Havana opened up channels to talk about a variety of issues.

U.S. engagement also coincided with a period of reform in Cuba and Iran. However, diplomacy need not rely on that selling point. Diplomats job is to resolve international conflicts and pursue national interests without war. Whatever breathing room they open up for foreign reformers is just a pleasant side-effect.

America paid very little material cost for either opening. (Indeed, American business stood to profit from lifting sanctions and restoring trade relations.) But giving up on regime change was too high of an ideological price for many. Washingtons political class rallied against engagement, arguing the pace of reform in Iran and Cuba was too slow, or that diplomacy itself was a gift to dictators.

Obamas successors clung to the hope that the Iranian and Cuban systems were on the verge of collapse, and that the people of both nations were just waiting on an American push to overthrow their rulers.

The actual results of maximum pressure have been mixed. While opposition to the state has grown in both Iran and Cuba, there is no immediate path to counter-revolution, and even Sadjadpour admits regime collapse in Iran is likely to take years.

Normalization ended up being one of the greatest missed opportunities of the twenty-first century. The United States could have begun patching things up with two bitter enemies from a position of relative strength. Instead, it has chosen to push Iran and Cuba deep into Russia and Chinas orbit, just as those two superpowers begin to mount a real challenge to U.S. power.

However wasteful the conflict with Cuba is, Washington can probably afford to keep it going for a long time without feeling real pain. A state of permanent hostility with Iran is a much bigger problem. The Islamic Republic has projected military power across the Middle East, and may even become a global power by obtaining atomic weapons.

After all, a credible nuclear deterrent allows Moscow and Beijing to have their relationship with Washington. Everyone understands the insanity of trying to push regime changethat is, a civil war or leadership crisisin a country with hydrogen bombs. And so, U.S. leaders have been able to accept Russia and China for what they are, and to deal with those states transactionally, even when there are deep disagreements.

American hawks can sometimes be mistaken for realists, because they are willing to deal with dictators in the name of containing Iran and Cuba. In fact, U.S. relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia are very ideological. Its just that symbolic submissionaccepting the supremacy of the American way of lifeis more important than the practical application of democracy and human rights.

Earlier this year, Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg and columnist Graeme Wood traveled to write about Saudi Arabias recent transformations. The crown prince was ruthlessly suppressing opposition to his personal, modernist interpretation of Islam. Saudi youth could show skin at American concerts, new cinemas played American movies, and prison re-education turned religious militants into American-style business consultants.

Goldberg and Wood spent little time discussing material questions about oil production, weapons sales, or regional security. Instead, they focused on how U.S. power can ensure the changes in Saudi culture become irreversible.

Cuius regio, eius religio, indeed.

Matthew Petti is a 2022-2023 Fulbright fellow. He was previously a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and research assistant for the Quincy Institute. The views expressed here do not represent the views of the Fulbright Program, the U.S. Department of State, or any of its partner organizations.

Go here to read the rest:

What Liberal Hawks Get Wrong About Iran (and Cuba) - The National Interest Online