Category Archives: Liberal

|

Posted: Apr 28, 2017 12:01 AM

The totalitarian left is emboldened by its selective suppression of speech. Just as scary is the deluded thought process that inspires its Stalinism.

Recognizing its inability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, the left has been chipping away for years at the concept of free speech. You have to give leftists points for cleverness, not to mention persistence, because they don't openly advocate censoring conservative speech as such. They pretend to be protecting some greater good or preventing imminent harm to certain groups.

When they failed in talk radio, they resurrected the Fairness Doctrine, which is euphemistically disguised as a policy to ensure the presentation of all viewpoints but is actually a sinister ploy to dilute the power of conservative talk. They always have some excuse -- and plausible deniability.

They protest conservative speakers or those easily demonized as conservatives on college campuses, arguing that conservative "hate speech" can lead to violence against certain groups. No one wants violence, so we must muzzle conservative political speech, right?

But it's patently absurd to contend that everyday conservative speech is "hate speech" and that it leads to violence. It is pernicious nonsense. What's worse is that these speech cops don't acknowledge their own hypocrisy in committing violence -- the very harm they claim to be preventing -- to prevent speech that allegedly could lead to violence. Let's just burn some buildings down and smash some skulls in to show just how adamant we are about preventing violence. I wish I were exaggerating.

But the thought control zealots are now coming up with even more bizarre rationalizations to curb competitive speech. In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University provost Ulrich Baer argues: "The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections -- not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities -- should not mean that someone's humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned."

You may consider that to be psychobabble. What would you expect from an academic who describes himself in the same piece as "a scholar of literature, history and politics"? But I digress.

Let's try to decipher what he's saying. To do so, we must understand that like so many leftists, Baer cannot avoid viewing these matters through the grid of identity politics; everything must be evaluated in terms of how it affects minorities or historically oppressed groups.

Even though one could define unfettered freedom of expression as "guaranteeing the robust debate from which the truth emerges," we shouldn't support it, Baer also says in the piece. Specifically, we shouldn't protect speech that insults whole groups in an effort to discredit and delegitimize them "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas." He seems to be saying that if you discredit groups of people with your speech, then you unlevel the playing field to the point that any speech these groups express will be less valuable and effective.

We must weigh the "inherent value" of ideas against the dangerous possibility that these ideas could discredit other groups and thereby effectively silence them, he says. Thus, a "pure model of free speech" presents a "clear and present" danger to our democracy.

So the republic is better-served if we allow certain ivory tower elites, with their worldly wisdom, to weigh the "inherent value" of speech to determine whether it should be protected. If it arguably demeans a certain group -- and there are newly defined groups all the time in the left's world -- it is not worthy of protection.

Thus, the liberal thought police can decree that because anything conservative firebrand Ann Coulter would say at Berkeley on immigration or other topics would diminish other groups, it should not be protected. She's a conservative, and conservative ideas don't have much inherent value to liberals and, in their distorted world, also discredit certain groups. Voila! Shut her down. The sophistry is astounding.

I urge you not to miss the most stunning aspect of Baer's specious analysis. The thrust of the left's message against conservatives across the board is that because of our toxic ideas, we should be discredited and delegitimized "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas."

Just as leftists support the commission of violence in the name of preventing speech that could arguably lead to it, they would muzzle us because through our speech, we would discredit and then effectively muzzle them. Insanity.

We don't want to muzzle liberals; we want to defeat them in the marketplace of ideas. We don't want to commit violence against them, but they often want to do so against us. Boy, how they project.

Let me ask you: In their world, who would decide whether certain speech has inherent value? The federal government, no doubt, provided Democrats are in control at the time. The true acid test of Baer's preposterous arguments would be to ask how liberals would feel if Republicans were allowed to make such decisions while in control of the federal government. How would they feel if a conservative had written this silly, scary op-ed?

It is precisely because we can't have certain self-appointed groups deciding what speech is worthy that we must vigorously protect "robust" political speech in this country. The Founding Fathers knew this, and everyone with common sense understands it. But the crazy modern left wants us to unlearn it -- and leftists call us conservatives a danger to democracy.

Whatever you do, don't casually dismiss Baer's ideas as fringe. This is the way leftists think today -- and they are the people teaching our university students, producing Hollywood movies and largely controlling the mainstream media. Wake up and be vigilant! And fight back!

Link:

Liberal Thought Police Getting Scarier - Townhall

Shut it down. Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Since I started writing about the upsurge in illiberal left-wing thought two years ago, many of the responses have dismissed the phenomenon as the antics of silly college students, or just a series of isolated incidents that keep happening over and over for some reason. In reality, these episodes are the manifestation of a serious ideological challenge to liberalism less serious than the threat from the right, but equally necessary to defeat.

In recent days, Howard Dean argued (referring, specifically, to conservative pundit and provocateur Ann Coulter, whose speech was threatened with cancellation by Berkeley administrators) that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Aaron Hanlon, a professor writing for The New Republic defended no-platforming, the left-wing tactic of shutting down public speeches by objectionable figures. An even more elaborate defense of illiberalism comes from Ulrich Baer, vice-provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity at New York University, writing for the New York Times op-ed page.

The liberal ideal sees free speech as a positive-sum good, enabling an open marketplace of ideas where, in the long run, reason can prevail. (And while reason may not always carry the day, if you compare the current state of affairs to 50, or 100, or 200 years before, the liberal model looks pretty good.) Left-wing critics of liberalism instead see the free-speech rights of the oppressed and the oppressors set in zero-sum conflict, so that the expansion of one inevitably comes at the cost of the other. Baer praises recent violent protests that halted speeches by Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos as, therefore, an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, actually enhancing freedom of speech. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good, he argues.

But what kinds of speech should be shut down on these grounds? Baers definition is rather vague. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms, he writes. So Baer wants his audience to believe that his rejection of free speech amounts to no more than preventing a handful of racist cranks from expressing highly noxious views on a handful of especially sensitive topics.

But which topics would qualify? In recent years, liberals have found race or gender buried within a wide and expanding array of subjects. Indeed, one increasingly popular formulation holds that identity issues cannot be abstracted from politics at all, since all politics is identity politics. That goes a bit farther than Id put it I propose that one could discuss the relative merits of a carbon tax versus cap-and-trade without addressing identity questions but the point stands that the sensitive identity issues exception to the free-speech principle is a loophole with the capacity to swallow up the entire rule.

It is likewise highly doubtful that the need for repression would be limited to the right-wing fringe. A racist like Milo Yiannopoulos might seem like an easy case. Charles Murray is a harder case. Murray was targeted by protesters because of his work two decades before defending scientific racism in The Bell Curve (a work Ive never read except in abridged form, and which has been persuasively, to me, demolished by scholars). But the speech he attempted to deliver at Middlebury College before being shut down by a mob was not on that topic. Indeed, when some scholars distributed a copy of Murrays speech to 70 college professors, omitting the name of the author, they deemed it quite moderate. Even assuming his Bell Curve work does not merit free-speech rights, should that subject any future speeches of his to suppression?

Nearly all American politicians in both major parties support some limits on legal immigration, and some measures to enforce those laws. Virtually all of them define some human beings as unworthy of legal standing a position Baer insists does not deserve to be defended in public at all. Perfectly cogent arguments can and have been made that, say, Hillary Clinton advocates systemically racist policies or that Bernie Sanders encourages sexism. The ability to associate disagreeable ideas with the oppressor, and to quash free speech or other political rights in the name of justice for the oppressed, is a power without any clear limiting principle. Historically, states that rule on that basis tend to push that power to its farthest possible limit.

The debate has largely centered on campus free-speech battles because academia is one of the few subcultures in American life where the left can wield hegemonic power. But the problem is ideological, not generational, and one can find signs of the phenomenon creeping out into other corners of political life. The illiberal left has used the fear of Donald Trump to goad broader elements of the progressive movement to adopt their repressive methods and slogans. The slogan shut it down! has come into fashion on the left. Protesters caused the cancellation of a Trump rally last summer, and were seen chanting shut it down! at a conservative think tank this week.

The illiberal left has brought its notion that opposing views can and should be shut down into wide circulation. It has disproportionate influence within the progressive movement, but remains, for now, a noisy minority. But noisy minorities like the cranks and kooks of the far right who had been, 60 years ago, banished to the margins of Republican politics have a way of developing over time into majorities, unless they meet forceful opposition.

Former Obama White House Photographers Instagram Shade Reaches New Heights in Honor of Trumps First 100 Days

Donald Trump Delivers Counterpoint to Trevor Noahs Fake News on the Daily Show

Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin introduced the Biggest Individual and Business Tax Cut In American History, details to be determined.

Believing in error that an appeals court made a district court decision he could have avoided, the president lashes out ineffectually at judges again.

Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will aid the victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants (unless those victims are undocumented).

The candidates have spent $14 million so far and heavy punches arent even being thrown yet.

Usually the House minority party isnt popular this early in a midterm cycle. But the Dems are now.

Thats quite a break from her father.

Senator McConnell requested the briefing, and Trump demanded that the lawmakers come to his home because hes a gracious host.

He will meet with Australian prime minister (and frenemy) Malcolm Turnbull aboard the U.S.S. Intrepid.

Bannons back.

The Affordable Care Act forced Congress to live under Obamacare. Now Republicans want to change that.

The worldwide leader is cutting jobs as it loses subscribers and pays more for broadcasting rights.

Trumps new plan would slash his businesss tax rate by 25 percent, while handing out other free lunches across the corporate sector.

A new poll shows that Americans are split along party lines when it comes to which conspiracy they buy into.

On Twitter, the president lashes out at the Ninth Circuit for a district court decision that his own blustering words made inevitable.

The video was available online for 20 hours before Facebook removed it.

A noisy, illiberal minority in the progressive movement might not be a minority forever.

The recent headaches for Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit riders may just be the start.

Hes expected to order reviews of his predecessors environmental protections later this week.

Link:

The 'Shut It Down!' Left and the War on the Liberal Mind - New York Magazine

Getty

Opinion

By Rich Lowry

April 26, 2017

Because the California National Guard couldnt be mobilized in time, Ann Coulter had to withdraw from giving a speech at Berkeley.

If you take it seriously, thats the import of UC Berkeleys decision to do everything it could to keep the conservative provocateur from speaking on campus over safety concerns.

Story Continued Below

If somebody brings weapons, theres no way to block off the site, or to screen them, the chancellor of the university said of Coulters plan to go ahead and speak at an open-air forum after the school canceled her talk scheduled for this week.

The administrator made it sound as if Coulter would have been about as safe at Berkeley as she would have been addressing a meeting of MS-13and he might have been right.

We have entered a new, much less metaphorical phase of the campus-speech wars. Were beyond hissing, or disinviting. Were no longer talking about the hecklers veto, but the masked-thugs-who-will-burn-trash-cans-and-assault-you-and-your-entourage veto.

Coulter is a rhetorical bomb-thrower, which is an entirely different thing than being a real bomb-thrower. Coulter has never tried to shout down a speaker she doesnt like. She hasnt thrown rocks at cops. She isnt an arsonist. She offers up provocations that she gamely defends in almost any setting with arguments that people are free to accept, or reject, or attempt to correct.

In other words, in the Berkeley context, shes the liberal. She believes in the efficacy of reason and in the free exchanges of ideas. Her enemies do not.

Indeed, the budding fascism that progressives feared in the Trump years is upon us, although not in the form they expected. It is represented by the black-clad shock troops of the anti-fa movement who are violent, intolerant and easily could be mistaken for the street fighters of the extreme right in 1930s Europe. That they call themselves anti-fa speaks to a colossal lack of self-awareness.

It is incumbent on all responsible progressives to reject this movement, and just as important the broader effort to suppress controversial speech. This is why Howard Deans comments about hate speech not being protected by the First Amendment were so alarming. In Deans defense, he had no idea what he was talking about, but he was effectively making himself the respectable voice of the rock throwers.

After his tweet about hate speech got pushback, Dean tried to throw up a couple of Supreme Court decisions supporting his contention and came up empty. As Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school explained, the court has defined nonprotected fighting words narrowly as insults directed at a specific person. Having unwelcome opinions on immigration, or a whole host of other issues, doesnt remotely qualify.

The upshot of Deans view was that Berkeley is within its rights to make the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there. This justification, advanced by the school itself, is profoundly wrongheaded.

It is an inherently discriminatory standard, since the Berkeley College Republicans arent given to smashing windows and throwing things when an extreme lefty shows up on campus, which is a near-daily occurrence.

It would deny Coulter something she has a right to do (speak her mind on the campus of a public university) in reaction to agitators doing things they dont have a right to do (destroy property, among other acts of mayhem).

It would suppress an intellectual threat, i.e., a dissenting viewpoint, and reward a physical threat.

This is perverse. As it happens, one of the more stalwartly liberal voices in the Democratic Party is the socialist who isnt formally part of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders. He rebuked the movement to shut down Coulter as a sign of intellectual weakness. Perhaps Sanders is simply old enough to recall the 1960s arguments for free speech advanced by a different generation of UC Berkeley protesters. It is welcome, nonetheless.

For now there is a consensus in favor of free speech in the country that is especially entrenched in the judiciary. The anti-fa and other agitators arent going to change that anytime soon. But they could effectively make it too burdensome for certain speakers to show up on campus, and over time more Democrats like Dean could rationalize this fact by arguing that so-called hate speech doesnt deserve First Amendment protection.

So, it isnt enough for schools like UC Berkeley to say that they value free speech, yet do nothing to punish disrupters and throw up their hands at the task of providing security for controversial speakers. If everyone else gets safe space at UC Berkeley, Coulter deserves one. If the anti-fa are willing to attack free speech through illegal force, the authorities should be willing to defend it by lawful force.

Heck, if necessary, call out the National Guard.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.

See the original post:

Ann Coulter the Liberal - Politico

The Democratic Party is in a bad way. It's trying to figure out how to climb out of its historically bad position, and given the split results of the 2016 primaries (and Hillary Clinton's eventual loss), there's plenty of debate about whether the future should be aboutpurity or pragmatism.

To oversimplify things: You've got the Sen. Bernie Sanders/Sen. Elizabeth Warren wing urging a fearless focus on progressive issues (especially on the economy) even in conservative-leaning areas,and you've got the old establishment types who think appealing to the political middle with moderation is the way to go.

There haven't been many major elections this year, but this uneasy balancehas beenspotlighted in just about all of them.

In Kansas, you had liberals crying foul over the party's lack of supportfor a Democrat running in a very tough district who espoused some Sanders-ian beliefs. The party is confronted with a similar choice in Montana, where an anti-Wall Street Democrat is the underdogon May 25. Last week, Sanders (I-Vt.) momentarily questioned the progressivism of Georgia special-election candidate Jon Ossoff. Then a related controversy over Sanders's embrace of an antiabortion rights candidate for Omaha mayor led theDemocratic National Committee's chairman tosuggest Democrats must support abortion rights.

The common thread in all four is that nagging pull to the left to combat President Trump with fearless progressivism even in tough districts. But all four have also shown the limits of that approach.

In Kansas and Montana, special election candidates James Thompson and Rob Quist, respectively, have both used some of the language of the progressive left most notably on social media. Both have gotten support from Sanders backers, and Sanders will visit Montana to campaign with Quist.

But here's the prevailing images of the candidates that voters have seen in their TV ads:

These ads are carefully planned for mass consumption as the pictures these campaigns want voters to remember as they head to the polls. None of them really screams progressive Democrat.

In Kansas, nearly every Thompson ad featured him either wielding a gun or wearing a hat with a gun on it. In contrast, there was very little red meat for progressives, beyond general statements about prioritizing education and women's rights.

In Montana, one Quist ad recycles a tired campaign-ad conceit: The candidate literally shooting something with a gun.Philip Bump recapped the many, many examples of this past year, and almost all who have done it are either Republicans or Democrats running in very red areas. It is one of two Quist ads featuring a heavy gun presence.

It is, of course, possible to marry this pro-gun message with a progressive economic one. But the prevailing public images of both candidates are not about a $15 minimum wage; they're guns.

In that other special election this month, Sanders momentarily questioned Ossoff's progressivism despite Democrats making Ossoff a cause celebre the firstpossible sign of a progressive, Democratic backlash against Trump. It was a curious decision in the first place, and one Sanders ultimately backed off of, endorsing Ossoff.

But while he was wavering on Ossoff, Sanders was on his way to campaigning in Omaha with mayoral candidate Heath Mello, who has a progressive message but also has a history of supporting abortion restrictions involving ultrasounds. And Sanderseven told NPR this(again, while questioning Ossoff's progressivism): And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.

The predictable outcry there led DNC Chairman Thomas Perez toapparently declare an abortion litmus test for Democrats. Every Democrat, like every American, should support a womans right to make her own choices about her body and her health, Perez said. House and Senate Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) quickly differed with Perez, saying it's okay to be an antiabortion Democrat as about 1 in 4 Democratic voters are.

In all four cases, Democrats have flirted with a purity focus in four tough areas of the country. Each shows how difficult that is to pull off.

And that's got to be frustrating for progressives. After all, Republicans have fought over purity for years, with the tea party giving the GOP establishment repeated fits. And the GOP only continued its ascent in Congress and now to the presidency. Why can't Democrats do the same with progressivism? Why can't they run like Sanders in Montana and Wichita and Omaha and suburban Atlanta?

The reason is pretty simple: reality. Because of the way our population is distributed, Democrats can't afford to enforce the kind of doctrinaire purity that the tea partywas so successful in policing.

Here's how I put itback in February:

There are simply more red states and more red congressional districts. Republicans took over the House and Senate in recent years largely because they knocked off some of the final hangers-on among Democrats in conservative-leaning places. It first happened in the South; then it spread to Appalachia and the Midwest. ...

The 2016 election is a good example of this. Trump, as everyone knows, lost the popular vote by two full points, 48percent to 46 percent. But despite that loss, he actually won 230 out of 435 congressional districts, compared with 205 for Hillary Clinton, according to numbers compiled by Daily Kos Elections. And in the Senate, he won 30 out of 50 states.

So basically, 53 percent of House districts are Republican and 60 out of 100senators hail from red states, according to the 2016 election results (in which the GOP, again, lost the popular vote).

Democrats won the House because socially and culturally conservative candidates carried conservative states districts in the South and along the Rust Belt in 2006 and 2008. Schumer led the recruiting effort in the Senate, and Pelosi became speaker as a result of then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel's political pragmatism. They know the deal.

The Democrats' tendency these days will be to demandtheir party be as un-Trump and un-Republican as possible in trying to win back control of Congress. These examples show how bumpy that path is already proving.

Read the original:

The Democratic Party is stumbling toward liberal purity - The ... - Washington Post

Mark Cuban, Shark Tank billionaire, investor in 150 companies, impresario, and dedicated tech-aficionado, hates it when people tell him he toes an ideological line. Sometimes he just laughs, sometimes he rolls his eyesand he almost always corrects that assertion. I think for myself! he told Tucker Carlson last week while on his show. Im not a liberal. The way Cuban processes politics, personal interests, and personalities of political candidates is not unlike a swath of Americans on both sides of the political aisle.

This is the kind of view many Americans held when they elected Donald Trump for president, and likely still do. The difference between them and Mark Cuban is that theyre still happy with the president. The maverick Mavericks owner, and many who think like him, arent, never were, and likely never will be.

On CNNs New Day last Friday, Cuban told anchors Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota about a conversation with a friend of his, who described Trump as political chemotherapy, a poisonous cure to an ailing political culture. His friend voted for Trump hoping he would change the political system much like chemotherapy changes cancer. Cuban said, If thats the way youre evaluating Donald Trump, hes doing a phenomenal job.

I asked Cuban Friday, via his Cyberdust app, about the political chemotherapy comment that made several headlines. He corrected this. I didnt say I agreed with the political chemotherapy idea, he told me. Rather that people voted for him to be disruptive. People voted for him knowing the cure was as bad as the disease.

Indeed, on New Day, Cuban gave Trump a C- for his first 100 days, citing his signing a bevy of executive orders he didnt understand and failing to pass a health care bill to replace the ACA legislation, a signature promise of the Trump campaign. Gallup reports Trumps job approval in his first quarter is, at 41 percent, the lowest of any modern president by 14 points.

Yet, like the mass of Americans who cast their ballot for Trump, Cuban holds many ideas that conservatives traditionally embrace. Conservatism for economics is fine. Taxes and smaller government can still do well, Cuban told me, with one caveatthe elephant in the room: Unless they pass Trumpcare. If that happens they [Republicans] lose in 2018. Cuban, unlike most conservatives, believes some kind of socialized medicine should be implemented, though he admits Obamacare is flawed and needs to be fixed. He shared his own ideas for correcting the system on his blog.

Still, Cuban is a fan of Ayn Rands economic philosophies, cant stand the SEC, and thinks the best government is a small, efficient government that stays out of an entrepreneurs way (for the most part). So why didnt he shill for Trump? Why did he show up to one of the presidential debates as a guest of Hillary Clinton to the chagrin of conservatives everywhere?

It all came down to personality and qualifications. Trump is an idiot, Cuban told me, and its not the first time hes told me that. Despite Cubans business interests that drive strains of conservative thinking, he still lobbied for Clinton because he believed she would make the better president. Cuban repeated, [Trump] is an idiot. Ill support a ham sandwich over an idiot. I pushed back and reminded Cuban in terms of business and investments, Clinton advocated for policies that would increase regulations and taxestwo things he hates.

Cuban responded, I can fight attempts to regulate. I can lobby whatever. I cant fight stupidity. I cant stop a moron that didnt think it prudent to read about the relationship between China and the DPRK. Or might drop bombs that causes a war because it was harder to figure out than he thought. We can change tax law. We cant change stupid.

Like many Americans, Cuban isnt all Democrat or all Republicanhe cherry-picks from both sides of the political aisle. And like Cuban, a swath of voters thought Clinton the better candidate. Unlike him, another swath of voters thought Trump would make an ideal leader of a movement for which disgusted voters have long yearned, not despite his lack of qualifications but because of them.

As Cuban said on New Day, Some people say [Trump] started a movement; I think the movement found him. This explains why Trump won more Democratic counties than anyone predicted, because they were tired of voting for politicians who do the same thing repeatedly. They, too, seem to believe theres a disease in this country and Trump might be the curewhether holistic or poisonous, that remains to be seen.

While this dichotomy in Cuban is unpredictable and even disheartening for conservatives who agree with so many of his Randian ideas, Cuban isnt a traitor because he never swore allegiance to conservatism in the first place. Like many Americans today, Cuban doesnt have a deep political ideology that guides himjust sharp observations, pragmatic solutions, and a laser-focus on business, the economy, and investing. When conservativesand liberalshear him advocate for smaller, more efficient, government, declaim against the SEC and lobby for fewer regulations, they hope for a deeper ideology that drives those ideas. But that is his ideology. Everything else is extraneous.

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

Many Americans think the same way, which is, as Twitter likes to say, How we got Trump. Will he be as disruptive as voters on both sides of the political aisle hoped? His voters likely think he is but Cuban remains nonplussed: I dont think he has been. If thats the case, its hard to see a scenario where the billionaire on Shark Tank who has long sparred with the billionaire in the White House becomes satisfied with what Trump does in office. Unless of course Trump starts to fix stupid.

The rest is here:

Mark Cuban: Trump?s an ?Idiot,? but I?m Not a Liberal - Daily Beast

The recent poison gas attack in Syria, Americas stepped up military activities in Afghanistan, a presidential power grab in Turkey and the clownish bellicosity of North Koreas leader have overshadowed an important development closer to home: left-wing populisms slow-but-steady decline in the Americas. Just a few years ago left-wing populism was on the rise, embraced in one form or another by Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela and even Chile. Today, even the Peoples World, the news organ of the Communist Party USA, concedes the pink tide may be receding.

The recent presidential vote in Ecuador confirms this.

The election pitted Guillermo Lasso, a former banker who campaigned on a free-market reform platform, against the aptly named Lenn Moreno, who outgoing President Rafael Correa had hand-picked to be his successor.

As strong-man presidents (right and left) often do, Correa made sure that Moreno won the early April election, a runoff contest between the two candidates who pulled the most votes in an earlier contest.

How could Moreno lose? Correa had all but destroyed Ecuadors free press, turning the media into Moreno cheerleaders, and the election itself was plagued with irregularities that led to claims of fraud.

For example, the election tribunals computer system conveniently went down after early results seemed to point to a Lasso victory, which credible exit polls had predicted after the voting booths had closed. When the computer system was restored, lo and behold Moreno was firmly on his way to a win of more than 51 percent.

Other irregularities, most notably inconsistencies between some of the original election tally sheets and those showed by the electoral body, as well as episodes of police harassment against pollsters who put Lasso ahead the night of the vote, have thrown a dark shadow over the whole process.

Given Correas control of the election appeals tribunal (the TSE, or Supreme Electoral Tribunal) and the judiciary in general, we will never know whether Moreno was the legitimate victor.

What we do know this: at least half the country is desperate to get rid of left-wing populism and follow the path that Brazil and Argentina have taken in recent months, replacing governments closely allied with Venezuela with governments more in tune with the rule of law.

Correas decade-old government received more oil revenue than any other in the countrys history and used the money to establish an all-too-typical Latin American state based on patronage, corruption and the concentration of power.

The more than $300 billion that poured into the governments coffers enabled Correa to throw money at his people, giving them the illusion of prosperity, or at least protection, for a while, which is the reason a large percentage of Ecuadorians continue to support the government. (Almost 40 percent voted for Moreno in the elections first round, a proportion that probably also owed something to the wheelchair-bound candidates soft-spoken personal history as a symbol of the disabled).

But, of course, the price of oil went down and the mirage evaporated. Ecuadors economy came to a stop in 2015 and shrank in 2016. It is barely expected to grow this year.

Moreno has signaled that hes ready to turn the page from Correas confrontational politics and adopt a more friendly attitude towards the opposition and the countrys weakened institutions, such as business and the press. We will see.

For now, it is important to note that millions of Ecuadorians stand ready to push their country in the direction of globalization and free markets.

If Moreno tries to prolong Correas socioeconomic policies and political authoritarianism, not even the government-controlled electoral system will be able to ensure continuation of the regime. He will be handing almost certain victory to the opposition in the next election.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a senior fellow with the Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif. His latest book is Global Crossings: Immigration, Civilization and America.

Image:The march organized by Guillermo Lasso, leader of the movement created, toured the main artery of the city. Wikimedia Commons/Agencia de Noticias ANDES

See the article here:

Ecuador and the Case of the Liberal Losers - The National Interest Online

CUNY Liberal-Activist Graduation Speaker Sparks Controversy Wall Street Journal (subscription) In the wake of controversy over conservative speakers at UC Berkeley, the City University of New York has spurred its own debate by selecting a liberal activist to give a commencement address. The speaker, Linda Sarsour, an ally of New York City Mayor ...

More here:

CUNY Liberal-Activist Graduation Speaker Sparks Controversy - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Liberal protesters stormed the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday but the demonstration backfired when Heritage later took to Twitter using the event to promote one of its policy papers.

Just before noon, around 200 protesters marched up to and inside the conservative organizations Capitol Hill offices. Within about 20 minutes, however, they were gone, the Washington Examiner reported.

The protesters voiced their opposition to President Donald Trumps proposed budget blueprint. Congress has not yet voted on a 2018 fiscal year budget but is expected to do so by Friday night to keep the federal government from shutting down. Its unlikely that budget a deal later this week will include funding for a southern border wall.

Multiple federal agencies, including the EPA, will likely face drastic cuts as a result of Republicans controlling the House and Senate.

Protesters Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation seized upon the Republicans priorities.

Water not walls, protesters were heard chanting in one video tweeted out by Peoples Action, the liberal group that organized the protest.

Shut it down, other protesters shouted from inside the usually quiet office building.

Peoples Action, in a separate tweet, accused Heritage of being Trumps think tank.

Heritage employees fought back, displaying repeal Obamacare signs in their windows as protesters poured out from the lobby and onto the sidewalk.

The Heritage then took to Twitter, using the protest as a means to further promote their conservative agenda.

Thank you @pplsaction for the opportunity to tell more people about our budget to tackle the $20 Trillion debt! Heritage tweeted, along with a link to its proposed 2018 fiscal blueprint.

Heritage vowed it would not be bullied or silenced by staged protesters backed by progressive special interest groups connected to George Soros.

Heritage will not back down. We will keep fighting for a responsible budget, a pro-growth tax system, Obamacare repeal.. the organization wrote.

Read the rest here:

Liberal protesters storm Heritage Foundation's Washington, DC ... - TheBlaze.com

"Comeback is a good word, man," said actor Mickey Rourke when he was catapulted back into Hollywood stardom after a long stint in the wilderness. Tim Farron is no Rourke but at the rapidly approaching general election he too is betting on a comeback.

Liberal Democrats have a score to settle. Two years ago, the traditional third party in British politics were a mere 25,000 votes away from losing all of their seats in Westminster. But the vote for Brexit has given Farron and his party a lifeline. With Labour divided, the party has taken an opportunity to pitch to disillusioned Remainers. And they have made some inroads. Local by-election victories for Liberal Democrats are now commonplace, while the parliamentary by-election in Richmond Park provided further evidence of a comeback.

Now, Farron eyes a snap "Brexit election" as an opportunity for a full-scale comeback, claiming that Prime Minister May is "playing on the Liberal Democrats ground". But could his party really give the Conservatives a bloody nose by winning back some of the seats that were lost in 2015, and possibly more?

Lets start with the current state of play. In 2015, the Liberal Democrats were reduced to a rump of only eight MPs, with the Richmond Park victory increasing this to nine. Today, Liberal Democrats are the main opposition in 62 seats, in third place in a further 36 seats, and fourth place in 338. The good news for Farron is that in 16 seats Liberal Democrats' vote iswithin 10 per centof the incumbent. Ten of these seats are held by Conservatives, and all are in the south or south west England. A further three are held by Labour and three by the Scottish National Party. There is also an "outer ring", where Liberal Democrats are between 10 per cent and 20 per cent behind the incumbent. Of these more distant prospects, 15 are held by Conservatives, four by Labour and fiveby the SNP.

Then there's the Liberal Democrat MPs themselves. Of the nine MPs, five have a majority of less than five percentage points, with the incumbent in the most marginal seat (Southport) not seeking re-election.

What happens from here? One longstanding problem for Liberal Democrats has been to translate votes into seats. In the past, targeted campaigns helped but did not resolve the disparity between the partys share of the vote and its number of MPs. One reason was the so-called "credibility gap" where voters are reluctant to vote for a party they believe has little chance of winning. Historically, Liberal Democrats tried to offset this through strong, local campaigns. This campaigning, which two years ago saved Liberal Democrats from complete annihilation, could be more important in 2017 given the shorter election period. In 2015, the Conservatives' "decapitation strategy" across southern England relied on a ruthlessly efficient "joined-up" campaign, driven by Conservative headquarters in co-operation with local parties. Huge sums were thrown at key south and south-west battlegrounds for nine months or more. The thinly-resourced Liberals were out-gunned.

But this time, with less than 50 days until polling day, the Conservatives are unable to replicate this sustained ferocity. This may give Liberal Democrats more of a fighting chance.

The shorter campaign could help them in other ways. Since the vote for Brexit, the Lib Demshave prepared for a snap election and selected candidates in seats that were lost in 2015, as well as others on a long range target list. This could be a double-edged sword. Familiar faces like Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Simon Hughes and Jo Swinson will remove credibility problems, but such faces might also remind voters of the partys role in the post-2010 coalition. Nonetheless, all remain within striking distance. Cable and Davey require a direct swing from the Conservatives to Liberal Democrat of less than 2.4 per cent while Jo Swinson requires a direct swing from the SNP of 2 per cent. If their local popularity remains, the changed climate since 2015 may mean that such seats are more attainable than they would be with new candidates.

But the bigger and more popular argument is that Liberal Democrats will be boosted by the "Brexit election" whereby Remainers will flock to the orange banner. But our evidence suggests that while there is potential, the party faces an uphill task.

Under most scenarios, Conservative losses will be minor. The figure below shows the Remain vote by the Liberal Democrat margin (the difference between the 2015 vote for the Liberal Democrats and the vote for the winning party). And we have focused on the 40 most marginal Liberal Democrat target seats in 2017.

This reveals a cluster of nine seats where Liberal Democrats are within striking distance of victory, within 10 percentage points of the winner, if indeed the Remain vote switches over en masse. Four of these seats are held by Conservatives (Bath, Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton, Lewes) and two by Labour (Cambridge, and Bermondsey and Old Southwark). Worryingly for Farron, the remaining three are held by the similarly anti-Brexit SNP.

There is also second cluster of 11 seats where the Remain vote surpassed the 50 per cent mark and in some cases was much higher, but where Liberal Democrats are up to 20 points behind the winning party. Once again, the task facing Farron is hard six are held by the SNP.Of the remaining five, three are Conservative (Cheadle, Cheltenham and Oxford West and Abingdon) and two Labour (Cardiff Central, and Hornsey and Wood Green).

% Constituency Remain Vote by 2015 Liberal Democrat Margin (%)

*Key: Blue = Conservative held; Red = Labour held; Yellow = SNP Held

A third cluster is more interesting. There is a distinct grouping of seats that were around or just below the average Remain vote and where Liberal Democrats are between 3-18 per cent behind the incumbent. In most cases the swing required for them to win is not excessive.

Worryingly for Prime Minister May, these are predominantly Conservative-held seats that turned blue in 2015 seats like like Thornbury and Yate, Colchester, and Sutton and Cheam. Here, as elsewhere, turnout will be key. If and it is a big if- the Liberals can sweep up Remainers and get them to turnout they could easily break the 20 seat mark and put a dent in Mays majority (see Table 1). Of course, it is not all one way. At the same time, of the nine Liberal Democrat MPs, Norman Lamb in Norfolk North (where 58 per cent voted for Brexit) looks vulnerable to a Conservative challenge if this post-Brexit realignment plays out.

A Brexit Election Scenario: Liberal Democrat Possible Gains

Cluster 3: 45 per cent+ Remain

Low Leave Turnout

*Note: other possibilities include Berwick upon Tweed, and Eastbourne. The latter is extremely marginal but the leave vote was substantial. Other marginal seats such as Torbay and Yeovil would be unlikely to go back to the Liberal Democrats under a Brexit election scenario (although they come in play if not). It should be noted there may be anomalies like St Albans, which voted Remain, where the party has and continues to poll well. But in previous elections the strong local platform has not translated into voting Liberal Democrat in the general election. Maidstone & the Weald is a long term target but a strong Brexit vote there rules it out under this scenario. **Previous Liberal Democrat incumbent confirmed as standing again.

Turning to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat battlegrounds, Farron and his party will do better where they have past success and an activist base. The party is positioning itself against the Conservatives and will target seats that are marginal and have a healthy Remain vote. But, as we have seen, the gains are limited given the scale of the partys collapse in 2015. So are there long term targets where we could see a swing to the Liberal Democrats?

If the Liberal Democrats get a poll bounce during the campaign and hit the heights of 16-17 per cent then there are seats that could come into play in the shadow of the election. The next figure shows the Remain vote by 2015 Liberal Democrat margin in seats currently held by the Conservatives but which used to be held by Liberal Democrats in the recent past.

Conservative Held Seats (Previously won by the Liberal Democrats only) - % Constituency Remain Vote by 2015 Liberal Democrat Margin (%)

There is a cluster of pro-Remain seats with a Liberal Democrat heritage where Farron will find a receptive audience Winchester, Guildford, Harrogate and Knaresborough, and Romsey and Southampton North. But these would require goliath swings Liberal Democrat candidates are 30-40 points behind. This also reveals how the Conservatives have a buffer, even in areas where historically the Liberal Democrats have been strong, as in Cornwall and Devon. There are 16 seats in the south-west that used to be held by the Liberal Democrats but which recorded below average Remain votes at the referendum. So if this does become a Brexit election then to win these seats back Farron will need to do a lot more than simply bang on about the perils of hard Brexit. In these seats Liberal Democrat gains in 2017 seem unlikely.

Another factor that could easily work against the Liberal Democrats is the Ukip vote. Ukip is already finding it difficult to retain its 2015 vote and how this vote splits could be crucial. Theresa May and her team are doing everything in their power to tempt back Ukip voters. If this happens on a broad basis it could have worrying implications for Liberal Democrats.

In 75 per cent of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat seats shown above Ukip polled more than 10 per cent of the vote in 2015. Crucially, Ukipobtained more than 10 per cent of the vote in all but one of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat battleground seats that polled a lower Remain vote than average. Ukip also achieved this feat in 15 of the 16 seats in the south west which had a higher than average Leave vote. What does this mean? The Brexit election could backfire on Farron. If Lynton Crosby, who knows these seats well, guns after Leave voters they may vote tactically to keep out the Liberal Democrats in order to get what they really want Brexit.

Turning back to the most enticing prospects for Liberal Democrats in Cluster 1, only the Conservative-held Lewes had a Ukip vote of more than 10 per cent, reaffirming how these seats represent the best hope for Farron. In sharp contrast, all of the seats in Cluster 3 have substantial Ukip votes which the Conservatives will look to mobilize as a firewall against Liberal Democrat gains. In conclusion, therefore, Mays gamble of "playing on the Liberal Democrats ground" is not without risk but seems a safe bet. She has a good chance of holding onto many "traditional liberal" heartland seats that her party captured in 2015. The Liberal Democrats may stage a comeback of sorts, but this may be less impressive than many currently expect.

Matthew Goodwin is Professor of Political Science at the University of Kent and author of Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the EU. He tweets @GoodwinMJ. David Cutts is Professor of Political Science at the University of Birmingham.

Original post:

The constituencies where the Liberal Democrats can take on the Tories - New Statesman

There is also a second cluster of eleven seats where the vote to Remain in the EU surpassed the 50 per cent mark but Liberal Democrats are still up to 20 points behind. Again, only three of these (Cheadle, Cheltenham, and Oxford West and Abingdon) are held by the Conservatives. Another six are held by the SNP while two are held by Labour (Cardiff Central, and Hornsey and Wood Green.

Yet there is a third cluster of seats where the vote for Remain was around or just below the average and where Liberal Democrats are between 3-18 points behind. They would not require an excessive swing. Worryingly for the Prime Minister these are mainly Conservative seats which turned blue in 2015, like Thornbury and Yate, Colchester, and Sutton and Cheam.

If Tim Farron can build momentum, his party could break the 20 seat mark and put an (albeit small) dent in Mays majority. Even still, it is not all one way of the nine Lib Dem MPs some like Norman Lamb in Norfolk North are in seats that voted to leave the EU and could be vulnerable to a Conservative challenge.

Read the rest here:

Here are the seats Liberal Democrats could seize, especially if Tim Farron bangs on about more than Brexit - Telegraph.co.uk