Category Archives: Liberal

MEDFORD One hundred years ago this month, US President Woodrow Wilson was agonizing over whether to enter World War I. Just a few months earlier, Wilson had won re-election partly by campaigning on a policy of neutrality, which he was now preparing to abandon, along with the slogan America first. But now, for the first time in more than 80 years, a US president has taken it up again, to promote a foreign-policy stance that directly controverts the doctrine Wilson embraced.

It was not until 1919, after the war was over, that Wilson defined his foreign-policy vision of liberal internationalism: support for collective security and promotion of open markets among democracies, regulated by a system of multinational institutions ultimately dependent on the United States. Though the US Senate initially rejected Wilsons vision, particularly his support for joining the League of Nations, Franklin D. Roosevelt revived liberal internationalism after 1933. It has helped to shape the foreign policies of most US presidents ever since until Trump.

The America first approach that Trump advocates comprises disdain for NATO, contempt for the European Union, and mockery of Germanys leadership role in Europe. It also includes rejection of economic openness, reflected in Trumps withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and call to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump has also pledged to back out of the Paris climate agreement.

Unlike Wilson, Trump seems to see no value in maintaining and deepening ties with other democracies. Instead, he seems drawn to authoritarian leaders in particular, Russian President Vladimir Putin and often leaves democratic leaders watching from the wings.

To be sure, if Wilson were alive today, he might agree with Trump on some issues, though his proposed solutions would be very different. For example, Wilson would probably concur with Trump that the level of openness in global markets today is excessive. It is indeed problematic that US banks and businesses can export capital, technology, and jobs as they please, with little or no regard for the domestic costs.

But Wilsons solution would likely focus on developing and implementing improved regulations through a multilateral process dominated by democracies. Likewise, he would probably advocate a fiscal policy aimed at advancing the common good, with higher taxes on the wealthiest companies and households funding, say, infrastructure development, quality education, and universal health care.

In short, Wilson would endorse a program more like that of Democratic US Senator Elizabeth Warren or Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, featuring an advanced social-welfare system that enables broad-based prosperity. By contrast, Trump advocates lower taxes for the wealthy, and seems willing to embrace some form of state capitalism if not crony capitalism via protectionist policies and special incentives for companies to manufacture in the US.

Wilson might agree with Trump on another point: we cannot assume that democracy is a universal value with universal appeal. Like Trump, Wilson would probably eschew the idealistic nation- and state-building formulas that animated US foreign policy under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

But here, too, the differences overwhelm the similarities. Trump has decided that the US simply shouldnt bother with the rest of the world, unless it gets something concrete in return. Wilson, by contrast, wanted to spread democracy for the sake of world peace, but in an indirect manner, working through the League of Nations. He believed that international institutions, the rule of law, common values, and an elite possessed of a democratic vision could ensure collective security and peaceful conflict resolution. What would begin as Pax Americana, he believed, would ultimately become a Pax Democratica.

This vision lies at the root of American exceptionalism. The claim is not simply that the US is, as Bill Clinton put it, the indispensable nation, whose global power makes it a party to all major international issues. It is also that the US can expect deference from other states, because it looks beyond its narrow self-interest to sustain an international order that supports peace, cooperation, and prosperity, particularly among the worlds democracies.

Not every US president has followed Wilsons lead. The promise of liberal internationalism was snuffed out for three presidential administrations, from the election of Warren G. Harding in 1920 until FDR took office in 1933. With Trump, it is being snuffed out again. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land, Trump declared at his inauguration. From this day forward, its going to be only America first.

But Wilsons vision may not prove so easy to quash. Back in the twentieth century, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War impelled US policymakers to embrace liberal internationalism. Today, too, a tumultuous world is likely to vindicate its deep and enduring appeal.

Read the rest here:

Is Liberal Internationalism Dead? - Project Syndicate

LONDON After the annus horribilis that was 2016, most political observers believe that the liberal world order is in serious trouble. But that is where the agreement ends. At the recent Munich Security Conference, debate on the subject among leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demonstrated a lack of consensus even on what the liberal order is. That makes it hard to say what will happen to it.

When the West, and especially the United States, dominated the world, the liberal order was pretty much whatever they said it was. Other countries complained and expounded alternate approaches, but basically went along with the Western-defined rules.

But as global power has shifted from the West to the rest, the liberal world order has become an increasingly contested idea, with rising powers like Russia, China and India increasingly challenging Western perspectives. And, indeed, Merkels criticism in Munich of Russia for invading Crimea and supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad was met with Lavrovs assertions that the West ignored the sovereignty norm in international law by invading Iraq and recognizing Kosovos independence.

This is not to say that the liberal world order is an entirely obscure concept. The original iteration call it Liberal Order 1.0 arose from the ashes of World War II to uphold peace and support global prosperity. It was underpinned by institutions like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as regional security arrangements, such as NATO. It emphasized multilateralism, including through the United Nations, and promoted free trade.

But Liberal Order 1.0 had its limits namely, sovereign borders. Given the ongoing geopolitical struggle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, it could not even quite be called a world order. What countries did at home was basically their business, as long as it didnt affect the superpower rivalry. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a triumphant West expanded the concept of the liberal world order substantially. The result Liberal Order 2.0 penetrated countries borders to consider the rights of those who lived there.

Rather than upholding national sovereignty at all costs, the expanded order sought to pool sovereignty and to establish shared rules to which national governments must adhere. In many ways, Liberal Order 2.0 underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as new norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) sought to shape the world in the Wests image.

But, before too long, sovereignty-obsessed powers like Russia and China halted its implementation. Calamitous mistakes for which Western policymakers were responsible namely, the protracted war in Iraq and the global economic crisis cemented the reversal of Liberal Order 2.0.

But now the West itself is rejecting the order that it created, often using the very same logic of sovereignty that the rising powers used. And it is not just more recent additions like the ICC and R2P that are at risk. With the United Kingdom having rejected the European Union and U.S. President Donald Trump condemning free-trade deals and the Paris climate agreement, the more fundamental Liberal Order 1.0 seems to be under threat.

Some claim that the West overreached in creating Liberal Order 2.0. But even Trumps America still needs Liberal Order 1.0 and the multilateralism that underpins it. Otherwise, it may face a new kind of globalization that combines the technologies of the future with the enmities of the past.

In such a scenario, military interventions will continue, but not in the postmodern form aimed at upholding order (exemplified by Western powers opposition to genocide in Kosovo and Sierra Leone). Instead, modern and pre-modern forms will prevail: support for government repression, like Russia has provided in Syria, or ethno-religious proxy wars, like those that Saudi Arabia and Iran have waged across the Middle East.

The internet, migration, trade and the enforcement of international law will be turned into weapons in new conflicts, rather than governed effectively by global rules. International conflict will be driven primarily by a domestic politics increasingly defined by status anxiety, distrust of institutions and narrow-minded nationalism.

European countries are unsure how to respond to this new global disorder. Three potential coping strategies have emerged.

The first would require a country like Germany, which considers itself a responsible stakeholder and has some international heft, to take over as a main custodian of the liberal world order. In this scenario, Germany would work to uphold Liberal Order 1.0 globally and to preserve Liberal Order 2.0 within Europe.

A second strategy, exemplified today by Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, could be called profit maximization. Turkey isnt trying to overturn the existing order, but it doesnt feel responsible for its upkeep, either. Instead, Turkey seeks to extract as much as possible from Western-led institutions like the EU and NATO, while fostering mutually beneficial relationships with countries, such as Russia, Iran,and China, that often seek to undermine those institutions.

The third strategy is simple hypocrisy: Europe would talk like a responsible stakeholder, but act like a profit maximizer. This is the path that British Prime Minister Theresa May took when she met with Trump in Washington in January. She said all the right things about NATO, the EU and free trade, but pleaded for a special deal with the U.S. outside of those frameworks.

In the months ahead, many leaders will need to make a bet on whether the liberal order will survive and on whether they should invest resources in bringing about that outcome. The West collectively has the power to uphold Liberal Order 1.0. But if the Western powers cant agree on what they want from that order, or what their responsibilities are to maintain it, they are unlikely even to try.

Mark Leonard is the co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Project Syndicate, 2017 http://www.project-syndicate.org

See the original post:

What liberal world order? - The Japan Times

It is clear that today what passes for news is essentially opinion. The left-leaning media (so called liberal) have shown more intolerance than what is essentially called right-wing by them. They hate to lose. And when they do, the savage attacks on the non-liberals show their intolerance.

Take the case of Shazia Ilmi not being allowed to speak at her Alma MaterJamia Millia Islamia on a seminar on Women empowerment. Though she was invited, the invite was withdrawn at the last minute without explanation. General Bakshi and Tarek Fatah were invited to a prestigious club in Kolkata for a seminar and Mamata Banerjee made the institution cancel the event.

None of the liberals had massive rallies against such acts against Freedom of Speech. In fact, most news channels did not even carry this.

Be it the Indian, American or British media all seem to have a markedly liberal point of view that does not allow any dissent. Talk about freedoms. Only the Left it seems has the freedom to speak and rally.

The word intolerance is used all the time when there is a blowback on whatever the liberals say or do. No matter how innocuous the subject, such as spreading yoga worldwide, the liberal left will have something unpleasant to say about it.

The people have pretty much told the liberal media that they dont rule the dialogue and the social media is, thus, thriving. Whether it is the New York Times or the New Yorker, very few read them and many think they are biased towards the extreme left.

Change in spite of the media has happened in India, Britain and USA and will follow in most European countries. One has stopped watching Indian TV news as once again there is little news but a great deal of debate. What passes for news is the opinion of the anchor or the owners of the channels who have their own agendas.

Yesterday, I watched the news briefly and saw an event, that made me think:Arun Purie congratulating his daughter for India Today TV getting the award for best English and Hindi news. To me an award is a self-perpetuating exercise by an organisation where they form a club of sorts and give each other awards. Whether it is the Oscars, Grammys, etc. They form a small cabal who decide who gets an award. Is this the peoples choice? No! The people are not consulted and mostly unaware of how and who chooses these awards.

Newspapers, magazines and such organisations pump up their reader/viewership to garner more advertising revenue, so their own statistics are always suspect. So, are these awards really relevant? Are the best reporters getting awards? Is there even such a thing as investigative reporting left in India?

I saw a portion of The big fight where the issue being debated was Is free speech being curtailed now. Well, in fact no. When the Congress realised that Modi was a potential threat way back in 2004 a sustained campaign was launched to discredit him this is a long story and much has been written on this. The US media did the same for Trump. The people lost trust and switched to social media. And voted Trump as president, in spite the hundreds of negative articles that appeared on him by CNN, New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post and many others. They switched off.

So, I looked up once again at media viewership and came up with this revealing data on TV news viewership.

Top 5 English news channels viewership (BARC data week Feb 2017):

Times Now 798,000 India Today 498,000 CNN-IBN 404,000 NDTV 376,000 BBC 184,000

Hindi News Channels (Feb 2017)

Simply put two million people watch the top five English channels put together. And 485 million people watch the top five Hindi news channels.

The conclusion is most of what we see in the English news channels is really not relevant in the context of forming public opinion. A viewership of just two million in a country of 1.3 billion is too small to be of any significance. Wake up reporters and anchors. Your air- conditioned environment plus huge salaries and popularity are at stake. Beat the streets and start feeling the pulse of all Indians not just the Liberals and their cronies.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Continued here:

The liberals and their false angst on intolerance - Times of India (blog)

A majority of Canadians are supportive of the Liberal governments approach to running deficits, even though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has faced months of criticism from Conservatives for abandoning a promise to balance the books.

A new survey by Nanos Research for the Globe and Mail found 52 per cent of those surveyed supported the view that Ottawa should continue to run deficits as long as the size of the federal debt is declining in relation to the size of the economy, which is the governments current view.

In contrast, 39 per cent agreed with the alternative position that the government should do what it takes to balance the budget before the next election.

Mr. Trudeaus successful 2015 election campaign was centred on a pledge to run short-term deficits of no more than $10-billion a year before returning the federal books to surplus in time for the 2019 election. Finance Minister Bill Morneau has since revised those plans, arguing that economic growth forecasts are weaker than what had been assumed during the election campaign.

Mr. Morneaus Nov. 1, 2016 fiscal update projected a deficit of $25.1-billion in the current fiscal year, followed by a $27.8-billion deficit in 2017-18 and a $25.9-billion deficit in 2018-19. The update said the federal debt as a percentage of GDP would decline from 31.8 per cent this year to 30.4 per cent in 2021-22.

Pollster Nik Nanos said the survey results show the Liberals have succeeded in making the case that deficits are justified in the current economic environment. However, he said the Conservative criticisms could ultimately take hold in the future if federal finances fail to improve.

Canadians are ready at this particular point in time to stay the course, but the Liberals shouldnt think that this is carte blanche to run deficits in perpetuity or even higher deficits because that would probably be a longer-term political risk for them, he said.

Over the past year, Mr. Morneau has repeatedly declined to provide a new timeline for erasing the deficit. Instead, the government argues that it is focusing on the federal debt-to-GDP ratio as its guide, or fiscal anchor. Federal projections show the federal debt-to-GDP ratio is on track to decline slightly over the coming decades, even though annual deficits wont disappear until the 2050s.

The upcoming 2017 budget will be the Liberal governments next opportunity to provide an update on its deficit plans. Some economists, including the Conference Board of Canadas Craig Alexander, have called on Mr. Morneau to provide a clear plan for returning the books to balance in the medium term.

The size of the projected deficits likely mean that Mr. Morneau has little room to announce new spending in the 2017 budget.

David Herle, a Liberal strategist and polling expert with The Gandalf Group, has been analyzing Canadians views on deficits for years. Using polling and focus groups, Mr. Herle advised former Liberal finance minister Paul Martin during the deficit-fighting budgets of the 1990s. He is also a campaign advisor to Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne, who has faced criticism for running deficits but is promising a return to surplus this year.

Mr. Herle said the mid-1990s was a rare moment in political history when Canadians viewed large deficits as the source of pain in the larger economy. The Liberals also faced an emerging opposition force in the form of the Reform Party that pushed aggressively for spending restraint.

Outside of that period, however, Mr. Herle said Canadians tend not to view deficits or GDP figures as having much of an impact on their daily lives. While he said conservative voters are more likely to push for balanced budgets, a federal move toward austerity to balance the books would be highly unpopular given the current state of the economy.

You just have a hard time convincing many people in Canada right now that the governments balance sheet is of greater concern than their own, he said. People are comfortable with the trade-off Any government that tried to extract $30-billion out of its spending right now would be done.

The hybrid phone and online survey of 1,000 Canadians took place between Feb. 25 and Feb. 28, 2017. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb

Read this article:

Majority of Canadians okay with Liberal deficits: survey - The Globe and Mail

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne speaks during a press conference in Toronto on Thursday, March 2, 2017. (Frank Gunn/THE CANADIAN PRESS) Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne speaks during a press conference in Toronto on Thursday, March 2, 2017. (Frank Gunn/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Allison Jones

TORONTOThe Canadian Press

Published Monday, Mar. 06, 2017 7:19AM EST

Last updated Monday, Mar. 06, 2017 12:01PM EST

Ontarios budget watchdog is planning a report examining the Liberal governments plan to lower hydro bills.

Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown has written to the financial accountability office, asking them to investigate the plan with a full costing analysis.

A spokeswoman for the office says theyll take Browns letter under consideration, but they had already been planning to examine the hydro plan.

The recently announced 17-per-cent reduction in hydro bills comes this summer thanks to a move the Liberals say is like refinancing a mortgage over a longer period of time.

Premier Kathleen Wynne has acknowledged it will cost ratepayers more in the long run, but she says savings are needed now because people are struggling.

She has said the extra interest costs related to the plan would amount to $25 billion over 30 years, but the Tories say theyre not clear on how the Liberals arrived at that number.

Wynne defends Ontario hydro rate cut (The Canadian Press)

Discover content from The Globe and Mail that you might otherwise not have come across. Here well provide you with fresh suggestions where we will continue to make even better ones as we get to know you better.

You can let us know if a suggestion is not to your liking by hitting the close button to the right of the headline.

More:

Ontario budget watchdog to examine Liberals' hydro relief plan - The Globe and Mail

Lauren Leader-Chive, an expert on diversity and womens issues, said progressive women ignored the needs of conservative women and thus set themselves back in 2016 by not uniting on shared policy issues beyond abortion. She acknowledged that many Womens March participants were not welcoming to pro-life women.

Theres no one answer to solve this, said Leader-Chive, author of Crossing the Thinnest Line, and co-founder and CEO of All In Together, during a recent conversation at Salon Talks. I do think that one of the lessons of this election and one of the lessons of basically every time liberal feminism in a sense has lost in a big way and liberal feminism did lose in a big way in this election, and it lost in a big way in the late 70s with the ERA it is often because we and I say we because I am one of them underestimate the power and the passion and the conviction of conservative women who view the feminist agenda as excluding them added Leader-Chive. I think there were a lot of women in this election who were . . . not voting for Donald Trump, but who were voting against Hillary Clinton on the abortion issue as one very core, moral question for them. And does that mean we all are gonna ever agree? No. But I do think the future of a whole bunch of other issues that are not abortion. . .rest on our ability to find some common ground, she concluded.

Leader-Chive also said the millions of women marchers who gathered on January 21, the day after President Trumps inauguration, are a force to be reckoned with. Republicans, she said, would be unwise to ignore the potential groundswell the Womens March could represent in future elections.

There is tremendous collective power, and I think part of what the [Womens] March tapped was that potential collective power that women really do have and should have more of, Leader-Chive said. In any political environment, the opposition is always the most motivated, right? And the most mobilized. So you will see, I think, a disproportionate response from democrats right now. She feels American women are having a sort-of moment of reckoning. It is this sort of moment that I think Americans are realizing. . . if you dont own your democracy, if you dont participate, things may happen that you dont like.

The rest is here:

WATCH: Is liberal feminism the biggest loser? - Salon

Nigel Farage with Donald Trump. Brexit means that power can be dispersed outward and downwards. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP

What is Nigel Farage so cross about? We won the EU referendum, for goodness sake. Since 23 June, Ive been walking on sunshine. My mood has been a state of Zen-like bliss.

Alongside Boris Johnson, David Owen, Gisela Stuart and all of those involved in the official Vote Leave campaign, I spent the referendum arguing that leaving the EU would be an opportunity to make Britain more open, outward-looking and globally competitive. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this is where Brexit is going to take us.

Far from heralding a retreat into insularity, Brexit is shaping up to be the beginning of a liberal revolution. Having taken back control of our country, we will at last be able to tackle some of the public policy failures that have festered under successive governments for more than a generation.

Yes, we will see an end to the free movement of people between European Union member states and the United Kingdom. But I suspect we will see a sensible policy that will allow labour mobility, with parliament controlling the total numbers of migrants each year. It is perfectly possible to imagine a scenario under which UK firms would be allowed to hire EU nationals provided they paid them enough to preclude the possibility that they might claim in-work benefits. Doing so would help rebalance the low-wage, low-productivity economic model that the UK has by default come to depend upon.

Ministers seem to be feeling their way towards a new national consensus on issues where the leave and remain sides were once at odds; universities must continue to be able to collaborate with institutions across the EU, drawing on the brightest and best brains.

From telecoms to intelligence gathering, we need to ensure that we continue to cooperate with the rest of Europe, despite not being in the EU.

The great repeal bill, which will convert all existing EU legislation into UK law, might be better described as the great transfer bill. It will not of itself remove many regulations, but enable us to decide if we wish to retain or reform such rules and free ourselves from some of the constraints various legal rulings over the past 40 years have imposed on our ability to make our own law. Doing all that might initially change little, but it will awaken within our democracy the idea dormant for so long that we mightdo things better. In the run up to the next general election, we might see parties publish manifesto that give us real choice, not more tweedledumb versus tweedledee options. Any genuinely insurgent politician or party ought to revel in the possibility of meaningful change that leaving brings with it. Brexit is often bracketed alongside the election of Donald Trump and the rise of the new radical populist movements in many western countries. But to me the EU referendum result was a safety valve. Trump or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is where you end up when you ignore legitimate public concerns and there isnt a safety valve.

Throughout history oligarchy has emerged in societies in which power was previously dispersed: in the late Roman republic, and in early modern times in the Venetian and then the Dutch republics. Each time, the emergence of oligarchy was always accompanied by an anti-oligarch insurgent reaction.Many of todays new radical movements arent oligarchs, but an anti-oligarchy insurgency. Trump is no American Caesar about to cross some constitutional Rubicon.

Yet such insurgents often ended up unwittingly assisting the oligarchs. In Rome the Gracchi brothers, with their Trump-like concern about cheap migrant labour, caused so much civil strife that an all-powerful emperor seemed a better bet. In Venice, the anti-oligarch rebel Bajamonte launched an unsuccessful coup and in doing so gave the elite a pretext to create a new, superpowerful executive arm of government, the Council of Ten. Created to respond to the crisis for six weeks, it ran the republic for the next 600 years.The Dutch anti-oligarch De Witt was so inept, he paved the way for the return of a strong stadtholder, or king.

So, too, today. If chaotic, angry insurgents such as Frances Marine Le Pen and the rightwing populist Alternative for Germany party are the alternative, then being governed by remote, unaccountable elites sitting in central banks and Brussels doesnt seem so unattractive after all. But Brexit isnt anything like that. It is the beginning of a liberal insurgency. Brexit means that we take back control from the supranational elite. Power can be dispersed outward and downwards. Those who make public policy might once more answer to the public.

Cheer up it might even mean that there is less space for anger in our politics too.

Read this article:

Leaving the EU is the start of a liberal insurgency - The Guardian

Despite a late poll slump, scrappy organisation and the selection of "fruitcakes" as candidates, One Nation remains in a position to seize the balance of power in Western Australia's upper house, largely due to the enduring strength of Pauline Hanson's political brand, less than a week before the state election.

A ReachTEL poll commissioned by Fairfax last week showed that the Labor opposition was leading Colin Barnett's Liberal government by 52-48 on a two-party-preferred basis.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

A poll of around 1700 residents shows the WA state election is set to be a tight contest.

Play Video Don't Play

A Camillo man has been charged with evading police through a number of Perth suburbs in the dramatic chase captured by WA Police's air-wing.

Play Video Don't Play

Trevor Gleeson says Matt Knight is a 50-50 chance to play in Sunday's final against Illawarra.

Play Video Don't Play

Trevor Gleeson says Matt Knight is a 50-50 chance to play in Sunday's final against Illawarra.

Play Video Don't Play

Winner of over 70 international awards, Matilda the musical makes it way to Perth.

Play Video Don't Play

Mother Nature put on an impressive display overnight, with a massive thunder and lightning storm. Vision: Today Perth News.

Play Video Don't Play

Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney speaks to the media ahead of his defamation case against the state government Vision: Network Ten.

A poll of around 1700 residents shows the WA state election is set to be a tight contest.

But the Liberal Party's controversial preference deal with One Nation, which is polling at 8.5 per cent, could leave Ms Hanson's party with the balance of power in the upper house.

Dr Martin Drum, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Notre Dame, said such a result suggests that should One Nation learnfrom its mistakes and should Ms Hanson continue to operate as effectively as she has in recent months, One Nation could wreak havocfor the Liberal and National parties in other state and federal elections in the future.

When the WA campaign began One Nation was polling at just over 13 per cent. The slump since then appears to have been inflicted by the quality of its local candidates, some of whom have proved to be "fruitcakes" saidDr Drum. "When they are in the headlines, it is normally for the wrong reasons."

Dr Drum notedthat polling throughout the campaign has shown discontent with both major parties, with Liberal losses not all flowing to Labor.

He said given that One Nation failed to find enough candidates to run in all the state's contestable seats and because some candidates appear not to have been closely vetted the scope of its impact in this environment was unpredictable.

In January an article that the party's candidate for the crucial seat of Pilbara, David Archibald, held by the National Party's leader Brendon Grylls, wrote in the musty conservative journal Quadrant was dusted off and republished to a broad audience.

Listing lifestyle choices that the government should defund, he began with "ugly" single mothers.

"The first that springs to mind is single motherhood," Mr Archibald wrote.

"These are women too lazy to attract and hold a mate, undoing the work of possibly 3 million years of evolutionary pressure.

"This will result in a rapid rise in the portion of the population that is lazy and ugly."

On Friday One Nation's candidate for another crucial seat, Kalamunda, on the eastern fringe of Perth, suddenly quit, citing a preference deal between One Nation and the Liberal Party.

"I've had enough," Ray Gould, told ABC radio.

"I'm talking to voters and they say, 'We like Pauline Hanson but she's done a deal with the Liberals and she can't be trusted'.

"I don't think I'll even get 4 per cent of the vote because she's messing with the voters' heads."

Kalamunda could help decide which party wins government. It is held by the Liberal Party with a margin of 10.3 per cent, which is almost exactly the size of the swing Labor needs to win governmentand, according to recent polling, just about the size of the swing that polling suggests we might see on election day.

The Liberal Party has faced criticism for cutting a deal with One Nation that will see it giving preferences to the insurgent outlier in the upper house in return for One Nation's preferences in the lower house.

Speaking on ABC TV on Sunday morning, during an interview in which she backed a cut to weekend penalty rates, voiced her support for the Russian President Vladimir Putin and cast doubt on the safety of vaccines, Ms Hanson was frank in support of the agreement.

"I have no problem with saying that because it is our best chance of getting One Nation candidates selected to the floor of Parliament. Of course, who is not going to do it?"

The deal has increased tensions between the Liberal Party and its National Party coalition partners, and demonstrated how seriously the Liberal Party takes the One Nation threat.

Some observers believe Mr Barnett has effectively sacrificed the lower house seat of Perth, where voters have expressed anger at the deal, in order to stave off One Nation challenges in rural and regional seats.

In the aftermath of a mining boom thatsome analysts consider to have been wasted, the election is being fought over bread and butter economic issues such as unemployment and debt. This has pitted the state's giant resources and agricultural sectors against one another, in turn increasing tension between the coalition partners.

The National Party under Mr Grylls is pushing to increase a state production tax on iron ore from 25 cents a tonne to $5, a proposal being fought by WA's Chamber of Minerals and Energy.

The Chamber's chief executive, Reg Howard-Smith, has been watching the electorate closely in the lead-up to the election.

"We've been close to the ground over the last few months and the feedback we've got is that everyone is concerned about jobs," he said.

"Resource sector jobs, but jobs more generally always comes at the top of the order."

Although the tax increase would generate an extra $3 billion in revenue for state coffers, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton have argued it would cost jobs in the Pilbara and across WA.

Mr Howard-Smith also believes the tax rise,which would require legislation to overhaul state agreements with the two companies, would damage the investment attractiveness of the state.

"We've had fantastic support across the sector for this campaign we're running about iron ore and that's focused on two companies, but the reason is there are many, many people who can remember the RSPT [Resource Super Profits Tax]," he said.

"When the RSPT was announced, on that Saturday the Dockers and the Eagles were to play I never got to that game capital dried up instantly."

But Mr Howard-Smith was also concerned about a Nationals plan to give companies payroll tax breaks for workers in the Pilbara who were not fly-in, fly-out (FIFO), an idea which could cost jobs everywhere but in Mr Grylls' own electorate.

Mr Howard-Smith said the plan would devastate small towns in the south-west like Busselton and Manjimup where many FIFO workers choose to live, and where the Liberal Party holds a swathe of crucial seats.

"If you're coming out of Busselton and you've made the choice to live there but to maintain your job you have to travel to the Pilbara, then it's clearly a matter of choice," he said.

"Manjimup only has a small number of FIFO workers, in the twenties, but by the time you look at families and everything else, the contribution they make is significant.

"Rio reached out to those workers in Manjimup. At the time the timber industry was closing there were some good operators who they took on, so it just doesn't make any sense.

"They would have the most mature FIFO model, so you have a lot of people coming out of Busselton, a number from Albany, Geraldton, and Broome and Broome is essentially Aboriginal employment.

"That's working extremely well and I don't think the National party policy is realistic for one moment."

Unions have been quick to link the Liberal Party to One Nation.On Sunday the Victorian CFMEU leader John Setka tweeted in reference to the penalty rates decision, "Pauline Hanson is just another Liberal who hates workers!"

MsHanson herself travelled to Western Australia to begin a week's campaigning on Sunday, with an itinerary planned to include stops in Perth and towns in the south-west as well as regional centres including Port Hedland, Karratha, Kalgoorlie and Geraldton.

The Labor leader Bill Shorten is expected to join the campaign later in the week.

So far the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, whose last WA visit was not warmly received, has no plans to make the trip.

Read this article:

Liberal and Labor on a knife edge in WA, while things look up for One Nation - The Sydney Morning Herald

Meanwhile, this week, Casey Affleck received an Academy Award for Best Actor for Hacksaw, despite continued complaintsfrom several women that he sexually terrorized them on the set of Im Still Here. Where are the legions of liberal men expressing disgust that the MPAA would honor Affleck with one of their highest honors?

And while liberals joined conservatives in recoiling in disgust from Yiannopoulos speaking wistfully of being molested as a teen,liberal darling George Takeis similar reflectionsgot something of a shrug.

To be clear, there are important distinctions between Yiannopouloss comments and Takeis: Yiannopoulos offered them in a greater context of questioning the arbitrariness of age of consent laws and promoting man-boy sexual mentorship, while Takei was being asked to relate a story from the gossip mill to Howard Stern, and didnt suggest that everyone should experience what he did.

But even if Takei seemed uncomfortable relating the story (at least three separate times, all when prompted), he was laughing. The effect of the laughing, the optics, says that he was making light of an incident that was unarguably molestation. For that, people who would champion against molestation should at least question his presentation. We cannot look away from the reality that George Takei called being sexually assaulted delicious.

Forty years ago, Polish director Roman Polanski was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl. He fled the country and has not returned since. The general feeling in Hollywood is frustration with the US and California authoritiesfor not just dropping the charges because, hey, its Roman!

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been living in the Ecuadorean embassy for five years, dodging Swedish prosecutors over rape allegations. His supporters, many of whom are liberal and progressive men, insist the rape allegations are a conspiracy to shut him up.

When Conservative pick Clarence Thomas was accused of sexually harassing his then-subordinate Anita Hill, liberal males tried to use that to keep him from the Supreme Court. But when Bill Cosby was accused of drugging and raping multiple women, responses from men across the political spectrum were far more muted and ambivalent.

And the list goes on.

On the one hand, it is understandable that some of the incidents involving conservative men spark more condemnation than equivalent acts from liberal men. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) was a crusader against gay rights prior to his arrest for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom. The liberal outrage, in this case is not over the solicitation (so what?) but over the blatant hypocrisy. You want to pick up guys in public bathrooms? Fine. But dont then act like gay sex is evilor other people are the predators.

Liberal males are quick to hide behind meta claims. When we mocked Melania Trumps nude pics, we claimed it was about the Rights hypocrisy of having criticized Michelle Obama for not being classy enough. When Obama bares her arms, its a conservative outrage; when 1984 Miss America Vanessa Williams bared everything, it was a conservative outrage.When nude pics of Melania Trump surface, though, thats a shrug.

Here is the original post:

Liberal Men and Blurred Lines - The Good Men Project (blog)

Last July, with Donald Trump on the verge of sealing up the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Ross Douthat authored a column in the New York Times about the new political battlefield. "[P]erhaps we should speak no more of left and right, liberals and conservatives," the token trad wrote. "From now on the great political battles will be fought between nationalists and internationalists, nativists and globalists."

Douthat's sentiment was echoed at the recent CPAC gathering, where President Trump's chief strategist, Steven Bannon, explained the difference between economic populists like himself and the jet-setting Davos crowd. "[W]e're a nation with an economy," he preached to the crowd. "Not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being."

It's true that we in the West are undergoing a political reorganization. The past two years have seen an explosion of nationalist political parties and personalities. The terms "liberal" and "conservative," in the popular context, are beginning to lose relevance. What's replacing them isn't so much party difference, but class.

The lines of separation between the elites and provincials has never been clearer. On big, nation-defining issues trade agreements, wars, transnational partnerships, necessary credentials for high office the divide cuts evenly. Those moneyed, cloistered, and comfortable welcome globalization and all its attendant benefits. Those who aren't so well off don't.

But class separation doesn't get to the heart of the difference between one end of the widening gulf and the other. The nationalist-globalist frame stems from something different, something more epistemological.

Politics really comes down to a value judgement: how does society best organize its collective life?

For nationalists, love of country, its inhabitants, and its unique character guides law-making. Government is formed solely for the benefit of citizens. High-minded psalms to the brotherhood of man have little place in policy.

The globalists are devoted to the biggest community on Earth: worldwide humanity. To the globally minded activist, there is no difference between the man next door and the man in a hut in Cambodia. Each is due equal consideration when it comes to the law.

In his recent New York Times column, David Brooks hits on this difference by singing a dirge to the enlightened universalism he sees as the cornerstone of the West. "The Enlightenment included thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant who argued that people should stop deferring blindly to authority for how to live," he explains. But the anti-enlightenment movements of today "don't think truth is to be found through skeptical inquiry and debate."

Who are these intellect-eschewing dunderheads? Donald Trump, of course. But also Nigel Farage and Brexit backers, Marine Le Pen of France, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, and Viktor Orbn of Hungary. Each has cultivated popular support by appealing not to passionless debate, but to deep love of country and, more pointedly, familiarity.

These decidedly anti-intellectual voters act based not on cool reasoning. They go the polls not to impose their abstract philosophy on the world. They protect what is theirs, what is close, what they identify with.

To contrast this limited view of life with the liberal is to compare soil with sky. Wide open and infinite, the sky is spaceless. It doesn't shift and sift like dirt through your fingers. It can't be seen and felt like solid earth.

The nationalist is necessarily parochial, attached to his specific time and place. The globalist takes the opposite approach. Not starting from below but above, he takes an all-encompassing view of mankind and sets to reshape the world in its image. The leftist global crusader is a firm believer in what Michael Brendan Dougherty calls "the idea of eternal human progress and moral arcs bending across the universe."

The idea of unstoppable progression demands much from its acolytes. Do national borders impede immigrants looking for a better life? Then all barriers must be eliminated. Do some people prefer those who share their faith, culture, skin color, and history to those who don't? Then they must be made to take a more universal view toward man and be shamed for their bigotry. Does the preservation of national wealth deprive poorer countries of prosperity? Then wealth must be redistributed, be it in the form of trade, military occupation, or direct financial transfer.

On and on the reduction goes until all human distinctions are replaced by the universal, homogeneous, and thus bland and uninteresting man. When the liberal-globalist achieves this sterile paradise, he'll be left with mannequins for men, able to recite facile tropes about joyful togetherness. This "thin view of man," to use the words of Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko, can be an anti-civilizing force if left unchecked.

What is the contra to thin humanity? Thick, obviously. And what does thick entail? It means an acceptance of complexity, of the infinitudes of thought and emotion within every individual. "Across a room," writes Ted McAllister, "a conservative might spy a sack of rapidly degenerating amino acids, but rather than thinking of the elements that make up the body he sees, he wonders about this creature's past, its network of relationships, its relationship with books."

Here's where the paradox sets in: while the nationalist-conservative takes a simple approach to living, his narrow vision accepts the inner complexity of the individual. He doesn't purport to have a theory for how all should be governed. Rather, the good he sees is best for his family, his community, his country. Going any farther impedes on the right of another nation-dweller to determine his future path.

The political clash before the West has its basis in distance. How far a man is willing to go to impose his will usually determines his political allegiance. For those who would stop at their country's defined border, the influence is growing. How far it grows will be determined by those who think of their persuasive power as limitless.

Last July, with Donald Trump on the verge of sealing up the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Ross Douthat authored a column in the New York Times about the new political battlefield. "[P]erhaps we should speak no more of left and right, liberals and conservatives," the token trad wrote. "From now on the great political battles will be fought between nationalists and internationalists, nativists and globalists."

Douthat's sentiment was echoed at the recent CPAC gathering, where President Trump's chief strategist, Steven Bannon, explained the difference between economic populists like himself and the jet-setting Davos crowd. "[W]e're a nation with an economy," he preached to the crowd. "Not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being."

It's true that we in the West are undergoing a political reorganization. The past two years have seen an explosion of nationalist political parties and personalities. The terms "liberal" and "conservative," in the popular context, are beginning to lose relevance. What's replacing them isn't so much party difference, but class.

The lines of separation between the elites and provincials has never been clearer. On big, nation-defining issues trade agreements, wars, transnational partnerships, necessary credentials for high office the divide cuts evenly. Those moneyed, cloistered, and comfortable welcome globalization and all its attendant benefits. Those who aren't so well off don't.

But class separation doesn't get to the heart of the difference between one end of the widening gulf and the other. The nationalist-globalist frame stems from something different, something more epistemological.

Politics really comes down to a value judgement: how does society best organize its collective life?

For nationalists, love of country, its inhabitants, and its unique character guides law-making. Government is formed solely for the benefit of citizens. High-minded psalms to the brotherhood of man have little place in policy.

The globalists are devoted to the biggest community on Earth: worldwide humanity. To the globally minded activist, there is no difference between the man next door and the man in a hut in Cambodia. Each is due equal consideration when it comes to the law.

In his recent New York Times column, David Brooks hits on this difference by singing a dirge to the enlightened universalism he sees as the cornerstone of the West. "The Enlightenment included thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant who argued that people should stop deferring blindly to authority for how to live," he explains. But the anti-enlightenment movements of today "don't think truth is to be found through skeptical inquiry and debate."

Who are these intellect-eschewing dunderheads? Donald Trump, of course. But also Nigel Farage and Brexit backers, Marine Le Pen of France, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, and Viktor Orbn of Hungary. Each has cultivated popular support by appealing not to passionless debate, but to deep love of country and, more pointedly, familiarity.

These decidedly anti-intellectual voters act based not on cool reasoning. They go the polls not to impose their abstract philosophy on the world. They protect what is theirs, what is close, what they identify with.

To contrast this limited view of life with the liberal is to compare soil with sky. Wide open and infinite, the sky is spaceless. It doesn't shift and sift like dirt through your fingers. It can't be seen and felt like solid earth.

The nationalist is necessarily parochial, attached to his specific time and place. The globalist takes the opposite approach. Not starting from below but above, he takes an all-encompassing view of mankind and sets to reshape the world in its image. The leftist global crusader is a firm believer in what Michael Brendan Dougherty calls "the idea of eternal human progress and moral arcs bending across the universe."

The idea of unstoppable progression demands much from its acolytes. Do national borders impede immigrants looking for a better life? Then all barriers must be eliminated. Do some people prefer those who share their faith, culture, skin color, and history to those who don't? Then they must be made to take a more universal view toward man and be shamed for their bigotry. Does the preservation of national wealth deprive poorer countries of prosperity? Then wealth must be redistributed, be it in the form of trade, military occupation, or direct financial transfer.

On and on the reduction goes until all human distinctions are replaced by the universal, homogeneous, and thus bland and uninteresting man. When the liberal-globalist achieves this sterile paradise, he'll be left with mannequins for men, able to recite facile tropes about joyful togetherness. This "thin view of man," to use the words of Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko, can be an anti-civilizing force if left unchecked.

What is the contra to thin humanity? Thick, obviously. And what does thick entail? It means an acceptance of complexity, of the infinitudes of thought and emotion within every individual. "Across a room," writes Ted McAllister, "a conservative might spy a sack of rapidly degenerating amino acids, but rather than thinking of the elements that make up the body he sees, he wonders about this creature's past, its network of relationships, its relationship with books."

Here's where the paradox sets in: while the nationalist-conservative takes a simple approach to living, his narrow vision accepts the inner complexity of the individual. He doesn't purport to have a theory for how all should be governed. Rather, the good he sees is best for his family, his community, his country. Going any farther impedes on the right of another nation-dweller to determine his future path.

The political clash before the West has its basis in distance. How far a man is willing to go to impose his will usually determines his political allegiance. For those who would stop at their country's defined border, the influence is growing. How far it grows will be determined by those who think of their persuasive power as limitless.

Here is the original post:

The Shift: From Liberal-Conservative to Globalist-Nationalist - American Thinker