Category Archives: Political Correctness

As one of the great Chico Marxist quotes of all time asks: Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes? Every day it seems that more of our political leaders are asking maybe ordering Americans to ignore the wrongs they plainly see, in favor of narratives that are built on false and self-destructive ideology.

As Americans try to cope with exponentially diminishing security, supplies, affordable energy, savings accounts, job prospects, career-creating and career-relevant education, and even many of their liberties, those who are in charge insist, Nothing to see here; move along. Were supposed to trust the nanny-state.

Why would these politicians purposely ignore actual and fixable catastrophes that could negatively impact their own somewhat privileged lives and the welfare of their children if left unchecked? Biased minds are spot-welded to questionable ideology, anger, hate, hubris, and the inability to acknowledge that one is wrong.

Lets look at four examples of quality of life-destroying issues that some who worship at the altar of political correctness had a hand in either creating or denying, or both.

The first is the energy supply crisis spreading around the world as in, energy that makes human life sustainable.

While those pushing green and renewable energy solutions can deny it all they want, the truth is that fossil fuels remain the giver and protector of human life and civilization. Eliminating fossil fuels is tantamount to signing a death warrant for millions of people the world over.

Two voices, among many, have spoken out on this subject but, because of who they are, the green energy zealots and their media and celebrity enablers doubled down on their denial of any energy emergency that threatens others quality of life.

The first person who comes to mind was Donald Trump. Yes, alert the authorities: If Trump said it, no matter how accurate his warning as president may have been, many on the left will deny it, smear it and destroy it.

But, four years ago, during a speech at the United Nations, Trump warned that unreliable green and renewable energy sources would threaten the actual energy needs of Germany and Europe. The German delegation literally laughed in his face.

Theyre not laughing anymore. With natural gas supplies from Russia essentially cut off because of the war in Ukraine, Europe is facing energy shortages and a potential crisis this coming winter.

The next notable person I recall speaking out on the issue was Elon Musk, who recently said that civilization will crumble unless we continue using oil and gas in the short term. Earlier this week, he tweeted: Countries should be increasing nuclear power generation! It is insane from a national security standpoint & bad for the environment to shut them down.

The green energy-pushing leftists can hate on Trump and Musk all they want, but that doesnt make their warnings false. We can see for ourselves the energy crisis unfolding across Europe, which could reach our own shores. And then what?

Next, lets consider the war zones that some of our cities have become. Not familiar with that story? Im not surprised. Thousands of lives are being lost each year to urban violence. Why isnt this a national emergency? Well, political correctness dictates that we cant talk about those lost lives because many are the result of gang violence or turf wars between young men. Sometimes innocent children or women are caught in the crossfire.

Ironically and quite brazenly, since some at the newspaper favored earlier calls to defund the police, which voters opted not to do the Minneapolis Star Tribune recently published an editorial titled, Curbing violent crime is an all-hands job. An excerpt said: Crime, particularly violent crime, is at near-record highs in larger cities in Minnesota, with emboldened criminals feeling freer than ever to wield even the deadliest weapons without regard for the law or human life.

No kidding. Thats what happens when you demoralize the police, and some cities are experiencing difficulty replacing those who quit. Thats happening not just in Minneapolis but in cities elsewhere in the United States, and some cities have prosecutors who dont want to prosecute certain crimes.

From the epidemic of violence, lets switch to the epidemic of obesity in America. Oh, wait we cant talk about that, either. Political correctness dictates that to address such an issue would be fat shaming. And yet, obesity is an epidemic that is contributing to the loss of tens of thousands of lives each year.

We see it, we know the grief it causes, but were told not to believe our lying eyes. It is much more politically expedient for some to normalize obesity and allow people to suffer from chronic illnesses or even die instead of addressing a health crisis that continues to get worse.

And the topic of health brings us to the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions of deaths worldwide were attributed to the virus, but we still dont know definitively how SARS-CoV-2 originated in Wuhan, China. Shouldnt our political leaders try to get to the bottom of this? And if they dont care to find conclusive evidence, why not?

These four issues alone are harming people worldwide. And yet, many of those who control the government, media, academia, science, medicine and entertainment either refuse to acknowledge it, or worse, seek to punish anyone who dares to question their politically correct policies.

If we dont address the catastrophes we are witnessing with our own eyes, we risk the collapse of the infrastructure and rule of law that sustains society. The clock is ticking and the alarm signaling a point of no return is about to shriek.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

Here is the original post:

The pending collapse of the United States of Political Correctness - The Hill

It has been repeated so often since it was coined in the 2004 film Mean Girls that it has perhaps become an overused formulation. But in the case of Donald Trump, his supporters and the New York Post and their efforts to discredit Joe Biden via his son Hunter, it feels especially apt: guys, stop trying to make Hunter Biden conspiracy theories happen.

The most recent salvo in the campaign to make Hunters lost laptop the new Hillarys emails may, at least, bring about a moment of joy for the rest of us. Available for download from 7 September, the movie My Son Hunter is a piece of political porn dedicated to animating the wildest fringes of Trump chat-room banter. To enjoy it, you have only to submit your email address to Breitbart News, the far-right internet platform that is distributing the film. For those unwilling to see their names on that particular list, I can assure you that the trailer, which dropped last week, is more than you need.

The call sheet is an an absolute peach. The film is directed by Robert Davi, who played one of the bad guys in the Goonies and whose previous political work as a director includes Demon Sheep, the attack ad featuring satanic livestock that helped Carly Fiorina lose to Barbara Boxer in Californias 2010 Senate race.

The screenplay is by Brian Godawa, who, two years ago, wrote the confusingly capitalised ObamaGate Movie, about a deep state plot to undermine the Trump candidacy, and also writes biblical-themed novels with titles such as Psalm 82 and Judgment: Wrath of the Lamb. The actor John James (Dynasty, the Colbys, the ObamaGate Movie) plays Biden, and Gina Carano former cast member of the Mandalorian, who was fired from that franchise last year for making social media statements denouncing mask wearing and comparing the treatment of present-day Republicans to Jews during the Holocaust appears as a Secret Service agent trying to save her country from the Bidens.

These gifts are all secondary, however, to the casting of Britains own Laurence Fox as Hunter Biden. To enjoy the full impact of this, we need to pause for a moment exclusively to address American readers. Its hard to explain, to the unacquainted, the unique role played by Fox in British national life: an actor who appeared in a popular detective show for years without troubling the public imagination, Fox has, in recent years, inserted himself into the discourse with a range of eye-catching opinions that can be largely summarised as a defense of our eras poorest underdog: the straight, white male.

Credit where its due: Fox was quite good, 20 years ago, as the fifth lead in Gosford Park. But as the child of the actor James Fox and nephew of the actor Edward Fox, Laurence may be imagined in relation to his familys acting dynasty as a kind of British Stephen Baldwin, only built like an asparagus and with cheeks as hollow as in any painting by Edvard Munch.

In 2020, he was dropped by his agents after he characterised being described as a white privileged male as racist, and he has been shown to be fond of the phrase All Lives Matter. Last year, he founded the Reclaim party to fight against extreme political correctness, and he stood for mayor of London in 2021, a candidacy as delusional as Marianne has anyone tried fixing America with crystals and bee pollen? Williamsons run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019, if a good deal less charming. Fox lost his 10,000 deposit after gaining just 1.9% of the vote.

You get the idea chiefly, that in My Son Hunter, Laurence Fox has finally found material equal to his talents. For British readers, meanwhile, there may be some catching up to be done on the subject of Hunter Biden and the internet. There isnt enough time in the world to fully describe everything that has emerged from this particular screaming hellmouth, but briefly: the source for My Son Biden is what the New York Post calls Hunter Bidens laptop probe, a series of stories that circle around material found on a laptop at a repair shop in Delaware, which was reported by the Post to show connections between Hunter Biden and various Ukrainian and Chinese energy companies, plus some sex stuff I still cant figure out. Stories about the laptop were suppressed by tech companies in the lead-up to the election even though some of them were true, which is why Trump has described it on his Truth Social platform as the Laptop from Hell coverup. But they have also given rise to a world of conspiracy theories and conjecture, connecting Joe Biden to Hunters dealings in ways that have never been proven.

While its a constant Republican talking point, the story never got much real-world traction outside the Fox News ecosystem. Hence the need to make My Son Hunter, key search terms for which, on the strength of the trailer, should be cavorting, underpants, and, to nail that crucial international revenue stream, Lozza Fox. We can only raise a glass to them all, wish them the very best of online premieres next week, and fervently hope the movie gets the audience it deserves.

Continued here:

Laurence Fox finds a role equal to his talents: the Breitbart biopic of Hunter Biden - The Guardian US

Published September 03. 2022 08:51AM

Today we should be celebrating our 17th wedding anniversary. Its funny to me how my opinion of marriage has changed over the years. It was important to Steve that we got married the old-fashioned way, in church, in front of our friends and family, and with all the pomp and circumstance that went with it. Me? I figured it would be easier to raise the kids in a traditional family and I really wanted the fancy dress and the big party. It all came together beautifully, and our wedding was everything we both wanted it to be and more.

Sure we had some bumps in the road, like when our limo pulled out of the parking lot after we took photos, the door flew open, and I almost fell out of the car. Or, when we got to the end of the night, and congratulated ourselves on planning ahead to have our vehicle in the parking lot, only to discover that Steve had forgotten to get the keys back from the friend who brought it over for us.

One thing that I do remember clearly was throwing off a lot of the wedding folks, like the limo driver, the photographer, and even the priest by being early for everything. Although I had everything planned down to the second and the smallest detail, there was more to it than just my anal retentiveness. I didnt want to wait one more minute to start our lives together. I also remember all of my bridesmaids being armed with tissues, just in case. There was no need for that. There were no tears to be shed on my end. Steve, being the big old sap that he was, did have a few, so my handkerchief did get used by one of us.

Although our day was traditional, I felt that a lot of things about our marriage ended up being not quite so traditional. Right off the bat, I never changed my last name. I had never planned to, and it had nothing to do with Steve. Quite simply, after being one person with one name for 31 years, it seemed a little silly to change it. Also, when Steve and I discussed it, I suggested that we both change our names, either combining our last names into a new name, or hyphenating them. He said, well that would be stupid. I loved it when he won my arguments for me.

For the first few days after we were married, Steve and I went through the whole thing of calling each other husband and wife and each time, wed collapse in hysterical fits of laughter. It sounded so ridiculous. Husbands and wives were just different people. We were just Steve and Liz, like wed always been.

Steves nickname of Wonderful Husband or The WH started as a joke due to our complete disregard for those titles. After 16 years, I would overhear Steve say to someone else my wife and Id think, who the heck is that? Then I would have to remind myself, oh he means me. And, any time I had to introduce him as my husband, I would have to fight back the giggles. Most of the time, Steves reputation preceded him, and I could get away with a This is Steve.

I dont think of myself as some crazy over the top feminist, but I never wanted our family to feel like anyone had to follow gender norms. Although I ended up being the one who put dinner on the table most nights, and Steve cut the grass and took out the garbage, I wanted our kids to know that at any time, I could easily handle putting gas in the car, and Steve could change a diaper with the best of them. Recently, the term life partner has come into vogue and although Steve hated the political correctness of it, I felt like it was a much better description of our relationship.

Among the many other nasty surprises that come in the wake of a death was just how fast you are literally not married anymore. Within days, I had to check the single box on many of the forms I had to fill out. A few of them graciously provided a widow box to check, which while harder to fill in, at least felt like an acknowledgment of what had existed.

When you say the words til death do us part, you think a lot about the (hopefully many) years leading up to that parting, but I never spent much time thinking about what life would be like after that parting. I guess when you assume that it will happen many years down the road, after a long and fulfilling life, you figure it might not be that much time to actually consider. Now, there is a good chance that Ill spend a lot more time parted from him than we had together.

I thought so long and hard about all the other parts of our vows, especially the in sickness part, because Steve was the absolute worst sick person ever, and I knew exactly what making that vow entailed, but I now know that I should have thought a lot more about the parting part.

While in my head, my heart, in every way that truly matters, I will always be Steves wife and he will always be my husband, our life partnership is over. Im just here trying hard to figure out how to keep moving forward as a party of one.

Liz Pinkey is a contributing writer to the Times News. Her column appears weekly in our Saturday feature section.

Link:

Moving ahead as a party of one Times News Online - tnonline.com

Truth Social, the Twitter-esque social media platform launched by former President Donald Trump, is being barred from the Google Play store over content moderation concerns.

Google Play is the default place to find apps on Android phones. Exclusion from the Google Play store doesn't mean people are prohibited from downloading and installing an app on Android devices, but it does make doing so more difficult. And Truth Social does not currently offer a version of the app that can be downloaded and installed from its website or elsewhere. So, anyone who wants to use Truth Social on an Android phone has to do so via web browser rather than through a dedicated app.

"On Aug. 19, we notified Truth Social of several violations of standard policies in their current app submission and reiterated that having effective systems for moderating user-generated content is a condition of our terms of service for any app to go live on Google Play," a Google spokesperson told Axios, which reports that Google is concerned with Truth Social not effectively moderating threats of violence.

The situation echoes concerns over the right-leaning social media platform Parler, which was banned from app stores (though only temporarily from Apple's) for alleged indifference to posts from January 6 rioters. Many conservatives accused the tech companies of liberal bias and potentially illegal conduct.

There are two important things to keep in mind when it comes to the Truth Social and Google Play situation.

Number one is that the situation looks likely to resolve itself soon enough. Google said it has raised its concerns with Truth Social, and the two companies are working to resolve the issue. Trump Media & Technology Group said in a statement: "It is our belief that all Americans should have access to Truth Social no matter what devices they use. We look forward to Google approving Truth Social at their earliest convenience."

Also important to keep in mind: The impossible situation app stores find themselves in.

Google and Apple have both been harassed by regulators and politicians over app store policies, with some suggesting that tightly controlling the app store could be an antitrust violation or grounds for losing Section 230 protections.

Meanwhile, these companies are also hammered for not doing enough to stop dangerous, misleading, or violent content, including content on apps that appear in app stores. Sometimes, the government even tries to ban certain apps from being available through app stores.And increasingly, intermediarieslike tech companies and payment processorsface lawsuits for not stopping potentially harmful content.

In effect, tightly controlling its app store may get Google in legal and political trouble. But not tightly controlling its app store may also get Google in legal and political trouble.

This sort of catch-22 has become all too common for tech companies, which face demands to both stop more speech and allow all speech.

"Is 'Woke' just PC with faster internet?" asks Phoebe Maltz Bovy. The impetus for this question: her discovery of an early '90s book titled The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook. In a post on Freddie DeBoer's blog, Bovy looks at what's different between today's version of "political correctness" and that from 30 years back, and what's the same. "But the point of the book feels about as 2022 as it could. There are the defenses of free speech, which, yes, but more powerful, and more relevant, is the critique of PC's fixation on language over substance, and indeed in obscuring the absence of substantive change."

A city in Vermont has repealed two ordinances against prostitution. The Montpelier ordinances state that "no female person shall be a prostitute" and "no person shall keep a house of prostitution."

City Manager Bill Fraser said the ordinances hadn't been used in a long time. And prostitution will still be criminalized in Montpelier under Vermont state law.

But despite minimal practical impact, the repeal could be a sign of winds shifting.

"Montpelier has become the second city in Vermont to repeal its antiquated prostitution ordinance in the past year," notes the group Decriminalize Sex Work. "Last summer, the Burlington City Council voted to repeal that city's prostitution ordinance and voters subsequently chose to strike discriminatory and archaic language on sex work from the city charter."

More on the debate over Montpelier's ordinances here and here.

DOJ responds to Trump. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has responded to former President Donald Trump's request to appoint a special master to oversee the handling of documents gotten from Mar-a-Lago. You can read the full filing here; CNN offers highlights here.

Read Reason's Matt Welch on the death of Mikhail Gorbachev.

Young people are interested in the newsbut not very happy with it.

France is using drones to spy on and tax unauthorized swimming pools.

"California lawmakers are on the verge of passing a bill that would significantly scale back solitary confinement in prisons, jails and private immigration detention centers," reports Fox News. The measureAB 2632would limit solitary confinement to no more than 15 consecutive days and no more than 45 cumulative days in a 180-day time frame.

A pair of Virginia lawsuits seeking to get the books Gender Queer and A Court of Mist and Fury removed from the shelves of libraries and private booksellers has been dismissed.

New York is hobbling its legal cannabis market with excessive taxes and regulations.

A new book showcases six decades' worth of Maurice Sendak's work.

Women are the fastest-growing incarcerated group in Texas, reports Scalawag magazine. "In Texas, women's incarceration rates have increased dramatically over the past few decadesover 1000 percent since 1980."

Read more here:

Google Bars Truth Social From App Store Over Lack of Content Moderation - Reason

The irony shouldnt be lost on Truss. In the 1980s, she spent part of her childhood in Scotland where her Labour-supporting parents were involved in anti-nuclear marches dominated by one particular political chant: Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, oot, oot, oot.

Well, I think my mum will, Im not sure about my dad.

And as a teenager at Oxford, Truss used a speech as a then member of the universitys Liberal Democrats movement to argue the Queen be dumped and Britain become a republic, saying: We believe in opportunity for all. We do not believe people are born to rule.

She told the BBC last year: I think its fair to say that when I was in my youth I was a professional controversialist and I liked exploring ideas and stirring things up.

I came from a left-wing background. My mother was in the campaign for nuclear disarmament. There were very few people at my school or who I met on a regular basis in fact, I could count them on one hand, who youd describe as right-wing.

Ask recently if her parents would even vote for her in a general election, she replied: Well, I think my mum will, Im not sure about my dad.

All smiles... Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss at the final hustings of the seven-week grassroots campaign.Credit:Getty

Truss, elected to parliament in 2010, has proven herself to be a great survivor throughout the premierships of Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron having held several cabinet postings and showing herself to be an ambitious MP who earned her moment to strike for the leadership.

She has also proven herself to be a great gymnast. She was a staunch member of the Remain camp during the European Union referendum and has since been among the most vocal supporters of Brexit.

And it is her capacity to constantly change that has made her a formidable political opponent not only in the Conservative leadership race but potentially for Labour at the next general election.

Changing your mind is often thought of as a weakness in politicians, whereas in reality, an unchanging commitment to ideology is one of their most eccentric habits, John McTernan, a former adviser to both Tony Blair and Julia Gillard, observed recently. In normal life, we change our minds frequently and without fuss.

Liz Truss leaving 10 Downing Street in July. Credit:Bloomberg

The fact Liz Truss has been on a political journey also makes her a powerful communicator. Some of the most persuasive arguments in politics are based on empathy rather than angry disagreement.

Her speaking style is clear and simple. The listener readily understands what she thinks and believes. Her opponents who too readily dismiss her as simplistic are missing the point.

McTernan, along with Peter Mandelson, an architect of Blairs election victory in 1997, has been vocal in warning Labour not to take the mayhem within the Conservative government which had led to a fourth leader in seven years, for granted.

A graduate in philosophy, politics and economics, Truss juggled her professional career in London first as an economist for Shell then as head of public affairs for Cable & Wireless with her political ambitions. Having run unsuccessfully twice, she was a star candidate when Cameron would lead the Tories out of the political wilderness in 2010.

Loading

But she had faced a fierce and embarrassing battle against de-selection by party members after the Daily Mail revealed before the campaign that some years earlier, shed had an 18-month affair with a Tory MP, Mark Field, 10 years her senior. Both were married at the time of their liaison.

Truss door-knocked every party member dubbed the Turnip Taliban to explain herself and an effort to oust her failed. She went on to win the seat by more than 13,000 votes. She has fiercely guarded her privacy since, with her husband and two daughters rarely seen in public settings.

While her constant rebranding has made it difficult to label her politics, her close friend, former Australian high commissioner to London George Brandis, best described her as a Thatcherite neo-liberal who ultimately believes in freedom of choice and speech, and freedom from political correctness, big government and high taxes.

Over the past six weeks of campaigning, she had made several commitments to reform the tax system while promising to scrap Aprils National Insurance rise a British form of the Medicare levy and to underwrite the cost of nuclear energy.

While playing to several bases within the ranks she has vowed to deliver net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 but remove green energy levies from energy bills and end the anti-car rhetoric of local councils.

She says Britain must now pay off COVID debt over a longer period to focus on cost-of-living issues and also wants to encourage workers back into offices. She has promised more Rwanda-style schemes to reduce illegal immigration but wants uncapped skilled migration to fill labour shortages.

Truss has vowed to continue Britains tough stance against Putin and Chinas rising assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific, and will increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030.

While some of her political opponents fret over what her ascendancy means for their hopes, some of those who should be her allies are more than willing to mock her.

Shes not a nasty person, said former Tory MP, adviser to Thatcher and political commentator Matthew Parris. Everybody I know who knows her, or has worked with her, likes her. She is a very likeable person. Shes just a bit crackers!

Parris has described Truss as intellectually shallow, with wafer-thin convictions, and a planet-sized mass of overconfidence and ambition teetering upon a pinhead of a political brain.

Any decision to follow Johnson with Truss to the doner kebab which, after a night on the tiles, momentarily seems like a good idea until you open the bread pouch, he wrote this week in The Times.

While Britains economy and cost-of-living crisis would occupy Trusss immediate focus, she does carry some baggage from her time as Britains most senior diplomat.

Her relations with EU countries are clouded by the bitter row over how to trade across the Irish Sea after Brexit while keeping both the Northern Irish unionists and republicans happy. Her expected emergence on the world stage is also poorly timed, with potential conservative allies in the United States, Germany and Australia all ousted in elections over the past two years.

But Dan Tehan, the former trade minister in the Morrison government, said Australia had true friend and like-minded traveller in Truss, regardless of which party was in power.

The Victorian MP was exposed to one of those so-called crackers moments last year when Truss was international trade secretary and hoping to close a historic deal with Australia.

Tehan was leading a trade delegation as the newly appointed minister to London with the intent of finalising negotiations when it was reported that allies of Truss believed he was inexperienced compared to Liz and that Australia needed to show us the colour of their money.

Londons Telegraph had reported that Truss planned to sit him down ... in an uncomfortable chair, so he has to deal with her directly for nine hours.

The story broke as I was boarding a plane in Paris, and by the time the short flight to London had landed, my phone had nearly melted from missed calls and incoming texts, he said.

One of the earliest missed calls was from Liz, who immediately apologised. Others will speculate about the source and intent of the news story but I viewed her apology as a sign of character.

It meant I could tell the excited press that the issue had been resolved and we had put it behind us.

He said Truss was a professional and formidable opponent, who gave as good as she got.

I formed the view that she was rational; someone who was prepared to listen, and who wanted to understand the details of all the issues.

She also wanted what was best for Britain. In our negotiations it was clear that she saw Brexit not merely as the cutting of ties with Europe but as an opportunity for Britain to forge its own, independent way forward.

Go here to see the original:

She idolised Thatcher, now Liz Truss is on the cusp of becoming Britain's next PM - WAtoday

This story contains two parts, each written by Zach Donaldson and Julianna Rittenberg, sophomores studying political science. Donaldson serves as the assistant opinion editor and Rittenberg is an opinion writer for The New Political.

Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.

Zach:

Whether you love or hate him, laugh at or laugh with him, vilify or deify him, one thing is for certain: it is nearly impossible to avoid him. More searched on Google than Joe Biden in the past month and amassing 12.7 million views on a platform he holds no account on, Andrew Tate has risen from relative obscurity to one of the internets most notorious provocateurs. How exactly? By acting as the speakerphone for a large group of depraved and angry young men riddled with insecurity.

Masking his brand under the tired trope of defending manhood and the traditional household, Tate promotes an ideology that, at best, commodifies, objectifies and infantilizes young women. At worst, it downright encourages violence and victim-shaming. He has compared women to dogs that must obey him. He has noted a preference for dating 18 and 19-year-old girls so he can make an imprint on them. He has stated that he would attack a woman who accuses him of cheating. He has argued that rape victims shoulder responsibility in being raped.

It would be easy to go on for pages. To give air-time to his ludicrous venom and waste breath tearing apart every one of his nonsensical sputterings, but that has been done by countless others and doesnt do any service to this issue. I could yell at the sky and ask how a man who is mired in allegations of beating and trafficking women is lauded as a badass and hero by many young men in my generation, but that wouldnt put a dent in his popularity. I could demand the array of social media sites banning his content be expanded in vigor and breadth, but that would only slap a band-aid on a bleeding bullet-hole.

The reality is that Andrew Tate is far bigger than one misogynist with a big microphone. He is the nastiest new emblem of the old guard in Americas ongoing culture war on gender roles, a conflict steeped in who gets to define masculinity and how it is defined. Its a battle with a lot at stake. In order to create a space where men and women can be authentically themselves, we must understand why Tate and other alpha male figures' words have appeal, how they perpetrate a harmful environment and encourage more men to hold them accountable.

Tate and his peers are the culture war response to an increasing consciousness on the fluidity and privilege of gender and gender roles. A far cry from the traditional household model of decades gone by, there are more serious efforts today in pursuing equal opportunity for women, challenging long-held microaggressions in daily conversation and an emphasis that male doesnt need to mean masculine, and female doesnt need to mean feminine. This can be seen in the smallest challenges to the status quo, which yield the loudest of results, whether it is Harry Styles wearing a dress for Vogue or Ariana Grande proudly declaring that God is a woman.

Tearing down the patriarchy is beneficial for everyone. By breaking the long-held stigma that men dont cry, we give a opportunity to young men, who are disproportionately impacted by suicide and mental health, to finally open up and seek treatment. By tackling simple phrases like you play like a girl, we can validate young women to continue being competitive, hard-charging and high achieving. By ditching gendered expressions and attacking institutional oppression all together, we can create a space where the question of gender is irrelevant to any professional opportunity or acceptance into a community.

But the fact is, we have been socialized and raised for generations to think within the gender binary and within the age-old phrases assigned to it. I have no doubt that our grandparents and parents telling us to man up or act like a lady were meant with the most sincerity, but words have a meaning and a message that we internalize. Change scares people, and when you challenge notions as basic as peoples understanding of gender, it elicits a response.

This nexus of confusion and anger is where people like Tate thrive, clinging to a dying social perception that still resonates with many to pump their agenda and fill their pockets. It has a political functionality to it and, as Julianna Rittenberg will point out, that can be manipulated to perpetuate an environment that is scary for women to live in. I cant testify to that struggle personally, but I can unfortunately see why some of my peers may fall victim to the propaganda of this old guard.

For one, Ive heard constant comments from young men my age who feel attacked when they hear the term toxic masculinity. Having a powerful celebrity celebrate the concept is both amusing and disturbingly empowering to them. It breeds a willful ignorance, and reproduces the harassment and harm women have faced for centuries in a new sphere.

I also know a lot of men and women across generational and racial barriers who are annoyed as society updates what terminology is acceptable when discussing gender. So when former President Donald Trump assured them that political correctness needs to be an idea of the past, they came out to vote in droves. Naturally, when you give a man who flaunts sexually assaulting women the mandate to lead a country, cultural degradation will follow.

There are countless more examples, whether its infuriation at things as trivial as how sexy an M&M is or bringing this rage to some of the youngest among us in scouting. They all speak to one incontrovertible fact: gender, and our conception of it, is central to the way we live our lives. If we ever hope to reach a place where men and women can be authentically and comfortably themselves, we must continue to call out the demagoguery of powerful figures, whether it is an aggrieved kickboxer or the president of the United States.

Julianna:

In July, U.S. Senate Ohio candidate JD Vance tweeted he believes women should stay in violent marriages, rather than divorce under the guise that it is better for kids. Domestic violence is not a gendered issue specifically, anyone can be in a violent relationship. However, Vances statement specifically refers to women in violent marriages. Rather than viewing partner violence as a safety issue, Vance insinuates it is an issue of male anger and male expression of emotions. This perpetuates the idea that allowing hostile partners to express emotions in an unhealthy way tops safety or bodily autonomy.

There are things that women subconsciously know, especially the expectations in every aspect of life for how to behave, dress and speak. If you wear crop tops or shorts or skirts, its your fault when someone makes you feel uncomfortable. Its your fault when someone makes your confidence a liability. When women wear clothes that give them confidence, that confidence is torn down by men making the moment and the clothes about themselves, their sex drive and their wants.

Women are subconsciously taught to avoid confrontation, otherwise, they are too overbearing and intimidating. We learn that it is better to avoid bringing up issues that might make someone angry and potentially violent, than it is to speak up for our needs. We see on social media that women are blamed for school shootings, rape and domestic violence, instead of the truth, that the perpetrator is at fault.

Most women have heard a man in their life, whom they respect, make a misogynistic joke. Theres an expectation to laugh or else you are labeled bitch. In my experiences, I have been put on the spot to explain why the joke was not funny and then told to lighten up, get over it or else no one would want to be around me. Women are put on the spot to explain what made them uncomfortable, criticized for it and then usually ignored.

Women face misogyny in schools, as well. Most women have experienced being interrupted in classes or talked over in conversations with our peers. If we do well in classes, rumors start that we must be sleeping with the teacher. I have had people tell me political science is not a male-dominated field, because there are more women than men at the collegiate level. Yet, when looking at the breakdown of jobs, more men are in political science and government jobs than women.

Even in the way the word feminism has been turned to have a negative connotation. We are told that feminism is only for angry women, but then we are told that feminism is a girlboss concept. We are told to be quieter with our anger, while men are free to express their anger. Men even get to attempt to overturn elections with their anger, yet when we push back against unfair wages, sexist dress codes or feeling unsafe in the workplace or school, our anger is unheard.

We need to do better. I refuse to be pushed into a box and I refuse to be apologetic for something that I am proud of. Children cannot grow up thinking that sexist and misogynistic behavior is acceptable by any means. All people, regardless of sex or gender, must push back against misogyny. All of us must call out this behavior and refuse to give it a platform.

Originally posted here:

OPINION: Andrew Tate sparks a culture war: The perspective of a young man and woman The New Political - The New Political

The world has been cringing about the audacious spending of LIV Golf to lure the worlds top players from the PGA and onto its tournaments. And the circuits association with Saudi Arabia.

However, until now, we have only heard one Black players perspective, the juggernaut of the game, Tiger Woods, who is holding the line of political correctness and not getting involved in LIV Golf.

Now another Black player of prominence has entered the LIV Golf quandary, and unlike Tiger Woods, the increased financial opportunity was too significant to miss for Harold Varner III. The 32-year-old winner of the 2016 Australian PGA Championship took to social media to keep it real on why he has decided to work with LIV Golf and how it can change the trajectory of his family for generations.

The opportunity to join LIV Golf is simply too good of a financial breakthrough for me to pass by, Varner posted on his Instagram account. I know what it means to grow up without much. This money is going to ensure that my kid and future Varners will have a solid base to start on and a life I could have only dreamt about growing up. Itll also help fund many of the programs Im building with my Foundation. Ill continue to forge pathways for kids interested in golf. This note is a receipt of for that.

Last week, LIV Golf announced six golfers would be taking their talents to the new series, including Harold Varner III, Cameron Tringale, Joaquin Niemann, Cameron Smith, Marc Leishman, and Anirban Lahiri. The new circuit, led by Greg Norman and backed by the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, has faced public backlash for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabias human rights issues.

As it is about to host the fourth event at the International on Sept. 2-4, outside Boston, LIV Golf now boasts six top 30 players on the Official World Golf Ranking.

Tiger Woods, who represents the all-American golf image, cannot align with an organization whose backers are reportedly linked to funding 9-11 planning and are alleged to be responsible for the death of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. However, Tiger Woods is a billionaire and the most prominent talent brand in golf history. For others like Harold Varner III, who may never see that level of success in the sport, LIV Golf represents a way to jumpstart more significant financial solvency.

Varner has never won on the PGA Tour. However, he did qualify for the FedExCup Playoffs this years seventh consecutive season and won the 2022 PIF Saudi International. Rumors have abounded that is when LIV Golf first approached him to join. Clearly, something happened from then to now, as Varner initially expressed his disinterest in LIV.

Varner told the world in June that he wasnt interested in joining LIV Golf even after they gave him a nuts offer.

Im obviously not going, Varner said to SI. Ive spoken with [PGA Tour commissioner Jay [Monahan], Ive spoken with a lot of people I look up to and it just wasnt worth it to me for what it was worth. Thats pretty simple.

With the reversal, Varner makes his LIV Golf debut at The International in Bolton, Massachusetts, this week as he is working for his last name and not his first name amid the controversy surrounding that decision.

See more here:

"I Know What It Means To Grow Up Without Much" Pro Golfer Harold Varner III Keeps It Real About Going To LIV Golf | It's All About The Bag!...

Margaret Thatcher is the most controversial Prime Minister in recent British history. Finding herself governing a country on its knees in the late 1970s, the Tories leader applied a series of unprecedented economic measures that polarized the judgment on her. Charismatic figure, accusations of authoritarianism, and populism were not alien to her. The essay aims to analyze the Iron Ladys rhetoric in the light of Cas Muddes theory of populism. Populism is a thin ideology, which sees society divided into two categories (the pure people vs. the corrupt elites), based on the concept of the general will. Thatcher used nationalism (thin ideology) only occasionally to shape her political offer, which was based on conservatism (thick ideology). Secondly, the Manichean worldview in Muddes terms (good people, bad elites) is not Thatchers case. As for the volont gnral, the Lady relied more on the idealization of her electors to justify her policies.

Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) was a British politician, the most controversial Prime Minister in recent British history (Campbell 2009), with a powerful personality (Hadley-Ho 2010). Serious, intelligent, competitive, and hard-working (Cannadine 2017), imperious, vehement (Lewis 1975), the Iron Lady contributed to change the European history as well as her country and party. Loved and hated alike since the beginning of her career, she earned the title of That Bloody Woman (Rosaspina 2020). Determined, ambitious, uncompromising; you turn if you want to, Thatcher (1980) said in a Conservative Partys congress: The ladys not for turning. Daughter of a grocer, she identified herself with the suburban bourgeoisie, which later became the basis of her political support (Riddell 1985). She entered the House of Commons in 1959 after Oxford graduation in chemistry. Minister of Education (1969-1972), party leader from 1975, PM from 1979 to 1990, she won three general elections. She brought a change of emphasis in British politics (Lewis 1975). And promised to stop British economic decline, affirming Thatcherism, seen by critics as an attack on the physical, economic, cultural and intellectual life of the nation (Trimm 2010, 163).

Characterized by a charismatic, strong, and personalistic leadership, during her mandate she applied a neoliberal program in Great Britain: liberalizations, privatizations of many public companies (Harvey 2005), cutting taxes, welfare, and social services (Cooper 2012), curbing unions power. State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth and [] free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results (Thatcher 1988). Under her government and leadership inflation, deficit and unemployment collapsed (Campbell 2009); pro-decriminalization of homosexuality, pro-abortion, and pro-divorce (Rosaspina 2020), she had more progressive (therefore ambiguous) than many would say. Her rhetoric was unmistakable, and with her Great Britain became competitive again after years of stagnation. This came at the price of social division on her persona and policies, based on social conservatism and economic liberalism (Beaumont 2010). Thatchers policy has often been characterized as populist, reflected in an apparent identification with the common people [] against the elites of the British establishment (Fella 2008, 187-8); Hall (1988) interpreted Thatcherism as authoritarian populism, while Reyes (2005) preferred conservative populism.

She adopted a populist critique of the post-war social democratic consensus (Fella 2008, 188). Cas Mudde (2004) provides a definition of populism allowing a better understanding of what the concept is sociologically referred to: his concepts of thin ideology, antagonistic groups, and general will are interesting to be seen in Thatchers case. Was the Iron Lady populist following Muddes sociological theory? Surely, she was not populist in populisms informal terms. 1) promising people what they want to hear, with a highly emotional and simplistic discourse (Mudde 2004, 542) and 2) giving money to people increasing public spending, pleasing them and buying their support (ibid.), aka clientelism (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2017). The risk is to identify charismatic leaders as populists, but Mudde provides a theory framing populism. The choice to analyze Thatcher within an academic framework is unusual since her critics were not based on her (alleged) populist discourse or attitude. Studies on the relation Thatcher-populism are very few; furthermore, there has not been any adaptation of Muddes theory of populism to the Conservative Partys leader. The conclusions are that Thatcher only partially and ambiguously reflects Muddes definition. She was an ambiguous figure as well as a complex character, between conservatism and liberalism, anti-statism and nationalism.

The papers objective is to analyze Margaret Thatcher starting from some of her political discourses, in the light of the theory on populism formulated by Cas Mudde (2004) in his article The Populist Zeitgeist. The papers purpose is to verify if Mrs. Thatcher can be considered populist according to this theory. Thatcher is here framed within Muddes theory her discourses have been retrieved from the homonymous Foundation, covering her 1979-1990 PM activity. The speeches are a product of a long process of selection out of hundreds of documents. Muddes theory is adequate and suitable to European right-wing parties and politically neutral, which is an advantage when analyzing controversial characters. Mudde (2004) does not see populism as a pathology of Western democracies. He acknowledges that the concept of populism is highly charged and negative, both in scholarly and public debate (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2013, 149).

He sees populism as an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the pure people versus the corrupt elite, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volont gnrale (general will) of the people (Mudde 2004, 543). According to Mudde (ibid.), populism is a thin ideology and does not have the consistence that other isms (such as liberalism, fascism, socialism or conservatism) Indeed, it can be attached to all kinds of ideologies, which we call the host ideologies (Mudde-Hanso 2018); populism alone in its pure form does not almost exist. As a thin-centered ideology, populism can be easily combined with [] different [] ideologies, including communism, ecologism, nationalism or socialism (Mudde 2004, 544). Thin-ideologies are opposed to thick ideologies, that have a dense morphology [] and [] are crucial for developing an overarching network of ideas that offers answers to all the political issues confronting a society (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2013, 150).

Mudde (2004) emphasizes the Manichean distinction between two classes, the people and the elite; the people are always opposed to the (cultural, economic, political, mediatic) elite. The first group is pure, the second is corrupt. Populists argue that political parties corrupt the link between leaders and supporters, create artificial divisions within the homogeneous people and put their own interests above those of the people (ibid. 546). Populists define who belongs to the people or the elite (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2013). The former is depicted as a homogeneous and virtuous community; the latter [] homogeneous but pathological (ibid. 151). In relation to Thatcher, Muddes theory main elements populism as thin ideology, populism as a Manichaean division, populism as a general will of the people are individually analyzed.

Thatcher was inspired by Conservatism, a thick ideology, with some liberal elements. Her policy was oriented to a traditional (center-)right conservative thought. As for the thin aspect, she adopted nationalism, emphasizing the UKs greatness, believing that her country was composed by extraordinary people. An important example of the mixture of nationalism (thin ideology) and conservatism (thick ideology) was her bellicosity during the 1982 Falklands crisis when Argentina invaded the British islands in the Atlantic. The reaction was Thatchers top-moment of nationalism, an occasion to reinvigorate her imagine, driving the attention away from the domestic economic troubles (Cannadine 2017). She fought a battle of principle, boasting her nationalistic rhetoric centred on the Britishness. After the victory against Argentina, she proudly showed her nationalism in the Parliament: Our country has won a great victory and we are entitled to be proud. This nation had the resolution to do what it knew had to be done (Thatcher 1982).

Many thought we could no longer do the great things and believed that our decline was irreversible, while others maintained that Britain was no longer the nation that had built an Empire and ruled a quarter of the world. Well, they were wrong (ibid.). A second example of the use of nationalistic (thin) rhetoric is related to the negotiations with the European Community. The Lady resorted to nationalistic discourses to underline not only the UKs uniqueness vis--vis Brussels bureaucrats, but also the diversity(or superiority) of the British people (typical for nationalism) and this can also be related to Muddes theoretical second element, the antagonization of one group, the good free Brits and the bad bureaucratic Europe. Adding some nationalism (and Euroscepticism) to her Conservatism, the lady wanted to emphasize the UKs uniqueness. Certainly, we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose. But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, parliamentary powers and sense of national pride (Thatcher 1998).

Populists accept the essence of democracy, in terms of popular sovereignty and the majority rule. They want the people to elect their leaders (Mudde-Hanso 2018): despite Thatcher was accused of nationalism and imperialism identification with authority, traditionalism and firm leadership (Hall 1988) but there are no doubts that she was intrinsically democratic. She believed in the rule of law (Fry 1998) and voluntarily resigned as PM in November 1990. Populism is inherently hostile to the idea and institutions of liberal democracy or constitutional democracy (Mudde 2004, 561); she was not. Verdict: She only occasionally used nationalism (thin ideology) to formulate her political thought which was conservatism (thick ideology) to boost British pride; Thatcher was not strictly populist in Muddes terms.

Thatcher always stressed the importance of individual responsibility for the community. We must recognize certain groups of people who need help, but the rest of us must take responsibility for ourselves, and [] stop being [] a subsidized-minded society (Thatcher 1975, 50). Most famously, too many have been given to understand I have a problem, it is the Governments job to cope with it! or [] I am homeless, the Government must house me! and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first (Thatcher 1987). Thatcher did not divide society in good people and corrupt elite. In her mindset, there were conservative voters, decent people, common men, and women, who worked, produced, and were harassed by the State. They were the bourgeoise, small-medium entrepreneurs and traders who paid taxes, homeowners, car owners, (small) business people, farmers, private-sector workers, pensioners [] dismayed by [] higher taxes, regulation, bureaucracy, interference, excess paperwork, waste, centralizing decisions and political correctness (Reyes 2005, 109).

On the other hand, she stigmatized other categories of people: hooligans, protesters, the left, the Labour party, IRA terrorists, and the European Union. She idealized her enemies but did not attack the elite and making a eulogy to the sacred pure people. Cultivating social envy against the elite has never belonged to her o British conservatives. However, for Thatcher, everything was a battle (Fella 2008) and in this sense, there was a social division in her mind, but not in Muddes terms. Thatcherism shows how a populist discourse can be constructed from a structurally elite position (Reyes 2005, 106). Thatcher did not consider the people pure (a priori). She considered the individual man and woman, forged consent through the cultivation of a middle class (Harvey 2005, 61) with close political attention to the elites which were not corrupt in her mindset, but the result of meritocracy. According to Mudde (2004, 546), what is clear is who and what populists are against. Thatcher was against the abovementioned categories. In this sense, populism not about class (ibid.). Thatcher did not reject the political class as a whole and most of all did not delegitimize it just because it was the political class as populists leaders usually do. Populists are reformist rather than revolutionary, they do not oppose political parties per se. Rather, they oppose the established parties (ibid. 546).

Thatcher did not oppose the conventional political cleavage left-right. Finding the enemy or separating those who vote for a movement from those who do not, is typical of politicians; it is simply how politics works. She did not as Muddes theory does see juxtaposition between the corrupt elite and the pure people. She created the division between society as a sum of individuals vs. socialists and other political enemies. Some socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the socialists may pretend otherwise (Thatcher in Reed 2020). She produced the same level divide we (conservatives) and they (socialists) not, as Mudde suggests, looking to the corrupt elites-pure people scheme. Verdict: Although she emphasized the difference between opponents and supporters, Muddes Manichaean worldview is not consistent with her discourse. Thatcher did not see society divided into corrupt elite-pure people; since she was a politician, she just exalted herelectorate denigrating adversaries.

The concept of volont gnral is expressed by the formula Thatcher always used to justify her policies, to give herself legitimacy, to unify the country (nationalism, thin ideology), to emphasizing/dividing the electorate and supporters (Manichean division friends and foes, and not people-elite), but to present her actions as good for the people. With the concept of TINA There Is No Alternative (Reyes 2005) it is as if Thatcher considered herself as the guarantor of order and the popular will. Since there is no alternative to her, what she did was the product of general will. She assumed that the general will was to preserve the identity and the post-British empire, therefore for example not giving up the Falklands was imperative. Yet we also fought alone for we fought for our people and for our own sovereign territory (Thatcher 1982); our people means the Brits who, according to her, expected the government to be though on Argentina, to protect the great British nations unity and safety.

Thatcher was able to couple nationalism with cleavage-making within the society/electorate, but as PM she wanted to unite the Brits interpreting and emphasizing their general will: a safe, prosperous and great country was in the peoples interest. Thatcher (1980) interprets the will of the people: Decent people do want to do a proper job at work, not to be restrained or intimidated [] They believe that honesty should be respected, not derided. They see crime and violence as a threat [] They want to be allowed to bring up their children in these beliefs. Speaking of they, she makes herself as a guarantor of the will of the people. Our aim is to let people feel that they count for more and more. If we cannot trust the deepest instincts of our people, we should not be in politics at all (ibid.); trust the instincts of the people is the typical assumption related to the (populist) general will of the crowd. The concept of the general will is also visible when speaks of a majority of the population or a majority of the electorate.

A party is about adding up those special interests and making certain that the views of the whole majority, the majority of taxpayers, the majority of consumers, the majority of people in this country on law on order [] So always [] in my policies, we have [] to look at the broad majority interests of the great mass of British people (Thatcher 1984). It is Muddes will of the people that Thatcher is referring to, to justify her political action. At the end of her political career, Thatcher (1990) said: We have given power back to the people on an unprecedented scale. We have given back control to people over their own lives. She believed she has done what people hoped for, what the general public the people expected her to do. Verdict: The concept of the general will is coupled with nationalism. The Lady relied on the concept of voters majority and idealization of the average elector as justification for her policies as the general will of the public, justifying her practices based on the popular mandate and the citizens will.

Margaret Thatcher was a polarizing and controversial figure. Her policies, as well as her political speeches, her attitude, her posture, were loved and hated by the Brits. She is a protagonist of the British politics of the second part of the last century. She was accused of authoritarianism, more than populism: therefore, following Muddes theory main elements, the Lady can only be considered marginally populist. Intransigent and tough, she embraced conservatism (thick ideology) since she was a teenager (Campbell 2009); occasionally, during her political career, she coupled it with nationalism (thin ideology): from the Falklands to the negotiations with the EEC. Secondly, she divided the society and the electorate she cultivated from the one she attacked (typical from politicians), but not depicting Muddes category of the pure people vs. the corrupt elite.

Lastly, the will of the people she referred to, most of the time was the will of the majority (which voted for her as PM three times). Thatcher who was more complex than one may think (Fry 1998) is not conventionally acknowledged as populist; not even, though marginally, in Muddes terms. She was an ambiguous character in terms of Muddes formulation, but some elements of her discourse partially reflected his guidelines. The closest to the professors formulation is the concept of thin-thick ideology (Thatcher coupled conservatism with occasional nationalism, the thin ideology accompanying the thick one); then there is the concept of Manichean division of us vs. them (though, not in Muddes terms of good people vs. corrupt elite), conservatives vs. labourists (which, however, is typical for every politician).

Thatcher, a true individualist, did not attack the elite because of their being elite or defended the people a priori. Muddes theory can only be partially applied to Thatcher, who in general and historically is not (considered or) conventionally seen as populist. However, it is only by embracing a plurality of perspectives and theories [] that we can truly further our field of study (Mudde 2016, 16); people are complex, and their political activity or personality is hard to be encapsulated in rigorous scientific theories. Margaret Thatcher was not strictly populist in Muddes terminology; however, some elements only limitedly fitted her. She might be considered just a little bit populist, therefore surely ambiguous as a character.

*About the author: Amedeo Gasparini, class 1997, freelance journalist and researcher, managing Blackstar, amedeogasparini.com. MA in International Relations (Univerzita Karlova, Prague); BSc in Science of Communication (Universit della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano); [emailprotected]

References

Beaumont, Alex (2010) in: Hadley, Louisa; Ho, Elizabeth (ed.) (2010). Thatcher & After. Margaret Thatcher and Her Afterlife in Contemporary Culture. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Campbell, John (2009). The Iron Lady. Margaret Thatcher, from the grocers daughter to Prime Minister. Penguin Books: London.

Cannadine, David (2017). Margaret Thatcher. A Life and Legacy. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Cooper, James (2012). Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. A Very Political Special Relationship. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Fella, Stefano (2008) in: Albertazzi, Daniele; McDonnell, Duncan (ed.) (2008). Twenty-First Century Populism. The Spectre of Western European Democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fry, Geoffrey K. (1998). Parliament and morality: Thatcher, Powell and Populism. Contemporary British History, Vol. 12, Num. 1, pp. 139-147.

Hadley, Louisa; Ho, Elizabeth (ed.) (2010). Thatcher & After. Margaret Thatcher and Her Afterlife in Contemporary Culture. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Hall, Stuart (1988). The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis Of the Left. Verso: London.

Harvey, David (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Lewis, Russell (1975). Margaret Thatcher. A Personal and Political Biography. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London and Boston.

Mudde, Cas (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition. Vol. 39, Num. 4, pp. 541-563.

Mudde, Cas; Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristbal (2013). Exclusionary vs. Inclusionary Populism: Comparing Contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition, Vol. 48, Num. 2, pp. 147174.

Mudde, Cas (2016). The Study of Populist Radical Right Parties: Towards a Fourth Wave. Available on: https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/publications/c-rex-working-paper-series/Cas%20Mudde:%20The%20Study%20of%20Populist%20Radical%20Right%20Parties.pdf.

Mudde, Cas; Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristbal (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Mudde, Cas; Hanso, Hille (2018). Mudde: Populism Is Based on Morals. Available on: https://icds.ee/en/mudde-populism-is-based-on-morals/, 23.05.2018.

Reyes, Oscar (2005) in: Panizza, Francisco (ed.) (2005). Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. Verso: London.

Riddell, Peter (1985). The Thatcher Government. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Rosaspina, Elisabetta (2020). Margaret Thatcher. Biografia della donna e della politica. Mondadori: Milan.

Thatcher, Margaret (1975) in: Lewis, Russell (1975). Margaret Thatcher. A Personal and Political Biography. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London and Boston.

Thatcher, Margaret (1980). The ladys not for turning. Available on: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/apr/30/conservatives.uk1.

Thatcher, Margaret (1982). Speech to Conservative Rally at Cheltenham. Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104989.

Thatcher, Margaret (1984). TV Interview for BBC (I like Mr Gorbachev. We can do business together). Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105592.

Thatcher, Margaret (1987). Interview for Womans Own (No such thing as society). Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689.

Thatcher, Margaret (1988). Speech to the College of Europe (The Bruges Speech). Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107332.

Thatcher, Margaret (1990). HC S: [Confidence in Her Majestys Government]. Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108256.

Thatcher, Margaret (2020) in: Reed, Lawrence W. (2020). Margaret Thatcher on Socialism: 20 of Her Best Quotes. Available on: https://fee.org/articles/margaret-thatcher-on-socialism-20-of-her-best-quotes/, 08.02.2020.

Trimm, Ryan (2010) in: Hadley, Louisa; Ho, Elizabeth (ed.) (2010). Thatcher & After. Margaret Thatcher and Her Afterlife in Contemporary Culture. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

See the rest here:

The Lady Is Not For (A Populist) Turning: Thatcherian Ambiguities In Cas Mudde's Theory Analysis - Eurasia Review

When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, [and] place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent. Meng TzuThis is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one. Being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. George Bernard Shaw

As human beings, we collectively have acknowledged that our species was given the gift of higher consciousness, a far greater ambition than the kingdoms of the animals, vegetation, and everything else that exists in our natural world (including our ability to invent machines that would replace our hand labor, even our ways of thinking, which we now can legitimately refer to as our artificial world). Many of us may recall, from our first reading of Western philosophy in college, the miraculous philosophical mediation of Immanuel Kant, who somehow managed to propose a most plausible, generous synthesis, bringing together the effectual destruction of mind by Bishop Berkeley and the aggressively dismantled matter by David Hume when philosophy itself was in the midst of its ruin, when there was absolutely nothing left, hence leading to the known axiom, No matter, never mind.

Many of us know how hard the founding members of the UShowever imperfect they all were, namely John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washingtontried to bring a similar synthesis of what they had learned of the philosophy of continental rationalism from Europe and the philosophy of British empiricism. We can only imagine through their reading of the former, including Ren Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibnizall of whom regarded reason as a fundamental source and test of knowledgeon one hand, while digesting the latter, Thomas Hobbes, Bishop George Berkeley, and David Humeall of whom were invested in sensory experience being the primary basis of knowledgethey were able to wisely create a constitution thatseparated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.In other words, however much friction arose, as the so-called Trumpian America of our present day resembles Jacksonian America of the 1830s, democracy is both extremely fragile and extremely resilient. For it has at times fallen into the hands of ambitious autocrats who take advantage of the vulnerability among frustrated citizens, whose livelihoods were taken away by technological machines or bureaucratic machines. Yet, every time the four-year term for each president (who was given the opportunity to advance his political agenda) is fulfilled, if he succeeds one more term is granted at the maximum. If he fails, we can be certain that the next president will surely advocate everything as the complete opposite. Our framersof theconstitution were conscious of the potential rise of tyrants, demagogue as they had observed in old Europe and elsewhere, and hence American democracy has its ownself-corrective mechanism, which thus far has been an effective tool, capable of rebuilding itself from its constant failure.

Since the collapse of communism and the Soviet Unionthe one common enemy that brought the two parties working together at least till 1991both parties have been complacent in economic neglect on domestic frontsputting into practicing the idea that money can buy any elections anywhere, and anytimewhile advancing the agenda of liberal hegemony in the rest of the world. We can all agree that this naive ambition has proven to have been a disastrous consequence, as not every nation would like to be assimilated into the US's idea of a melting pot. Even at the moment when our two parties inability to listen to one anotherNO MATTER, NEVER MIND, end of storycasts a dark cloud everywhere we turn in the suburbs, rural areas, and especially in the midwest (where Americans have truly felt they were abandoned for three decades now), we feel a great urgency to reapply that self-corrective mechanism among ourselves. We must reclaim the middle ground, the public sphere, communal spaces as a place where all voices can be expressed with civility without the fear of being stigmatized by political correctness and so on. How can we grow without being challenged? How can we grow without a belief, for belief itself needs to be defended as much as it needs to be questioned by ourselves and others. As John Stuart Mill once famously remarked on liberty, He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

The very idea of giving our fellow human beings labels, identifying them by some invented names, boxing them in some specific niches, is the most destructive thing we can do to ourselves. It not only makes us into machine-like conformists, but it takes away our chance to feel our own true suffering, for without suffering, there will be no growth and compassion for our fellow human beings. For every one of us is so specifically ourselves in our voices, our temperament, like an instrument that has a particular and unique sound. Shall we work together to create opportunities for us to bring each of our unique sounds to sing in unison, instead of surrendering to uniformity, from here onward throughout our city, and other cities in the US?

In solidarity, with love and courage, as ever,

Phong H. Bui

P.S. This issue is dedicated to the extraordinary lives and works of our two legendary friends, the artist Jennifer Bartlett (1941-2022) and the photographer Eric Boman (1946-2022) whose legacies have enriched the cultural firmament of our world. We send our deep condolences to Jennifers former two husbands, Ed Bartlett, Matthieu Carrire, her daughter Alice Carrire, and the extended family members, as well as Erics lifelong partner artist Peter Schlesinger, his friends and admirers, including Gabriela de Ferrari. We send our belated birthday greetings to our beloved friends, including Anselm Berrigan, Agnes Gund, Charles Schultz, Ysabel Pinyol Blasi, Augustus Duravcevic, Amanda Millet-Sorsa. Wed also like to send our huge congratulations to Jacob and Marine Ninaud Bromberg on the birth of their daughter Isadora Zazie Moon Bromberg. We would also like to send our deep gratitude to our Production Assistant Maia Siegel. Lastly, you all are invited to join us at the two opening receptions of our forthcomingSinging in Unison: Artists Need to Create On the Same Scale That Society Has the Capacity to Destroyexhibitions (see below):

Singing in Unison, Part FiveMiguel Abreu GallerySeptember 7, 202268 p.m.88 Eldridge StreetNew York, NY 10002

Singing in Unison, Part SevenIndustry City September 23, 2022900 3rd AvenueBrooklyn, NY 11232

View post:

Dear Friends and Readers, The Brooklyn Rail - Brooklyn Rail

From September 2, 2020, I am a Christian. Here is what I believe about abortion.

Subsidiarity, mofos.

I want to talk about abortion with my fellow white evangelical Christians.

More specifically, I am addressing those evangelicals who have not sworn their full allegiance to Donald Trump. We might refer to this group as the 19 percent meaning the minority of white evangelicals who did not vote to elect Trump in 2016, but I am hopeful that the share of those willing to read or to listen here will be somewhat larger than that.

We might describe my intended audience here as a spectrum ranging from Michael Wear to Russell Moore, which is to say those of my fellow American evangelical Christians who are Trump-resistant or at least somewhat Trump-reluctant. Some of you are emphatically opposed to Trump while others may be ruefully supportive of him due primarily to his support for judges and policies more likely to end legal abortion.

Wherever you fall on that spectrum, you and Idisagree on the meaning and the morality of abortion.This post is not an exercise in persuasion or in condemnation. Nor does it involve the suggestion of any sort of compromise or middle ground or third way. All I want to do here is to explain, as simply and clearly as I can, what it is that I believe about abortion and what the political implications of that are for me.

The difference between what I believe and what you believe is, in some ways, a lot smaller than you might imagine. The implications of that difference expand outward, producing very different responsibilities and obligations for the law, for citizens, and for all of civil society including the church.

Here is that difference: You believe that full human personhood begins at the moment of conception, which is to say that a fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst, a zygote possesses an equal moral standing to that of any child or adult. To end a pregnancy, therefore, is to take a human life an act indistinct from taking the life of any other child or adult.

I do not believe that. I make a distinction between the potential human personhood of a fetus/embryo/blastocyst/zygote and the actual human personhood of actual infants, children, and adults. I believe that potential human personhood has great value and great moral significance, but not as great as that of any and every actual human person. Abortion is a serious and significant matter, but it is not at all like murder.

The prolific evangelical apologetics writer Norman Geisler put it this way:

The one clear thing which the Scriptures indicate about abortion is that it is not the same as murder. Murder is a man-initiated activity of taking anactualhuman life. Artificial abortion is a humanly initiated process which results in the taking of apotentialhuman life. Such abortion is not murder, because the embryo is not fully human it is an undeveloped person.

That distinction, which Geisler argued was derived from biblical teaching and biblical prooftexts, led him to conclude that abortion was justified and even obligated in some cases:

When it is a clear-cut case of either taking the life of the unborn baby or letting the mother die, then abortion is called for. Anactuallife (the mother) is of more intrinsic value than apotentiallife (the unborn). The mother is a fully developed human; the baby is an undeveloped human. And an actually developed human is better than one which has the potential for full humanity but has not yet developed.Beingfully human is a higher value than the mere possibility ofbecomingfully human. For whatishas more value than whatmaybe.

Birth is not morally necessitated without consent. No woman should be forced to carry a child if she did not consent to intercourse. A violent intrusion into a womans womb does not bring with it a moral birthright for the embryo. The mother has a right to refuse that her body be used as an object of sexual intrusion. The violation of her honor and personhood was enough evil without compounding her plight by forcing an unwanted child on her besides. the right of the potential life (the embryo) is overshadowed by the right of the actual life of the mother. The rights to life, health, and self-determination i.e.,the rights to personhood of the fully human mother take precedence over that of the potentially human embryo.

The crucial point here is that final sentence, so let me repeat it: The rights to life, health, and self-determination i.e.,the rights to personhood of the fully human mother take precedence over that of the potentially human embryo.

Please note what this does not say or mean or imply or entail: It does not mean that the potentially human embryo has no rights, or no value, or no meaning, or no significance, or no dignity. To regard the potentially human embryo as meaningless or worthless would be wrong wrong both in the sense of immoral and in the sense of inaccurate.

How, then, ought we to account for and to honor the moral claims and moral value of the potential personhood of the unborn? How do we, as you all often say, protectthe unborn?

The problem with that question is the word we. Who is we?

That is always an essential question in Christian ethical teaching and Christian political thought: Who is we? And the way that Christians, for centuries, have tried to answer that question to clarify and differentiate all of the potential meanings of we fall under the heading of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is both a prudential principle and an ethical one. To violate or to reject subsidiarity, then, is both immoral and ineffective. Subsidiarity clarifies the varied and various roles that different people, different actors, different institutions and agencies have the varied and various responsibilities and obligations we all share in different and differing capacities. It describes what the epistle calls the inescapable network of mutuality that binds us all together directly and indirectly. Our various places and roles in that network shape our various responsibilities and duties to one another. To abdicate the responsibilities that are rightly ours, or to usurp the responsibilities that are not rightly ours, is both imprudent and immoral.

Subsidiarity teaches that those closest to a given situation have the greatest responsibility for that situation. Every other actor and agency in the network of mutuality also bears responsibility, but their indirect responsibility takes the shape of supporting those closest, who hold the primary and most direct responsibility.

I believe in subsidiarity. It seems clear to me that the primary responsibility for protecting the unborn is given to those whose bodies are literally transforming for that very purpose, which is to say with the actual human persons, the women* whose bodies are carrying and have carried every potential human person who has ever later been born. They are the most direct actors here, exponentially closer and more responsible than anyone else, and the responsibility and obligation of everyone else is to ensure they have all the moral and material support they require to fulfill that role.

I trust those women. I trust them more than any indirectly responsible actor who would trample on their subsidiary obligations by trying to usurp the responsibilities entrusted to those women by nature and natures God.

Will 100% of those women make 100% of the best choices 100% of the time? Of course not. They are, like all of us, human, and no human or group of humans is ever always capable of always making only the very best choices. But their humanity is all the more reason to affirm their agency and dignity to choose, not a license to strip them of that humanity by stripping them of their responsibility, dignity, agency, and freedom.

It is not my job not my ethical duty nor my capacity to usurp their primacy here. Not as their neighbor, not as their relative, not as their congressional representative or as their pastor or as their president or as their appellate-court judge. Every other actor, agency, institution, civil society organization, magistrate, and pastordoeshave anindirectrole to play the role of supporting these women to make the best choices and to have the best choices available to them.

What does that mean in practical terms? It means, for most of us, working to create a context for their choices in which they are never constrained by desperation or duress, by the market-worshipping coercion of penury, by fear or want or threat. It means working to establish a context in which financial support, vocational opportunity, human potential, human thriving and human dignity are not contingent or conditional or inconstant. It means creating a context which is hospitable to welcoming new life, and therefore a context in which the choice of hospitality is possible and promising. (If I were to choose a text for a sermon on the politics of abortion, it would be the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath.)

Sometimes, when I describe this role and this obligation, those who wish only to deny subsidiarity by a top-down decree criminalizing all abortion will accuse me of just trying to change the subject. But thisisthe subject. Subsidiarity teaches me that what is best for the unborn will be what is best for their mothers. The only way to protect the unborn is by protecting those carrying them protecting their health, dignity, wellbeing, financial security, agency, and freedom.

My uncle was an obstetrician in the 1960s. He was hired to reform a regional hospital in central Pennsylvania that was struggling with one of the worst infant mortality rates in the state. He took the job only on the condition that he could, instead, address the crisis that hospital hadnt recognized that it also had one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the nation. Some thought that he, too, was trying to change the subject, but he insisted that if they took better care of those mothers, the infant mortality problem would also be resolved. And it was.

If we want to protect the unborn then we must trust those entrusted with that duty. Erasing or outlawing their central role, their humanity, and their agency is both imprudent and immoral. We for any given value of we need to center them, support them, and provide for them a larger context in which they are best able and equipped to do what is best for themselves and for those potential and actual human persons in their care.

This is what I believe. This is my abortion politics. The sectarian nuance and the detailed working out of this may vary somewhat, but this is, in broad terms, what tens of millions of other American Christians who are also Democratic voters also believe.

Again, I am not telling you this in an effort to persuade or to convince. I have done that elsewhere and will do it again, but thats not what this post is about. I am not here attempting to create any compromise or debate and would not welcome either one. (Although Im sure the DEBATEME!-boi reply guys will still show up in comments, because fish gotta swim.)

I am telling you this only because I think it is something you should know. What you decide to do with that knowledge, what you feel youreallowedto do with that knowledge, I leave up to you.

* Mostly women, but not only women. That needs to be said here, for accuracys sake and not for the sake of what many of my fellow evangelicals might dismiss as political correctness.

See more here:

9/2 Flashback: On abortion | Fred Clark - Patheos