Category Archives: Political Correctness

In 2016, anti-Trump conservatives decided, at considerable cost, that their mission transcended party and ideology: defeating a candidate gravely unsuited for the presidency. In 2020, they opposed his re-election with the stakes even highersaving constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and responsible governance from incipient autocracy, the abuse of presidential power, the erasure of political norms, and a concerted effort to undermine the electoral process.

By acting in the prudential conservative tradition which harks back to Edmund Burke, they helped terminate a radically destructive presidency. But what now?

Do the Never Trumpers strive to reconstitute the GOP as a responsible political party? Do they join a moderate Democratic party led by Joe Biden? Or do they try to help Biden succeed for the larger good of the country while ultimately hoping, someday and somehow, to provide a new home for principled conservatives?

A word about my perspective. Among my gifted and gutsy colleagues at The Bulwark, generally conservatives whose foundational loyalties lay with the Republican party, Im a center-left Democrat who saw Trump as the continuationnot the causeof a moral and intellectual decline wherein the GOP conflated conservatism with a Manichean white identity politics that demolishes fact, degrades political discourse, and promotes scorched-earth partisanship. So Id be delighted to claim them as political coreligionists at this perilous national crossroads.

But my colleagues and their siblings on the center-right are not of one mind. What unites us is the desire to help our country rebuild a collective comity.

I lack standing to suggest a specific path for my conservative friends. But, to me, one indispensable predicate comes first: stopping the GOP as constituted from gutting our democracy.

The dangers before us transcend Trump. Witness Evan McMullins stark assessment of why elected Republicans, in overwhelming numbers, acquiesced in or actively supported Trumps unprecedented effort to undo a presidential election: That they. . . clung to his mad king strategy, like sailors lashed to the mast of a sinking ship, proves that the majority of the party has, at least for the foreseeable future, forsaken democracy.

This mutation reflects a fatal miscalculation made by the party establishment well before Trump: that they could harness the GOPs restive white baseincreasingly dominated by evangelicals and the less well educatedwhile serving the financial interests of their donor class. Catherine Rampell describes the fruits of this delusion:

Over the years, Republican politicians seemed many times to be on the cusp of a reckoninga realization that a lunatic fringe had seized control of the partys more pragmatic center and that conspiracy-theorizing, race-baiting, science-denigrating demagogues had transformed the GOP base into ungovernable paranoiacs. The situation seemed untenable; the fever had to break. . . . Yet the partys radicalization continued, and the reckoning never came.

Nor will it anytime soon. Increasingly, the baseand therefore the partyis captive to an apocalyptic worldview rooted in fear of dispossession by the racial, cultural, and demographic other which, in turn, feeds authoritarian cravings. As the president of the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, Albert Mohler, explained to Nicholas Lemann: Theres an anxiety. A world is being demolished before your eyes. Its an instinct that things arent going as they should. The world is coming apart. Somebody has to say no.

For these angry, anxious, mostly white Republicans, Trump appeared as a human Powerball ticket. As Mike Murphy, a longtime GOP consultant who is a strategic adviser to Republican Voters Against Trump, told Lemann: Trump was a perfect grievance candidate, at a time when Republican voters wanted to blow up the system He was very George Wallace. And then there was the strongman thing: Juan Pern in an orange fright wig.

Trump sealed the establishments devils pact: He stoked the resentments of the GOPs primary electorate while giving the partys donor class the tax cuts they crave and judges who, shrouded in cultural conservatism, protect their economic interests. The contradictions inherent in this pact require the perpetuation of a socially corrosive alternate reality that narcotizes the baseand thereby increasingly entraps or defines the partys officeholders.

In examining why so many voters exhibit such cognitive decline when it came to politics George Packer cites the dire history of twentieth-century Europe:

Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, describes the susceptibility to propaganda of the atomized modern masses, obsessed by a desire to escape from reality because in their essential homelessness they can no longer bear its accidental, incomprehensible aspects. They seek refuge in a man-made pattern of relative consistency that bears little relation to reality.

That psychic need for absolutism aptly describes the animating spirit of Trumps GOP. Concludes Packer: Though the U.S. is still a democratic republic, not a totalitarian regime, and Trump was an all-American demagogue, not a fascist dictator, his followers abandoned common sense and found their guide to the world in him. Defeat wont change that.

This sensibility is rooted in the GOPs reliance on fictional tropes years before Trumps riseat first in the service of political ideology: that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves; that climate change is a liberal fantasy; that gun-control laws dont limit gun violence. In time, this fed a nihilistic quasi-libertarianism nurtured by right-wing mediaseen in everything from the mindless political arson of the Tea Party to the deadly aversion against wearing masks to stifle COVID-19which erodes our capacity to resolve common challenges through prudent governance.

This animus differs from opposition to authoritarianism per seit is directed at the supposed elites who have unleashed government on those who already feel marginalized. Hence the findings of social scientists who link the instinct for autocracy among the Republican base to racial and cultural resentments which, as they see it, require the subordination of their societal enemies.

Beneath the hatred of political correctness lurks the desire to control its perceived proponents. Add the desire for simple explanations of complex problems to the belief that you are opposed by evil forces, and conspiracy theories follow.

In all too many cases Trump did not originate the false narratives which poison the current Republican party. He simply exploited the pre-existing paranoia of its base.

Thats why, before seeking the presidency, he could so easily spread the conspiratorial nonsense of birtherisma classic expression of racial anxieties and resentmentsthroughout the party. The Republican electorate elevated Trump because such lies had already become the lingua franca of a gated community of the mind that will outlive him.

The common assertion that the GOP became the cult of Trump misses this central pointthe party houses an alienated worldview which he simply fortified and exploited. Long before Trump, the base was captured by Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaughand so, inevitably, was the party.

While Trump fed this phenomenon, it does not require him. Observes Packer: No number from Trumps years in power will be more lastingly destructive than his 25,000 false or misleading statements. Super-spread by social media and cable news, they contaminated the minds of tens of millions of people. Trumps lies will linger for years, poisoning the atmosphere like radioactive dust.

Little wonder that the GOP of 2020 had no platformthe glue which binds the base is no longer principles or ideas, but its angry addiction to false narratives. Within this hermetic world the psychotic assertion of QAnon that Democrats molest and devour children to satiate Satan is taken, by many, as reality.

This collective insanity has profound implications for public policy and social coherence. The widespread disbelief among the base in the deadliness of COVID-19 accelerated the diseases spread; enabled Trumps lethal neglect; and now feeds the aversion to vaccination, thereby likely adding to the toll of needless death.

Similarly, the refusal to accept the reality of Russian attacks on our election in 2016 surely encouraged the massive Russian cyberattack that has come to light over the last few days. Not so many years ago, the Republican party was reflexively hawkish on Russia; today, the party is nearly silent, taking its cue from Trump, who, when it comes to Vladimir Putin, follows the old adage If you dont have something nice to say about someone, then dont say anything at all.

The appalling apotheosis of the GOPs embrace of delusion is the willingnesseven eagernessof the great majority of Republican voters to accept Trumps most destructive falsehood: that Joe Biden stole the election through massive voter fraud for which no cognizable evidence exists. In the echo chamber of the Republican party, the most grotesque lies are self-validating: voting machines were rigged in Venezuela; Stacey Abrams harvested bogus ballots; the dead voted en masse; mail-in balloting created millions of phony votes; for Trump to lose was statistically impossible.

As The Bulwarks Tim Miller and Amanda Carpenter have detailed, these otherworldly claims were metastasized by media sociopaths profiteering in the GOPs hysteria market. The primetime hosts of Fox News, until now the most prominent purveyors of rank disinformation, now compete with prevaricators on Newsmax and OAN who make Sean Hannity look like Walter Cronkite. Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy exults over the opportunities for profit arising from Trumps chaotic reign: The news cycle is red-hot, and Newsmax is getting one million people per minute.

Peddling misinformation that further inflames a ready audience of Republicans is, it seems clear, the ideal business model for those who savor shriveling souls and shrinking minds. In the post-truth netherworld, their profit swells, and their influence grows apace. As social psychologist Peter Ditto told Thomas B. Edsall, in that environment almost any lie can be believed, almost any transgression excused, as long as it helps your side.

Such unmediated antagonism breeds not only authoritarianism but violence. One particularly toxic element is racism, expressed most recently in Trumps blatant attempt to disenfranchise black voters in states which Biden wonfollowed by the vandalization of black churches in Washington, D.C. during a pro-Trump rally earlier this month.

But this ugly spirit transcends race. Witness the right-wing militia that plotted to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer after Trump denounced her lockdown orderslet alone the dangerous flashpoints stemming from Trumps loss: armed protesters who surrounded the home of the Michigans Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson; and the threats against secretaries of state and otherwise anonymous election workers in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.

No longer are the fears of public officials confined to electoral defeat. As the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania Senate told the New York Times, had she not signed a letter urging the states congressional delegation to toss out its electoral votes for Biden, Id get my house bombed tonight.

This menace highlights a broader truththe Republican party has become inimical to democracy itself. Write political scientists Steven Livingston and W. Lance Bennett:

The descent of the GOP into illiberalism did not begin with Trumps ride down an escalator five years ago. It started with the partys Faustian bargain with racism, along with its embrace of billionaire backers who fund elections, think tanks, and media networks producing propaganda for extremists. All of this serves as a distraction from decades-long strategies to legalize voter suppression.

Long before Trump took over the party, the GOP committed itself to preserving the dominance of its white electorate by targeting people of colorpassing photo ID laws which have the documented effect of reducing minority turnout; purging voting rolls; and closing polling places in minority areas. As Geoffrey Kabaservice observes, once the GOP stopped believing it was the majority party . . . then anything would be permitted, including antidemocratic means.

Their bogus pretext, turbocharged by Trump in 2020, was that such measures prevented massive voter fraud. Notes David Litt in the Guardian: Trump simply absorbed his party establishments prevailing viewthat it is acceptable to win elections through whatever means possible . . . and took that approach to its logical conclusion.

The partys longstanding claims of voter fraud may have begun as a cynical contrivance. But by now the loathing for democracy among the base is not just tactical, but visceral. Combine the instinct for authoritarianism with conspiratorial thinking, the belief that your political opponents threaten all you hold dear, and an alternative reality marinating in hatred and fear, and democracy itself becomes the enemy.

This helps explain the acquiescence of party officials to Trumps depredations: They fear the base; the base fears elections; and both fear the larger electorate. Jamelle Bouie describes the GOPs bottom line:

We have learned that the Republican Party . . . views defeat on its face as illegitimate, a product of fraud concocted by opponents who dont deserve to hold power. That it is fully the party of minority rule, committed to the idea that a vote doesnt count if it isnt for its candidates, and that if democracy wont serve its partisan and ideological interests, then so much for democracy.

Already, Republican state and federal legislators are working to rig future elections, proposing harsher ID requirements and strict limits on voting by mail. In furtherance of these aims, Senator Ron Johnson held a hearing last week to publicize false claims of voter fraud. The next election may be closer, GOP election officials less willing to risk political opprobrium and personal danger. Warns Dan Pfeiffer, In elections going forward, not trying to steal the election will be seen as RINO behavior.

Already, the GOP is abetted by structural advantages that circumscribe genuine democracy. In 2021 Republicans will initiate more partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts to regain control of the House, having retained majorities in crucial state legislatures which are themselves gerrymandered. And their efforts to control presidential elections are, of course, fortified by the Electoral College.

Trumps attempts to manipulate its arcane machinery should extinguish the notion that this 233-year-old compromise with slave states embodies timeless conservative wisdom. Instead, it has become a Republican tool for undermining representative democracy. Procedures put in place as last resorts for rare outcomessuch as a state legislature appointing its own slate of electors if that states normal election fails, or situations in which there is no clear Electoral College winner and therefore the House of Representatives picks the president by vote of each congressional delegationhave been misappropriated by Republicans desperate to find some mechanism, no matter how anti-democratic, to subvert the election.

Moreover, demographic sorting means that the Electoral College is increasingly likely to contradict the popular vote, as happened in two of the last six presidential elections. Finally, its results turn on a handful of closely contested states, thereby incentivizing voter suppression and electoral chicanery.

As Jesse Wegman notes, the fact that every other election in the United States is determined by popular vote confirms its conservative virtuesby treating voters as equals, it provides legitimacy and, therefore, stability. No matter: in the guise of conservatism the GOP will fight to preserve it as an instrument of electoral subversion, a bulwark against majority ruleand a perpetual gun to the head of democracy.

All this has less to do with Trump than the Republican base and its minoritarian-authoritarian political home. Observes Kabaservice, the GOP has become a perpetual grievance machine unwilling (and unable) to address those grievances through governance or the legislative process. . . . Any Republicans who hope to succeed [Trump] as president will have to parrot his claims that he won in a landslide, that American democracy is corrupt and that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.

A roll call of aspirantsfrom the scary Tom Cotton to the slicker Josh Hawley to the careful Nikki Haleydiscloses no one with the following or the gifts, let alone the integrity and courage, to undertake the protean ordeal of rehabilitating the Republican party. Equally probable, the bases avatar in 2024, if not Trump himself, could well be his ignorant and demagogic oldest son. With the help of voter suppression and the Electoral College, he just might win.

So what must principled conservatives do?

In my view their first imperative is to help reinvigorate our democracy, and our capacity for effective governance, by making common cause with other Americans of good will in opposition to the GOP. The immediate challenge facing conservatives is less about ideology than restoration: reinfusing society with the stability, optimism, and renewed belief in our traditions and institutions indispensable to a sound polity.

One essential element is protecting the franchise: ensuring voting rights; combating voter suppression; expanding vote by mail; and encouraging broader participation. Another possibility is curbing gerrymandering through redistricting by nonpartisan commissions.

Some problems with the Electoral College could be resolved by amending the Electoral Count Act of 1887. In 2020 this ill-drafted law created the prospect of partisan state legislatures overriding the results of failed elections based on false charges of voter fraud; the specter of partisan congressional challenges to a states designated electors still looms over the proceedings scheduled for January 6.

But the deeper problem is that the Electoral College engenders electoral disputes, encourages voter suppression and manipulation, frequently abridges the popular vote, and confines meaningful participation in presidential elections to the citizens of a handful of states. Thus a number of statesaccounting for more than a third of the total Electoral College voteshave entered a compact agreeing to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

This extraconstitutional contrivance, intended to circumvent the need for a constitutional amendment, provokes justifiable unease. But one must ask whether completing it is nonetheless preferableindeed, more conservativethan maintaining a dysfunctional and destabilizing anachronism which was, itself, a contrivancethereby promoting minority rule, electoral subversion, and, inevitably, the grave constitutional crisis augured by the maneuvers of Trump and his party.

The other necessity is to support the Biden administration in addressing our urgent needs. This, too, is inherently conservative: Compared to renewing confidence in government at this crossroads between renewal and decline, ideological disputes are secondary.

Clearly, conservatives need not become Democrats. But for now Democrats have defined themselves as a center-left party which presents the vehicle for preserving a functioning democracy. Again, Evan McMullin:

If the coalition that defeated Mr. Trump and elected President-elect Joe Biden, of which we [Never Trump conservatives] are a part, fails now to lead the nation past the coronavirus pandemic, widespread job losses and economic instability, social division and injustice, inaccessible health care, fiscal shortfalls and disinformation, we will invite a resurgence of Trumpism and even more formidable illiberalism in the future.

Unmoored from partisanship and the related constraints of ideology, principled conservatives can strengthen the political center, promote compromise over polarization, and consider anew the problems which atomize America: income inequality, discriminatory law enforcement, substandard education, unaffordable college, and residential segregation. The majority of Americansand Democratswant solutions, not slogans.

The healthiest society is that in which its citizens believeand which, by helping the least of them achieve their full potential, enriches the whole. That shared enterprise requires the energy and commitment of true conservatives.

Go here to see the original:

The Ghost of Conservatism Future - The Bulwark

Political correctness

In response to a letter regarding renaming Vicksburg Avenue in Bend I offer the following. In the afternoon of March 23, 2020, my ancestors Mort and Edna Schmeddlapp and their Irish setter, Rusty, were caught in traffic between northbound Californians and southbound Portlanders in the town of La Pine, Oregon.

All three, of northern European descent, survived and continued their trip to, oh, say, Elk Lake. There were some challenges, social distancing and toilet paper insecurity, among them (as well as the closed highway gate). So it of course follows that, per cinematic history, the character, James Bond, was violent, misogynistic and unforgiving of those with whom he disagreed. Because of the Bond history, I find that the street name here in Bend very offensive and wounding. Ive thought of contacting the state of Oregon or Deschutes County directly, but have elected to just suck it up and endure as best I can.

I would hope the residents of this fine community would see the absolute absurdity of this letter and nip in the bud or otherwise drive a stake through such idiocy!

Ross Flavel, Bend

The governors COVID freeze was greeted with as much polarization as the national election. Mr. Dudashs Guest Column articulates the impact on the business community; so, lets unpack the situation a little more.

No, the governor hasnt been transparent about the cause of the latest surge of cases. They havent presented any statistical information that categorically demonstrates the increase is directly associated with restaurants, bars, or gyms and they should. If its not, they shouldnt be shuttered.

Yes, there is a significant increase in cases; however, the mortality rate is decreasing. Across the state the mortality rate is 1.26%, and in Deschutes County, its 0.7%. However low those figures are, they represent people who were loved, and their deaths shouldnt be devalued.

Yes, the hospitals are running out of room, which is probably driving the freeze. We are pressing the limits of the health care system. In Region 7, which includes Deschutes, the ICU units are at 87% capacity and non-ICU are at 77%. We have 6 beds open in ICU and 110 non-ICU beds available. Yes, thats pressing the limits of the system and we shouldnt.

The real group being disproportionately affected are those over 70 years old who contract the virus. They constitute 75% of all Oregonians lost. Each county is unique. Lets work together on plans/programs to protect those most vulnerable, people and businesses. Not one group at the exclusion of the other. This will probably require more personal responsibility and less government action, which may be our biggest hurdle.

William Barron, Bend

I want to thank you for the far-ranging news coverage you provide in our daily paper. While I love reading about whats happening in our three-county area, I also appreciate your coverage of state and national news and events. I also appreciate that you cover the news and ignore the conspiracy stories that are so pervasive on social media.

Please keep up the good work!

Priscilla Smith, Prineville

I have a request for those choosing to get together with people outside of their personal (now their new normal) safe circle for the holidays, while not taking extraordinary precautions.

Imagine that todays breaking news is that three commercial airplanes crashed today in our country and everyone died. (1,502 people died from COVID-19 on Sunday 63 people every hour)

And the next day: another three planes. Every day.

Every three days, more people in this country die from this virus than the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks.

265,000 have died in our country alone. 2,977 deaths occurred on 9/11.

EIGHTY-SEVEN TIMES more have died from this virus... so far.

Life-long health effects for survivors were awful in the first instance and will be so for millions in this situation. This will continue to tax our health care system and economy. If health and wellness are not of concern to you, think of your wallet.

If you get the virus, you will most likely not have hospital-necessitating symptoms. But if you do go to the hospital, you will put exhausted health care workers at an added risk of illness and death. And if hospital beds fill, you will take a bed away from someone in need of care, probably through no fault of their own. Another possible death because of your choices.

If you choose to ignore the safety recommendations: Please agree to not go to a medical facility if you become ill from this virus. Thank you.

Donna Casey, Bend

Read the rest here:

Letters to the editor: Political correctness; Reasons for a freeze; Thank you Bulletin; Holiday gatherings - Bend Bulletin

Ken Woody| For The Register-Guard

One Duck football fan, upon hearing the annual game against rival Oregon State was, according to current political correctness, no longer to be referred to as the Civil War, penned his own suggestion: The War of Southern Suppression.

Suppression or not, football has long been compared to war and competitive combat between the players, but after all, its just a game, civil or not. This years battle shapes up to be more competitive than ever.

Beavers coach Jonathon Smith took over a program that was lower than ebb tide. With dogged persistence and effective recruiting the past two years, he has molded OSU into a competitive team that should not be overlooked, especially by their most bitter rival.

Coach Mario Cristobal, who had a scare against UCLA and after the hard-fought victory, has a list of things that have to improve if the Ducks are going to defeat OSU. The pass rush must get better as the defense has only three sacks in three games and is still missing a lot of tackles. Worse, the stunting Bruins, who allowed a mere 2 yards per carry, dominated his pride and joy, the run offense.

UCLAs defense shifted continuously before the snap and had quarterback Tyler Shough and offensive coordinator Joe Moorhead off balance, which showed up with a poor third-down conversion rate, four sacks and 10 tackles for loss. The Ducks also lost a fumble, dropped passes and did not press the Bruin defense with the fast tempo that has made Oregon an offensive power. The Ducks often waited at the line of scrimmage for them to stop shifting.

The Ducks defense finally got a turnover: four of them in fact, all leading to touchdowns, but the missed tackles made big gains out of little gains. Watch to see if the tackling improves because the Beavers have the best running back in the Pac-12 in Jermar Jefferson who runs behind a much-improved offensive line.

One difference between Oregon and UCLAs defensive line was that the Ducks consistently aligned themselves 1 yard off the ball, while the Bruins crowded the edge of the line of scrimmage. This may account for UCLAs superior pass rush and the Ducks passivity. No defensive lineman has a sack this season, including all-American defensive end Kayvon Thibodeaux. He might be tougher to block if he was closer to the offensive lineman presently, the distance between them gives the offensive lineman a 1 yard advantage of space, (which is time), to get set and react.

The game could be close enough that a field goal might be the difference. In that case, Oregon would be the underdog, as kicker Camden Lewis is in a 1-for-4 funk, missing easy field goals and ranking 10th in the league. Lewis has the ability; he was a high school all-American and last year, in his freshman season, rebounded smartly after a slow start. A kicker cant have a slow start every year, especially when you are only playing conference games.

This game is always big, and a tough one to win in Corvallis. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in an empty stadium or near-empty stadium. According to league stats, Pac-12 teams are averaging 85 fans per home game. That doesnt seem to be much of a home field advantage.

Ken Woody coached college football as an assistant at Oregon, Washington, Utah State and Washington State and head coach at Whitman College and Washington University-St. Louis.

Read more here:

Ken Woody X's and O's: Expect a competitive game between Oregon and Oregon State - The Register-Guard

At some point, you've probably come across the term culture war. It describesa battle of perceptions, a fight between two seemingly phantom sides about what society is, what it should be, and whats threatening it. Its a phenomenon conceived inand, for the most part,fought in America.

But avid readers of newspaper op-eds or social media in Britain could be forgiven for thinking it is just as present herethat we are equally polarised on the issues that are shoehorned into culture warssuch as trans rights, climate change and overseas aid as people in the United States.

Except, actually, it's not.

There is a tendency in the media to import US social and political discourse, just as we import so much else. But this doesnt always come with the necessary translation. The number of times culture war has been mentioned in UK publications has rocketed since the election of Donald Trump, and so too have the "hot takes".

Mentions of "culture war" in UK publications have surged since the election of Donald Trump

Index of "culture war" mentions in British English publications since 2010 (100 = 2010).

Google Books Ngram Viewer

But while it is one thing to assume a UK audience might be interested in the cultural and political issues gripping America, its quite another to assume they will respond to them in the same way. Something that vexes Trumpian Republicans might not incense supporters of Boris Johnsons Conservative Party.

British audiences are, for example, often assumed to have precisely the same sensitivities to the racial issues being fought over in America, but in some instances, this isn't true. The furore over the singer Adele wearing her hair in Bantu knots for the Notting Hill Carnival was American-led (the artist was accused of cultural appropriation by US journalist Ernest Owens), and when discussed in Britain, largely synthetic. As Helen Lewis writes for theAtlantic, when LBC, TalkRadio and the BBC sought to give oxygen to the debate over whether Adele was engaging in cultural appropriation, very few black Britons came on to profess outrage (shadow justice secretary David Lammy, for instance,went in the opposite direction), or to support Owens.

[see also:First Thoughts: How Suzanne Moore split the Guardian]

The assumption, nonetheless, persists; and some campaigns have already been fought on the basis that if a culture war doesnt already exist here, it can be made to do so. For example, Dominic Cummings, the former chiefaide to the Prime Ministerhas,along with the administration he served, been identified by reportersand commentators as an instigatorin importing culture war issues to UK election campaigns. Recent plans to simplify the process for changing your legal gender for instance, were shelved in June, and werebilled by the Sunday Times asa move to fuel a culture war "gripping" Britain.The purpose? To retain and bolster Conservative support at the ballot box.

But for that strategy to work and talk of a UK culture war to have resonance the country must at least be willing to entertain and be enthused by it. But the evidence so far suggests that when compared to America, Britons are far less likely to be exercisedabout the issues that make culture war the political soccer ball it is across the Atlantic.

Take gay rights, for example. Though overwhelmingly supported in both the UK and US, the share of Britons who believe homosexuality should be accepted is significantly higher than the numbersin America.In 2002, just over half (51 per cent) of the US population believed homosexuality should be accepted by society. That number has since risen to 72 per cent.In the UK, 74 per cent were accepting of homosexuality in 2002, and the figure now stands at 86 per cent. That is a gap between the US and UK of 14 percentage points.

What about transgender rights? The issue is, to a great many voters in the US, a sensitive one, and unlike gay rights, support for trans rights doesntcommand cross-party approval.Data from Pew Research, a Washington think tank, shows Americans are divided on the subject along partisan lines. Just 19 per cent of those who identify with or lean to the Republican Party say a man or a woman can bedifferent from their assigned gender that trans people do, in essence, exist. YouGovreportedsimilar findings when itasked Republicans whether trans women were women.

But what about British voters? Compare those figures to thepartisan divides in the UK, and the difference is stark.

US Republicans appear a lot more likely than UK Conservative and Leave voters to regard a trans woman as a man

YouGov polling conducted in 2018 (UK) and 2019 (US). Questions posed, although they should be noted as similar, are nonetheless different.

What we see here is a greater level of nuance in the UK on trans rights. While right-leaning respondents in Britain are still more sceptical on the issue than those on the left, there is less unanimity than in the US. Even if you were to substitute Conservative voters for those whobacked Leave in the 2016 EU referendum, those sharp American dividing lines are simply not there.

The main pointis that if the culture war was wielded in Britain with reference to trans rights, it would do little to unite the body of voters already supportive of the cause, nor would itspeak to existing prejudices in the same way thatit does in America.

But a culture war isnt only about trans rights. In Britain it could mean something else a battle between two distinct identities, perhaps.

Since the 2016 referendum, the growth in the new tribal allegiances of Leave and Remain could provide the basis for such an ideological divide: a battle between perceptions of how the country is and how it should be.

In 2019, the fight between Get Brexit Done and whatever forgettable messaging the opposition parties produced could be interpreted as a strand of culture war, but its unlikely to go further than that. Theres very little that pits Leave and Remain voters against one another aside from the perception they are opposedand, obviously, Brexit. Pluralities on both sides believe in and are concerned by climate change. Both sides favour increased funding for the NHS, and Leave voters arent even wholly united on one of the key drivers of the Brexit vote: immigration.

[see also:Keir Starmer must expose the governments shortcomings on Brexit]

One subject that does divide opinion along Leave/Remain lines is that ill-defined phrase political correctness.

What political correctness actually means is irrelevant to voters. What it represents depends on which side of the fence you sit. To some, it is a clampdown on the ability to say what you like. To others, it is a necessary protection from prejudice and hate.

A culture war could be fought on this divide. Butit isnt, and the battlelines would in any case actually be quite hard to draw. Even here there is nuance: the overwhelming majority of Britons, for instance,agree that political correctness sometimes goes too far and exceeds common sense. Theres majority agreement, too including plurality support from Labour voters that political correctness is employed as a smokescreen to avoid necessary discussion ofissues such as societal integration.

Vast majority of Britons agree political correctness sometimes goes too far

Opinium polling conducted in 2019

Where there is disagreementand where the country is seemingly split down the middle is on whether political correctness is a price worth paying for a more equal society, and whether it even helps to create a better society.

Trying to use this as a wedge issue in a UK culture war would be, at best, extremely risky. The messaging would have to be far too nuanced. A Conservative campaign that went hard on political correctness would likely inflame the passions of as many voters as it would alienate. There was, after all, a reason why the Vote Leave campaign only chose to focusimmigration in the final few weeks of the 2016 race. It was because itrightly recognised that the coalition of votes needed to get to 50 per cent plus one was just that: a coalition, and not a band of Ukip-supporting hardliners.

This isnt to say a culture war couldnt take rootin the UK. It could. But if it did, it wouldnt resemble that in the US, and norwould it look anything like what we see on social media. The number of Britons fighting these culture wars and who are vexed by them ishugely unrepresentative of the wider electorate. A minority (22 per cent, BSA 2015)of Britons use Twitter, and in 2017, those Britons on Twitter who were Conservative supporters were outnumbered two-to-one by those that supported Labour. A recent More In Common study found that though 15 per cent of Britons were prone to sharing political content online, those numbers were not nationally representative, for they skewed overwhelmingly in favour of those identified as "progressive activists".

Social media is unrepresentative in the extreme: it is full of activists arguing politics with activists, convinced those other activists are representative of the rest of Britain.

As Bobby Duffy of Kings College Londonnotes, the rhetoric of political leaders plays a huge role in whether a culture war can exist. For it to work in Britain, wed need mainstream leaders willing to entertain it, and entertain it both for a prolonged period and in a way that can resonate.

[see also:Why some Conservatives are nervous about making the next election a culture war]

When Boris Johnson, shortly after he had resigned asforeign secretary, described veiled Muslim women as resembling "letterboxes" in a Telegraph column, we were, perhaps, given insight into how a culture war may play out in Britain. With condemnation from all corners even from sections of his own party, it was a subject that, according to aSky Datapoll, split the country down the middle:45 per cent said Johnson should have apologised, while 48 per cent said that he shouldn't.

Culture war,if waged from a leadership or prominent position, as Johnson did, may just work in the UK. But theissues on which it would be fought do not come top in the list of priorities of UK voters. Culture war in Britain has, so far, been waged mostly on the sidelines.Its the reserve ofprovocateurs, of which the UK when compared to America has few,and by fringe parties and groups on social media and in newspaper op-eds. In 2017, it wasnt the Conservative or Labour parties fighting over the burqa in Britain, for instance, but Ukip and the Green Party.

The conditions to create a culture war are there, but thewill to make it so and the appetitefrom the wider British publicare not.

Read the original here:

Is the UK in the clutches of a culture war? - New Statesman

I listened in the other day while my wife read a Thanksgiving story to our grandchildren. It was the traditional story with Pilgrims and Squanto and a shared dinner. Then, the book was published in 1973 before political correctness was running amok.

This book, The Pilgrims First Thanksgiving by Ann McGovern, paints an idyllic portrait of the first full year of the English settlement at Plymouth Rock. It is a look-back through rose-colored glasses, at least to an extent, but what is wrong with that?

Much of what we are taught in school about our history is presented in the best possible light in deference to our cultural heritage. Maybe it glosses over a few of the less reputable events in our past and focuses our attention on those which triumph our successes.

Does anyone really care if George Washington chopped down a cherry tree? It is his inherent honesty which is taught in the story, an honesty that served him and his country well.

It doesnt all have to score 100 percent on the historical accuracy scale to be worthwhile to teach to our children. There are moral principles involved and there is a fabric to be woven that unites us as Americans. It is what makes us exceptional as a people, a people united by a creed rather than any tribal affiliation.

When we teach our children these anecdotes, the point is that they learn the lesson intended lessons of moral rectitude, love of country and duty to neighbor. Heroes help us internalize these lessons by taking them to heart and incorporating them into our own character development.

Why not have as your hero George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or any other president? It sure beats Colin Kaepernick or the current rapster.

Does it really matter that the truth may be stretched somewhat? Or that no attempt is made to balance the good with some ex post facto evil dug from somewhere in the evanescent past? We dont need persistent moral equivocation in our legends. Judging those in the past by todays politically driven standards is neither intellectually honest nor helpful in unifying us around the core principles that define the United States of America.

Which brings to mind that iconic line from the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. We need more legends that uplift us rather than tear us down.

I know, the current spoil-sport mentality wants us to be in perpetual purgatory for all the sins our forefathers committed and for which we must atone over and over. Find a crack in the statue and it gets torn down regardless of the overarching good the subject did in his life. Perfection is the standard, but it is a postmodern subjective one that becomes more and more radicalized almost on a daily basis.

Enough already. No one can dwell on the negative all the time without becoming irredeemably negative about everything. How do we set an example for our children and grandchildren if all we do is criticize and complain? How do we as Americans, beneficiaries of the best experiment in self-government ever, set an example to a world that looks to us for hope?

This Thanksgiving, I am going to forget my disappointment with the recent election and my increasing concern about COVID so that my grandchildren can continue to look to me as a role model for how to live a life of contentment and thankfulness.

And Grandma will continue reading them wholesome, patriotic stories that honor family, neighbors, nation and God. And I really dont care how others will judge me for my 1950s naivete.

I will hold to my idealized vision of the first Thanksgiving, frolicking Pilgrim and Indian children playing while the adults shared what they had.

And theres another lesson to be learned. They shared of their own accord, without a massive government taxation system to redistribute the bounty. This came from their hearts, both Pilgrim and Indian.

Thats my story and Im sticking to it.

Mark Franke, an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review, is formerly an associate vice chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Visit link:

FRANKE: Yes, we can be thankful even now - Newsbug.info

No proof that theresno fraud

I find it both disingenuous and Orwellian that on Nov. 20, 2020, the local publication has the gumption, the ineptitude to sell this CNN line, when we know that a server in Germany has been raided and secured by the USA military belonging to Dominion and headquartered in Toronto, Canada, and offices in Denver.

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert reported that U.S. did raid and confiscate Scytl servers near Frankfort, Germany. Must be some smoke if the DOJ and German authorities would allow the raid, and confiscation. So much for zero proof No. 1.

How about zero No. 2: Not allowing bona fide poll watchers and canvassers to perform validations in dozens of voting polling centers (videos of these events are all over the internet). Now to zero No. 3: Certifications voided in Nevada, Michigan certification withheld because of major voting anomalies. Zero No. 4: DNC and their minions saying Trump is undermining our democratic system.

News flash! Media is not listed as the arbiter of certifying a presidential election, nor did I hear that same clap-trap when Gore took 37 days in his challenge of his presidential election attempt. So please, Tribune-Star, Vigo County and surrounding counties and our great state of Indiana overwhelmingly voted for President Donald J. Trump.

Like good wine the longer it ages with time the higher the proof. Good evidence, like good wine, needs time to develop,

Dominick DaCosta, Terre Haute

Bellwether status is not a big loss

So, Vigo County lost its bellwether status in the 2020 election. Because of their complexities, such phenomena can not be assigned a single cause. The following are interesting but perplexing examples of human behaviors limitations in shaping peoples world views and how that affects the elections:

1) South Dakota ER nurse recalls how dying coronavirus patients spent last minutes insisting virus isnt real (CNN, Nov. 16).

2) The Republican Party recognized that people can be persuaded to vote against their own pocket books by creating distractions like our religion, race, or nationality are under threat. For example, those leaders who protest extreme inequality are labeled as socialists or even communists because most people listening to them have no idea what those words mean. It is so easy for politicians to make such words un-Amercan.

3) Many people are unwilling to accept science in their rhetoric without realizing that in their daily lives they use electricity, indoor plumbing, drive cars using gasoline, etc., none of which would have been possible without discoveries of science.

4) Many people do not accept evolution. But they run to the doctor when faced with diseases like cancer or heart attack or other ailments. But they have no idea that the foundations of modern medicine are rooted in evolutionary biology. Their mental horizon is limited.

5) An opposite of Vigo County phenomenon was the news that President Trump comfortably carried Chaska, Minn., in 2016. This time, he lost by 9 percentage points a dramatic shift that similarly played out in suburban counties across the country.

6) Because of a supposed emphasis on political correctness rather than policy, Democratic Party was shunned by some whites. Democrats failed to convince those whites that treating all people fairly is the right thing to do.

7) Many first-generation Indians in America would love to get the benefits of the secular democracy in America but support BJP rule in India adopting not-so-secular policies in India. They love and support PM Modi and his Hindu Janta partys Hindutva agenda there. Fortunately, 70 percent of the younger generation Indians in America support democratic secular ideals.

Vigo Countys loss of bellwether status is disappointing, but no big deal.

Khwaja A. Hasan, Formerly of Terre Haute

The point is, mail ballots are bad

Mr. Editor, Im sure that most of your readers are not aware that you, not the writer, write the headlines for the letters published on your opinion page.

Consequently, I want to make them aware and to point out how you probably caused your readers to miss the important point of my recent letter.

The headline you wrote for my letter published on Nov. 23 was misleading in that it reads AG Hill should be praised for action. However the most important point of my letter was that mail-in ballots threaten the very legitimacy of our government.

I quote the key paragraph of my letter, Unless and until meaningful controls are placed on mail-in voting across the nation, there can be no faith in the results of our elections and therefore no legitimatepresident or government.

It will be interesting to see what headline you write for this letter.

Thomas B. Tucker, Terre Haute

The Tribune-Star is committed to publishing a diversity of opinions from readers in its Readers Forum. Wed like to hear what you think on any issue. Email us at opinion@tribstar.com.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more:

Readers' Forum Part 2, Nov. 28, 2020: No proof that there's no fraud - Terre Haute Tribune Star

TWO YOUNG men, Andreas Palmlov and Julian Kroon, sit in a bar swapping anecdotes about their native Sweden. The welfare system is so lax that an immigrant drew benefits while serving as the defence minister of Iraq. A lecturer was suspended because students complained that a lesson about fatherhood was heteronormative. And 1m kroner ($116,000) of taxpayers cash was lavished on art intended not for human eyes but those of birds and beetles.

Some of the details are disputed. The Iraqi politician, Najah al-Shammari, a Swedish citizen, denies committing benefit fraud. But stories like these help explain why Mr Palmlov and Mr Kroon are members of the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist party. They believe that Sweden is under threat: from immigrants who drain the welfare state, from radicals who undermine traditional values and from an establishment that stigmatises voices of common sense like their own.

Storytelling matters in politics. Voters remember a good yarn more easily than any statistic. And the Sweden Democrats tell a simple, emotive one: that non-European immigrants are ruining Sweden, and a left-wing government is letting them.

In 1988, when it was founded, the party was dismissed as a rabble of neo-Nazis. But since the 1990s it has purged overt racists and cleaned up its image. It gained momentum in 2015 when Sweden opened its doors to refugees, letting in over 160,000 (1.6% of the population), mostly from culturally distant places such as Syria and Afghanistan. The government mishandled the influx, showering the newcomers with handouts but making it hard for them to work. (For example, the de facto minimum wage in shops, hotels and restaurants is nearly 90% of the average wage in those industries, pricing newcomers who are still learning Swedish out of entry-level jobs.) The open-door policy was quickly reversed. But the sight of so many jobless Muslims lent credibility to the Sweden Democrats message. At an election in 2018, the party won 17.5% of the vote. To keep it out of power, mainstream parties have had to form unstable coalitions.

An upsurge in violence between ethnic gangs (see article) has given the Sweden Democrats another boost. The majority society is losing control over areas of Sweden, says Mattias Karlsson (pictured, with waistcoat), an MP and the partys unofficial chief ideologue. He wants to hire more police, pay them better and swiftly deport foreign criminals. When an Afghan commits a crime in Sweden, he says, human-rights people say we cant guarantee his safety in Afghanistan, so they let him out on the streets again.

An increase in recorded sex crimes is to a large extent cultural, says Mr Karlsson, noting that Sweden took in many refugees from sexist countries. Reality is more complicated. Sweden expanded its definition of rape in 2013, and counts it differently from other countries. If a woman says her boyfriend assaulted her daily for a year, Sweden records 365 offences; other countries might record only one. So the claim, common on alt-right websites, that immigration has made Sweden the rape capital of the world, is nonsense.

Still, crime rates among refugees really are higher than among native-born Swedes, partly because so many are jobless. Other parties approach the topic gingerly, for fear of sounding racist. The Sweden Democrats have no such hang-ups. We say what you think, is their slogan.

The party is planning for the long term. Its leaders swap notes with American Republicans. Mr Karlsson has set up a think-tank. Mr Kroon runs a fast-growing federation for students. Many are tired of political correctness, he says, and need a new home outside the opinion corridor of socially acceptable (ie, left-liberal) views.

At the national level, centre-right parties have resisted the temptation to cut a deal with the Sweden Democrats, though it would give them a swift path to power. But the taboo is fading. Local politicians have already taken the plunge. The Sweden Democrats enjoy power or a share of it in several towns, especially in the conservative south. Some of their local leaders are risibly incompetent. But others are eager to show that they are not scary and can handle the humdrum tasks of government.

The partys showcase is Solvesborg, a town of 17,000. The mayor, Louise Erixon, is the ex-partner of the partys national leader, Jimmie Akesson. She is popular, pro-business and unashamedly populist. She boasts of hiring more security guards, banning begging and barring visits to nursing homes to protect the elderly from covid-19. She favours drug tests in schools, and repatriation for immigrants who refuse to be a part of [Swedish] society. She accuses the mainstream parties of weakening good old Swedish togetherness. She is thought to have national ambitions.

Ms Erixon came to power thanks to a deal with the centre-right Moderate party, whose national leaders opposed it. But a local one, Emilie Pilthammar, went ahead, for bread-and-butter reasons. Ms Pilthammar says she wanted to bring down a cronyist left-wing administration, boost local business and provide more choice in child care. However she later fell out with Ms Erixon, who she says would give councillors only a few minutes to read key documents before making a decision on themsomething she says was bad for democracy. (Ms Erixon denies this.)

Mr Karlsson is very optimistic that the Sweden Democrats will gain a share of national power, perhaps after an election in 2022. Nils Karlson (no relation) of Ratio, a research institute, predicts that the centre-right will not join a formal coalition with them but might form a looser arrangement, whereby the Sweden Democrats consent to a centre-right government in exchange for policy concessions. That scares me a lot, he adds.

Meanwhile, the mainstream parties have all but adopted the Sweden Democrats policies on shutting out new refugees. Mattias Karlssons suggestion that Sweden does not send Afghans back to Afghanistan would come as news to Jacob (not his real name), who was deported last year. His claim to asylum appeared watertight: he arrived in Sweden as a 14-year-old orphan and a member of a persecuted minority. He had fled Afghanistan after his father disappeared (and was probably murdered by the Taliban). He has studied hard, learned Swedish and stayed out of trouble. He is now back in Kabul taking maths classes. Yesterday when I was in school, a rocket exploded outside. And again today. Its hard, he says. The Swedish family who took him in while he was in Sweden, the Winbergs, have found him a permanent job at a trendy vegetarian restaurant in Stockholm. In theory, he should get a work visa and be allowed to return. But Hans Winberg, an academic, frets that the government is doing everything it can to keep refugees out. The climate has changed, he says. This is painful to me as a Swede. But many Swedes welcome it.

This article appeared in the Europe section of the print edition under the headline "On their way in"

View post:

How long will Swedens nationalists be excluded from power? - The Economist

He's the psychology professor turned anti-PC poster boy with a huge cult following. But Jordan Peterson's life has been filled with tragedy.

When Jordan Peterson landed on Australian soil last February he was at the top of his game, with a hit book, a thriving YouTube channel and millions of adoring fans to his name.

But within weeks, the self-proclaimed "Professor Against Political Correctness" and rock star psychologist's life would fall spectacularly apart.

Peterson, whose 2018 book "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos" has sold more than three million copies worldwide, had until that point made headlines with almost every move and comment.

But he all but disappeared from public life soon after his Australian tour.

His daughter recently confirmed he had been privately battling some serious demons.

The 58-year-old is a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Toronto.

He has amassed an incredible online following of 3.26 million YouTube subscribers.

But he has also emerged as one of the most divisive public figures in recent times.

While supporters fawn over his no-nonsense advice and refusal to cave into the demands of political correctness, sceptics accuse him of a raft of sins.

27 Nov, 2020 06:38 PMQuick Read

28 Nov, 2020 11:01 AMQuick Read

26 Nov, 2020 11:14 PMQuick Read

27 Nov, 2020 05:55 PMQuick Read

A staff member at his publisher, Penguin Random House Canada, recently told Vice he was "an icon of hate speech and transphobia" and "an icon of white supremacy".

He's made a name for himself by railing against everything from feminism to social justice warriors and preaching about the need to take responsibility for your own actions.

But while right-wing fans have flocked to his straight-talking ways, he's become an enemy of many on the left.

He's back in the spotlight after a lengthy absence after the announcement his next book, "Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life", to be released in March 2021 led to a revolt among publishing staff.

Peterson's lengthy absence sparked a flurry of speculation.

The mystery was finally solved in a confronting YouTube update from him and daughter Mikhaila earlier this year.

He confirmed that his life began to unravel after his beloved wife Tammy, who he had known since childhood, was diagnosed in 2019 with an aggressive form of kidney cancer with "a near 100 per cent fatality rate".

As he struggled to cope with the tragic news, Peterson requested his doctor increase his dosage of benzodiazepine, a medication commonly taken to treat anxiety and insomnia which he had been taking since 2016 after he and his family fell ill after a meal.

Peterson, who has depression, claims he began to experience extreme symptoms including an inability to sleep, and took the drugs as prescribed without experiencing any "high".

But he also soon began to experience "a feeling of detachment from people around me", which especially affected his relationship with his son, Julian.

After his dosage was upped following his wife's diagnosis, Peterson had a rare reaction: the drug increased the anxiety it was supposed to treat.

That led him to ditch the benzodiazepine in favour of ketamine, before he quit both drugs at the same time.

It didn't go well, and Peterson then developed akathisia, a condition which can cause restlessness, mental distress and an inability to sit still.

"It was like being jabbed with something like a cattle prod, something electric, sharp, non-stop, for all the hours I was awake," he said in his YouTube update.

"I couldn't sit or lay down or stop moving. And even if I did get up and move, it wasn't like that made it better, I just couldn't stop it was horrible, it's like being whipped.

"It sounds melodramatic, but I think if I had to pick whipping or akathisia a cat-o'-nine-tails, that might be worse, but it was plenty bad. And things just fell apart more and more."

In November 2019, Peterson entered a rehab centre in New York but after that failed, he flew to Russia for emergency treatment, where he was diagnosed with pneumonia and spent eight days in a medically-induced coma.

The process was brutal, but Peterson began to recover, moving to a clinic in Florida and then Belgrade before being struck down by coronavirus.

In short, it has been an almost unbelievable series of horrendous circumstances that totally derailed the Peterson family's lives and from which they are still recovering.

Peterson's recovery is still very much a work in progress, and whether or not he'll return to public life to the same extent as before is still up in the air.

And apart from the physical and emotional trauma, there's also the question of how Peterson's image will recover. He freely acknowledges his drug dependence as "ethically questionable".

"Because you think, well, the person obviously made some errors in choice that contributed to this," he said.

"Like, why would anyone take anything I say seriously?"

But Peterson has also been inundated with support from loyal followers after the frank admission.

And he is unlikely to sit on the sidelines for long, provided his health continues to improve.

In his own words: "I guess what I would say is if you're going to wait to learn from people who don't make mistakes, or don't have tragedy in their life "

Read more:

Inside the private struggles of controversial author Jordan Peterson - New Zealand Herald

Just imagine the outcry, especially from the BBC if this had been done by an organisation such as the Daily Mail or the Sun.The BBC would have been all over the story like a rash, and I have no doubt the Today programme would have segments about the dangers/lack of accountability of tabloid journalism.This is a really serious issue for the BBC and quite clearly drives a coach and horse through its claim that it is a responsible public service broadcaster and somehow more special than every other media outlet.

I am hopeful that the Parliamentary inquiry will bring the facts to light and punish those who were aware of this manipulation especially as Bashir has since become BBC News Religion Editor. This inquiry should include recommendations and suggested reforms that this sort of sordid journalism never happens again.

Since taking his post, I have been quite impressed with Tim Davies instincts for reform. Unlike some of his predecessors, he seems to understand some of the problems the BBC has in terms of connecting with people around the country including over the Brexit coverage.

I believe he is the best hope for the BBC and perhaps the only person who can save it from its current form. I think one of the first tests of his willingness to fight against the metropolitan establishment and stay true to the course he has charted is how he polices his social media policy. Unfortunately, the early indications are not great but I am a fair minded person and he will need time.

Another area that I would like to see Davie address is the ongoing BBC obsession with onscreen diversity quotas. I am very critical of diversity quotas and all the rest of it, I believe it is part of the political correctness agenda that alienates huge swathes of the population.

By scrapping all onscreen diversity quotas targets the BBC might start the process of reconnecting with the population. However, I think this is unlikely, as there is too big a lobby in the BBC and media generally for this sort of politically correct rubbish for him to succeed.

This will make the BBC less and less popular as people will continue to believe that the BBC is far more interested in PC matters than fulfilling its role as a public service broadcaster. The BBC would do far better if they focussed more on recruiting people with diverse opinions than looking at shallow physical characteristics.

I am not anti-BBC and I want it to thrive, but I do believe that it is not fit for purpose. In particular the licence fee system is an anachronistic mess. It may have made sense when the BBC was the only provider and a levy ensured that there would be content available.

However, if the BBC was set up now, it would never be introduced there are plenty of channels available that provide just the same or better. Moreover, you have to pay the fee to watch any and all live TV, even if you never watch the BBC which is a frankly outrageous situation.

Additionally, I am not in favour of people being compelled to pay for the licence fee, especially if they do not want to watch the BBC. I would like to see the BBC in the real world as a commercial broadcaster.

It would be far better for the organisation in the long term. The BBC has a huge global brand recognition so if it could tap into subscribers around the world it could carry on functioning, likely with a far better income then now, and everyone would be happy.

Those who want to access it and can and will pay, and no-one is forced to.

How can it be a controversial point to say if I dont watch the BBC I dont want to pay for it. This seems like a statement of the obvious and yet it is so contentious for the liberal elite. It is abundantly clear that the Licence Fee has had its day and is losing public support. The BBC can fight the inevitable or it can embrace the truth and optimise revenues with more freedom for better journalism.

After all, if the BBC and the licence fee are as popular as their proponents claim the BBC has nothing to fear from a subscription system as presumably people will queue up around the block to pay for such a wonderful value for money broadcaster that everyone enjoys watching.

Read the original post:

BBC is not fit for purpose and the licence fee is a mess, blasts Philip Davies - Daily Express

Former US President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wave to the crowd at the end of a drive-in campaign rally at Northwestern High School on October 31, 2020, in Flint, Mich. (Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

In 2008, Barack Obama was widely described as having built a game-changing political coalition: young people, racial and ethnic minorities, educated professionals, urban and suburban voters. He was held to have built an innovative campaign infrastructure, leveraging big data and social media in an unprecedented way, increasing turnout and Democratic vote share with constituencies that are typically underrepresented at the ballot box.

All of this was thought to not only benefit Obama but also the party writ large. Indeed, in the wake of the 2008 election, Democrats had won the presidency and consolidated their hold over both chambers of Congress. At the state level, they held governorships in 29 states and controlled both chambers in 27 state legislatures. For contrast, Republicans controlled just 14 state legislatures and 21 governorships.

Many went so far as to believe that the Obama coalition heralded the arrival of a long-prophesied enduring Democratic majority in US politics. They were wrong.

In 2010, Democrats lost control of the House in the most sweeping congressional reversal in 62 years. They also saw huge losses in state legislatures, which allowed Republicans to control the decennial post-Census redistricting to an unprecedented degree.a democratic majority?

In 2014, Democrats would go on to lose the Senate. And of course, two years later, they would lose the presidency as well. The party saw massive losses in state contests too. As Trump assumed office in 2016, Republicans controlled both chambers of the US Congress, both chambers in 32 state legislatures, and held 33 governorships.

Under Trump, the GOP would come to dominate the courts too. Roughly one-quarter of all active federal judges are Trump appointees. Republicans were also able to place three Supreme Court justices over the course of Trumps termleaving a 6-3 conservative majority that is likely to endure for some time.

Fortunately, parties virtually always lose seats in the House during their inaugural midterms. The GOP was no exception in 2018. Although the Republican Partys losses were almost exactly average for an inaugural midterm, it was enough to flip the House to the Democrats.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In 2020, another key win: Joe Biden managed to unseat Donald Trump and is poised to assume the presidency in January 2021. Yet the Democratic Party finds itself in an overall weaker position than before the election.

Democrats lost seats in the Houseputting them on track to lose the chamber outright in 2022. They may fail to take control of the Senate. They lost one governorship. The Democratic Party also saw continued erosion in state legislatures, leaving the GOP in a dominant position once again with respect to post-Census redistricting. According to FiveThirtyEight estimates, Republicans will control redistricting for roughly 43 percent of the seats in the House. Democrats will have comparable control over a mere 17 percent of seats. This is no small loss, as these maps will govern elections through 2030.

In short, although Barack Obama was fond of describing himself and his allies as being on the right side of historyand implying that his opponents were consigned to its dustbinhistory seems to have had other ideas. But whatever happened to the Obama coalition? What went wrong with the emerging Democratic majority?

To help answer this question, I compared Democrat and Republican vote shares for various groups over the past 16 years. One thing that struck me looking at exit poll dataespecially comparing the margins between Democrats and Republicans across time for different constituenciesis that parabolas seemed to emerge in the data over and over again. The numbers would go up or down significantly, only to return to some historical baseline. Visualizing the data confirmed this suspicion.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

For African Americans, racial others, Protestants, and non-religious people, the trajectory was a consistent decline in allegiance to the Democratic Party from 2008 through 2020culminating in a return to their 2004 levels of support.

However, some groups followed a slightly different path to this same destination. For instance, Democrats saw declines with whites, men, senior citizens (voters 65 and older) and rural voters to below their 2004 baselines over the course of the Obama and Trump administrations, but their margins shifted back to their pre-Obama positions in 2020.

Across the board, however, the entire Obama and Trump administrations essentially ended in an electoral wash with all of these groups.

For others, 2008 seemed to remain a key focal pointand any changes after 2008 seemed to have been erased by the end of this cycle. For example, Hispanics, Asians, and Catholics shifted still further toward the Democrats after 2008. However, virtually all of these gains have been erased in the intervening years as well.

The silver lining is that while the declines among Hispanic and Asian voters have been significant over the last eight years, Democrats margins with these voters remain significantly above the pre-Obama period. Of course, it is conceivable that the party could see continued losses with Hispanics, Asians, and Catholics down the linebut for now, their margins have merely shifted to their 2008 levels.

Others followed the opposite trajectory. For instance, women moved slightly toward the GOP in 2012, but shifted back towards the Democrats over the next two cycles. Meanwhile, city-dwellers, Catholics, voters aged 3064, and those with some college (but no degree) all shifted significantly toward the GOP from 2008 through 2016. However, they all returned to nearly their 2008 baselines this election.

Movements in LGBTQ vote share, on the other hand, are highly unusual as compared to most other groups. Rather than reacting to the arrival of Obama or Trump on the political scene, LGBTQ voters seem to be responding to different factors than the rest of the electorate.

Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.

In any case, from the data we have explored so far, it may seem difficult to understand how Biden could have won in 2020. Yes, Democrats roughly matched their 2008 vote share with many groups. However, they ended up in a worse position with a number of core constituencies, including whites, African Americans, racial others, and LGBTQ voters.

Democrats margins for those earning less than $30k per year also continued dropping every year from 2008 through 2020. Obama won these voters by 33 percentage points in 2008. By 2020, Democrats lead was down to 8 points.

Fortunately, many other voters seem to have been so alienated by Trump that they shifted significantly toward the Democratic Party from 2016 through 2020.

Middle-income earners ($50,00099,000 per year), suburbanites, and college grads all moved dramatically away from the GOP under Trump. This should not be particularly surprising, as these voters more than others value things like decorum, civility, and political correctness. They want the president to be presidential. Trump clearly was not.

But of course, to the extent that aesthetics drove these defections, many could end up shifting back to the GOP were the party to put someone more respectable on the ballot down the line. Indeed, voters earning $100k per year were initially so put off by Trump that they shifted toward Democrats in 2016 to a degree that was without recent historical precedent. However, by 2020 they were back to voting their pocketbooks, supporting Trump at roughly the same levels they supported Mitt Romney in 2012. Post-Trump, the whole constellation of bourgeois voters could follow suit.

Similar dynamics seem to be at work with respect to moderate and Independent voters.

Democrats 2020 margin with independents was their best for any presidential cycle on record, going back to 1972 (when these records begin). Overall, it was the largest margin among independents that either party has won in a presidential cycle since 1984. Their margins with moderates were also historicnot just among Democrats, but for either partygoing all the way back to 1972.

However, given that these voters are not firm partisans, many seem to have voted for GOP candidates down-ballotleading to a situation where Biden won the presidency by at least 6 million votes even as his party saw significant losses in congressional and state races. In future cycles, it is likely many of these moderate and independent voters will cast ballots for a Republican president as well. They clearly seem to have been rejecting Trump rather than embracing the Democratic Party.

Young people, meanwhile, increasingly drifted from the Democratic Party over the course of the Obama administration. However, in apparent reaction to Trump, a new generation began to support the Democrats more robustly. The party even slightly exceeded Obamas 2008 margins during the 2018 midterms. However, it seems that young people were uninspired by Biden: Democratic vote share with 18-to-29-year-old voters has already begun to significantly decline.

In short, many of the groups that were key to Bidens 2020 victory do not seem to be part of an enduring coalition. They sought to oust Trump. With that accomplished, a large share are likely to shift back to the GOP in coming cycles.

Indeed, this is precisely what happened after 2008. Suburbanites, middle-income earners and college-educated voters were widely described as core constituents of the Obama coalition. However, this assumption was premature. As the chart above shows, all of these groups shifted significantly toward the Republicans after Obama took officeand continued to favor the GOP through the rest of his tenure. That is, although these voters did indeed shift toward Democrats in 2008, they did not seem to be big fans of the Obama administration in subsequent years. They could well respond to Biden in kind.

Democrats, then, find themselves in a precarious position. Many of the constituencies held to be central to the Obama coalition have been drifting away from the party. Even under Trump, Democrats erosion among minority voters has continued unabated. They are seeing consistent attrition among people of faith toonot just with Christians, but also Muslims, Jews and other believers. The energy the party built with young people in 2018 already seems to be fading. However, Democrats have not pulled in new constituencies to offset the declining allegiance of these voters. Instead, many of those who helped Democrats pull off wins in 2018 and 2020 seem likely to migrate back toward the GOP when Trump is no longer on the ballot.

I know, I know. 2020 has been a rough year. And Joe Bidens win was understandably, for many, a rare moment of light.

But the truth of the matter is, now that the Resistance has won, its not clear how the center will hold. There isnt really a Biden coalition to speak of. There is just the husk of the Obama coalition, unlikely to carry the party much further than it already hasplus a mlange of swing voters who didnt particularly love the Obama-Biden administration and likely wont be thrilled with the Biden-Harris administration either.

That is, in the absence of Trump, Democrats seem to be on the verge of an identity crisisand possibly an electoral crisis as well. Who the party was against was obvious over the past four years. But what is the party actually for? For that matter, who is the party for? Resolving these questionsnot just in principle but in practicewill be a messy affair in the coming months and years. Not everyone is going to like the answers.

Read more:

Democrats No Longer Have a Coalition - The Nation