Category Archives: Populism

MIAMI Some of the biggest names on the right, from mega-donor Peter Thiel to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, flew to South Florida to address a conference of national conservatives who have steadily gained sway in the GOP in recent years.

On the surface, the National Conservatism Conference held Sunday through Tuesday at the JW Marriott Turnberry Resort and Spa looked like an attempt to appeal to the Republican Party's right-wing base, with a heavy focus on Christian nationalism, curbing immigration and battling woke politics. But veteran GOP operatives saw a second conference just below the surface: a play for money.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at a rally in August. (Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The continuing realignment of the Republican base and its supporters, which has kept political professionals supremely confused about what exactly Americas political right is at the moment. (The only constant seems to be that neoconservatives, who held the reins of the party and the conservative movement for decades, seem almost entirely boxed out.)

In Miami, a broad array of old conservative battlers and new, authoritarian-tinged activists, shared stages as part of an effort to apply an intellectual structure to the sprawling brand of Trumpist populism that swept the right seven years ago.

Thiel, the money man behind much of the new right, compared California to communist China and berated the scourge of literal homeless poop which has beset his home state of California in a speech arguing that the flood of tech money into California had distorted the nations politics by giving the state outsized influence in national debates.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the likely heir apparent of this brand of Trumpism, seized the crowd touting his fight against COVID-19 vaccines, gender reassignment surgery for minors and the Disney Corp. Most of DeSantiss positions are longstanding hallmarks of the right, but DeSantis dressed them in rigid language, declaring himself the protector of the states freedom and the states security.

Story continues

Supporters of former US President Donald Trump gather near his residence at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Aug. 9. (Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images)

And Balasz Orban, the top adviser to Hungarys authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban, who has become a hero to the hard right in recent years, said that woke globalists were brainwashing children. He also said that the Wests economic sanctions against Russia for its war against Ukraine has Europe down on its knees, alluding to rising gas prices.

But behind the scenes, top Republicans corralled with donors from this South Florida enclave of Republican money.

Blake Masters, a Thiel protg whos running for a Senate seat in Arizona, was added at the last minute to headline a closed-door fundraiser for the NatCon crowd.

And National Senatorial Republican Committee Chairman Rick Scott, whos tasked with helping Republicans try to win back the chamber, spent Sunday afternoon at the luxurious Miami resort meeting with donors, including Claremont Institute chairman and Republican mega donor Tom Klingenstein, before his Sunday night speech.

Weve actually done really well, Scott told Yahoo News. After taking over the National Republican Senatorial Committee in January 2021, we said were going to raise money, define our opponents early, Scott told Yahoo News afterward.

Trump supporters at a rally in Sarasota, Fla., July 3. (Paul Hennessy/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

A New York Times investigation of the NRSCs digital fundraising operation under Scott sparked cries that Scott was more interested in promoting himself than the Senate Republican candidates. But a spokesman for Scott refuted those concerns.

Scott has been pulling in top Florida donors to the NRSC since he took over and has also flipped spending plans, with the NRSC spending more earlier in the year ahead of the November midterm elections, leaving more money for candidates and outside groups to spend closer to election day, NRSC communications director Chris Hartline said.

The reality is this has worked, despite all the pissing and moaning from Washington, Hartline told Yahoo News.

Far from the most well-known of the conservative conferences, like the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which has turned into something of a comic-con for far-right activists and podcast celebrities, the NatCon conference felt more subdued and restrained.

Washington Republican operatives and longtime conservative think tank leaders, like National Conservative Conference chairman Chris DeMuth, mingled with conservative media outlets, Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish leaders from South Florida and college students.

JD Vance, Republican Senate candidate in Ohio. (Gaelen Morse/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In his speech, Thiel called the gathering a ragtag band of rebels which he equated to Star Wars. (Thiel dubbed himself the Han Solo of the group and former President Donald Trump Obi-Wan Kenobi. In the original Star Wars films, Obi-Wan is an ever-present apparition guiding the group but not controlling it.)

Its donors, Zionists and a nerd prom, said one veteran Republican operative as he watched from the sidelines. The operative and other veteran Republicans speaking on background said the conference felt more like a play to peel donors from CPAC, which is increasingly seen as a singular extension of longtime operative and CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp.

Schlapp told Yahoo News the chatter and sniping didnt bother him and that he likes what he sees from the Miami conference. The more generals on the field, the better, he said.

Read the original here:

In Miami, the post-Trump populist right speaks to its base and courts donors - Yahoo News

So, its finally over. Boris Johnson has resigned as UK prime minister, following an absurd few days in Westminster as he tried to cling on to power while ministerial resignations piled up around him. In the end, it fell to Nadhim Zahawi the man Johnson had hastily appointed chancellor just a day and a bit earlier to strike the final blow, calling on the man whod just promoted him to resign. And so Johnson has gone, with a typically breezy speech outside Downing Street, just two-and-a-half years after he secured a historic mandate to get Brexit done and shake up a complacent, disdainful metropolitan elite.

What a two-and-a-half years it has been, complete with plague, penury and war in Europe. But for all the horrors of recent times and for all Johnsons many mistakes in office his tenure will remain a landmark moment in the struggle for British democracy. His Brexit deal may have been imperfect. Britain may remain lumbered with its own homegrown oligarchy and anti-democratic institutions. But in rescuing the Brexit vote from the clutches of a Remainer Parliament, in reminding the elites who ultimately rules in a democracy, and in dealing a blow to a treacherous Labour leadership that had betrayed working-class Brexit voters, Johnsons 2019 election did democracy a great service.

That election changed Britain forever. You could feel it in the air. After a bitter interregnum following the 2016 Brexit vote, in which a furious political class tried to cancel the biggest electoral bloc in history, the peoples will had finally prevailed. Working-class voters, long ignored by the ruling class and their own Labour Party, made themselves matter first by voting Brexit and then by taking a chance on a Tory promising to get Brexit done. The Conservatives succeeded in bulldozing the Red Wall by recognising that the Brexit vote was not a demand for a more xenophobic or inward-looking Britain, but a more democratic Britain. On top of finally implementing Brexit, they pledged to review the role of the House of Lords, prerogative powers, the courts and the Human Rights Act in dampening democratic decision-making. Johnson dubbed his government the peoples government. While he has fallen well short of his lofty rhetoric, he saw which way the wind was blowing. Voters wanted to take back control, and not just from Brussels.

These are the populist sentiments that put Johnson into No10. Which is why the slow replacement of that so-called peoples government by a kind of Tudor court was so sickening. Following the departure of Dominic Cummings hardly a radical democrat himself, but at least a weirdo with a plan Downing Street increasingly became a den of airheaded Sloane Rangers jostling for position. From former No10 policy chief Munira Mirza to former Brexit negotiator David Frost, those around Johnson who had real stature and an understanding of the mandate they had received walked away as the governments position on everything from the culture wars to Covid became increasingly reactive and incoherent. Meanwhile, from Owen Paterson to Partygate to Chris Pincher, firefighting one scandal after another began to paralyse Downing Street.

Without question, a media sent mad by Brexit and Boris exploited every scandal going to try to bring the government down. The cynicism of it all was stunning. So much so that Alastair Campbell the man who helped lie us into a disastrous, barbarous war became TVs go-to authority on the subject of truth and standards in public life. But Downing Streets ineptitude, its bullshitting and its inability to take a position and stick to it poured fuel on every fire. Meanwhile, with Brexit and the vaccine rollout behind us, the government increasingly had nothing to show for itself. Voters want their wishes enacted and their interests defended. Parties and pinching would mean much less if the government also had a programme that commanded support. But in the end it didnt. To the extent that the government had a coherent programme at all, it was increasingly set against the interests of working-class people. Net Zero, a campaign for mass impoverishment, was perhaps the prime example.

In his final, bunkered hours, Johnson began to resemble his worst caricature: a wannabe world king clinging on to power for its own sake. Despite losing the confidence of his backbenchers, his ministers and the public, he insisted he had to deliver for those who voted for him, despite increasingly forgetting who his voters are and what precisely he was supposed to be delivering to them. In the end, for all the scandal-mongering and talk of the most evil and mad PM ever, Johnsons government came to resemble so many that came before it a bitchy, ideas-lite administration that could only galvanise support by talking up the fear of the alternative. What an insult to those voters who took a chance on the Tories in 2019. They wanted Brexit to be implemented and for a different kind of politics one that paid more attention to them than the SW1 set. And it all ended in the mother of all Westminster soap operas, penned by the PMs own idiocy and ineptitude.

Johnson had to go. He proved himself a dreadful vessel for the populist spirit he briefly courted. He became a block to the project of deepening the democratic revolt of 2016. But we should be open-eyed about what lies ahead. Following Johnsons resignation, all the usual ghouls are circling. If Boris goes, Brexit goes, is their unofficial slogan, coined by Tory Europhile Michael Heseltine. Boris Johnsons reign ends in disgrace, just like his friend Donald Trump. The end of an era of transatlantic populism? Lets hope so, tweets Belgian Remoaner pin-up Guy Verhofstadt. They all spy in Johnsons demise an opportunity to undo not just our exit from the European Union, but also the principles Brexit represented that the people are sovereign, that citizens should shape their nation, and that those in power must be accountable to us and sackable by us.

Well, theyre in for a shock. Brexit was always bigger than Boris Johnson. In conflating the two, Johnson diehards and Remoaners make the same mistake. Indeed, Johnson went into 2019 a deeply unpopular candidate. Even many Leavers were suspicious of him. In the end, voters took a chance on him because they wanted Brexit and a more democratic politics. The idea that Johnsons failures in office and the caterwauling of his critics have convinced them of the error of their ways and the brilliance of technocracy is absurd. The pandemic has if anything offered us a neat demonstration of how, clever though they are, experts dont always know best, and that doom-mongering models be they about Covid cases or the post-Brexit economy often arent worth the paper theyre printed on. This is why experts should advise, but never rule.

We must remain vigilant against any attempt to reverse the democratic gains of the post-Brexit era. But those who think Brexit will just disappear with Boris clearly havent been paying attention. The Brexit vote has to some extent rewired our political class. No one could now win a Tory leadership race, let alone an election, pledging to undo Brexit. Even the Labour Party now has to at least pretend that it has accepted it. Earlier this week, Keir Starmer through gritted teeth ruled out taking the UK back into the Single Market or Customs Union. No one believes Starmer or Tory Remainers for that matter when they pose as born-again Brexiteers. But the fact that they now have to pose as being okay with Brexit is, in its own way, remarkable.

None of this will stop the vengeful old regime from trying to reassert itself, of course. But they will have a fight on their hands. As we see across the pond, populism isnt going anywhere. Even the demise of Trump in 2020 a far more flawed populist tribune than Johnson, to put it lightly and the return of the adults in the form of Joe Biden has not stemmed the populist tide. If anything, new battlegrounds have been opened up, with parents leading a fightback against woke educationalists and toppling Democrats who give in to critical race theory.

Boris Johnson may be gone, but the British people still rule. Its now the job of any democrat to make sure that those spurned elites, those desperate to see the post-2016 era die with Johnsons premiership, are proven wrong once again. The world king is dead, long live populism.

Tom Slater is editor of spiked. Follow him on Twitter: @Tom_Slater_

Read the rest here:

Long live populism - spiked

Roundly rebuking his neo-liberal globalist political philosophy, the French public has refused to grant President Emmanuel Macron a parliamentary majority as Marine Le Pens populists on the right and an ecological alliance on the left surged at the ballot box to strip the once self-described Jupitarean leader of his ability to govern France firmly.

Just under two months after securing a second term as President of France, Emmanuel Macron and his Ensemble! coalition have suffered a disastrous result in the final round of voting in the parliamentary elections on Sunday, securing just 245 seats, far short of the 289 necessary to maintain a governing majority and at the low end of polling projections leading up to the vote.

The nights true victor at least in terms of exceeding expectations was perhaps Marine Le Pens National Rally (RN), which saw a surprising result of 89 candidates elected to the National Assembly, the most in the history of the party, including its predecessor National Front. Le Pens party, which previously only boasted eight representatives, will now have enough representation to form a parliamentary group, providing a major boost to the party in terms of prominence in the national discussion and the ability to fundraise.

Prior to the second and final round of voting on Sunday, posters had estimated that RN would win between 25 and 45 seats, suggesting that anti-Macron sentiment was strong enough to convince left-wing voters to side with Le Pen to prevent the neoliberal president from retaining his grip over the parliament.

Hailing the stunning result for her party, the populist firebrandsaid: This victory is that of the French people. Tonight, they have taken their destiny into their own hands by making Emmanuel Macron a minority president. This victory is yours!

In all, Macron will lead the largest party in the French Parliament but without an overall majority at 245 seats, according to the French interior ministry. The hard-left NUPES (New popular ecological and social union) performed roughly as polled and won 131 seats. Marine Le Pens National Rally outperformed expectations to take 89 seats. The Republicans, the once establishment party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy came fourth with just 61 seats: just 15 years ago, they won 313.

Commenting from across the English Channel, Brexit leader Nigel Farage said: A big night for Marine Le Pen.The dam will break in the end, referencing the potential for populists to finally gain control of thelyse Palace and win theFrench presidency.

The huge upset at the parliamentary level for the National Rally comes after the party secured the largest vote share in the history of the party in a presidential election in April, in which Le Pen received 41.5 per cent of the vote share. While the vote represented a comfortable margin of victory for President Macron, RN saw significant gains among younger millennial voters as well as winning the working-class vote, spelling a potential downfall for the so-called centrist consensus pushed by globalist elites such as former Rothschild banker Macron.

Though Mr Macron had cast himself as a leader akin to the Roman god Jupiter and had promised in 2017 that his presidency would unify France by doing everything in the five years to come so there is no more reason to vote for the extremes, he has apparently failed on this front, with the socialist NUPES coalition headed by far-leftJean-Luc Mlenchon winning 131 seats, making the hard left the largest opposition voting bloc in the parliament, should the group of socialists, communists, and greens maintain a unified front something which could prove difficult forMlenchon.

Celebrating his far-left coalitions success in preventing Macron from securing a majority, Mlenchon said: The great upsurge of history, of the France of rebellions and revolutions, has a face. That of NUPES. Not for a moment do we give up on the ambition to govern and bring the country to another horizon.

These challenges that are coming, we will meet them with a strength that we did not have. We beat Macron. He does not have the majority, he added.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the France Unbowed party, speaks during an election night event Photographer: Benjamin Girette/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Going forward, it will now be much more difficult for President Macron to enact the agenda on which he stood for re-election, including reforming the countrys pension system, a move that would increase the age of retirement and his stated goal of cutting taxes,as he will likely be needed in Paris to focus on waging wars on the domestic front, forging alliances in the National Assembly if he has any chance of passing his agenda items. The beleaguered president will most likely need to turn to the centre-right Les Republicans, meaning Macron may need to shift to the right to pass legislation.

Amid the cost of living crisis sweeping the continent and the resurgence of populism on the right and the left in France, Macron could also yet again be besieged by an emboldened and angered Gilet Jaunes (Yellow Vest) movement on the streets of Paris.

The loss of his parliamentary majority may also see Macron diminished on the world stage. With hopes now dashed of retaining a governing majority, it remains to be seen how effective Macron will be at casting himself as the premier leader in Europe.

Upon the retirement of Angela Merkel in Germany and the subsequent elevation of Social Democrat (SPD) Olaf Scholz as chancellor who is the head of a somewhat precarious traffic light coalition government including the Greens and the centrist-liberalFree Democratic Party (FDP) the mantle of head honcho in the European Union appeared to be within grasp for Macron. Yet, Sundays results may throw such a vision in doubt.

As Britains state broadcaster the BBC put it in their analysis of the result on Monday morning, noting: The results of Sundays legislative election confirm that this second term will be a different beast from the first, with Mr Macron cutting the figure of a chastened and greatly weakened leader.

The diminishment of Macron on the world stage could have an impact on the future of the Ukraine war, with the French president previously attempting to cast himself as a mediator of sorts, being one of the few European leaders to continually hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the hopes of crafting a peace agreement.

Interestingly, the role of top dog in the European land war has increasingly fallen to Brexit Britain, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson becoming a chief ally of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after taking a much more hawkish line than his counterparts in continental Europe who have proven to be more dependent on Russia for energy imports.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka

See the rest here:

Populism Rising: Le Pen Makes Historic Gains, as Macron ... - Breitbart

In the celebration of 75 years of Independence, one must look back at the rich discourse around mindless nationalistic ideals and sober patriotic beliefs.

A nationalistic procession carried out in the neighbourhood to celebrate the festivity of independence in a modest, sober, loving, and thoughtful way symbolising magnanimity and inclusiveness of the nation suddenly turned into an unruly angry mob passing by Subedar Puneets house. They were hurling abuses and anti-national slogans against him because the eyes could not spot the ordered flag unfurled on the rooftop while all along it was on his chest. It reminds us of Rabindranath Tagore, who probably ascertained the horrors of Nationalism and wrote that We must give a warning that this idea of nationalism is prevalent evil that is sweeping over the present world and eating it into its moral vitality.

The scenario as described above may be a fictional work of artistic liberty but the message behind it is certainly not. The idea of throttling down nationalism on its people is as real as the sun rising from the east. Nationalism in its different forms has over the time become a tool to proceed to a majoritarian notion, of any kind be it caste, religion, or race, to topple the idea of liberal democracies in the garb of reform. In other words, the sentiments are exploited in the name of loyalties to foster an illiberal regime which runs counter to Internationalism and is loved by populist leaders. This modus operandi of coerced or forced nationalism for political gains therefore also vindicates George Orwells quote Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.. At this stage one must also not forget about Subedar Puneets love and loyalty for the nation: how is it different from negative nationalism? Is it patriotism? Are they not the same?

Also read: Questions for freedom

Nationalism and patriotism are popular catch phrases often used together and interchangeably today but they are not same and a deconstruction of both, especially in these testing times is quintessential. Nationalism and patriotism in themselves are dynamic umbrella concept(s) which can be understood only with contextualisation. It is also important to note that they differ in their popular usage in different parts of the world and even in different phases while in the same country. The attribute may change with time; however, the principal thread largely remains the same. They are two distinct loyalties simply put as love for our own country, but the miniscule difference is that while patriotism is positive affirmation and embraces the flaws of the nation, nationalism is rather aggressive, insecure and fosters a feeling of superiority over others.

Nationalism and patriotism are popular catch phrases often used together and interchangeably today but they are not same and a deconstruction of both, especially in these testing times is quintessential.

Nationalism is premised on the idea of a nation state, while patriotism places reliance on the society and the emergence of a nation. Nationalism is a feeling that ones country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. Generally, the idea of nationalism becomes negative with irrational blaming and the spread of hatred among people. It is safe to say that patriotism is based on affection and nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. It has been observed that most nationalists assume that their country is better than any other, whereas patriots believe that their country is one of the best and can be improved.

The tool of coerced nationalism and its deployment by populists around the world, which ironically never feels coerced, is also a ready-made and simple solution for complex issues which promises to be countrys virtue and, in the end, also serves as an easy escape from governmental failure in name of peoples allegiance for the country. The phenomenon of coerced nationalism also translates into toxic nationalism when it becomes more of hero-worshippism as the world has seen in the past and is encountering even now.

In India, Tagore was evidently against nationalism as he believed that the notion of internationalism which must prevail over all mankind, and which must be founded on the human ethics of simplicity, beauty and unanimity with others at the level of both, individuals and nations. In his criticism of nationalism, Tagore has been influenced by the incidence of cruelty, and indignity perpetrated by the Western nations against what he called the philosophy of No-Nations. In this regard, he explicitly challenged those manifestations of the non-violent movement for independence which had the effect of generating hatred against the British.

Also read: Har ghar tiranga!

We must also note that the notion of Nationalism in its current form has moved from being emancipatory to conservative. The symbols of conservativeness are readily seen in the modern day Indian political landscape. In the midst of equating a religious majority into a political majority, today India is flirting with illiberal constitutional democratic values through conservativism. In India, fanatic nationalists make an attempt to equate democracy and majoritarianism i.e., the pursuance of a permanent unbeatable majority which would place large groups in power forever to achieve the idea that, The philosophy based upon a broad agreement that the majority should set the goals of Indian state. The government therefore seems to translate a religious majority into a political majority and gain electoral benefits with Hindu or negative Nationalism.

Nationalism is a feeling that ones country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life.

In the celebration of 75 years of Independence one must look back at the rich discourse around mindless nationalistic ideals and sober patriotic beliefs for our country. It is time to reflect and understand that coerced nationalism does more harm to Subedar Puneet and many more like him, who are honest, dedicated, taxpaying and patriotic individuals, rather than gain. It is time to not fall prey for forced nationalistic paraphernalia used by populist leaders only for electoral gains. The inclusiveness of liberal democratic spirit of India is at the verge of a great fall from which a retreat would be a monumental task for us as a nation. The eradication of intent of questioning is final virtue of coerced nationalism, the intent of questioning is manifestation of patriotism.

The phenomenon of coerced nationalism also translates into toxic nationalism when it becomes more of hero-worshippism as the world has seen in the past and is encountering even now.

Also read: Flagging it

The Indian flag or the patriotism associated with it is integral to our own being and it is time we resist its appropriation by fringe, reclaim it. So, if you dont spot a tiranga on the rooftop, try looking in the heart for it and redeem yourself; Redeem our India.

(The author would like to express gratitude towards Gautam Kumar for his insights in curating this article. Major excerpts of this article are taken from the authors own research paper published by National Law University, Delhi available here.)

See original here:

Forced nationalism and perils of populism The Leaflet - The Leaflet

Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday said Americans might be ready to turn the page on former President Trump as he decides whether to run for president a third time.

People conflate Trump with peoples overall sense of happiness in the country. Donald Trumps been a friend of mine for 25 years, and Im always very open about this on my show. But, you know well see whether thats what the country wants, Ingraham said during an appearance on Lisa Boothes podcast. The country I think is so exhausted. Theyre exhausted by the battle, the constant battle, that they may believe that, well, maybe its time to turn the page if we can get someone who has all Trumps policies, whos not Trump.

Trump has unleashed a streak of populism in the Republican Party that might not appeal to voters writ large in 2024, Ingraham theorized.

The other problem is that its really not about Trump, right, this is about the views that Trump now brought to the floor for the Republican Party, Ingraham said. They dont like his views, they dont like the fact that he called out the military for their failures, that he wanted us to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That he wanted to treat China and our trade relationship with China in a much it was smarter, but much different way than the globalists preferred. And they certainly didnt like the fact that he sent all those illegal immigrants back to Mexico with that Remain in Mexico.

Ingraham has been among Trumps longest and most loyal supporters in the conservative media ecosystem, just last week attacking the Justice Department and FBI following the search warrant executed at the former presidents Florida home in connection with an investigation into classified documents reportedly taken from the White House.

When we get power back, its time to hold everyone accountable. The military leadership, the civilian leadership, the civil service, those in Congress who have abused their power, all of them have to held accountable, Ingraham said on her prime-time show, hours after news of the search broke.

The Fox News host is one of several who the Jan. 6 House select committee found was texting with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, imploring him to get Trump to do something to stop the rioting at the Capitol that day.

The relationship between top talent at Fox and Trump is closely watched by media watchdogs and political analysts as the former president flirts with another White House bid.

On Monday morning, Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy called on the former president to tamp down the rhetoric against the Justice Department and FBI following the Mar-a-Lago search and implore his supporters not to threaten members of federal law enforcement.

Whatever we can do to help because the temperature has to be brought down in the country, Trumptold a Fox News hours after Doocys remarks.If it isnt, terrible things are going to happen.

Go here to see the original:

Laura Ingraham: Voters might say its time to turn the page on Trump - WGN TV Chicago

Readings (Year C):

Isaiah 66:18 21Psalms 117:1, 2Heb 12:5 7, 11 13Luke 13:22 30

The question of inclusion and exclusion is a perennial human problem which has become important in recent times. The growing climate of nationalist populism, with such ideological goals as isolationism, nativism, anti-immigration, anti-Blackness, anti-Semitism, and related sentiments is a reality that has characterized many political movements today, especially in the West. Underlying all nationalist movements is the basic principle of inclusion of some, the we (those who belong), and the exclusion of others (those who do not have the right to belong).

In the first and third readings, we are confronted with the same question of inclusion and exclusion. However, unlike the nationalist political climate of our time, the readings speak about Gods eternal plan to include all people (especially those without rights) in the family of Gods redeemed people. The first reading from Isaiah envisions a time when all nations will share in Gods kingdom and have access to Gods saving grace. The text alludes to a future when the Israelites and the Gentiles will form one community, and all will participate in one worship of God. God will even select the Gentiles (those who were formally excluded from membership within Gods people) to become priests and Levites. In this reading, we see a picture of an inclusive and equal community of Gods people where nationalism and race distinction no longer hold sway. Here we see the free and inclusive nature of Gods gift of salvation.

The Gospel reading further buttresses the message of the first reading but goes beyond it. It stresses the free gift of membership into the community and Gods salvation. We hear that many people will come from the four corners of the world and eat in the kingdom of God. But Jesus also admonishes against any feeling of entitlement to the kingdom. In fact, he contrasts those who feel they have a right to Gods kingdom, and those who actually enter the kingdom. In this passage Jesus emphasizes that while salvation is gift of God, human response through obedience to God is required. This point is accentuated with the imagery of the narrow door. Here Jesus deploys the athletic or martial imagery: strive, or fight (), a term usually used in the Hellenistic world to reference the exercise of virtue, underscores this human response. Gods gift of salvation is free but not cheap. The passage also speaks of the urgency to accept Gods invitation now since the narrow door will not remain indefinitely open.

In the reading from Hebrews, the author stresses the importance of discipline and obedience in the formation of Gods people. The heavenly race will not be an easy one. We are reminded of Gods discipline and training. God will train us how to walk through the narrow door proposed by Jesus. This training will be painful, but the goal is to guide us through the right path. These readings invite us to accept Gods training towards inclusivity and acceptance of others especially the socially excluded in our midst.

Advertisement

See the rest here:

A reflection for the twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time - U.S. Catholic magazine

The Conservative Party will elect a new leader on Sept. 10, but already one Quebec Conservative MP is warning that the results could cause him to re-evaluate his future with the party.

The unity of the Conservative Party after the leadership election will depend largely on the direction the new leader decides to take, says Tasha Kheiriddin, co-chair of Jean Charests Conservative leadership campaign. It will also impact whether three-term Conservative MP Jol Godin, who won his Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, Que., riding with 51 per cent of the vote in the 2021 election, remains with the party.

Pierre Poilievre, left, is the front-runner in the Conservative leadership election. In addition to Poilievre, four other candidates are running for the partys top job, including Leslyn Lewis, Jean Charest, Roman Baber, and Scott Aitchison. The Hill Times photographs by Andrew Meade, Sam Garcia, and handouts

I dont like what I see about Pierre in this race, said Godin, who is uncomfortable with front-runner Pierre Poilievres (Carleton, Ont.) populist style of campaigning, and the potential future direction of the party he represents, in an interview with The Hill Times. If Poilievre does take the reins and lead the party down a populist path, Godin said he might consider crossing the floor or sitting as an Independent. Im moderate. Im not a populist.

Godin, who is supporting former Quebec premier Jean Charests candidacy in the leadership election and who describes himself as a progressive conservative, said he wants to stay in the party, and he wont automatically leave the caucus if Poilievre wins. The only reason for his potential departure, he said, would be if Poilievre wins and refuses to pivot to the centre. Godin argued that when a new party leader is elected whose ideological views and style of leadership are different from some caucus members, its the right of an individual caucus member to reconsider if they want to remain in caucus. Poilievre won his Carleton, Ont., riding with 50 per cent of the vote in the 2021 election.

Three-term Conservative MP Jol Godin says if Pierre Poilievre wins the leadership election and does not pivot to the centre, he will have to consider his options whether he wants to stay in the caucus or not. The Hill Times file photograph

Godin said if he decides to leave the Conservative caucus, he would have several options to choose from, including crossing the floor, sitting as an Independent MP, resigning from his seat, or starting a more progressive conservative party, perhaps with a few other Conservative members.

Poilievre, who is running a populist campaign with slogans such as, take back control of your life, and make Canada the freest nation on earth, is seen as the front-runner in the contest and has the majority of caucus endorsements.

In addition to Poilievre and Charest, the other three leadership candidates are Conservative MPs Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.) and Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand-Norfolk, Ont.), and former Ontario Independent MPP Roman Baber.

Poilievre is a right-of-centre candidate, while Charest and Aitchison are progressive conservatives. Lewis is a social conservative and Baber is a libertarian candidate.

Poilievres campaign focus of freedom from gatekeeperswho, in his view, control peoples lives, as well as his support of the controversial Freedom Convoyis alienating some moderate Conservatives.

Some high-profile moderate Conservatives have gone as far as to suggest that party unity is in jeopardy and could fracture if Poilievre is elected as leader and if he does not realign his ideological positions.

Two Conservative MPs who are supporting Poilievre recently told The Hill Times that they are not sure if the Ottawa-area MP would pivot to the centre.

Tasha Kheiriddin is the campaign co-chair of Jean Charests campaign. She has recently authored a book, The Right Path: How Conservatives Can Unite, Inspire and Take Canada Forward. Photograph courtesy of Andre Forget

Pierre is someone who doubles down, this is who he is, a Conservative MP, who has officially endorsed Poilievre, told The Hill Times two weeks ago. Thats the reality of it, and he cant help himself. I dont think he knows another way.

A former senior Conservative, who is not supporting Poilievre but knows him well and who did not want to be identified in order to be candid for this article, said that if Poilievre wins the leadership, he would be more like former Ontario premier Mike Harris than former populist U.S. president Donald Trump. The source referred to the fact that former Stephen Harper-era cabinet minister John Baird is one of the co-chairs of the Poilievre campaign, who, before entering federal politics, was a caucus member and cabinet minister in the provincial Harris government. Before becoming a cabinet minister, Poilievre served as parliamentary secretary to Baird in the Harper cabinet. The other co-chairs of Poilievres leadership campaign are former Harper-ear cabinet minister Gail Shea, Conservative Senator Leo Housakos (Quebec), and Conservative MP Tim Uppal (Edmonton Mill Woods, Alta.)

The source said that when media stories mention that the Conservative Party was formed by the merger of the Progressive Conservative and Alliance parties in 2003, they overlook the Harris Progressive Conservatives in Ontario, who were not part of the negotiation team for the merger but had a significant presence in the federal Conservative caucus and its senior staff when the party came to power in 2006. This includes Baird, Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement, Paul Calandra, and a significant number of cabinet ministerial and MPs staffers who numbered the same, if not more, than federal PC MPs and staffers. These cabinet ministers and Queens Park staffers held senior positions in the Harper government and played important roles in shaping the direction of the government.

The source said that for years, Poilievres chief focus has been on fiscal issues and on winning, and will remain the same going forward. They said that, strategically speaking, Poilievre wants to eliminate Maxime Berniers Peoples Party of Canada, which was one of the key reasons why he has publicly supported the Truckers Protest. According to one estimate, the PPC denied the Conservatives winning in 20 ridings across the country.

Something that could hurt him [Poilievre] in the general [election], he wont embrace something like that, said the source. Hell go and hell find something else to reach out to the Peoples Party voters. So in that sense, there may be some mild pivoting.

Meanwhile, according to a poll by Nanos Research for Bloomberg released last week, Poilievre was the choice of 17 per cent of Canadians for prime minister, while 24 per cent said they would prefer Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.), and 13 per cent would choose Charest. The poll also suggested that Poilievre is ahead of Trudeau among men, non-college graduates, and Canadians who cant work remotely from home. To win the next election, according to the poll, Poilievre will have to broaden his support base by winning over the moderate Conservatives who are currently supporting Charest. According to this poll, the Charest and Poilievre combined total vote would beat Trudeau in every demographic except for women. The phone and online poll of 1,038 Canadians was conducted between July 29 and Aug. 2 and had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Tasha Kheiriddin, co-chair of the Charest campaign, said that the unity of the party depends on who becomes the new leader and how they engage with caucus members, rival leadership candidates, party members, and which direction they choose for the party. If the new leader fails to bring the party together, it would become an uphill battle for the Conservatives to win the next election. She argued that rather than engaging in populist politics, the new leader should talk about Conservative principles like equality of opportunity, personal responsibility, and community engagement.

I dont believe that populism is going to be the direction the party should take and put in the window for the next election, said Kheiriddin, who recently authored a new book called The Right Path: How Conservatives can Unite, Inspire and Take Canada Forward. I believe we have to address the concerns of populists, which are valid, things like being denied opportunities, feeling that you cant get ahead. Populism takes root when people feel blocked, and cannot advance even though they do all the right things.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper is the co-caucus liaison of Pierre Poilievres leadership campaign. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Conservative MP Michael Cooper (St. Albert-Edmonton, Alta.), who is a co-caucus liaison for Poilievres leadership campaign, said the Poilievre campaign is not taking anything for granted, and is focused on getting out the vote. Cooper declined to discuss specifically what direction Poilievre would take the party in as the contest is still on-going. He argued that all party members should get behind whoever wins the leadership election.

Its the leaders prerogative to put together a team that he or she can work with and believes is best suited to fulfill the important role that we as a parliamentary caucus have as the official opposition, said Cooper in an interview with The Hill Times two weeks ago. When a leadership race is over, the leadership race is over. And the leader assembles a team, then we move forward.

But Kheiriddin said that it will be a mistake if Poilievre fails to make a sincere effort to bring the party together by accommodating rival candidates and their supporters in the shadow cabinet, or including rival campaign staffers in the Official Opposition Leaders Office. She said that Erin OToole (Whitby, Ont.) made this mistake, and he did not last long as party leader. OToole was elected as the party leader in the 2020 leadership election and was voted out by the party after the 2021 election.

There would have to be a lot of bridge-building done to repair a lot of the feelings and sentiments that are out there that are negative towards him, such as expressed by Mr. Godin, said Kheiriddin. So it would really be at that point, incumbent on him [Poilievre] if he were leader, to reach out to people, and I think to an extent to change the focus of his message, because some of that message turns off centre right voters.

More than 675,000 eligible Conservative Party members are currently in the process of voting for their favourite candidates.

The Hill Times

More:

If Poilievre wins leadership, but fails to pivot to the centre, Quebec Tory MP Godin says he will 'reflect' on his own 'future political life' - The...

In the last few weeks we have seen how politics of family first, corruption first and freebies first have led to the complete destruction of economies around India especially Sri Lanka. Sounding a note of caution, Prime Minister Modi, without taking the name of any state, political party or personality spoke about the perils of short cut politics and populism. This is something upon which various intellectuals and institutions, including the Supreme Court , have weighed in upon from time to time.

Any effective and efficient administrator would endorse the idea of ensuring that his or her government ensures targeted, foolproof and leakage free delivery of welfare policies to those who need it the most rather than a free for all approach that is inherently unfair to the most deprived and perhaps nothing more than a gimmick because usually such schemes can never be implemented or sustained for a long time. Given that any state has finite resources, and not unlimited bounties , which ultimately come from the tax payer it is essential that administrators ensure that the first right on these resources belong to the poorest and most marginalised.

From this it is very clear that while a welfare measure is a targeted instrument to effect long term change and for improving the condition of the beneficiary by raising it to a level where the beneficiary can become self sustaining and productive, a freebie or a Revdi is a mere feel good announcement whose implementation is suspect, outcome is flawed and intent is malafide.

In that context one was perplexed as to why the chief minister of Delhi took the comment of the Prime Minister so personally even when nobody had been identified or named. It was as if a raw nerve had been touched. The over reaction by Mr. Kejriwal therefore prompts us to examine in some greater depth the difference between welfare and Revdi.

Mr Kejriwal has been constantly harping about his so called free education model. His spokespersons claim that many in Delhi have taken their children out of private schools and enrolled them into government schools in Delhi. Logically that would mean more schools should have been opened by Mr Kejriwals government in the last eight years to cater to this huge demand.

But in debate after debate, night after night, much to my surprise, those who promised that they would open 500 new schools and 20 new colleges cant name 20 new schools and 5 new colleges they have opened up in the last eight years. In fact the Delhi government is guilty of closing down several government schools instead of opening of new ones and this issue was raised by the BJP in the Delhi assembly. They keep talking about adding classrooms but that means nothing unless you have other infrastructure including teachers, toilets, grounds, etc. to cater to those additional children and unless you open up a school that is close to their locality instead of adding some rooms in an existing school which is far away and inaccessible.

The reality is also that of the 1027 schools the Delhi government has nearly 750+ schools had no principal and 418+ schools had no vice principal, something that has been flagged by the NCPCR. It is also fact that thousands of seats meant for EWS category students had not been filled as per the RTE Act thereby depriving poor children of their constitutional right to free and compulsory education. 22,000 guest teachers lost their jobs.

Delhi government has promised to make them permanent but far from that they havent even filled up the sanction positions for teachers in Delhi government schools. In fact recently the Delhi High Court sought a response from the Kejriwal government on a plea that exposed how 63% of teachers posts, 80% of principals posts were lying vacant in schools run by Delhi government. Delhi High Court in April 2022 pulled up the Delhi government for failure to pay salaries to teachers and Justice Subramanium Prasad lamented that lack of money was not an answer for non-payment and teachers could not be treated like this as they shape the future of the country. Surely this is far from being a world-class model!

All of this is having a direct impact on the performance of the schools and a recent report suggested of 40% of students who failed class ninth are dropping out of school. Recently the NAS 2021- a survey testing students of classes 3rd, 5th, 8th and 10th from across the country in a variety of subjects showed the Delhi government schools scored comparatively lower in every subject and across classes in comparison to Punjab.

What the Delhi government schools have been at the forefront of his allegations of irregularities and corruption in construction of classrooms. Recently on the basis of a complaint made by MP Manoj Tiwari alleged that classrooms that could have been constructed at Rs.5lakhs per room were constructed at an inflated price of Rs.28 lakhs per room. This complaint has been taken cognizance of by the Delhis lokayukta and a probe and report has been sought. Even Mr Sisodias Education ministry has flagged off a number of complaints about use of low quality material, where is deficiencies in the construction work done by the PWD in a letter dated 20th of July 2022.

Since the orientation of the Revdi model is only to gather votes and make no substantive or transformational change, it emphasises more on advertisement or vigyapan and less on vyavastha or systemic change. A proof of this can be seen in the loan scheme of Kejriwal government were only two students could avail of a loan out of the 89 that had applied in the year 2021-22 but a sum of Rs 19 crores had been spent on advertising it. Welfare economics can transform and uplift lives of the most deprived whereas Revdi-nomics only burdens the tax payer while earning some short term political brownie points for its patroniser.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Continue reading here:

Revdi-nomics - Times of India

It is always valuable to engage the other side. Especially when one finds the other side utterly bewildering.

The other side I am trying to engage is American political conservatism. My guide today is Matthew Continetti, a brilliant conservative policy wonk with all the right credentials a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, columnist for Commentary magazine, and founding editor of the Washington Free Beacon. He began his career at the Weekly Standard.

Continettis new book, The Right, is being praised by authoritative conservative voices. I just worked my way through this bulky but fascinating work. I think it helps us understand what is going on in our politics right now.

Continetti tells a comprehensive story, which he subtitles as The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism.

He begins his chronicle of conservatism with the 1920s and the administrations of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. He describes this first iteration of American conservatism as pro-business, pro-limited government, pro-Constitution, pro-patriotism, pro-religious piety, and isolationist in foreign policy. It also was anti-immigration and supported high tariffs rather than globalized trade.

Roosevelts New Deal was perceived by conservatives as fundamentally changing the nature of government, making it much larger and more centralized than it ever should have been.

Herbert Hoover, a highly regarded and experienced leader when elected president in 1928, was perceived by the public to have failed in addressing the Great Depression and was swept out of office by Franklin Roosevelt. The Democrats dominated government for decades. Roosevelts New Deal was perceived by conservatives as fundamentally changing the nature of government, making it much larger and more centralized than it ever should have been, leaning in the direction of socialism and undercutting free-market principles.

It thus became a permanent goal of conservatives to roll back or privatize as much of the New Deal as possible, to reduce the government social welfare apparatus, and to cut back government regulation of business and government intervention in the economy. Those efforts have failed repeatedly, but in their rhetoric and often in their policy proposals, conservatives have demonstrated that they have never fully accepted the New Deal and the further expansions of federal government power in succeeding years.

Conservative isolationism in foreign policy remained a significant force until it was utterly discredited by Pearl Harbor and went underground during World War II. It remained submerged during the Cold War, when conservatives largely embraced a hawkish anti-Communist, interventionist foreign policy that became Democratic policy too. Anticommunism, says Continetti, held together disparate parts of the conservative movement as long as the Soviet Union lasted. Afterward, especially after the disastrous invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush, the older isolationist strand resurged, although it never was the only conservative approach.

Anticommunism, says Continetti, held together disparate parts of the conservative movement as long as the Soviet Union lasted.

Continetti spends considerable ink considering the anti-Communist mole-hunting crusade of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) in the 1950s. McCarthy is significant not just because of the damage he did in hurling accusations at innocent people. For Continetti, he clearly foreshadows major later trends, apotheosized in but not confined to Donald Trump and his movement: apocalypticism, conspiracy theories, serial mendacity, constant attacks on major American government institutions and leaders, and the ability to mobilize ill-informed populist energies. The John Birch Society, also treated by Continetti, is another example of similar pathologies. Both McCarthyism and the John Birch Society bear a resemblance to todays QAnon conspiracy thinking as well as the overall irrational, conspiratorial, apocalypticism on the hard right.

For Continetti, the late 1960s marked a collapse of American progressivism/liberalism, symbolized by the chaos of the year 1968: campus riots and takeovers, anti-Vietnam fervor and liberal soft headedness on Communism and nuclear disarmament, the drug culture, the sexual revolution, street violence, race riots, political assassinations and the collapse of the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The fracturing of the Democratic coalition provided an opening for a Republican return to power, which happened with Richard Nixons election in 1968.

Continetti also shows, through the rise and fall of Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who ran a popular third-party campaign in 1968, that there was a rather large constituency for race-baiting populism and not only in the South. Continetti could have said a bit more forthrightly that the Republican successes that developed from this point forward have always involved finding ways to appeal to this constituency and securing it reliably for the GOP.

Ronald Reagan is treated by Continetti as the most effective conservative leader of the entire century he surveys. Reagan was able to bridge the various divides within conservatism with his pro-business, small-government, anti-Communist platform, as well as his skill in bringing the emerging Christian Right to his side through his traditionalist religious and moral values rhetoric, offered in a generally sunny and upbeat manner.

Twenty years later, George W. Bush was less successful. Continetti seems intrigued by Bushs initial compassionate (Christian) conservatism platform, but his presidency was unexpectedly dominated by 9/11 and its aftermath. Bushs unprovoked attack on Iraq, followed by a bloody quagmire, divided conservatives (along with other Americans), his social policy agenda went nowhere, and he limped across the finish line with little surviving popularity. This helps us understand why the Bush dynasty proved completely powerless to prevent the rise of a very different kind of conservatism after George W.s departure to his art studio in Texas.

This reflects Continettis relatively muted treatment of white conservative racism throughout his book, which he largely treats as a fringe problem rather than central to the modern Right.

The presidency of Barack Obama is painted by Continetti as essentially the ineffectual meandering of a classic liberal academic, one of the elite types increasingly scorned by populist conservatives. Continetti notes and dismisses the birther myth and the conspiracy mongering that went on related to Obama and doesnt consider the idea that the rise of Donald Trump was deeply connected to white shock over the American election of a Black president. This reflects Continettis relatively muted treatment of white conservative racism throughout his book, which he largely treats as a fringe problem rather than central to the modern Right.

Continetti shows that large parts of the conservative punditocracy people like David Brooks, William Kristol, George Will, and so on sought to kill Donald Trumps candidacy during the primaries in 2016. But these heavy hitters proved just as powerless to stop him as were the numerous Republican politicians who ran against him or otherwise opposed him. Trump had the more powerful forces of the talk-radio and Fox News populists with him, along with tens of millions of base voters. He also demonstrated enormous skill in holding everyones attention.

Unfortunately, especially with Trumps refusal to concede the election and then Jan. 6, says Continetti, the very worst impulses of the populist wing of the American Right, such as demagoguery, scapegoating, and conspiracy theories were unleashed even more fully than they had been before. In the end, a politics of nihilism that lacked any real constructive agenda other than Trump himself was all that was left.

Continetti says that previously there had been some guardrails to contain or cabin fringe elements on the conservative side, like McCarthyism or the Birchers. But with the older stabilizing institutions and figures of conservatism dead, conquered or in disarray, Trump and his movement eventually came to represent all those worst instincts, entirely unrestrained.

With the older stabilizing institutions and figures of conservatism dead, conquered or in disarray, Trump and his movement eventually came to represent all those worst instincts, entirely unrestrained.

For Continetti, all this is disastrous for the conservative tradition he reveres, and it is clearly a dead end for the Republican Party they never can win majorities going down this rabbit hole. But, says Continetti, not only was the Right unable to get out of the hole; it did not want to.

As I write on Aug. 12, 2022, the Justice Department appears to be closing in on Trump for taking, holding and possibly sharing top secret U.S. government documents related to nuclear weapons; if true, along with the other investigations closing in on him, this may mean the end for Trump. But Trumpists have won most primary races this summer and appear set to lose very winnable races for Senate seats, governors offices and so on. And there are many other ways the disastrous Trump legacy will live on.

Continetti does a lot more than I have been able to summarize here. All major and many minor institutions, leaders, books and events in the conservative world of the last century are described in his book. I urge everyone who wants to understand where we are as a country to read it.

America is an ideologically diverse country. It needs a functioning conservative political party that cares about democracy. People like Matthew Continetti will be needed to help clean up the mess on the right and build something better.

David P. Gusheeis a leading Christian ethicist. serves as distinguished university professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, chair of Christian social ethics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and senior research fellow at International Baptist Theological Study Centre. He is a past president of both the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Christian Ethics. His latest book isIntroducing Christian Ethics. Hes also the author ofKingdom Ethics,After Evangelicalism, andChanging Our Mind: The Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBTQ Christians. He and his wife, Jeanie, live in Atlanta. Learn more:davidpgushee.comorFacebook.

Related articles:

When Christianity becomes toxic Christianism | Opinion by David Gushee

Social liberalism grows while economic conservatism still dominates

Who are you? Non-Trumpist evangelicals struggle to be identified

View post:

What happened to American conservatism? Engaging Matthew Continetti's The Right - Baptist News Global

All politicians in India promise development, yet the state apparatus and political factions in control cause inequality

All politicians in India promise development, yet the state apparatus and political factions in control cause inequality

Economic development is a primary means by which the Indian democratic project has legitimated itself. Given an electorate of mostly poor people, no government has been elected without making development the uplift of the downtrodden through service provision, the creation of individual freedom, and collective opportunity inherent in economic transformation its primary objective. Unlike archetypal developmental states such as the Republic of Korea, the Indian state after Independence had to accomplish its mandate of development in the context of a diverse and fissiparous democracy that had endured centuries of British colonial domination and the expropriation of its wealth.

This historical context, and the bureaucratic and political processes surrounding the delivery of development outcomes have generated growth but also created significant structural inequities that have taken different forms across Indias post-Independence history. The inequity associated with the actions of the developmental state, the corruption, and moral outrage that constitute the states broken promises to the people has been the driver of waves of political conflict in the Indian polity since Independence. The moral failings of different phases within the trajectory of Indias developmental state have inspired collective challenges to the establishment throughout its history.

Critiques of underdevelopment and the promises of development were at the heart of the nationalist movement against colonial rule. For early nationalist thinkers, the idea of India itself was suffused with a claim that it was one economy and one nation, suppressed in the fulfilment of its destiny by an imperial apparatus that sought to keep it divided, while draining its wealth and sending it overseas. The Congress party, when taking the reins of power, legitimated its rule primarily through a solemn promise that it would redress structures of political, economic, and social inequality by deploying the state to implement far-reaching programmes of development. Jawaharlal Nehru, in his famous Tryst with Destiny address, pledged the service of a sovereign government to the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.

There was, however, a profound disconnect between the promises and actions of the developmental state in the first quarter-century after Independence. The Planning Commission, chaired by Nehru, drew up ambitious plans for development that entailed significant public and private investment in industry and the encouragement of cooperatives to transform agriculture. For poor peasants and aspirant workers, the solemn promises of development and the dismantling of inequality rang hollow. Structures of domination and pervasive social inequality reigned in practice as the conservative colonial-era bureaucracy and politicians, business elites, and dominant landowners benefitted the most from this developmental state. The abject failures of community development programmes, and sclerotic economic growth led to the political turmoil of the mid-to-late 1960s.

Indira Gandhi changed the nature of the developmental state. She effected a populist resurgence from within the Congress to address the gap between lofty promises of the state and degraded reality. Her appeal, which ended up splitting the party and transforming the nature of party competition, did deliver an overwhelming electoral mandate to her Congress. Indira Gandhis slogan Garibi hatao (eliminate poverty) and the subsequent 20-point programme conceived of the direct intervention by an empowered and enlarged state. The politicised state apparatus was now to address social inequalities through land reform, enforcement of the minimum wage, nationalisation of key industries, and extension of agricultural credit, among many other policies.

A main legacy of Indira Gandhis left-populism was that the state presented itself as the antidote to social and economic inequalities. The developmental state now looked different. The state apparatus was engorged, from the national to the State and local levels. Multiple public sector companies emerged at all levels of the economy, from the Centre to the States. Financial institutions banking and insurance were now in the hands of state apparatchiks. This system fostered corruption, rent-seeking and the capture of the institutions and resources of the state for the benefit of influential clients.

The increased demand for public resources to satisfy an ever-growing number of clients proved financially unsustainable. The economy underwent several rounds of liberalisation that dismantled some elements of state-directed development in the 1980s, but the basic pattern remained the same. The developmental state was now a state whose resources were allocated by and through political compulsions. And as political fragmentation grew, the pressure to control the remaining state resources for political gain expanded.

The storied liberalisation of 1991 renewed promises of dismantling inequality. Liberalisation offered a new idiom of increased opportunity. When combined with political fragmentation, neoliberal reform yielded crony capitalism, ineffective service delivery, and distrust of the system. Self-help and rights-based discourse now emerged as part of a new language of development. The United Progressive Alliance government expanded welfare-based rights, such as the Right to Education and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. But the ambitiousness of these centrally-planned schemes achieved only middling outcomes on the ground, as petty bureaucrats and local rent-seekers influenced their implementation for their ends, thus failing to build a political constituency among the poor around them. The middle classes protested this new developmental state which had created a state-facing inequality, where being known to the state and the politicians controlling it increasingly determined life chances and the economic prospects for Indias striving citizens.

In 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Narendra Modi won a parliamentary majority by promising to restore opportunity and clean up politics. His main slogan was, together, development for everybody. He attacked the Congress leadership for its corruption, projecting himself as a humble chaiwallah and servant of the people. While Hindu nationalist themes were never far from the surface and have become dominant in the BJPs discourse since the 2019 elections, the right-wing populist moment of the 2014 election brought together a broad and unlikely coalition of upper-middle-class professionals and lower-middle-class strivers. These groups were promised the end of inequality of opportunity, which had come to characterise many citizens interactions with the state in Indias known-to democracy. While Mr. Modis treatment of what ails the Indian body-politic has been tremendously polarising, and his own government has been wanting in delivering economic growth, his politics echoing that of regional populists in India, from N.T. Rama Rao to Jayalalithaa and Mamata Banerjee tapped into a mood of widespread discontent toward the states development project.

Since 1991, the Indian state is no longer in the business of keeping the solemn promises of dismantling inequalities. The state now focuses on growth and passing handouts to voters a policy honed to perfection in Tamil Nadu by the various iterations of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

A developmental ideology is inextricably associated with democratic politics in independent India. The nations founders made solemn promises to deliver the people from inequity and subjugation the real meaning of development for democratic India. These ideas have been honoured more in the breach than in observance. Nehrus developmental state could not redress inequalities and failed to grow the economy quickly enough. Indira Gandhis policies placed the state at the centre of political life. The state was the agent of growth, yet, despite the rhetoric, addressing social and economic inequalities took a back seat. Even while speaking in lofty tones about development, the current regime does not emphasise the state as central to changing social norms and addressing income inequalities.

All politicians in India promise development as a part of democratic deliverance. Yet, the state apparatus and the political factions that control it reproduce inequality. From time to time, populist leaders shine a light on these hypocrisies. Their electoral mobilisations dramatically transform Indian politics without changing the states ability to deliver on political promises. This highlights the idea that development is the most powerful idiom of Indian democracy, an ideal on which ordinary people across social stations hold governments to account. Development, in other words, is as much a moral commitment as a technocratic undertaking. Development is inextricably linked with the meaning of Indian democracy.

Adnan Naseemullah and Pradeep Chhibber teach at Kings College, London and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively

Link:

The moral failings of the developmental state - The Hindu