Category Archives: Populism

And Caledonian MacBrayne, which needs the ferries to service island communities, is not Ferguson Marines only unhappy customer. Richard Keisner, of CMI Offshore, recently accused the shipyard of extremely low productivity and quality control. A barge his company had ordered will now be completed elsewhere.

Yet despite the huge amounts of taxpayers money at stake in Ferguson Marine, Scotlands opposition politicians have done little more than raise a concerned eyebrow. They cant afford to get a reputation for poor work, opined Scottish Conservative transport spokesman Graham Simpson.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

No-one dares to ask the obvious question: should the Scottish Government be propping up a failing shipbuilder at all?

Margaret Thatchers ghost haunts any discussion of Scottish shipbuildings future. The story goes that Scotland was a great shipbuilding nation until Thatcher came along and heartlessly ruined everything. A whole generation of nationalist politicians, including Nicola Sturgeon, were drawn into politics by this foundational belief.

Yet Scottish shipbuilding had struggled since the 1960s. Despite Scotlands shipbuilding heritage, other countries could build modern ships for lower prices. Orders for Scottish ships fell. Fewer orders meant reduced economies of scale, further damaging efficiency and competitiveness.

With shipyards already running at a loss, there was no money to invest in new technologies or otherwise improve efficiency. Scottish shipbuilding has been caught in this downward spiral for at least half a century.

Thatchers biggest mistake was relying on the creative destruction of the free market. There was no creativity, just destruction.

Could things have been different with a proper plan to support the transition from traditional industries to future ones? We will never know. There was no plan, and 40 years later we are still dealing with the social and political consequences.

That is why no-one wants to be the first to admit that Ferguson Marine is probably beyond saving, especially not the Tories.

But it is time for a cold, hard assessment of the facts. The best-case scenario is that the Scottish Government pays Ferguson Marine 240 million for two ferries and Ferguson Marine miraculously transforms itself into a viable business. The Scottish Government will have paid 160 million to save just over 300 jobs. By a crude calculation, that works out at over 500,000 per job.

Even if this works, the opportunity cost must not be underestimated. That money could have gone a long way invested in other pressing priorities like (re)training, education, research and development, seed capital for innovative businesses, and infrastructure. All of these are badly needed if Scotland is to have a future as a dynamic and internationally competitive economy.

And the harsh reality is that Ferguson Marines future prospects look poor. Are we prepared to let it become a sink without a plug for taxpayers money? It is time for an honest, robust debate about that.

We associate economic populism with far-flung countries in Latin America, but Scotland risks falling into the same trap.

Economic populism has three main hallmarks. First, money is spent on immediate political and social priorities, while investment in long-term economic priorities (education, training and infrastructure) that increase overall prosperity is neglected.

Second, there is a lack of accountability, along with the dismantling of economic and political restraints on government. Third, international trade is seen as a threat rather than an opportunity.

All three are clearly visible in the Ferguson Marine case, and that should be a cause for alarm.

There must be a full public inquiry into the Scottish Governments handling of the case. It is shocking for documents to conveniently go missing from the Scottish Governments files. Accountability matters.

On the bigger questions of Scotlands economic strategy, opposition parties must dare to draw on another heritage: Scotlands leading role in the economic Enlightenment.

Scotland is a small, high-income country in one of the worlds richest regions. Large, middle-income countries like Turkey, with much lower wages and economies of scale, will continue to outcompete Scotland in shipbuilding. Instead of throwing good money after bad, Scotland can better play to its modern strengths.

Historically, Scotland had an excellent education system, but results have fallen behind the OECD average. Fixing this should be the Scottish Governments top priority. Pushing up educational standards will not be easy: it will require sustained commitment and investment over decades. However, this is key to tackling Scotlands pervasive inequality and preparing the Scottish economy for the future.

Scotland still has world-class universities. In theory, these should be pillars of prosperity for a small, high-income country with wealthy neighbours. For any country in this position, the most promising economic strategy is to create innovative, niche products and export them. By this logic, Scotland should be looking for gaps in the market to fill, rather than attempting to compete in traditional heavy industries dominated by middle-income countries.

If the Scottish Government has 160 million to spend creating jobs, this is where the focus should be.

An open-eyed assessment of Scotlands infrastructure, and whether it supports its economic goals, is also needed. Scotland has fallen shamefully behind in digital connectivity, especially in rural areas. Crude demands of the private sector for example, that international companies supplying offshore windmills deliver community benefits may also fail for a lack of suitable infrastructure.

Scotland does not currently have a harbour deep enough to accommodate modern floating windmills, which is why they are assembled in Rotterdam and towed into place.

These are complex challenges to which economic populism has no answers. As Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and a native son of Kirkcaldy, said: The facts must be real, otherwise they will not assist us in our future conduct, by pointing out the means to avoid or produce an event.

These words should serve as a lodestar for those hoping to guide Scotland to a prosperous future.

Dr Alison Smith is an author and political analyst at Political Developments

See the original post here:

Scotland should remember the words of Adam Smith and beware the dead hand of economic populism Dr Alison Smith - The Scotsman

In two neighboring industrial states, we are about to get a test of the proposition that economic populism is the key to a Democratic resurgence. We are also going to find out just how much havoc Donald Trump is wreaking on his own party.

In Ohio, a genuine pocketbook populist, Tim Ryan, is in a campaign for an open Senate seat against the ultimate faux populist, J.D. Vance, who went from hillbilly to hedge fund executive. Vance won his primary thanks largely to Trumps endorsement.

This is a Republican-trending state where one of the Senates most effective economic populists, Democrat Sherrod Brown, keeps getting elected and re-elected while other Democrats dont win statewide. Maybe Brown and Ryan are onto something.

In Pennsylvania, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman is favored to win the Democratic primary today for another open Senate seat against the more centrist Conor Lamb (assuming that Fettermans recovery from a stroke is on track). The Republican side is too close to call and features a tight three-way race between candidates who epitomize the widening schisms in the GOP.

More from Robert Kuttner

Until a few weeks ago, a traditional Wall Street Republican, David McCormick, was the front-runner. He worked at McKinsey and got rich as CEO of a software company called FreeMarkets. He then joined the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs. He left to work for a hedge fund, Bridgewater, becoming its CEO in 2017. You couldnt invent a better antithesis of a populist.

After flirting with a McCormick endorsement, Trump endorsed Dr. Mehmet Oz. In case youve been living on Jupiter, Oz is a TV doctor (with actual medical credentials) who has been accused over the years of promoting one fake cure after another.

Oz is Trumps kind of guy. He and Trump have been on each others TV shows. Trump prizes Ozs celebrity.

Oz doesnt actually live in Pennsylvania; he registered at his in-laws Pennsylvania address in 2020. (The Oz campaign says the doctor grew up in Greater Philadelphia, aka New Jersey.)

But Oz is being threatened from the pseudo-populist right by an even coarser right-wing celebrity, Fox News commentator Kathy Barnette. The Oz camp has frantically been running ads about Crazy Kathy, and Trump has warned that she could not win the general election.

So both Ohio and Pennsylvania display Trumps continuing gift for wreaking havoc on his own party as one fake conservative populist vies with another.

Its worth pausing to ask, what is populism?

Though the word is often sloppily used to describe both a left and a right version, populism definitely comes in two distinct forms. The only thing that connects them is disaffection and disgust on the part of common people with ruling elites and a call for radical reform. But the analysis and set of remedies are entirely different.

Right-wing populism is on the spectrum with fascism. It tends to be nationalist, nativist, drawn to autocrats, and scapegoats racial and ethnic minorities. Examples would be Viktor Orban, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Donald Trump.

Though the word is often sloppily used to describe both a left and a right version, populism definitely comes in two distinct forms.

Left populism draws on economic grievances, but looks to radical economic reforms and expanded democracy. FDR was the quintessential progressive. He rallied the people against the moneyed interests, and with good reason.

Bernie Sanders is a left populist. He could have been the Democratic nominee in 2016, and a far better counter to Trump than Hillary Clinton, who was the antithesis of a populist.

Heres the insidious part. You can count on centrist commentators, nervous about angry masses on the march, to warn against the perils of populism generally, and to tar the progressive variant with the sins of its right-wing namesake.

Our friend John Judis makes this useful distinction. Left-wing populism rallies the bottom and middle against the top. Right-wing populists champion the people against an elite that they accuse of coddling a third group, such as immigrants, Islamists, or African Americans.

As the past several decades show, if we dont have effective progressive populism, right-wing populism fills the vacuum. And right-wing populists, like Trump or Mussolini, are very deft at marrying the symbols of popular grievances to the reality of serving corporate interests.

This explains two paradoxes: why corporate execs who found Trumps coarseness and sheer grifting distasteful were nonetheless willing to be part of his governing coalition; and why working-class Americans, who sort of knew that Trump was really a corporate shill, were willing to put that knowledge aside because he was so satisfyingly blunt at articulating their grievances against Blacks or feminists or enviros or PC liberals in general.

With half the Democratic Party in bed with Wall Street, there was no progressive economic populism to offset the right-wing cultural populism. Much the same thing happened in Europe, where right-wing populist nationalists gained ground as the EU became ever more neoliberal and living standards for ordinary people stagnated. As hated outsiders, immigrants played a key role in this inversion.

Now, thanks to Trump himself, the Republican Party is deconstructing the contradictory elements of the Trump package. It worked just well enough to win the 2016 election when all of the parts were combined with the persona of a charismatically outrageous entertainer. But what happens when one element of the Trump appeal is personified by Mehmet Oz, a second by David McCormick, and a third by Kathy Barnette?

Only one of these can win the Pennsylvania GOP primary. Will angry supporters of the also-rans vote for that nominee? Will Trump urge them to? Same story with Ohio, and the other states where Trump is widening the fissures in his party with his narcissistic meddling in primaries.

Conversely, left populism has been eclipsed since FDRs era. And the blue-collar white working class is a lot smaller now than in the heyday of FDR and Truman, though there are far more downwardly mobile Americans today than in the glory era of the New Deal coalition. Will voters once gulled by Trump give the Fettermans and the Ryans a hearing?

On these questions, the future of democracy turns.

See the article here:

Fake Populism vs. Real Populism - The American Prospect

Arts and entertainment

May 12, 2022

Through public events and exhibitions, connect with the UW community every week!

Christina Fiig: Gender Policies in a Context of (Quasi) Permanent Crisis

May 17, 12:00 PM | Online

Join the Center for West European Studies and the Jean Monnet EU Center to continue the Talking Gender in the EU Lecture Series, with Christina Fiig on EU Gender Policies in a Context of (Quasi) Permanent Crisis,

Christina Fiigis an Associate Professor at the School of Culture and Society, Section for Global Studies (European Studies), Aarhus University, Denmark,has authored the paper Gender Equality Policies and European Union Policies(Oxford University Press 2020) and co-authored the chapter The Populist Challenge to GenderEquality with Birte Sim (Routledge 2021).

Since 2008, the EU has been struggling with the interrelatedness of the Euro, refugee and Brexit crisis (Caporaso, 2018), with the rise of populism (Erman & Verdun, 2018), and most recently with the Covid-19 pandemic. There are good reasons to assume that these multiple crises may be here to stay (Dinan, Nugent, & Paterson, 2017), as they are the result of many factors that are at once local, domestic, European, and global (Erman & Verdun, 2018). In this lecture, Dr. Fiig will establish a context of (quasi) permanent crisis as a framework for understanding the contemporary developments in EU gender policies and the rise of rightwing populist parties and voices in the European Parliament.

Free | RSVP & more info

MFA Dance Concert

May 18 May 22 | Meany Hall

Treat yourself to a live in-person performance with original choreography created by our world-class MFA in dance candidates and performed by our undergraduate students! The Department of Dance graduate students, all of whom have had no less than eight years of professional dance experience, work with selected undergraduate students to compose six conceptually and aesthetically diverse works. This years MFA candidates include artists who have worked with some of the worlds most distinguished dance groups, touring nationally and internationally, including but not limited to BANDALOOP, Dance Art Group (DAG), The Lmon Dance Company, Martha Graham Dance Company, Merce Cunningham Trust, Stuart Pimsler Dance & Theater, and 10 Hairy Legs.

$10 | Buy tickets & more info

Online Symposium Dismantling the Body

May 18-19 | Online

The Graduate Students of Art History (GSAH) are pleased to invite you to the two-day virtual symposium Dismantling the Body: Possibilities and Limitations in Art Making on May 1819, 2022.

Throughout arts history, the human body has been a site of tensions, subject to regulations, overcoming or submitting to physical challenges, but also offering far-reaching opportunities for self-expression. This symposium will bring together scholars and artists to explore the interactions between body and place, the production of bodily knowledge, the regulation of the body, and its agency.

Free | Register & more info

Monica De La Torres, Feminista Frequencies, Book Talk & Celebration

May 18, 3:30 PM | Communications 202

Please join us for this book launch, celebration, and discussion with author Monica De La Torre, GWSS Alum (PhD 2016) and Assistant Professor in the School of Transborder Studies at Arizona State University. The road to the 2022 publication of her book Feminista Frequencies: Community Building through Radio in the Yakima Valley (UW Press) began with Dr. De La Torres doctoral research in the UW Department of Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies. In this event, she will give a presentation on the research behind the book, delving into community-based radio as feminist praxis, public scholarship, and the process of turning a dissertation into a book, and then opening into a discussion with the audience. A reception will follow the event from 5-6pm.

Resistance through Resilience:CCDE 7thAnnual Conference

May 18-19 | Online

Consisting of a two-part listening session and a panel discussion, theCCDE/UWRLResistance through Resilience conferencewill showcasedialogues fromprogram participants alongsideelements ofthe Resistance through Resilience curriculum.

Free | Register & more info

DXARTS Spring Concert:Life Studies

May 18, 7:30 PM | Meany Hall

The Department of Digital Arts and Experimental Media (DXARTS) is pleased to present a program of classic virtuoso works of aural cinema and acousmatic music from DXARTS artist researchers.

Free | Register & more info

Passage

May 19 21 | Floyd and Delores Jones Playhouse

Obie Award-winner Christopher Chens provocative fantasia,Passage, gently lifts us from our own reality and sets us down in a new place: Country X. Country X has been occupied by Country Y. Country X is allowed its own laws and leaders, but Country Y controls both and has been unfairly abusing its power to mistreat native-born citizens. Chen deftly deploys theatres primal evocative powers to raise questions that make the audience profoundly uncomfortable, but simultaneously creates a welcoming space to which everyone is invited. (Time Out New York). New Drama faculty member Adrienne Mackey, Artistic Director of Philadelphias Swim Pony, makes her UW Drama directorial debut.

$5 20 | Buy tickets & more info

Roe v Wade: Impact, Solution, and Empowerment

May 21, 10:00 AM| Online

This event is aStudent-ledinitiative, open to all community members who are passionate about reproductive justice. This event is an opportunity for activists, organizations, and the greater community to come together and discuss what is at stake for Roe v Wade, and its place within the Reproductive justice movement.This event is sponsored by the UW Alene Moris Womens Center, as well as the Center for Studies in Demography & Ecology at the University of Washington.

We are excited to introduce our guest Keynote speaker, Dbora Oliveira-Couch, from Surge Reproductive Justice.

Please join this event, to attend workshops from organizations and speakers from a variety of organizations:

More information about the workshops and speakers will be updated shortly.

Free | Register & more info

Read the original:

ArtSci Roundup: MFA Dance Concert, Passage, and More - University of Washington

WASHINGTON - APRIL 26: U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reacts as he leaves a news conference on ... [+] high gasoline prices at a gas station on Capitol Hill April 26, 2006 in Washington, DC. The Senate Democratic members called for action against gas price gouging. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Democrats continue to decry high gasoline prices and accuse oil companies of price gouging, but lawmakers should consider whether their policies restricting domestic energy production are to blame for soaring consumer prices.

Democrats may want to look in the mirror before pointing the finger at the people who create jobs and produce the energy this country runs on. The Democrats' own policies are causing the energy scarcity that's driving up prices.

Oil and gas prices have risen because of falling supply. Less than a decade ago, there were 1,600 active drilling rigs in the country producing or searching for oil; now, there's a quarter of that number.

There were twice as many drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico before the pandemic hit in spring 2020. That was also the last time oil was at or above $100 a barrel.

Why? Because the energy sector faces severe supply chain shortages, including skilled workers who left the industry during the pandemic, and shortages of critical materials such as frac sand and wellbores that have become scarce and expensive.

Those factors have combined to restrain American oil production, which now sits around 11.6 million barrels per day compared to a peak in 2019 of 13 million per day.

Democrats know high energy costs and inflation are a problem in the midterm elections and are desperate to show that they are addressing the issue.

They are sticking to their populist playbook of blaming corporate America for profiteering. They have bashed oil companies incorrectly for price gouging since consumer prices at the pump started rising after President Joe Biden took office over a year ago.

Congressional Democrats are proposing numerous bills against Big Oil for the crime of profiteering. Now, they plan to introduce legislation next week that would expand the Federal Trade Commission's authority to investigate price gouging and give the President the power to declare an energy emergency and limit price increases.

This is how things are done in Venezuela and other socialist countries, not America. Thankfully, none of these measures are likely to become law because Democrats lack the 60 votes required to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.

The FTC already has all the authority necessary to act against manipulation in wholesale and retail oil markets. Dozens of federal investigations into price gouging the most recent was done in November at Biden's request have failed to turn up evidence that producers are keeping prices artificially high. Repeated FTC investigations have found that changes in gasoline prices are based on market factors rising demand meeting limited supply not illegal behavior.

Price gouging legislation is a blatant attempt by Democrats to shift blame for an issue they know consumers are rightfully worried about. And the situation won't get any better as the summer driving season begins in a couple of weeks, adding to the demand pressure. Americans are looking for solutions, not posturing by frightened politicians.

False accusations of price gouging are not only wrong, but they are also dangerous. Attacking the very industry while we need it to increase investment in exploration even the Biden administration has called on the oil industry to increase supply only makes sense to the far-left progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

The price of crude and refined products like gasoline and diesel is set in a global commodity marketplace. Prices are soaring because of a global supply crunch, workforce constraints, the war in Ukraine, and an economic rebound as the United States and much of the world emerge from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, driving up demand.

Prices at the pump are at or near record highs in many parts of the country due to the growing imbalance between supply and demand.

The EU's moves to ban imports of Russian petroleum have added to the upward pressure on prices. Russia is a major supplier of crude and refined products particularly diesel to Europe. By cutting off Russian supplies, Europe must find replacements elsewhere in the market, which has knock-on effects across global fuel markets. American consumers will feel the pain, too.

Global oil markets are suffering from insufficient investment in new supplies. That is the case in the "upstream" the exploration and development of crude oil supplies and in the "downstream" among refiners that process crude oil into products like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that consumers use every day.

Today's supply crunch is as much about a lack of refining capacity as low crude supplies. The world lost roughly 4 million barrels a day of refining capacity during the pandemics demand collapse, including about 1.4 million barrels a day in the United States. In a global oil market of 100 million barrels a day, that is a considerable figure.

With global climate policies and related ESG investor pressures, theres concern that worldwide oil demand will peak in the next decade. Refiners shut excess capacity during the pandemic and, in most cases, don't plan to bring it back now due to political pressures related to the low-carbon energy transition. Refiners are asking themselves why they should invest limited resources in a venture that politicians and markets are betting against?

The Ukraine war makes matters worse because Russia is a major exporter of refined products, and sanctions are taking a significant toll on these sales. Russian refiners can't find buyers for their diesel, so they are reducing production and taking supply off the global markets. Covid-19 lockdowns in China, another major exporter of refined products, have a similar effect.

So, domestic high energy prices are part of a global trend, not a conspiracy by retail gasoline station owners most of which are not owned by major oil companies but by smaller, independent players.

The market fundamentals arent going to be changed by price-gouging legislation. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is also not going to ride in and save the day. The Saudi-led cartel has made that clear by consistently resisting President Bidens pleas to add more supply to the market.

The only thing that will alleviate the situation is higher investment in global crude and fuel supplies. Biden knows this, which is why he recently did an about-face on the issue and called for more domestic drilling. But the President and his party's energy and climate policies are still working against the development of new fossil fuel supplies, and theyve done nothing to resolve the lack of refining capacity.

The White House is sending a mixed message on energy, blaming Big Oil for a problem it helped create. Consumers may be footing the bill for Bidens policies now, but Democrats will pay at the polls in November.

Read the rest here:

Congress Picks Populism Over Increased Supply With Price Gouging Legislation - Forbes

[MUSIC]

Its The Argument. Im Jane Coaston.

It seems like right now any conversation about the 2022 midterms is actually kind of about 2024. And any conversation about 2024 is inevitably about Donald Trump even if its not about Donald Trump the person, but Donald Trump the idea. Because even if Donald Trump doesnt run again, his ideas, his ethos, his whole vibe will be. Itll just be coming from a different Republican. In this primary season, were seeing a lot of that. So this week Im joined by two conservative writers who are thinking a lot about what the winning G.O.P. candidates can tell us about the waxing or waning influence of Donald Trump, or the idea of Donald Trump on the party.

Hello. Nice to meet you both.

Hey, good to meet you.

Yeah.

I cant believe weve never talked, I dont think.

Yeah, I actually am kind of surprised that this has never happened until now.

Yeah.

Good, well, thats what youre for, right?

Uh-huh. Yep. Im bringing people together.

Thats right.

We try. Heres David French.

Im a Senior Editor at The Dispatch, a Contributing Writer at The Atlantic, and Memphis Grizzlies fan.

And Chris Caldwell.

Im a Contributing Editor at The Claremont Review of Books, and a Contributing Opinion Writer for The New York Times Opinion Section.

This all started Chris, you wrote an article for New York Times Opinion about J.D. Vance, the best-selling author who just won the Ohio Republican primary election for Senate, analyzing what you think contributed to his popularity in Ohios primary, including and beyond Trumps endorsement, and I think we can use that as an interesting case study and jumping off point for discussion. I was particularly interested, because Im from Ohio. I grew up in Ohio. Its always been a very conservative place in a lot of ways.

But I wanted to walk through your piece with David, because I know he disagrees with some of the major points. First, you say the people who voted for J.D. Vance havent changed. Whats changed is that Trump gave them an outlet for their grievances.

But I disagree with that, because in 2016, Vance was not a Trump supporter. He described him as reprehensible, as cultural heroin. Flash forward to his campaign, he said that he underwent a political evolution of sorts, that Trump was right, elites are corrupt, and then he got Trumps endorsement in the race. So I think if you read Hillbilly Elegy, and you read some of what Vance wrote, it wasnt that there were no problems, it was that Trump was the wrong solution. Why, and what do you think changed, Chris?

Well, as I say, I am not sure that Vance changed as much as you are. I think through traveling with him, I formed the impression that we might have taken some of the wrong things out of Hillbilly Elegy. That is, we might have misidentified the center of the book. That book was written in 2013, 14, 15. It came out into the Trump campaign, and I think people grasped that as a way to explain Trump.

But I think the emotional center of that book is his relationship with his family. And I think that the sociological explanation of the politics of that region I think its secondary. Now, if you look at the political attitudes the book does describe, a lot of them are really youd call them arch conservative.

When I say I think that Trump changed Ohio more than other states, its because of the nature of the Ohio economy and the Ohio culture that grew out of that economy. It is, again, a varied economy. But if you have a manufacturing style economy, it has really suffered more than other economies in the last, lets say, generation. And the fact is, you have never had, with a few peeps here and there, but youve never had a presidential nominee of one of the parties who made a full-throated assault on the arrangements that destroyed that economy. And Trump did that, and its something unique among presidential candidates.

Ive been alive since 1987, and I remember George W. Bushs election in Ohio, and Ohio helped propel him to two presidential elections. And much of the state-level language that George W. Bush and Karl Rove were relying upon was talking about poor white voters, and talking to poor white voters, about a compassionate conservatism.

Right.

So, David, is Vance offering something truly new to low income white voters than say George W. Bush did, or is it a different packaging, and how is that difference actually showing up?

Yeah, I think Bush and Vance were moving towards working class white voters, but appealing to different aspects of the culture of working class white voters. But theres two things going on at once one is, Bush, through the language of compassionate conservatism, is appealing to, not just in Ohio, but broader in the United States of America, appealing to the better angels of our nature. So there are people who are being left behind that we need to help.

So you had Medicare expansion under Bush, for example, you had tariffs under Bush, for example. A lot of sort of the economic conservative purists really got upset about so many of the things that Bush did, and for a while it worked. Now, of course, we know what happened as America soured on the Iraq War. We know what happened in the aftermath of Katrina and the financial crash.

But I think whats different about the appeal now, in the Vances appeal, the Trump appeal, is it is much less reminiscent of a George W. Bush, and much more reminiscent of a George Wallace. And when I see Vance, and when I see this newest incarnation of Vance, Im not seeing so much compassionate conservatism as I am seeing a reemergence though of the kind of populism that dominated much of the South for a very long time in the South. And its a populism of resentment. Its a populism of tribal loyalty. It neglects appeals to better angels of our nature in favor of appeals to rage and anger hatred even.

And I think whats ultimately playing here isnt so much the globalization argument as it is much more the cultural argument. Much less rooted to, oh, here is this specific policy that Donald Trump or J.D. Vance is going to propose that is going to bring back manufacturing to this region, or their specific policy that they advance that the Democrats dont advance that is going to make my life better. I think it goes much, much deeper than that. It makes me question how unique Ohio is.

Yeah, Im curious about that, Chris, because from a what to do perspective, what is the difference between what J.D. Vance would offer and what a compassionate conservative who knows that cutting Medicare is politically a very bad idea do? This isnt J.D. Vance versus Paul Ryan. This is J.D. Vance versus the Republicans who have been Republicans in Ohio since I was a kid.

Right. Yeah, I think David lays it out as a choosing fellow feeling versus choosing group hostility, and I dont think that thats the way it happened. I think that whats happened is a shift in the economy thats brought a shift in the class system.

And I think that, lets say at the dawn of the New Deal, you had a Democratic Party that was, although idiosyncratic, pretty identifiable as the working mans party, and the Republican Party that was more or less a proprietors party. The New Deal changed that, and it created a kind of alternative way of rising through the society. There was sort of a Democratic Party constituency of both working people and, lets say, educational institutions that gave an alternative way to rise.

And so when you get to the 1980s, neither of the parties had a strong class identity. They had a class mythology in them. I think that the Democrats still thought of themselves as the party of the downtrodden working man, but the downtrodden working man might have a second house on one of the Great Lakes with a boat, you know.

Right.

Whats happened lately is a few things. Weve had deindustrialization, but weve also had the rise of a new economy, a lot of it around universities, and the Democrats are the party of universities. And so very gradually to the point where you havent really even noticed, we have emerged back in a world where the parties have class identities.

And so I think that what youre seeing is loud class arguments from certain Republican candidates. Vance is one of them, and thats one of the reasons I began the article by quoting Vance really shouting very passionately about wanting to break up the tech companies. And its not that the people who vote for him dont use the internet or anything like that, but they dont feel they have any say in the way the new, lets say, high tech economy and social order is set up.

David, youre looking askance.

Im thinking were over-analyzing this a lot. I think J.D. Vance is a very online, New Right politician. He has a Twitter constituency

Right.

so he has Ive got your grievances new right Twitter that sort of builds some zealous support that he has in that world, which is really, truthfully, electorally irrelevant. Its mainly useful because he has some of the same hobby horses that Tucker Carlson has, for example, so that helps get him on Tucker Carlson.

But the reality was, there was this race for the Trump endorsement and he captured the Trump endorsement, and then hes running in a multi-candidate primary where that Trump endorsements going to make a big difference. And you know, he goes for the Trump endorsement in a couple of ways. One of the ways he goes is by fighting like Trump, by appealing to that lowest common denominator kind of rhetoric fight, fight, fight, never back down, fight, fight, fight.

This isnt, I dont think, an exercise in difficult sociological analysis. He was in a multi-candidate primary, he appealed to lowest common denominator populism. One of the things he said is, Our people hate the Right people. Our people hate the Right people. And he captured 30 plus percent of the electorates still bigger than folks thought. Now hes going to run in a general election in a two-candidate race, where its really rough for Democrats, and that negative polarization is the single dominant factor of American politics.

I also think its worth recognizing here that because it was a multi-person primary, its not like J.D. Vance won an overwhelming number of votes. There were a lot of people running for that nomination, and he beat Josh Mandel, the most try hard person, perhaps, in the history of American politics. And I do want to pivot to the general election, because Chris, you wrote that Vance told you that he thinks he got Trumps endorsement because he embraced Trump as a political program to be carried out, not just as kind of like a vibe to follow. What is the program? What is he going to do?

Yeah, I should make very clear, though, that was a beautiful quote that Vance gave, but I didnt get it. Actually, its from a Dayton television reporter named Chelsea Sick. So I think that the context in which she asked him that question was the one you say that a lot of candidates were going for the Trump endorsement.

Right.

The one who didnt seek it, Matt Dolan of Cleveland, a State Senator, got about 25 percent of the vote. But this indicates that whoever got that

Endorsement.

endorsement was in a very strong position.

To do what?

Well, it leaves him in a strong position in the election. Now, whats he going to do? I dont know. When he talked about Trumpism being an agenda, he named trade, the border, and not getting us into wars of choice.

And so, I tend to think that Vance will be protectionist, you know. He would not revive the Pacific Trade Pact that Trump pulled out of. He would build the wall, if he could get the votes for it in a non-metaphorical sense, and in a metaphorical sense, he would be much more restrictionist on the Mexican border. And hell oppose the Ukraine war or the United States role in it. I think those are three things trade, the border, foreign policy.

I mean, it still seems to me, and Im curious to get your thoughts, David, that because of what Id call the nationalization of politics I grew up with it makes me sound like Im 80 years old to talk this way but I think it is interesting to me that after growing up with Ohio politics being Ohio centered, as if Ohio was, and I quote, the heart of it all.

But now you see like you were just talking about, the trade policy, and the war in Ukraine, and securing the Mexican border. And Im just like, what does this have to do with my mom? What does this have to do with if I am elected, this thing will happen. Well finally do something about the I-71, 75 interchange. I mean, this is perhaps just a general pet peeve of mine.

But I think that the nationalization of politics coincides with the sense that Congress cant actually do anything because individual congresspeople are talking about the Mexican border, or war with Ukraine which are both really important issues. But at a certain point, if J.D. Vance wants the wall to get built as a United States Senator, hes got some power to do so, but not much. If you are supposed to call your Senator when theres a thing going on in your state and theyre, like, hang on a second, I got to stop unnecessary wars in Ukraine

Yeah.

I would get a sense of who are you here for? Are you here for Ohioans, or are you here for this larger political project?

Well you know, I think that the rise of negative polarization kind of enables a J.D. Vance style candidate, who I see as sort of what is he going to be like in the Senate? I think weve seen the model, and the model is Josh Hawley. I think thats what youll see with J.D. Vance, is youre going to see a guy who will become a Senator and hell file some really performative legislation. He has this whole album side about, you know, seizing the endowments of universities and things like that.

But if were going to take for half a second this idea that if and when he wins the Senate in Ohio that thats going to show that Republicans really dont want to see American military support for Ukraine, we need to rethink that kind of analysis because hes going to win because he won the primary because he got Trumps endorsement. He didnt get Trumps endorsement because of some really difficult, highly ideological test.

One of the reasons he got it is Trump liked his golf swing. I mean, this is the world were living in right now. And what weve constantly tried to do, I feel like, in this post-Trump world is were constantly trying to apply a complex intellectual frame

Yeah, were trying to intellectualize someone who also endorsed Dr. Oz.

Right, endorsed Dr. Oz, endorsed David Perdue in Georgia for the very simple reason that David Perdue will do his bidding on arguing about the 2020 election. And so this is where I feel like theres this disconnect often when we try to intellectualize Trump, and theres this disconnect when we try to intellectualize J.D. Vance.

Trump, A, tapped into this well of animosity. He tapped into it, and I agree that he changed the country in some ways. He changed the country by amplifying pre-existing trends towards partisan antipathy in much of the way that sometimes a symptom can make an underlying disease worse, like a hacking cough can break a rib. He did not really, actually, at the grassroots, introduce some sort of really fascinating new ideological enterprise, because the reality is kind of, whatever Trump did, they liked.

And look, Ive piled a lot on the Republican populist movement now, but let me flip this around a little bit here. The Democrats really made a pivot towards an identity-based coalition. I remember all the talk after 2012 of the coalition of the ascendant, right? People of color, single women, all of the rising demographics of America are going to rise and swamp you. Its all over for you, Republican Party.

Why is it all over for you, Republican Party? Well, youre just too white and too male to win anymore. And I think when your political opponents move very much towards an identity-based coalition and away from a working class-based coalition, you leave a lane and you leave a lot of voters just right there. And if you look at the demographics of Ohio, Ohio is 81 percent white thats more white than in America.

I know. Im aware.

Jane, news to you, Jane?

Ohio is more white than the rest of America. If you look at Iowa that is now completely in the G.O.P. camp, its super white. And so its not that the Democrats were necessarily wrong that there was an emerging Democratic majority, its just that the majority was emerging in a lot of the wrong places where they didnt need it to emerge. You know, how many more progressives do you need in Brooklyn or Berkeley?

And so youre doubling down on identity-based politics, leaving behind class-based politics. And my issue isnt that Republicans have moved into this open field that Democrats have left them, its more how theyve moved into it than the fact that theyve moved into it.

I just theres a premise thats come up that I think I disagree with both of you on, which is that theres something unusual about a Senate candidate dealing with these national issues.

I dont think its not unusual to me, but my point is that I dont think its good. I think that it is problematic to have candidates who inherently focus on issues that they themselves could not fix, or they themselves could bear no responsibility for.

Oh, but I think you could. I think, you know, the Senate has a constitutional responsibility regarding treaties. Congress gets to declare war, and not

Well, they do.

The border is a national matter. There is a division of labor between, you know, state and national governments, and I think theres a feeling that the government of Ohio is pretty well in hand.

Thinking more about you wrote about Trump in your piece, saying that you know, globalization and being against NAFTA was one of Trumps most effective rallying cries. And you wrote yourself though, Whether Mr. Trump has effectively stopped anything related to globalization can be debated. And it seems that maximalism is the privilege of being able to say anything you want without anyone really calling you on it.

Yeah.

So with Trump, you have someone who doesnt really do anything related to globalization, because its an effective boogeyman. Its effective to just have the thing that is there is a problem, and we all know what the problem is, but youre not going to do anything to fix the problem because either the solution is too politically complicated, or too politically unpopular. We are asking, or would be asking, J.D. Vance to do something, to be a United States Senator to represent my mom.

But if you are leaning hard on, here are all of our problems. We are in late-stage capitalism. We have to fire everyone and liquidate the Kulaks. And then you get into actual office, then what do you do?

I know, but I dont think people are saying that. And I dont think that the difference is between rhetoric and reality, I think it has to do with the passage of time. Governing is really complicated, and I think that failed governments, whatever they propose enacting, learn a lot from the way they were thwarted, and they get better at it as time goes on. So the rhetoric always seems to be at odds with reality until it becomes reality. So I dont, you know, some of these ideas might be good, some of them might be bad, but Im not suspicious of them just because theyre being proposed.

You know, I think you raise a really interesting question about the distinction between fixing and fighting, OK? So you say Ohio has problems A, B, C and D. What are we going to do to fix them? is one kind of thrust in campaigning. Then theres another that says the Democrats have problems A, B, C and D. What are we going to do to fight them?

And I think thats where Trump really discerned the building wave of Republican resentment. It wasnt so much on the fixing prong, it was much more on the fighting prong. And you know, the interesting thing, if youre diving into the ideology of Trumpism, is there isnt really an ideology, its more the ambitions and power hunger of a single man. If you look at his single term in office, his two largest concrete policy achievements were a corporate tax cut designed by Paul Ryan, and the nomination of a whole slew of Federalist Society judges that were put into a pipeline over the last generation of establishment, Republican, judicial and legal activism.

And I would note here on that point that there is no reason to believe that any other Republican president would have not nominated those judges.

Oh, yeah.

The judges were going to be in there, no matter what.

Oh, they were coming out of the establishment pipeline. You do not get more establishment than Brett Kavanaugh. But what did make Trump different, it was the fighting, it was the fighting.

And I think if you talked to J.D. Vance in 2016, he would say, wait a minute, this fighting stuff is a distraction from what needs fixing. And I think what changed in 2016 to 2020 was not these folks, it was J.D. and the way he transitioned from the fixing to the fighting. And I think what he saw in Trump was somebody who would inhibit the fixing. He was somebody who was certainly an avatar for grievances, but not a instrument for remedies.

And I think that thats what Im talking about when Im talking about if you have a population of white working class voters where there are real problems and how do you appeal to them and mobilize them, I think that there are constructive ways to appeal and destructive ways. J.D. was concerned in 2016 that the very method he chose in 2020 was deeply destructive, and yet thats where he went.

I think theres no doubt that Trump is a fighting politician. But I think that fighting I was really struck by the entrance of the word fight into a lot of political rhetoric well before Trump 10 years or so ago. And it seems to have come with a lot of psychological research on how people respond to rhetoric.

And I think its of a piece with the negative advertising which we see because negative advertising, whether we like it or not, has a strange effectiveness on voters. If you listen to Elizabeth Warren, she talks about fighting probably even more than Trump does. I think its really more a best campaign practice than an ideological side-effect.

I dont think anyone disputes it. Theres a wide open lane for populist incitement. I think the issue with J.D. Vance, and the issue with the Republican Party in general, is this move that says, were going to indulge it, were going to stoke it, were going to ride it. There isnt actually a program of governance thats attached to that beyond a few basic impulses about border security, and some vague ideas about trade.

I think its wrong to assume that theres going to be a symmetrical Republican policy program to the Democratic policy program. The Democrats are the party of policy programs. They have a lot more initiative in devising new things for government to do. And youre just not going to find a sort of reflected mirror policy image on Republicans. Its not a symmetry.

The Republicans will tend to be obstructing new policy initiatives. And I havent really thought about what this would mean in terms of rhetoric, but the rhetoric is bound to be different. You know, just simply sitting around and doing nothing, for Republicans, can in certain circumstances be a constructive way to spend four years. And people participate in politics for different reasons, and not all of them are constructive.

Well.

I think we will find unanimous agreement on that one.

[MUSIC]

More with David and Chris on the new standard bearers of Trumps legacy after the break.

[MUSIC]

So we have debated whether Vances win and Trumps endorsement of Vance is about policy or about vibes, and whether some of the fighting rhetoric is just usual stuff politicians do to get elected. I want to talk a little bit now about how much we should infer from his victory about where the G.O.P. is going, and if Trump clearly is king here. And I want to know where you think the Republican platform is, going forward, because I dont think its party stalwarts like Mitch McConnell. I think its, quote unquote, fighters like Ron DeSantis.

Yeah, I think the most politically effective way in which a Republican politician is trying to inherit Trumpism is Ron DeSantis. And thats not a novel insight here, but there are two aspects to the way in which Ron DeSantis is inheriting Trumpism effectively.

And that is, one, he has the right enemy, and that is the media. So he got very fortunate that the mainstream media, left media, really focused on him early in the pandemic, more so than Texas, more so than Tennessee, more so than anywhere else. Really drilled down on him and launched a frontal attack sort of on the Florida approach. And so he built up this immediate constituency just because people are going to rally on the side of whatever Republican is seen to be in the cross-hairs of the media, so he emerged with the, quote unquote, right enemy.

And then the other thing is, what he has done that is different from Trump is that Trumps fighting was a lot of rhetoric, was a lot of tweeting with a lot of outbursts. DeSantis version of fighting is a lot of legislation aimed at targets that are popular targets for the right. So, in essence, DeSantis is the next evolution of Trumpism in that its taking the online beef into the real world through legislation.

Here is the original post:

Opinion | What J.D. Vances Primary Win Says About Populism and Resentment in the G.O.P. - The New York Times

The Ontario Progressive Conservative (PC) governments attempt at re-election brings to the forefront questions of Canadian conservatism and its viability, not just in the countrys most populous province.

Throughout its tenure, the PC government has undergone significant changes in policy, appearance and general tone. A 2018 populist movement has seemingly shifted to the moderate PC coalition of old.

To capture this change, is it necessary for Ford to turn back the clock to 2018? After all, he won both the party leadership and the election on a populist agenda.

Following the more centrist Patrick Browns removal as PC leader in January 2018, Ford entered the race brandishing his previous anti-establishment and brash Toronto City Council persona.

In narrowly beating Christine Elliot for the leadership, Ford quickly shifted the image and platform of the party to his own image.

The partys electoral platform, titled A Plan for the People, contrasted the people from the elites, who, through waste, mismanagement and scandal, had along with a set of special interests benefited from exploiting every day Ontarians.

The platform argued that Fords PC party, by being better connected to the taxpayer, would bring in a period of fiscal restraint, less wasteful government spending and a more common-sense driven policy process. Among the partys promises were to fire the CEO of Ontarios utility provider, Hydro One, launch a full audit of Liberal government spending and repeal the provinces cap-and-trade program.

These initiatives shaped the initial year of the Ford government as it brought in aggressive and controversial policies.

By the time the 2019 spring budget was tabled, the government had scrapped cap-and-trade, legislated an end to the strike at York University, cancelled several green-energy contracts, put in place the student choice initiative that was later struck down, fought teachers unions over increased class sizes, limited the salaries of public servants and budgeted significant cutbacks in public spending in addition to $26 billion in tax relief.

In particular, the decision to cut the size of Toronto City Council, coupled with the threat to use the Constitutions notwithstanding clause to enshrine its bill limiting third-party election advertising, seemed to show the willingness to lash back against conventional norms and institutions.

Read more: Doug Ford uses the notwithstanding clause for political benefit

To many, this was met with a certain dread: critics, particularly those on the left, saw Ford as the Donald Trump of the North whose emergence to power marked Canadas entry into a brash, authoritarian and xenophobic populism seen throughout the world.

Alternatively, many Conservatives positively regarded Fords government as a return of former premier Mike Harriss Common Sense Revolution of neo-liberal reform.

Neither of these predictions have turned out to be correct.

By 2022, Ford and the Progressive Conservatives have come to resemble an older, conservative powerhouse: the Big Blue Machine of onetime premiers Leslie Frost, John Robarts and Bill Davis.

This is because rather than making efforts to display its ideological or populist integrity, the Ford government has come to focus more pragmatically on the consequences of each of its policies. In particular, there remains next to no rhetoric on elites versus the people.

The party was in power for 42 consecutive years in Ontario, from 1943 to 1985, and its success has been attributed to its pragmatic, moderate and borderline bland style of governance, particularly in the way it ensured a consistent level of economic growth.

The change in tone for the Ford government seems to have started in late 2019 when, following a significant drop in popularity, it regrouped via a drastic cabinet shuffle and staffing changes in the premiers office.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 showed a new side to Ford and his government. The governments response, while far from perfect, suggested Ford was empathetic and, most importantly, concerned about the practical success of policies.

Rather than disparaging the media or other governments as part of the elite, the Ford government developed a solid working relationship with the governing federal Liberals.

This new, more moderate and pragmatic tone has taken over the partys 2022 policy platform, entitled Get It Done and there appears to be no intention to shift back to right-wing populism.

As Get it Done communicates, the party now bases its appeal in the claim that it can effectively get results and most competently manage the affairs of the province.

This includes providing more benefits for workers, expanding health care and investing $158.8 billion in several large transportation projects. The governments prior fiscal hawkishness seems to have disappeared given a balanced budget isnt projected until 2027.

This suggests that a contrarian populist appeal, while it could be useful in attaining office, is much more difficult to sustain as a coherent, effective and popular governing strategy over time.

As the Ford government learned, an aggressive and contrarian approach can quickly create too many enemies, especially given Ontarios large and powerful public sector.

This could be unique to Ontario. The provinces political culture has long favoured moderation and pragmatic governance.

But its also important to recognize the implications this could have for the rest of Canada, because it provides Canadian Conservative governments with one of two choices in the coming years.

First, form legislatively influential but short-lived populist coalitions or, second, compromise to enjoy a longer, but likely much less impactful, control over the government.

Read more:

What Doug Ford's shift to the centre says about the longevity of populism - The Conversation

None of this is new. What stands out as a true departure is Mr. DeSantiss willingness to use government power in the culture war.

Sometimes this has involved areas, like public education, where the government has every right to set the rules. One such example is the Dont Say Gay bill, more properly known as the Parental Rights in Education bill, which prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Another is the Individual Freedom bill, which, among other things, prohibits promotion of the concept that a person must feel guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex or national origin.

Other times, Florida has pursued a laudable goal in a dubious manner. Its Big Tech bill seeks to keep social media companies from removing political candidates and other users from their platforms, but it has serious First Amendment conflicts and has been enjoined by a federal judge.

Then theres the fight with Disney. The revocation of its special tax status is a frankly retaliatory act that also presents free-speech issues and could prove a legal and policy morass. That said, Disney got a truly extraordinary deal from the state that allowed it, in effect, to run its own city. The company never would have been granted this arrangement 55 years ago if its executives had told the states leaders, And, by the way, eventually, the Walt Disney Company will adopt cutting edge left-wing causes as its own.

The broader point of making an example of Disney is to send a message to other corporations that there could be downsides to letting themselves be pushed by progressive employees into making their institutions weapons in the culture wars, so that they conclude its best to stick to flying planes, selling soda, and so on.

How can a limited-government Tea Party Republican like Mr. DeSantis have become comfortable with this use of government? For that matter, how is it that so many Tea Party types moved so easily toward Trumpist populism?

The key, I think, is that for many people on the right, a libertarian-oriented politics was largely a way to register opposition to the mandarins who have an outsized influence on our public life. And it turns out that populism is an even more pungent way to register this opposition. Progressive domination of elite culture has now grown to include formerly neutral institutions like corporations and sports leagues. More conservatives are beginning to believe that the only countervailing institutional force is democratic political power as reflected in governors mansions, state legislatures and likely beginning next year Congress.

Here is the original post:

Opinion | Why Ron DeSantis Is the New Republican Party - The New York Times

At the height of their power, four brothers from Sri Lankas Rajapaksa dynasty held the presidency and theprime ministers officeas well as the finance, interior and defence portfolios, among others. But just when the Rajapaksa clan seemed invincible, an economic crisis of their own making led to their undoing. But does that spell the end of South Asias most powerful political family?

On August 12, 2020, an extraordinary display of family power was under way atthe Temple of the Sacred Tooth, one of the most sacred Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka, in the central city of Kandy, the political capital of ancient kings in the island nation.

Following a landslide victory in August elections, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa swore in a cabinet that included two of his brothers and two nephews, sharing multiple portfolios among the family.

The Rajapaksas have a tradition of temple swearing-in ceremonies, a symbolism-heavy acknowledgment of the Sinhala Buddhist populism that kept propelling them into power. Over the past few years, as the familys political fortunes enlarged, the investiture entourage of officials, diplomats and media teams dutifully trekked to sacred temples on historic sites, where yet another Rajapaksa was granted yet another portfolio.

The concentration of power and mismanagement though, have been unholy.

At the inauguration of the new cabinet, the president took on the defence portfolio, contravening a constitutional amendment barring the countrys head of state from holding a cabinet post.

His powerful brother, Mahinda Rajapaksa, became Sri Lankas new prime minister and was also named head of three ministries: finance, urban development and Buddhist affairs.

The president then swore in his eldest brother, Chamal Rajapaksa, as minister for irrigation, internal security, home affairs and disaster management. Chamals sonSashindra was made junior minister for high-tech agriculture. The prime ministers sonNamal became minister of youth and sports.

Barely a year later, Basil Rajapaksa was named finance minister, taking over the important portfolio from his brother, the prime minister.

At the height of their power, the Rajapaksas appeared invincible as they signed mega infrastructure contracts andamassed fortunes whilecracking down on minorities and journalists and successfully evaded accountability in a state where they held all the reins.

For several years, human rights defenders condemned the reprisals, massacres, crackdowns, corruption and cronyism of South Asias most powerful political dynasty. Their calls went unheeded by an electorate willing to overlook assaults on liberties and persuaded by the cult of strong leaders preferring action over compromise.

But that was before the island nation descended into its worst economic crisis since its independence from Britain in 1948. As an acute foreign currency crisis sparked fuel shortages, power cuts and spiraling inflation, the tide finally began to turn against the Rajapaksa clan as Sri Lankans struggled to cope with a disaster of their elected governments own making.

This week, as peaceful anti-government protests turned violent, symbols of the Rajapaksa family power came under attack in scenes unimaginable two years ago.

On Monday night, crowds stormed the prime ministers official Temple Trees residence in Colombo, forcing the army to conduct a predawn operation to rescue Mahinda Rajapaksa and his family. The prime minister by then had already submitted his resignation letter to his younger brother, the president, clearing the way for a new unity government.

Meanwhile in the southern province of Hambantota, mobs attacked the Rajapaksa Museum in the familys ancestral village of Medamulana. Two wax statues of the Rajapaksa parents were flattened and mobs trashed the building as well as the ancestral Rajapaksa home nearby.

It was a violent assault on a clan that has held feudal power since colonial times and has used patronage and privilege to rise from local to national power, placing family members in strategic positions along the way.

The Rajapaksas are a rural land-owning family from southern Sri Lanka whose ancestors have represented their native Hambantota on state and regional councils since pre-independence days.

Prominent families have always played an important role in Sri Lankan politics. But the Rajapaksas were not part of the urban political elites in the decades following independence. While families such as the Bandaranaikes which produced three Sri Lankan prime ministers and one president dominated the national scene, the Rajapaksas were part of the rural elites in the countrys Sinhalese Buddhist southern heartland.

The current presidents father, D. A. Rajapaksa, was a parliamentarian representing Hambantota district. But it was his second son, Mahinda, who catapulted the clan into national dominance when he rose from opposition leader in parliament to prime minister in 2004.

A year later, Mahinda won the 2005 presidential poll with a narrow margin, aided, according to his opponents, by a call for anelection boycott by the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), a militant group better known as the Tamil Tigers.

It was Mahindas first win in the bloody fight against the Tamil Tigers based in Sri Lankas neglected north, home to the countrys Tamil minority.

As president, Mahinda initiated a pattern of leadership that would serve his familys political fortunes, earning him the moniker of clan leader of the rising Rajapaksas.

The transition from a rules-based order to one of family networks began shortly after the 2005 presidential inauguration when, according to family lore, Mahinda emerged from the investiture room and spotted his younger brother, Gotabaya.

A former army officer, Gotabaya had moved to the US only to return home ahead of the 2005 to work on his brothers election campaign.

According to biographers, the new president tapped Gotabayas shoulder and told his brother who had left the army as a lieutenant colonel that he was going to be Sri Lankas new defence secretary.

The Rajapaksas consolidation with the military had begun. It wasnt long before Mahinda was ready to unleash a war that would end the Tamil Tigers, as he promised his electorate.

By the time Mahinda was elected president, the Tamil Tigers had dropped their demands for an independent state in the north and were asking for greater autonomy under the terms of a Norway-sponsored ceasefire.

The agreement, it was hoped, would usher in a peace deal that would end a brutal civil war that had killed tens of thousands of people over two decades.

The Rajapaksa brothers instead oversaw a military operation that would defeat the Tamil Tigers, earning the support of Sri Lankans eager to end the civil war. But for the countrys Tamil minority, it unleashed a period of state violence against civilians that drew condemnations from the UN and international human rights groups over the abductions and disappearances of suspected Tamil Tiger supporters as well as journalists, activists, and others deemed to be political opponents by armed men operating in white vans, which became a symbol of political terror.

Gotabaya was particularly implicated in the infamous 2009 White Flag Incident when Tamil Tiger members and their families, after contacting the UN, Red Cross and other Western governments, agreed to surrender to Sri Lankan authorities only to be gunned down by the army.

The Rajapaksa brothers have repeatedly denied responsibility for the disappearances. They also maintain that they did not give the shoot-to-kill order during the White Flag surrender.

Gotabayas tough on security position boosted his popularity in the 2019 presidential polls justas it helped his politically more experienced brother, Mahinda, win parliamentary elections the next year.

But it was economics, not security, that proved to be the Rajapaksa clans undoing.

Horrified by the gross human rights violations in Sri Lanka, Western governments began dropping Sri Lanka fromaid disbursement lists. With aid and concessionary borrowing avenues drying up as Sri Lanka upgraded to lower-middle-income status, the government began relying heavily on commercial borrowings to finance the national budget.

The Rajapaksas were also increasing their reliance on Chinese investment. A massive port project in the familys native Hambantota soon emerged as a textbook example of the Chinese debt trap, with Sri Lanka borrowing from Chinese banks to pay for commercially unviable projects at onerous rates.

Chinese investments in a number of unfeasible mega projects, mostly in Hambantota, are the subject of numerous economic reports,with analysts apportioning blame to different parties. But in the real world, there was no doubtthat life was getting increasingly difficult for Sri Lankan citizens.

As the countrys sovereign debt ballooned, the Rajapaksas resisted national and international calls for an International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement and debt restructuring, insisting that Sri Lanka would service its debt.

Meanwhile, Basil Rajapaksa, who was made finance minister in 2020 despite the corruption cases against him, was dubbed Mr. Ten Percent as allegations circulated that the family was siphoning off state funds.

His nephew, Chamal Rajapaksas sonSashindra, was involved in a disastrous ban on chemical fertiliser imports, which hit the countrys critical agricultural sector.

As the pandemic shut down tourism, Sri Lankans began to despair of their countrys ruling clan.

On May 9, when Rajapaksa supporters attacked peaceful protesters assembled in Colombo, the floodgates of rage against the powerful political dynasty opened.

A day after the deadly violence, Mahindas sonNamal, who was sports minister before his resignation earlier this year, insisted the family was merely going through a "bad patch".

At 36, Namal is widely seen as the primary Rajapaksa successor, and he has a vested interest indownplaying the troubles the family is facing.

But analysts familiar with Sri Lankas culture of dynastic patronage are not yet willing to write off the Rajapaksas as a political force. "The Rajapaksa brand still has support amongst the Sinhalese population," Akhil Bery from the Asia Society Policy Institute told AFP.

"Though much of the blame can be placed on the Rajapaksas now, their successors will inherit the mess, leaving space for the Rajapaksas to remain politically relevant."

Read the original:

The rise and fall of a political dynasty that brought Sri Lanka to its knees - FRANCE 24 English

When school choice policy began making headway in the late 1990s, it came with a "voucher program" descriptor, as if a child possessed a golden ticket to visit Willy Wonka's chocolate factory but would instead use it to attend a private or parochial school.

Critics (primarily Democrats and their political benefactors, teachers unions) would harshly criticize the programs, calling them an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state or claiming it was a vehicle for Christian schools to "indoctrinate" young children.

It was one example of how Democrats used the culture wars to fuel their victories. Democrats and their political operatives were masters at attacking Republican motives and always keeping them on the defensive. When Republicans won control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, their first budget included a proposal to consolidate various federal school lunch programs to reduce bureaucracy and overlap. Democrats called it "mean-spirited" and said Republicans "wanted" school children to "go hungry." It was all baloney. Still, it was effective, and it's all that mattered. Democrats played the part of the victim very well and used the politics of resentment to their advantage.

Over the past two decades, the fault lines have shifted. Democrats were once seen as the party of blue-collar, non-college-educated voters, while Republicans were seen as the party of the wealthy and the bourgeoisie. While those with higher incomes still generally vote Republican, the educational shift is where the stark change took place.

In 1996, Sen. Bob Dole beat President Bill Clinton among college graduates 46% to 44%. Among those who didn't attend college? Clinton won 51% to Dole's 37%. In 2020, Joe Biden received 55% of the vote among college graduates as opposed to President Donald Trump's 43%. Trump won non-college graduates 50% to Biden's 48%. But among those who never attended college? Trump won 54% to Biden's 46%.

It explains the hold populism currently has over the Republican Party. Whether it's economics, culture, or foreign policy, the Overton window within the GOP and a significant base of its voters shifted. What bothers Democrats and their allies in the press is not so much that Republicans are doing it but that they've become successful at it. It's similar to gerrymandering. It was never a "threat to democracy" until Republicans started doing it effectively.

People have recoiled at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for going after Disney for getting involved in the fight over the Parental Rights in Education bill after succumbing to pressure from some employees and LGBT advocates. But again, singling out corporations or specific industries is a tried and true Democratic tactic. "Windfall profit taxes," threatening to penalize companies financially that don't pay employees at least $15 an hour, threats of Federal Trade Commission investigations, and using environmental, social, and governance scores to force corporations into adhering to preferred Democratic climate policies are examples.

I mentioned it on Twitter and had several people offering up the "That's different!" excuse based on why Democrats did it vs. DeSantis. You see, Democratic motives for doing so are valid, while Republican motives are not. It's typical of the mindset that tries to reason, "It is awesome when our side does it."

Personally, I am not a fan of such tactics. As one who still adheres to conservatism's embrace of the three-legged stool (a robust national defense, free-market economics, and social values) variety, I am not happy with the GOP's populist shift. I think it values short-term success to the detriment of success in the long term. Still, I certainly understand why it's happening.

With a more polarized electorate, it becomes that much more critical for politicians to turn out base voters, particularly those who want to see their political leaders "fight" for whatever they think is worth the fight. Ironically, the liberal Left and nationalist Right have aligned on various economic issues as both bases have played to their more populist elements.

Republicans have found a way to reach what was always a core Democratic constituency. By aligning themselves with working-class voters, the GOP turned Ohio into a bright-red state, making Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota more competitive than they've been in decades. To the Democrats complaining about Republican tactics: The reality is, just like in that old Partnership For a Drug-Free America public service announcement from the 1980s, they learned it from watching you.

View post:

Republicans learned some of their political tactics from watching Democrats - Washington Examiner

ByJavad Heiran-Nia

Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sets the overall direction of the country, so understanding the psychological milieu of the leader and the political establishment is important in interpreting and anticipating Irans foreign policy.

Khamenei was considered a pragmatist before he became leader in 1989, according to a CIA report published in 1986. However, in office, he took the views of radical Iranian leftists, adopting extremist slogans against the west and the United States. Khamenei, who was from the right-wing, abandoned pragmatism in foreign policy to weaken left-wing rivals and get the support of Irans security establishmentparticularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)after being appointed leader of Iran in June 1989. In going along with the hardcore faction of power, he consolidated his position.

His view of the international order is based on three axes of global power. The firstthe liberal order based on institutions and laws created after World War IIis weakening in his view because American hegemony is declining. A second axis, formed by Russia and China, is seen as rising. The third axis joins Iran with this rising new world order with Moscow and Beijing, adopting a policy of look to the East, and abandoning the old slogan of Neither East, nor West that was dominant after the 1979 revolution.

On April 26, in a meeting with students, Khamenei said: Today, the world is on the threshold of a new international order, which, after the era of bipolar world order and the theory of unipolar world order, is taking shape. In [the] current period, of course, the US has become weaker day by day.

Referring to American theorists such as Stephen Walt, who also see the decline of US primacy, Khamenei said in 2019: Some American experts and thinkers have used the term termite-like decline in describing the political, social, and economic situation of this country.

The US economy now accounts for less than a quarter of world GDP, down from a 40 percent share in 1960. US military spending is still huge, accounting for almost 40 percent of the worlds total military spending in 2020, but the US is no longer seen as the sole global hegemon.

American thinkers such as Joseph Nye see a decline of the liberal order as countries such as China exploit their membership in the World Trade Organization. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, this order was challenged by the rise of China and populism in Western democracies. Once champions of globalization, the US and Europe are now seeking to counter this trend.

Although the US has long commanded the technological cutting edge, China is mounting a credible challenge in key areas, according to Nye. But, ultimately, the balance of power will be decided not by technological development but by diplomacy and strategic choices, both at home and abroad.

Foad Izadi, a well-known Iranian theorist and professor at Tehran University, shares the view that the US is declining due to structural weaknesses in its economic foundations. As Americas pillars and foundations become weaker, so does the strength of these pillars.

Izadi also said recently: We are witnessing the decline of the United States in various areas, including social and economic. This situation is not reversible and unstoppable. Many of the worlds problems will be solved with the decline of the United States.

Despite Russias poor military performance in Ukraine and the at least temporary reinvigoration of NATO, Iranian officials still assert that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a sign of the US losing strength. This was echoed by Khamenei recently on April 26, when he said, The issues of the recent war in Ukraine should be seen more deeply and in the context of the formation of a new world order.

The Iranian establishment also believes that there has been a decline in the liberal order amid a rise of populism and far-right currents in Western democracies.

The establishment uses these views to justify closer relations with Russia and China to a skeptical population, especially after intensifying criticism of the twenty-five-year agreement with China and twenty-year agreement with Russia (which hasnt been finalized).

Critics note that while Chinas rise has been substantial, its power in the future shouldnt be exaggerated. The US will remain strong for the foreseeable future, with the worlds second-largest and most dynamic and networked economy, even if Chinas GDP becomes larger.

It should be noted that the continuation of high economic growth and taking steps in the field of political development without basic fiscal, financial, and other market reforms isnt possible. As Rhodium Groups Daniel H. Rosen notes in Foreign Affairs, China is relatively poor. Per capita income in China is about one-fifth of that in the United States, at around $12,000 a year. Nine hundred million Chinese citizens are not yet living comfortable urban lives and are waiting for their turn. The problems of 2022, which will be an economically bad year for China, are expected to cast a shadow over the countrys economy for many years to come.

Regarding the second axisnamely, a future world system based on Russia and China as new polesthis approach reflects the Islamic idealist and leftist nature of the 1979 Iran revolution.

At the beginning of the revolution, the new regime sought to disrupt the international system. But following the devastating IranIraq War of the 1980s, Iran faced limitations that jeopardized the survival of the regime and forced them to adjust to new structural constraints.

In the 1990s, the Islamic Republic sought to integrate into the international system. However, the failed efforts to de-escalate tensions with the West in the Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjaniwho pushed for a China-like modeland Mohammad Khatami administrations, as well as the Western blocs unprecedented economic pressure on Iran, led Tehran to pursue strategic cooperation with US rivals.

The recent Iran-China cooperation document and Iran-Russia agreement can be seen in this light.

Irans Look to the East policy seeks to use Russia and China to bolster Iran, especially on the nuclear issue, and to withstand Western sanctions and threats. But, in practice, Russia and China dont always support Iran in the United Nations and even showed some relative compliance with US unilateral sanctions during the Donald Trump administration.

The look to the East policy also has domestic implications, reinforcing a uniform political and social structure and leading to the erosion of the middle class.

Reformists who back a look to the West view have been largely eliminated from the Iranian political structure and it is practically impossible for them to return to power, as former Iranian President Khatami recently acknowledged.

In promoting the third axis of Iran, Russia, and China, Khamenei stresses that cooperation isnt limited to trade and economic relations and includes military ties. The recent visit of Chinas defense minister, which was depicted as an extension of the Tehran-Beijing twenty-five-year document, is significant in this regard.

Irans establishment sees the US adoption of offshore balancing and gradual withdrawal from the Middle East as the harbinger of a new order in the region that entails more and more cooperation with China.

In conclusion, there is a gap between the psychological milieu of Iranian political elites and the real-world balance of power. This may cause Iranian foreign policy to be less successful, but will strengthen conservatives in the political system and their supporters at the community level. Thus, the psychology of Irans foreign political decision-makers should be assessed from the perspective of domestic politics and the protection of the interests of the ruling elite.

Javad Heiran-Nia is director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Iran. Follow him on Twitter: @J_Heirannia.

Wed, Nov 24, 2021

IranSourceByJavad Heiran-Nia

Iranian experts in Tehran see the Joe Biden administration's approach toward Iran and the JCPOA in the context of his government's overall foreign policy and its desire to extricate itself from military conflicts in the Persian Gulf.

Image: Iranian women hold a picture of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Iranian flag, during the celebration of the 43rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran, Iran February 11, 2022. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

More here:

How Iran's interpretation of the world order affects its foreign policy - Atlantic Council