Category Archives: Populism

What is the link between corruption, anti-corruption campaigns, and the rise of populism? What conditions create an opening for autocratic-leaning, populist leaders to challenge democratic systems? In a timely discussion, expert guests will explore the challenges that corruption and populism pose to good governance and democracy. WorldCanvass will take place from 5:30-7 p.m. (CDT), March 31, at MERGE, 136 South Dubuque Street, Iowa City, IA.We invite you to come at 5 p.m. and join us for a pre-show catered reception.

You may attend in person or virtually,please register here.

This is the lead-off event of a three-day symposium, Corruption, the Rise of Populism, and the Future of Democracy (March 31-April 2), developed by faculty in the Department of Political Science with support from a Major Projects grant from International Programs. Major Projects funding is provided by the Stanley-University of Iowa Foundation Support Organization. All events are free and open to the public.

To read more information about the program and speakers, please visit https://bit.ly/Mar31-Schedule

Following the live event, the video recording of WorldCanvass will be available on the International Programs website and on YouTube. In addition, audio podcasts of all WorldCanvass programs can be found on iTunes and the Public Radio Exchange (PRX). University of Iowa International Programs produces the series in partnership with MERGE, 136 South Dubuque Street. Audio production is provided by Kyle Marxen.

Link:

WorldCanvass - Corruption, Populism, and Democracy | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion | The University of Iowa - Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Pakistan launched its first-ever National Security Policy (NSP) earlier this year, which purports to be citizen-centric and claims that the country changed its geostrategic policy into geoeconomics. The document of the NSP explicitly states that Pakistan will build its relations with all nations based on mutual gains and economic interests without being part of any bloc politics. The agenda and manoeuvring of the NSP based on human security and national interests is impressive, but actions on the ground are different.

The prime minister of Pakistan is continuously criticising the USA and the West on past events and opining that the West used Pakistan to clean the mess in Afghanistan. Moreover, he has also harshly rebuked the USA for drone attacks in Pakistan.

After the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, the regional dynamics of politics are altered, and the US interests have shifted from the Middle East to the Pacific Ocean. And now America wants to contain China in the South China Sea and to stop China as a new emerging superpower. For this the US policymakers prefer India over Pakistan to promote their interests in the region. For Pakistan, it is difficult to balance relations between two big giants but not impossible. Pakistan has already cooperative and close relations with China, while the US and Pakistan are old economic partners. And Pakistan was an ally of Washington in the Cold War and the War on Terror.

To establish ties with the US based on a win-win game, Pakistan needs diplomatic efforts to boost relations based on an understanding of mutual interests. Already the US is our largest trade partner, to which we export goods worth $4 billion per year, while we import goods from the US worth $2.5 billion a year.

The quick withdrawal of the US forces from our neighboring country without a political solution created security threats for Pakistan. The situation is worsened when the US blames Pakistan for its failures in Afghanistan. BUt Pakistans prime minister alleges that the US wanted to remain in the region and sought help from Pakistan for providing military bases, to which he claims to have replied with the now notable phrase, Absolutely not. This approach has created uncertainty and distrust on both sides, affecting bilateral relations.

The necessity of the hour is to stop populist rhetoric from the Prime Minister of Pakistan, while the US has to adopt a policy of non-interference and mutually beneficial ties.

Intentions as laid out in the National Security Policy document are all about remaining neutral to maximise the pursuit of national interests. But on the ground, open denunciation of the US and the West will not work if we want to achieve the goals laid out in the NSP. Diplomacy has some norms and values. If Pakistan has resentments and grievances with the USA or the West, it should use a diplomatic platform to address the issues.

Our economic condition and overall strategic situation do not permit populist rhetoric from our side.

Go here to read the rest:

Anti-Western Populism By The Prime Minister Is Not Compatible With The National Security Policy Document - The Friday Times

Marina Zaloznaya| Special to the Iowa City Press-Citizen

These days, corruption is a buzzword in political speeches, popular protests, yellow press and dinner table conversations around the world.

Sensational cases that involve large sums of money, sexand political power make for tantalizing stories, garnering substantial public attention. But corruption is by no means an exclusive domain of the rich and powerful. According to Transparency International, a staggering 1.6 billion people worldwide routinely pay petty bribes, extend in-kind favors, and pull strings to obtain desired goods and services in the public sector.

Corruption is as harmful as it is pervasive. No matter how minor, abuses of power for private gain disproportionately tax the poor, undermine meritocracy in the government, and inhibit free market competition. In the long term, these processes deepen social inequality and eat away at democratic institutions.

The unfairness at heart of corruption makes it intuitively repulsive to people across different cultures. This powerful moral charge has turned corruption into an effective call to arms for citizens dissatisfied with their governments in countries around the globe.

From the Arab Spring in the Middle East to the Occupy Movement in North America and Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe, grassroots anti-corruption protests have broken out in all regions of the world, overturning some non-democratic regimes and threatening many others.

Yet, despite the initial enthusiasm of the international community about this wave of uprisings, the anti-corruption surge had an unexpected effect of helping autocratic-leaning populist politicians ascend to power and hold on to offices that they already occupied. In countries as diverse as Brazil, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, the United States and the Philippines, right-leaning populist strongmen have positioned themselves as outsiders to the thoroughly corrupted political establishments. Many were, in fact, propelled to power by loud promises of draining the swamp or reducing corruption within the political systems of their respective states.

Yet, once in office, many of these very leaders turned to corruption as the primary mode of governing. To name just a few examples, informal distribution of public jobs, goodsand services in exchange for continued support at the polls, widely known as patronage, has been common in Argentina and Colombia; the sale of political decision-making to big business, or state capture, has shaken up South Africa; while the systematic blurring of boundaries between the public and private domains leading to spectacular enrichment of the elites has outraged many in the United States.

Some authoritarian-leaning leaders have also used the pretense of fighting corruption the initiatives that tend to be highly popular among ordinary citizens to further consolidate their hold on power.

For instance, recent governmental anti-corruption campaigns in Russia and China are widely recognized as subversive. Not only have they selectively targeted regime critics on manufactured and trumped-up charges of corruption, but they also created a faade for the likes of Xi and Putin to further diminish citizens civic freedoms and tighten state controls and surveillance. Ironically, then, popular disgruntlement with corruption has brought to power and sustained governments that are, themselves, deeply corrupt.

This brief discussion illustrates the enormous complexity of the relationship between the two phenomena causing current democratic backsliding worldwide corruption and populism.

To address this widely misunderstood relationship, and to foster an open dialogue about the challenges that corruption and populism pose to good governance and democracy, the symposium "On Corruption, The Rise of Populism, and Future of Democracy" (to be held at the University of Iowa on Friday and Saturday), will bring together leading corruption and anti-corruption scholars from across disciplines and geographic areas. The symposium is open to the public.

The opening event of the symposium, sponsored by UI International Programs, will be a free, public WorldCanvass discussion from 5:30-7:30 p.m.Thursdayat MERGE in downtown Iowa City. A number of highly regarded scholars will join me and WorldCanvass host Joan Kjaer to explore corruption, populismand the future of democracy a conversation that could not be more relevant at this moment in history. Please join us.

For more information, visit: https://international.uiowa.edu/worldcanvass-corruption-populism-and-democracy

Marina Zaloznaya is an associate professor of sociology and political science at the University of Iowa.

Read more:

Opinion: Corruption eats away at democratic institutions around the world Corruption, Populism, and the Future of Democracy - Iowa City Press-Citizen

AAP seems keen to deliver on the promises in Punjab and promote its model of governance

AAP seems keen to deliver on the promises in Punjab and promote its model of governance

The Aam Aadmi Partys spectacular win in the recent Punjab Assembly polls shows that it has successfully crafted a new dynamic in State politics. In its election campaign, AAP exhorted voters to give the party a chance and allow it to replicate the Delhi model of governance, where it is in power. It offered several freebies against the backdrop of the States staggering debt of around 3.5 lakh crore. Will AAP deliver on its promises, and can populist politics help the party grow at the national level, in the run-up to the 2024 general election? In a conversation moderated by Vikas Vasudeva, Pramod Kumar and Ronki Ram weigh in on the challenges ahead for AAP and similar parties. Pramod Kumar is Director at the Institute of Development and Communication, Chandigarh and Ronki Ram is Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chair Professor of Political Science in Punjab University, Chandigarh

Pramod Kumar: First, we have to understand how AAP scored such a massive win in Punjab, and it is not merely because they promised freebies. To my mind, it is a three-layered phenomenon. The first layer of AAPs success in Punjab is that they didnt locate themselves on the fault lines of caste, religion or region. It largely followed a catch all approach, whereas the other parties positioned themselves on one or the other fault lines; for example, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) largely located itself with the rural peasantry and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with urban Hindus and the Congress, isolated from all the fault lines, tried to strike a chord with the Dalits. These traditional parties competed with each other and branded the other as either drug mafia, or sand mafia, much to the comfort of AAP. AAP presented itself as an honest new party, which could be trusted on the basis of its performance in Delhi. Then the branding of AAP as a trustworthy paternalistic caretaker party, through promises of free education, health, free electricity up to 300 units to each household, and 1,000 monthly stipend to women resonated with the voter. Lastly, in this exercise of populism politics, it has emerged as a new Congress to compete with the BJP and is also poised to target States like Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan, currently all bipolar party States. Their focus is now on these States. The whole politics of AAP appears focussed on replacing the Congress and competing with the BJP to emerge as an alternative at a national level. The partys strategy has changed as it is moving from the local towards the national in comparison to 2014, when the party contested the national elections first, and then tried to enter into States.

Ronki Ram: To my mind, in Punjab, AAP has entered not just because of freebies. The people of Punjab were definitely not happy with the leadership of mainstream political parties. If AAP is able to establish itself with good governance in Punjab, its emergence cant be denied. Because the gap between elections in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh after Punjab is small, AAP would want to deliver on the promises in Punjab and present its model of governance which would push the party towards becoming a national entity as a political force. Against this backdrop maybe the anti-incumbency factor in Haryana and Himachal would work against the Congress party, which in turn, could give a new shape to politics with the possibility of AAP emerging as a visible force.

Pramod Kumar: To my mind, in the new language and grammar of politics, the Delhi Durbar somehow got either overshadowed or blurred. When people used to think of Delhi Durbar, they used to think that the interests, the rights, and the justice of the region blurred, because of the intervention of the controlling parties from Delhi. But in the recent elections, AAP presenting itself as a party from Punjab to deliver justice to people and liberate them from the traditional parties, showed a reverse role of the Delhi Durbar. I think that the historical or traditional way of looking at politics may have to change now and, as political scientists or students of politics, we have to rethink the new language emerging at the grass-roots level. How AAP places itself with regional aspirations for example, river water dispute, is a very crucial issue. How AAP being in power in Delhi, and also aspiring to be in power in Haryana and Himachal will be able to reconcile the claims of Punjab vis-a-vis Haryana and Himachal will be a contentious issue. Also, this will provide space for the re-emergence of regional parties, mainly the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD). The whole notion of Punjab was to have a Sikh State in mind and this will be a challenge for AAP. If AAP fails to tackle these issues or fails to answer the regional aspirations of the State, it might provide space to SAD to re-establish itself in this domain.

Ronki Ram: Bhagwant Mann, the Chief Minister of Punjab, before taking the oath of office clearly said that they would be taking guidance from the Delhi government. He stated that it would be a two-way process, they would take guidance from Arvind Kejriwals government and would also provide some suggestions from the State. In the near future, AAP will try to answer the federal-related questions of both the government in Punjab and the AAP government in Delhi. The party would be in a better place, to showcase two States working together in cooperative federalism. So here we need a new language and new grammar altogether, to understand New Delhi versus Punjab. I think people will wait and see what the new government will do; they are not going to buy the idea that outsiders are ruling the State. People want the government to resolve the real issues.

Pramod Kumar: I think a good governance model is now a demonetised currency because a number of elections have been won on this plank. The more digital you become and provide efficiency in services, other issues will arise, which calls for moving away from delivery of services to income redistribution, allowing greater access for the marginalised populations and to integrate them into the economy. I think that the challenge will be bigger because the moment you achieve this, you face bigger challenges. AAP avoided the basic fault lines in Punjab and didnt even mention certain crucial issues like national security, which are very important especially when it comes to having a relationship with Pakistan. Punjab has not been able to take full advantage of the trade between different States in India. At some stage, the party will have to face these issues as people in Punjab would want peace with Pakistan and open trade with the neighbouring country. If AAP supports this, it may mean making the party slightly unpopular in Gujarat and other States. The other issue is the agrarian crisis; there is a stagnation in agriculture. On the issues surrounding federalism, the party will have to evolve and become the main player in cooperative federalism, to draw maximum advantage from the Centre. Finally to grow nationally, AAP will have to face these challenges.

Ronki Ram: We need to study who AAP considers as its constituency its the people plying auto-rickshaws, rickshaws, whose children study in government schools. Then there are the women and marginalised people. For these people what matters the most is employment opportunities, better governance, for example ease in getting domicile certificates etc., from government offices.

Are Pakistan and India going to fight? These issues do not matter much to ordinary people. And AAP knows this very well, and its worked on its strengths in raising local issues, which were people-centric. Before the recent polls, did you find any AAP leader talking about drones coming to Punjab from the Pakistan side. They focused on extending promises of providing 300 units of free electricity, providing better schools, health services etc., and said they will work towards fulfilling these promises. It is not their strategy to get lost in big issues.

Ronki Ram: This is the litmus test for the strength, performance, and capacity of the new government. It was not only AAP which raised the pitch surrounding freebies; other political parties also made promises. It all depends on the management of resources. This is a hard task; how to build your treasury, how to build your strength.

Pramod Kumar: Punjab has a history of delivering on good governance. So, I think AAP may not have to do much work on that front.

The infrastructure and institutions are in place; AAP has to only restructure them, re-brand them and the fact is that the party is very good at branding. It can brand the work and market it. In fact, the traditional parties of Punjab were not good at branding and marketing themselves. I think AAP will be able to market itself well and this will be to the partys advantage. AAP will maximise this advantage and Punjab will be seen to be performing well until the day that elections in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are held.

Ronki Ram: Every State, every society is different; the ground realities are different. If similar conditions as those prevailing in Punjab are present in other States, and credible governance is provided, then the answer is, yes. Also one must examine the extent to which political parties stand discredited in States. The Congress certainly stands discredited in most States. But if you see SAD, it helmed the government consecutively for two terms. The point is you cant take this as a model and try and plant it everywhere. The same Punjab, which made the Aam Aadmi Party visible at the national level in the 2014 general elections, did not give them the mandate in the 2017 Assembly polls. So, there are lessons to be learnt.

Ronki Ram is Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chair Professor of Political Science in Punjab University, Chandigarh; Pramod Kumar is Director at the Institute of Development and Communication, Chandigarh

Read more:

Can a party grow nationally on a populist plank? - The Hindu

But in every other theater of the world, his thesis looked relatively dubious. American power didnt seem to be obviously declining. China was integrating with the Western world and liberalizing to some degree, not charting its own civilizational course. Russia in Putins first term seemed to aspire to alliances with America and Europe and to a certain kind of democratic normalcy. In India the forces of Hindu nationalism werent ascendant yet. And even in the Muslim world, there were repeated moments, from the Green Movement in Iran to the Arab Spring, that seemed to promise 1989-style democratic revolutions followed by convergence with the West.

The first years of the 21st century, in other words, provided a fair amount of evidence for the universal appeal of Western capitalism, liberalism and democracy, with outright opposition to those values confined to the margins Islamists, far-left critics of globalization, the government of North Korea.

The last decade, on the other hand, has made Huntingtons predictions of civilizational divergence look much more prescient. It isnt just that American power has obviously declined relative to our rivals and competitors, or that our post-9/11 efforts to spread Western values by force of arms so often came to grief. The specific divergences between the worlds major powers have also followed, in general ways, the civilizational patterns Huntington sketched out.

Chinas one-party meritocracy, Putins uncrowned czardom, the post-Arab Spring triumph of dictatorship and monarchy over religious populism in the Middle East, the Hindutva populism transforming Indian democracy these arent just all indistinguishable forms of autocracy, but culturally distinctive developments that fit well with Huntingtons typology, his assumption that specific civilizational inheritances would manifest themselves as Western power diminishes, as American might recedes.

And then, just as tellingly, the region where this recent divergence has been weaker, the post-Cold War wave of democratization more resilient, is Latin America, about which Huntington acknowledged some uncertainty whether it deserved its own civilizational category, or whether it essentially belonged with the United States and Western Europe. (He chose the former; the latter seems more plausible today.)

Then what about Huntingtons specific predictions about Ukraine, raised by Roy and Caldwell in critique? Well, there he did get something wrong: Though he accurately foresaw internal Ukrainian divisions, the split between the Orthodox and Russian-speaking east and the more Catholic and Western-leaning west, his assumption that civilizational alignments would trump national ones hasnt been borne out in Putins war, in which eastern Ukraine has resisted Russia fiercely.

That example fits a larger pattern: None of the emerging non-Western great powers have yet built grand alliances based on civilizational affinities, meaning that the third of the four big Huntingtonian predictions looks like the weakest one today. He imagined, for instance, that a rising China might be able to peacefully integrate Taiwan and maybe even draw Japan into its sphere of influence; that scenario seems highly unlikely at the moment. Instead, wherever smaller countries are somehow torn, in his language, between some other civilization and the liberal West, they usually prefer an American alliance to an alignment with Moscow or Beijing.

See the original post here:

Opinion | Yes, There Is a Clash of Civilizations - The New York Times

This article appears in the April 2022 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here.

Part of their economy is picking pecans off the ground. Old people pick pecans from under trees, Lucas Kunce explains to me as we turn onto Braggadocio Road. Its his third trip to Hayti Heights, a 537-person town in the cotton country of southeastern Missouri, and Kunce, a candidate for U.S. Senate, knows his way around.

He met Mayor Catrina Robinson last year, and drove out to attend a town fundraiser. They were just sitting down to Polish sausage and bratwurst when Robinson said she had to step away. Kunce tagged along.

Five times a day, Robinson drives around a circuit of four pumps that push sewage from one end of town to the other. Since she took office in 2019, only one pump has been working. To get wastewater moving, she uses hand-powered gas generators that work like lawnmower engines: You fill the tank with gas, pull the chain, and wait for the sewage to flow.

I swear to God, it was like I was in Iraq again, says Kunce, a veteran of two wars who still serves in the Marine Corps Reserve. When Id drive around on missions in Iraq, Id see all these gas-powered pumps all over the place, moving irrigation water, moving sewage. People would go out and crank them. It was just crazy to see right here in Missouri.

More from Lee Harris

It has been 50 years since Hayti Heights, an all-Black town, split off from neighboring Hayti, which is about half white and has a handful of businesses. Hayti Heightss economy is rudimentary. Besides the pecan pickers, one resident participates in a USDA program that sends her vegetable seeds. The town pays Hayti for water under an emergency contract, and also pays to empty sewage into a disputed lagoon.

Robinson has been working to get the citys finances in order to reclaim the municipal water system, which is currently in receivership. But much of her time is spent manually running the wastewater pipes, fixing leaks and dusting spillage sites with lime when sewage bubbles up in residents front yards. People sometimes bootleg electricity by running a power cable to the water tower, which currently stands empty. Also complicating her efforts, Robinson said, most of the towns records were destroyed when the city hall was twice set on fire.

Its a town of firebugs, Robinson said. Theyll set fire to try and cover up anything.

There is a staggering amount of arson. Almost every corner shows some evidence of fire damage. The last commercial business in the Heightsa joint barber shop, tire shop, and loungeclosed after a 2019 fire that Robinson said was set deliberately. Even one of the gas generators was torched. In one especially bad week, Robinson said, a car, a business, and a house were set on fire. Every night, something was burning.

Hayti Heights is the first place Kunce takes me during the three days I shadow his campaign. He doesnt offer much commentary, but since the place gets almost no attention from journalists, he presses Robinson to detail its problems.

The town is emblematic of a point Kunce makes often in his populist campaign for Roy Blunts old Senate seat: Weve spent trillions on failed nation building abroad, and none at home. And unlike many politicians, he can speak from experience. During tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, he oversaw a bevy of failed adventures in state development. He watched multimillion-dollar buildings erected in the middle of the desert that would only be used to enrich defense contractors.

Over the same period, economists took to comparing Americas hinterlands to the developing world. A 2017 United Nations study found that 5.3 million Americans live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty. John Ikerd, an emeritus economist at the University of Missouri, calls land and labor use by agribusiness giants a form of economic colonization. Democrats, meanwhile, have been almost eradicated in rural America.

Kunce, who has never won elected office, wants to rein in the reckless adventurism of Wall Street bankers and rechannel imperial vanity back into Missouri. A century ago, Roosevelts Rural Electrification Administration helped bring light and heat to towns including Hayti. If Kunce wins, he wants the Plains States to manufacture and install the next generation of energy. You wont hear him talk about a Green New Deal, but his campaign pays homage to the postwar eras program of public investment. And populists have won before in Missouri, on similar plans to stanch corporate greed. The Show-Me States only native-son president climbed to fame off a war profiteering investigation. Kunce now lives in the same town where Harry S. Truman grew up: Independence.

Kunces plainspoken style has earned him the attention of national media. TV news has turned to him to explain failed wars, Russian energy, and his pitch for banning stock trading by sitting members of Congress. With an entirely grassroots-funded campaign, Kunce raised more money in 2021 than anyone else running. Private polling shows him within striking distance. His slogan is targeted at places that have been left behind by globalization: Its time to Marshall Plan the Midwest.

At times, Kunce seems to see Missouri as a foreign country. Driving across the state, he marvels at the cattle country of the north, the Ozark mountains of the south, cobalt mining, corn and cotton. The state map is a microcosm of America: a reddening core flanked by two blue coasts, complete with a Florida-style southern bootheel. Its all, he frequently remarks, very interesting. I suggest adjectives beyond interesting. Diverse? All-American? Its the biggest softball question for any candidate: Tell me about the district. What binds Missouri together?

The most he can offer is a kind of kid glee: We touch the most states! Eight. (Missouri is tied with Tennessee as the state with the most neighbors.)

Kunce is reluctant to spell out exactly who hes fighting for. Instead, he gets animated about pressing back hostile forces: the Wall Street raiders, monopolies, and foreign oligarchs that have stripped Missouri for parts. Hes allergic to talk of identity, which he sees as an elite PSYOP. Culture wars keep workers fighting each other instead of the owner class, so hell have no part in them, thanks. But in a state drifting right where two-thirds of the citizens believe in hell, can he write off unifying values and build his coalition around a common enemy?

Kunce grew up in the state capital of Jefferson City with Christian parents who were conservative Democrats. Working-class and pro-life, the Kunces opposed abortion, the death penalty, and nuclear weapons. Lucas was a Boy Scout, and his dad, who worked for the state Department of Conservation, was a scoutmaster. Together they tagged deer and chopped down invasive plant species. When his youngest sister was born with a heart condition, his parents went into debt and eventually declared bankruptcy. But neighbors made them resilient. His mom would write a check and ask the grocer not to cash it yet. The cashier would oblige, Kunce says, because we grew up in a magical neighborhood.

Benyam Tesfai, a fellow Boy Scout, remembers Kunce as the kid who made it cool to wear shabby clothes. Kunce is more diffident. I was super nerdy, he says. I was not, like, a sought-after commodity.

Kunce spent middle school ashamed of his grubby socks and his dads rusted-out van. Then, a classmates fatherthe warden of Algoa state penitentiary, who drove a black Cadillacgave him a ride home from their fancier house. Kunce tried everything to avoid it, but the man insisted. When they pulled up, seeing Kunces distress, the warden stepped out of the car, and told him to be proud of where he came from.

The episode gave Kunce a lasting confidence. He became class president and valedictorian, and also sat on the homecoming court. He then breezed through four years at Yale, running track and trying a stint as a male cheerleader. In fact, he seemed to do everything without trying. He joined the Marines and is running for office, Tesfai thinks, because he wanted to be challenged by something.

Kunce deployed to Iraq with his Marine unit in 2007. Much of his work involved state capacity-building. This was tracked through a system called stoplight charts, color-coded lists of skills for Iraqi partner forces, assessing them on how they conduct community policing, for example. Red meant the forces were poor, yellow would mean making improvement, and green stood for excellence.

When Kunce first got his stoplight chart, it was mostly green. I was like, damn, these guys are good, he said. Then he was assigned to assess Iraqi detention facilities in the field. We discovered, theyre not green on any of these things. He told higher-ups the charts were inaccurate. They came back and were like, No, there will be no re-review. And, at the end of this thing, they better have gone up in a couple of categories, and were not gonna ever put them down in anything.

Iraq was his first lesson in the disconnect between on-the-ground reality and happy talk. Afghanistans corruption was worse. As an attorney, he was charged with reviewing infrastructure projects, water wells, and combat forces. We would do reviews of the security forces we were paying for, and discover that most of the soldiers or police didnt even exist. One guy would invent a sheet of people, and get the salaries for all of them.

That experience gave Kunce the nerve, last summer, to unequivocally support withdrawal from Afghanistan, as other critics hemmed and hawed. I learned Pashto as a U.S. Marine captain and spoke to everyone I could there: everyday people, elites, allies and yes, even the Taliban, he wrote in a widely circulated op-ed for The Kansas City Star. The Afghan National Security Forces was a jobs program for Afghans, propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars. As a curtain-raiser for a national audience, the op-ed gave Kunce a name as a straight talker.

Elite adventurism in the Middle East did other lasting damage, he found. American rivals grew stronger: Europe became more reliant on Russia for fossil fuels and on China for green technology. He was further convinced that America was getting screwed during a stint in the Pentagon, where he led arms negotiations with Russia and NATO. And while working in weapons system procurement, he worried about parts sourcing for jets like Boeings KC-46 refueler. Where dozens of contractors had once competed to sell military equipment, he noticed, many key systems now had only a single supplier.

To talk about his concerns, Kunce asked Matt Stoller, a researcher on monopolies, to lunch at the Pentagon. They hit it off: Both now work for the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit that opposes corporate consolidation, and they co-wrote an article for The American Conservative on monopolization among military contractors. At the nonprofit, Kunce found that the dynamic he had identified in defense was part of an economy-wide takeover by a handful of firms and financiers. Within six months of leaving the Pentagon in 2020, he was back in Missouri plotting his Senate run.

In 2006, while getting his law degree at the age of 24, Kunce ran for the Missouri state House, taking on an incumbent Republican in an ideologically indistinct district with a campaign Kunce said he had been planning for three years. He came up short by about 1,600 votes, but narrowed the gap relative to 2004 by 17 points.

That was 16 years and a world of time ago for Missouri. In 2006, the state had five statewide elected Democrats and four Democrats in the U.S. House. Today, state auditor Nicole Galloway is the only statewide Democrat, and she was demolished in a 2020 run for governor. The Republican-Democratic split in the House delegation, once 5-4, is 6-2.

The red tide is glaring in a state that has passed progressive ballot measures like expanding Medicaid and legalizing medical marijuana, while overwhelmingly rejecting a proposal for an anti-union right to work law. Adjusted for cost of living, Missouris minimum wage trounces New Yorks and Californias. Yet Democratsonce the party of workersare in dismal shape in the former swing state.

Kunce is undeterred. High-profile Democrats pitched right to cling to their seats. Former Sen. Claire McCaskill lost after repealing tax cuts on the rich and pushing for a balanced budget. By contrast, Kunce focuses on fighting corporate power, a message he thinks cuts across party lines. Studies have found that Republicans and Democrats alike see big tech companies and hospital conglomerates as wielding too much power. One poll had farmer opposition to the 2018 merger of Bayer and Monsanto, two agribusiness giants, at 93 percent.

His model is FDR, whom he admires for reviving the adversarial relationship between the state and the private sector, watching contractors like a hawk. He cites the takedown of aluminum giant Alcoa, decided a month before Roosevelts death in 1945. Appeals court judge Learned Hand argued that, despite a lack of evidence of illegal conspiracy to exclude competitors, a single enormous producers market position could itself be a form of abuse under the Sherman Act. Not to find Alcoa guilty of monopolization, the court found, would emasculate the Act.

Kunce would like to use the same logic against Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, three insulin producers he says set abusive prices. He proposes that the government set up its own insulin production facilitiesideally in Missouri, which already has a biopharmaceuticals presence. It will be important to spin these off to the private sector, he says, since the government should fund things, not run things.

Clean energy is also a big chance for public investment. In March, conservative talk radio host Pete Mundo asked him if the U.S. should drill more oil, given recent geopolitical shocks. Since 2018, Kunce pointed out, the United States has been the worlds biggest producer of oil and natural gasbigger than Russia and Saudi Arabia. Yet the market-driven volatility of U.S. oil production has made Americans more vulnerable, despite controlling a huge slice of global production. Meanwhile, Europe is sourcing big shipments of renewable-energy infrastructure, like solar panels, from China.

We are going to find ourselves replacing Russia and Saudi Arabia, as people who control the global dominance of energy, with China, Kunce told Mundo. Add clean energy to the list of sectorsincluding rare earth elements and pharmaceuticalsthat he fears are controlled by Chinese producers.

In raising concerns about foreign capital penetrating American markets, Kunce is reviving an old script. The Peoples Party, which merged the China-hawkish Union Labor Party with the Farmers Alliance in the 1890s, once organized Missourians against the interests of railroads, corporations, and national bankers. Populists combined left-wing, pro-worker views with strident protectionism, arguing in an 1892 platform for giving Native American land freely to settlers while banning foreign ownership of land.

On the campaign trail, thats now an applause line. In Greene County, it hits home with James Tucker, a corn, cattle, and soy farmer who counts himself lucky to be in business. He is a sixth-generation independent farmera lifestyle that now needs routine cash transfusions. USDA data shows that most income for family farms now comes from somewhere other than farming.

Tucker is concerned that Chinese firms are buying up farmland. Kunce homes in on the issue, pointing out that the 2013 buyout of Smithfield Foodswhich left its Chinese parent company raising 1 in 4 hogs in the United Stateswas organized by bankers at J.P. Morgan.

Jamess father, Jim Tucker, is also worried about Chinas rise. But he is less thrilled about Kunce using elite as an insult. The royals had cross-eyed kids, but they were informed people. Weve given choices over to the citizens of this country. So youve got to have an informed electorate, he tells me privately, adding that he has worked on promoting agriculture around the globe with Englands Princess Anne, who is a farmer. Dont go picking on elites.

He eventually raises the issue with Kunce, who explains that, by elite, he doesnt mean any schoolteacher or professor thats gone and gotten a college education. He just means the unpatriotic owner class of monopolists and bankersoligarchs, you could call them. Tucker seems unconvinced.

You might say the same about Missouri. Galloway highlighted foreign ownership of farmland in her bid for governor. Widely thought to be sharp and sensible, Galloway lost by 17 points. Democrats have a toxic brand.

Local Democrats arent thrilled with Kunce, either. Many view him as an unknown quantity. Another telegenic veteran, Jason Kander, came within three percentage points of unseating Blunt in 2016, when Donald Trump carried the state by a 18.5-point margin. Kander, Missouris former secretary of state who had put in years at the state capitol, was criticized as an outsider who spent too much time on the Kansas side of Kansas City.

Virvus Jones, the former comptroller of St. Louis and father of current mayor Tishaura Jones, wont entertain Kunces claim to be a populist. Jones sees a Reagan Democrat, the latest in a string of candidates willing to alienate the partys African American base to pull in intolerant rural Missourians.

In Kunces hawkishness toward China, Jones hears the latest iteration of McCaskills anti-immigrant promise to protect borders. Thats not where the base is. I dont know whos telling him that the base has some kind of Chinese fetish. I talk to a lot of people, and I have not talked to anybody who tells me the problem in this country are the Chinese. And to me, its a xenophobic kind of approach. Truth be told, we opened up China, China didnt come to us, Jones said.

Maybe Jones is a Kunce supporter who doesnt know it yet. In March, he condemned a liberal law firm for promoting spending a million dollars to attract immigrants from Afghanistan & $0 to recruit or retain black people to STL.

Kunce played Magic: The Gathering throughout his tours of duty overseas. At the facility in Afghanistan, one of the communications Marinesthe data nerdsordered a box of cards from the makers, Wizards of the Coast. (Now its a subsidiary of Hasbro, Kunce notes, because everythings consolidated.)

Inspired by role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons, Magic is a fantasy trading card game in which players summon creatures or cast spells using sets of cards with names like The Orzhov Syndicate, Elite Spellbinder, and Subtlety. It is a game of strategy whose developer has a Ph.D. in combinatorial mathematics, and involves a heavy dose of chance. Some commentators have argued that possession of land early in the game makes play strategy too dependent on luck.

Kunce has played Magic in every place hes lived. Theres always Magic people, everywhere you go, he says. I joke that it must be the only globalist community hes a part of, and he clarifies that he has only really played with Americans.

These days, he plays on Friday nights when hes home in Independence, at a game shop around the corner from his home. He takes me on a Tuesday, but the regulars still recognize him. One player tells me his play style is highly controlled: Its mostly reactive. He wants to see what were doing and try to beat that. But mostly, he just stops us from doing our thing.

In tight spaces, Kunce tends to hunch. Six-foot-two with a lantern jaw, it is sometimes unavoidable. He looks very Captain America at the fantasy card shop and seems to feel it, tilting his body forward, scrunching up. Hed rather just be a war nerd.

The next day, walking on the street where he grew up in Jeff City, full of small houses and empty lots, Kunce is more at ease. He made this same walk last year for a campaign announcement video called Home. This is where we build our future. On the cracked streets, in the forgotten neighborhoods

Josh Hawley, the senator Kunce would serve alongside if elected, begins his speeches invoking similar imagery. Quoting scripture, he said in November that its the job of men to build up the ancient ruins repair the ruined cities. But Hawley frets that governing a republic calls for manly virtues, and Americas men are withdrawing from society to watch pornography and play video games.

Others in the race are tripping over each other to provide thick models of masculinity. Mark McCloskey, a personal injury lawyer who shot to fame brandishing an AR-15 outside his St. Louis mansion, has just joined the race. Hawleys preferred choice, Rep. Vicky Hartzler, has made banning transgender athletes from womens sports a key campaign plank.

Kunce cant quite bring himself to rehearse cultural scripts ascribed to Middle America. He likes Clint Eastwood moviesand Star Trek. What does he watch while lifting weights? Netflixs most frivolous rom-com, Emily in Paris. His campaign wardrobe, endorsed by his two young sons, emphasizes animal print: button-downs embroidered with lemurs, butterflies, and dinosaurs. He thinks people should figure out their private preferences, and politicians shouldnt be in the business of moral edification.

Whether you want to frame it positively as a guiding light, or negatively as a controller, Kunce says, the government should never seek to steer individuals moral choices. It should just give people the resources to figure out their own lives. Government should be a self-determination freedom provider.

What about issues like abortion, guns, and trans rights, where the boundaries of self-determination are disputed?

In his 2006 campaign, Kunce opposed abortion. Today, he cautiously supports a womans right to choose, and stresses the language of individual choice, framing anti-abortion laws as another area where elites are passing Big Brother laws to keep Americans weak and divided. He refers to a Texas law that relies on private citizens for enforcement, pushing neighbors to spy on one another.

If youre one of the people whos profiting massively off our economic system and want to keep the status quo, he explains, its great to fund culture war stuff, on either side, because you keep everybody distracted.

Since he was a teenager, Kunce has played computer games like Sid Meiers Civilization. (He once retorted to Hawley that he and his fellow Marines played video games between missions.) But unlike family-values conservatives with high-flown talk about the decline of masculinity and a looming clash of civilizations, Kunce knows the difference between battleground and fantasy.

Globalists have these ideas like theyre playing a computer game, and they dont even know whats going on in their own backyard. Or if they do know, then theyre particularly evil, Kunce says. What about Hawleys vision for reviving American manliness?

Thats Star Wars: Clone Wars crap, Kunce says. Does he want us all in his image? I wouldnt want to be like him. To me, that would be emasculating.

Democrats build handsome careers these days losing long-shot campaigns in red states. McCaskill and Kander, the last two high-profile Democrats to fall short in Missouri, are now frequent contributors on MSNBC, where Kunces star is rising. Several Democrats, convinced the state is irretrievably red, suggested that he could be running for a book deal.

If thats the gambit, he is playing masterfully. Nearly everyone who meets Kunce is charmed. The bigger worry is not that Kunces honest intentions will fail to come through, but that his authenticity may be beside the point. If he makes it past a field of seven primary challengersincluding one former state senator who is basing his candidacy on electabilityKunce may not get a chance to make his general-election pitch to voters, because Missouri, like the nation, is deeply divided.

With each passing year, fewer and fewer Missourians think of themselves as temporarily estranged Democrats. The state is drifting right, so the question is less whether you have a perfect message, and more where that message breaks through. Americans increasingly consume their news on Facebook, where inflammatory culture war content plays best.

He may have the resources to overcome that. Despite not taking corporate PAC money, Kunce has consistently outraised not only his own fellow Democrats, but all the Republicans in the race, which includes two sitting members of Congress, the current attorney general, and a former governor.

Given his new role as a media gadfly, it may not be surprising that a large share of Kunces grassroots contributions come from out of state. Does that make him, in the old populist lingo, a carpetbagger? Money isnt in Missouri, is his response, since whats happened in Missouri over the past 40 years is basic economic warfare.

In 2012, McCaskill held onto her seat when she faced down an opponent who dismissed the likelihood of getting pregnant from legitimate rape. If Kunce wins, it could be because hes dealt the right hand. Former Missouri governor Eric Greitens, currently the Republican favorite, is a Navy SEAL with a Ph.D. from Oxford in refugee studies.

Greitens is ethically challenged. Frequently likened to Trump, the candidate has been embroiled in a scandal surrounding the misuse of a donor list to his veterans charity, and was found by a state panel to have tied up and sexually assaulted a woman in his basement. Before resigning as governor, Greitens said, This is exactly like whats happening with the witch hunts in Washington, D.C.

Scott Faughn, a Republican newspaper owner, said that in a race between Greitens and Kunce, he would probably support Kunce. He cant bring himself to back Greit-ens, he said. Im just not part of the basement wing of the party.

What about Kunces campaign as a positive case study for populism? Can a Marine who loves Magic unite mainline Democrats and disenchanted workers?

Kunce doesnt talk about it in those terms. Hes not rustling up team spirit, but identifying a common enemy. He may be reluctant to name his coalition because its members wouldnt want to be found at the same campaign after-party. Some might suspect each other of being racist whites, politically correct Blacks, or temporarily embarrassed yuppies. His insistent focus on the looting of the American heartland allows him to be many things to many people.

Moderate Democrats, for instance, are forever rediscovering the idea of running brawny veterans in red states, hoping that Republicans get whipped into such a patriotic fever that they accidentally vote blue. They might get more than they are bargaining for. Blandly handsome Kunce has repackaged progressive ideas as sensible plans for investment in green manufacturing, and thunders proposals for trust-busting to cut the investor class down to size.

There is also a growing appetite among national pundits for someone fiscally progressive and socially conservative who can articulate a vision of revived American greatness. That is, in fact, who I thought I would be meeting. Someone who had been to D.C., read the room, and replanted himself in the no-till soil of Independence, Missouri, to refute globalization and the delusions that marketization and growth would be peaceful, and offer a counter-vision for Americas new role in a multipolar world. Instead of managed decline, this would be a vision in which American power is spent more sparingly, but is no longer a dirty word.

He believes in the project of America, Matt Stoller had told me. He wants to wield power Hes saying, Im an optimist.

Actually, Kunce is a realist. He doesnt have much patience for abstract cant about the American project. And he is a conservative, but not the same kind as Hawleys speechwriters. He wants to rebuild a state torn up by the violent invasion of markets. The friend who seemed to know Kunce best was not Stoller but Robinson, the mayor of Hayti Heights, who was most struck by his neighborliness. When he has visited, Kunce has helped her refill the gas generators and prime the sewage pumps. That surprised her. Most people, theyll be deterred by the smell.

Faiz Shakir, a former Bernie Sanders adviser, wrote a recent article with Sarah Miller, Kunces boss at the American Economic Liberties Project, diagnosing Democrats failure to project muscularity. Even amid a surge in bold proposals to curb corporate power, they say, Democrats are still delivering a shaky pitch, deferring value-based judgment and leadership.

Kunce wants to revive public investment and patrol elites. That would seem to be what Shakir and Miller are looking for: building a political coalition around a set of shared values. Kunce suggests otherwise. Hes betting that if you identify a common enemy, your allies are implied.

For her part, Mayor Robinson says she is not a political person. Kunces focus on restricting the power of elites is rousing.

He dont care whose toes he step on, she says. She especially likes his proposal to ban congressional stock ownership. The people who own all this money in stocksthey started getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. I agree with that. Stop making them get rich. They pick and choose when their stock can go up and downits not fair. I agree wholeheartedly.

UPDATE: The day before this article was published, the St. Louis socialite Trudy Busch Valentine announced that she will join the race as a Democrat. Shortly following that news, former state Sen. Scott Sifton, Kunces top primary competitor, dropped out and endorsed Valentine.

Heiress to the Anheuser-Busch beer baron August Gussie Busch Jr., Valentine is a Democratic party donor who was a major contributor to former Sen. McCaskills campaign. She held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2016 that was attended by McCaskill, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Launched in St. Louis in 1876, Anheuser-Busch makes iconic beers such as Bud Light, and markets itself as America's Best-Loved Brewery. It is now a wholly owned subsidiary of AB InBev, a Belgian multinational.

Read this article:

The War Nerd - The American Prospect

The billionaire tax included in President Biden's 2023 budget is a welcome brand of pitchfork-wielding, of the kind that President Obama disdained when he shamefully told an audience of bankers in 2009 that his administration was the only thing "standing between you and the pitchforks." If Obama-era Democrats had been more on the side of the pitchforks, that role would not have passed to Donald Trump.

Biden's billionaire tax would raise $360 billion over a decade by taxing those with annual incomes over $100 millionroughly the 20,000 wealthiest families in the country. That's the top one-hundredth of one percent of American households.

They can well afford to pay. During the first two years of the COVID pandemic, according to an analysis of wealth concentration by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) based on Forbes data, the wealth of America's billionaires increased by $1.7 trillion, or 57 percent, to a total of $4.6 trillion. This was a time when most other Americans were struggling.

The Biden plan would raise taxes on the richest in two ways. First, it would add a minimum tax rate of 20 percent, no matter how many tax dodges plutocrats and their accountants came up with to lower their tax liability. And for the first time, the tax code would levy taxes on capital gains even if the asset had not been cashed in.

More from Robert Kuttner

According to some tax experts, this concept avoids possible constitutional objections to a wealth tax because it does not literally tax wealth. Rather, it taxes increments to wealth, otherwise known as income.

Biden is actually late to this party. Surtaxes on the very wealthy were previously proposed by Democrats as varied as senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren.

Wyden's version, like Biden's, would tax unrealized capital gains. Warren's version would actually tax wealth, at a rate of 2 percent on all fortunes over $50 million, and an additional 1 percent on all personal holdings over one billion. By taxing wealth directly, Warren's tax would raise a lot more money than Biden'ssome $3 trillion over ten years.

The idea of a billionaire tax, according to ATF, has been endorsed by105 national organizations,219 economists and law professors, and more than250 millionaires.And taxing the mega-rich is popular with voters generally. According to polling by the group Future Majority, support for Build Back Better increases dramatically when it is funded by a tax on billionaires.

Of course, none of these plans has much chance of becoming law anytime soon. The point is to inject them into national debate, as a key difference between what Biden and his Republican opposition stand for.

Presidential budgets are famously dead on arrivalBiden's more than most. Unlike FDR and LBJ, Biden does not have a large working majority in Congress. But that's all the more reason for him to signal the kind of progressive populist policies that he would enact if the voters would send more Democrats to Congress.

In this respect, Biden has a role model in Harry Truman, whose approval ratings in the spring of 1948 were well below where Biden's are today. Truman also faced a thoroughly obstructionist Congress.

Biden also needs to signal directly what he wants to do for regular people.

But instead of looking for ways to split the difference, Truman called Congress into a special session and sent up a package of bills to expand the New Deal that he knew Republicans would opposea higher minimum wage, more money for housing and education, increased Social Security and more funding for public power. Then he went on the road to make clear the difference between his vision and that of the Republicans.

"Don't vote for me," he liked to say, "Vote for yourselves." In the November, not only did Truman win an upset victory, but he also pulled House and Senate candidates with him and took back Congress.

Biden's billionaire tax is good as far as it goes, but there is more to progressive populism than taxing the filthy rich. Biden also needs to signal directly what he wants to do for regular people. As I've argued elsewhere, he has the executive power to cancel student debt and to order unconscionably priced drugs put into the public domain.

Wealth concentration is not the only form of economic concentration harming working Americans. Extreme corporate concentration leads to pricing power to gouge consumers. Biden could be speaking out more forcefully on that abuse as well, and proposing measures to break up monopolies as well as offering public alternatives.

To his great credit, Biden has proposed a very substantial increase in funding for the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, totaling $223 million. How about a major speech on the abuses that make this necessary?

The billionaire tax is also nested in a budget that is one-part progressive populism and one part bragging about cutting the deficit. We've seen that movie, and it bombed.

Cutting the deficit may be decent policy in some circumstances, but embracing the idea too ardently motivates austerity hawks and not ordinary voters. Reinforcing that litmus test comes back to bite you when deficits are needed to pay for public investments.

Not only are presidential budgets dead on arrival; they tend to be compromise documents whose clear signal gets submerged in the noise. Right now, any sort of progressive populist narrative is at risk of being drowned out by louder headlines about protracted war and resurgent COVID. If Biden wants to alter that narrative, he needs to be crystal clear about what he proposes to do to fight for ordinary Americans.

More pitchforks, please.

Read more:

Biden and the Billionaire Tax - The American Prospect

A great interview by Bari Weiss, talking to the tech investor David Sacks about the threat Big Tech poses to our liberty. Excerpts:

BW: You have been making the case better than anyone else that, despite the fact that we live in a liberal democracy with a Bill of Rights and a Constitution and a First Amendment, whether most Americans are aware of it or not we also are living inside a soft version of a social credit system. So for the people who hear that and think: Thats ridiculous. This isnt China. I want you to make the case.

DS: Lets start by defining what a social credit system is. A social credit system is a system that pretends to give you civil liberties and freedom. It doesnt overtly send you to the gulag for expressing dissent. Rather, it conditions the benefits of societyeconomic benefits, the ability to spend your moneyon having the correct opinions. If you dont, then your ability to participate in online platforms is diminished or curtailed entirely. Thats the situation that we are gradually heading towards.

Back in the days when we were creating PayPal, in the early 2000s and late 90s, there was really a sense that technology and the internet would expand peoples ability to engage in speech and commerce. And for the first two decades of the internet, it really did. But for the last half-dozen years or so, weve really been restricting that access and trying to curtail it. The power of restricting people in both speech and commerce has taken on a life of its own. Those restrictions keep growing.

Im not the one whos changed. Big Tech changed. I didnt leave Big Tech. Big Tech left me.

BW: When did you start to see the change?

DS: If you go back to the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution there was generally a sense of triumphalism. Back then, the CEO of Twitter said that we are the free speech wing of the free speech party. Thats how Silicon Valley saw itself. Ten years later, you have the widespread view that Silicon Valley needs to restrict and regulate disinformation and prevent free speech on its platform. Youd have to say that the turning point was 2016, when Trump got elected against the wishes of pretty much everyone in Silicon Valley. That was a little too much populism for them. And they saw social media as being complicit in Trumps election.

BW: So the populism of the Arab Spring or in the Green Revolution was good. But the populism of Trump was not.

DS: Yes. It was a message they very much didnt want to hear. So they began to believe that the message was somehow inauthentic. That it was engineered by Russian disinformation, and that their platforms had contributed to it and that they needed to crack down and restrict free speech so that it never happened again.

Regardless of what you think about Trump, I think that was just the wrong message to draw from that election. I think Trump won because, quite frankly, the Democrats fielded a horrible candidate. He narrowly wonit was less than a hundred thousand votes in a few key swing states in which Hillary Clinton barely campaigned. But rather than blame her or her campaign managers for running a bad campaign, they blamed social media and themselves for what happened and how. Since then, they have been backpedaling on the idea of free speech.

About debanking:

BW: It used to be that wed hear a lot about deplatforming. Now, increasingly, we are hearing about debanking. What does it mean?

DS: It means that you are denied access to a financial serviceyour access to your money or to your ability to conduct a transaction or to pay peoplebased on your political views. All of that gets restricted because your views are deemed unacceptable by the people who run these services.

BW: Give us an example. Maybe we can use the company you helped build, PayPal, and its creation of what youve called their no-buy list, a play on the idea of a no-fly list.

DS: Back in the early days, we believed that our mission was to expand access to the financial system. Today PayPal, under new management, is working to deny people access. Theyve actually partnered with a couple of left-wing partisan groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, to create lists of users and groups to ban from the platform. Theyve actually announced this. Theyre proud of this.

Now, these are groups with a storied history. I think they did very good work historically in the past.

BW: Its the same phrase you used before. I didnt leave the ADL, the ADL left me.

DS: Right, exactly. They used to be fairly bipartisan or nonpartisan in their denunciation of antisemitism. But the ADL has changed. Its under new management, and theyve broadened their portfolio from antisemitism to cover anything they consider to be hateful or extremist. And their definition of extremism is basically anything that disagrees with conventional Democratic Party politics or orthodoxy. So the ADL opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. It basically partnered with Al Sharpton to boycott Facebook for allowing hate speech on their platform, which is pretty amazing given Al Sharptons history. The point is that the ADL now is using their historical capital and applying it to all these fairly conventional political debates. So when they partner with PayPal to create a list of banned groups or accounts, theyve massively expanded the list of people who can be thrown off these services. If you just express a political opinion that dissents from the orthodoxy you can now be kicked off these platforms.

BW: I want to explain how we went, in such a short time, from people getting booted off of PayPal, for example, to governments wielding this power. A few weeks ago we saw massive protests in Canada of truckers who gathered in Ottawa and also at critical junctures of the border to protest Canadas Covid mandates. What Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did is that he invoked something called the Emergencies Act, which allowed the Canadian government to issue a directive that required all kinds of financial institutionsbanks, credit unions, even crypto walletsto stop providing any financial or related services to anyone associated with the protests, even if they were nonviolent, which the vast majority of the protests were. So it didnt matter if you were a protest leader or if you contributed $15 via GoFundMe, or even if you had sold a protestor a cup of coffee. Their accounts were frozen. Their money was stranded. They couldnt use their credit cards. This is exactly what you have been warning us about, right?

DS: One of the most indefensible aspects of what Trudeau did is that the freezing of accounts was done retroactively. Meaning: at the time that the protesters engaged in their civil disobedience or the people donated to them, it was a perfectly legal activity. And yet their accounts were frozen based on having contributed in the past, again, at a time when it was completely legal. So what you had was not just the fact that you had this unprecedented expansion of aiding and abetting liability to anyone who contributed to the cause, but that that liability was being retroactively determined. In other words: anybody who had views that Justin Trudeau believed were unacceptable could be retroactively subjected to this punishment.

That precedent must have a chilling effect on speech moving forward. If, today, you are a citizen in Canada contemplating making a contribution to a political cause that you believe that Justin Trudeau doesnt like, the precedent has been set that, at some point in the future, Trudeau could look back at that contribution and basically freeze your account for having made it in the past, even though its completely legal at the time that you do it. Thats one of the worst aspects of this whole thing. Thats going to have a chilling effect on peoples willingness to contribute to causes that Justin Trudeau doesnt like.

More, from Sacks:

I think that the next Republican whos going to be successful has to take a page out of TRs playbook here and say: we do not represent the interests of these oligarchs and these big, powerful companies. We represent the interests of the working man and woman trying to have the right to free speech, to make a living, to conduct payments. And it should not be up to tech oligarchs to decide who has those rights.

Read it all. I cant urge you strongly enough to read it all. Theres so much more there than what Ive quoted, and it all has to do with our liberty, and how it is being very quickly taken from us. And if you click through, you can hear the whole podcast interview, which takes in a lot more stuff.

Of course this is Live Not By Liesstuff. You dont have to believe the conservative Christian guy who is telling you this stuff. Believe David Sacks, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who helped build PayPal, Facebook, Twitter, and so many other tech giants. He knows.Elsewhere in the interview, Sacks points out how tech suppressed discussion of the China lab leak theory (which is now recognized as plausible), and the Hunter Biden laptop story (which, now that Uncle Joe is safely installed as president, they all now concede is true). It starts with censoring somebody whos widely hated saying outrageous things, but eventually it gets used on somebody who you yourself like, Sacks says. Thats what weve seen over the last several years. Censorship power keeps growing. It keeps getting applied to more and more cases.

Im writing this from a train in Hungary, going to the southern city of Szeged, where Im giving a talk to students about Live Not By Lies and culture war. The acceleration of this conflict is palpable. The young people here are about five to ten years behind America, I think. Many of them are liberal, but they are pre-woke liberals, pre-Trump liberals. They have to be convinced of the danger, and to fight for liberties like free speech, and against cancel culture. There are still places in the West that have not yet been conquered. But they are few, and the hour is growing late.

One more thing: this Sacks interview and excerpts are one example of why I remain 100 percent behind Bari Weiss, even though we disagree on a lot, and even though she published that crappy Antonio Garcia Martinez essay attacking me and others on shallow grounds. Shes one of the bravest and most effective public voices we have now for liberty and against wokeness. I cant repeat often enough what Kamila Bendova, the Catholic conservative anti-communist Czech activist whose husband was taken to jail, and whose apartment was bugged, told me: that courage is the rarest quality to find when standing up to totalitarianism, and you cannot afford the luxury of falling out with brave allies over relatively small things. And that AGM column was a relatively small thing. Hell, Im not even mad at AGM over it.

UPDATE: Reader Dana Johnson comments:

Rod, let me repeat here a comment I made on another of your posts from some time ago:

I am in the tech (and in fact AI) space, and often find your views apocalyptic, but not in this instance.

The original vision of computer systems was of large, centralized machines that controlled information flow and storage, and would be used by the state to inform hard instruments of control. The PC revolution changed that image to that of a quasi-countercultural force. Data storage and processing moved onto your personal device, and privacy was inherent to the technological system. Cloud computing, the web, and the set of technologies that have become dominant in the last 20 years have moved us back to a system of centralized data storage in huge facilities and processing by central entities.

Networks + low cost data storage + low-cost electronic components + AI = distributed surveillance technology naturally embedded into the network, with a nearly infinite number of cameras, listening devices and text monitoring tools so widely distributed that even for someone who mostly avoids these technologies, where you go, who you see and what you do is captured and stored centrally. Low-cost data storage, processing and transmission means that economic transactions can be much more efficiently executed through this infrastructure. Again, even for someone who still uses cash or checks for some things (which is increasingly eccentric), what books, movies, food and clothes you buy, where you travel and with whom, what assets you have and where you have them and so on is also known centrally, and the medium of exchange itself is controlled centrally. Its the old-time vision for information technology, just using new words.

A very small number of companies, that are exquisitely sensitive to political pressure, know where you are at almost all times (via your cell phone), who you are with (via their cell phones), what words you write or say (other than face-to-face), what books and newspapers you read, what websites you visit, what clothes you wear, and what movies you watch.

Money now exists for most people only as electronic entries in a register. Think of your bank account, 401K etc. They are numbers on a screen. The only reason you can trade them for clothes, dinners out, or a house is because of a set of agreements between payment processors. A mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury can prevent you from accessing your money almost immediately. Any one of a very short list of companies can make it almost impossible for you to trade your money for any goods or services. I dont think most people have really confronted the implications of this. (This is of course one of the drivers of crypto as a movement, and I think there is a real role for crypto, but it is overblown as work-around for this problem.)

All of this makes control by a centralized authority an all-but-irresistible temptation to those with political power. Political leaders have always wanted to control the people. What has changed is that these technologies make it feasible to a much greater degree than has ever been true at this scale.

The rest is here:

Big Tech, Big Brother - The American Conservative

Nobody expected the mid-February election in Spains northwestern region of Castilla y Len to result in the Peoples Partys (PPs) biggest crisis since its founding in 1989.

The PP, which has ruled Castilla y Len for 35 years, had called the election a year ahead of schedule in the hope of winning an outright victory. Instead, it will have to depend on its bitter rival, the hard-Right Vox party, to form a government.

Nationally, the Right now has more support than the Left. In Castilla y Len, the PP won 31% of the vote the same as in the last election in 2019, and 31 seats two more than last time, in the 81-member regional assembly. It was a narrow victory but still a victory, even though the party fell short of an absolute majority. It was sobering for the PP because Vox received nearly 18% of all votes cast, a number achieved with an unknown candidate in a deeply polarised campaign.

Until now, Vox had offered outside support to PP-led regional administrations. Now it is inside the tent, something PP leader Pablo Casado had been desperate to avoid. Castilla y Len is the first time since the death of General Franco in 1975 that the far Right would be back in office in Spain, even if only at a regional level.

Get one whole story, direct to your inbox every weekday.

These developments have a simple explanation. The conservative electorate is shifting to the extreme Right. Not only is this destroying social harmony, it is destroying the traditional Right itself. But Vox is not the only threat to Spains social and political fabric. There is an ideological movement within the PP itself, one that is very like the populist wave threatening other liberal democracies. Isabel Daz Ayuso, the populist and popular president of the Madrid region, represents this movement. Ayuso, one of Spains most popular conservative leaders, is being compared with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

A better comparison, however, would be Britains current prime minister, Boris Johnson. Ayuso has used a mix of demagoguery, fanaticism and simple calls in the name of freedom to make electoral inroads, not just in conservative neighbourhoods loyal to the PP, but across a broader working-class red belt around the Spanish capital. In the process, she has managed to convince a sizeable chunk of the electorate that she is the alternative to Pedro Snchezs Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) government.

Ayusos right-wing populism mixes Madrid elitism with Spanish nationalism and a strange concept of freedom. During the May 2021 Madrid regional election, Ayuso campaigned on the slogan freedom or communism. During the second wave of the pandemic, she capitalised on COVID restriction fatigue and kept Madrids bullfighting ring and hospitality industry open, winning a massive election victory that more than doubled PP seats and bested the campaign overseen by prime minister Snchezs head of staff.

That said, it was a strange choice that Ayuso offered between freedom and communism because Snchezs PSOE basically takes a centrist third-way approach to politics, especially in Madrid. Ayusos call for freedom from COVID restrictions, despite warnings from the scientific community, is similar to the Johnson governments push for herd immunity, and later, the announcement that Britain would drop restrictions on 24 February, 2022. The frivolity of Ayuso's approach to political messaging and management has caused many to compare her to the science-sceptical US president Janie Orlean, portrayed by Meryl Streep in the apocalyptic black comedy film Dont Look Up.

Link:

Spain's shift to the Right - Open Democracy

People displaced by war are seen at the Ivano-Frankivsk Theological Seminary of St. Josaphat in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, in this photo taken in March 2022. (CNS photo/courtesy Archeparchy of Ivano-Frankivsk)

With the world in turmoil following Russias invasion of Ukraine, it is worth noting just how singularly unfitted the current Western elite is for coping with the current disaster in Eastern Europe, precisely because the visceral issues at stake nationality, patriotism, ethnic identity, borders, religion are issues that the globally-minded political functionary refuses to take seriously on their own terms.

We can set aside the case made by various scholars and foreign policy experts, who have been arguing for years that the imperatives of globalism and NATO expansion has paved the way for this crisis of Russo-American relations. What is positively surreal is to find an American political class which at home incessantly denounces love of homeland and national identity as small-minded, if not racist now pretending to understand and empathize with the sentiments of Ukrainian citizens taking up arms to defend their territory. Since when have neoliberals or neoconservatives commended an old-fashioned devotion to ones homeland?

A couple years ago First Things editor R.R. Reno presciently took it upon himself to explain the state of the West in Return of the Strong Gods. As Reno observes, ever since World War II Americans and Europeans have been dominated by a postwar consensus that insists upon fighting the last war, against Hitler and the Nazis, instead of recognizing the new threat to mankind posed by atomizing, secular liberalism, radical egalitarianism, and dehumanizing technologies.

For its partisans,

the postwar consensus is more than political. Its powerful cultural influence is evident in the emphasis on openness and weakening in highly theorized literary criticism and cultural studies in universities, often under the flag of critique and deconstruction, and in popular calls for diversity, multiculturalism, and inclusivity, all of which entail a weakening of boundaries and opening of borders.

For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with postwar intellectual history, Reno relates the ascendance of figures such as Karl Popper author of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as the neo-Marxists of the Frankfort School, and libertarian Friedrich Hayek. All of these thinkers were deeply suspicious, even hostile toward transcendent aspirations, for they saw such aspirations as potentially fascist. Where religion, patriotism, tradition, and other passionate devotions were once regarded as sources of human enrichment, they are now seen first and foremost as threats to the rights of the individual.

Thus arose the ideal of negative piety, which gives priority to critique and self-questioning over conviction. This negative piety is directed against the Church no less than against the nation, Reno explains, for it guards against resurgent authoritarianism by renouncing metaphysical claims. After all, someone who defines an end or purpose for man becomes a black-and-white thinker, a potential fascist.

Yet in practice, he argues, a too rigorously anti-utopian outlook is itself dangerously utopian, and leads to sociopolitical dysfunction:

The nations of Europe are experiencing a profound demographic change. Since 1945, people from non-European lands have immigrated to the West in large numbers. Some have come in accord with government policies put in place decades ago to deal with labor shortages. Others are being settled as a result of emergency measures to accommodate refugees from the war-torn Middle East. Still others arrive illegally [] For more than fifty years, voters in Europe have told their leaders that they dont like the cultural changes caused by immigration and they dont want more immigrants. The politicians consistently promise to reduce the inflow. But they never do. In many instances, the leadership class pushes in the opposite direction, toward more immigration, while it celebrates diversity as redemptive.

So, well before the Russian invasion, many European countries were in the process of getting wiped off the map, or transformed beyond recognition, all in the name of diversity, and with not only the acquiescence but often the active collaboration of Western leaders. In Renos words, such leaders exhibit a strange inability to affirm their loyalty to the people they lead. It is hardly clear why anyone should count on a Bush, a Biden, or a Macron to prudently and responsibly provide for Ukrainian sovereignty and national identity when such leaders actively undermine that of their own nations.

Going deeper, Reno argues that the patriotic sentiment is best understood as rooted in but not limited to nature. Human beings are by nature social animals, he points out, and so,

My parents, grandparents, and ancestors before them are in a real sense far more necessary to me than my generic humanity, so much so that Im far more likely to sacrifice my life for my blood relations than for someone outside the family circle, however equal he may be in the eyes of God. This is at once an obvious point about human nature blood is thicker than water, as folk wisdom puts it and something remarkable[] Its not simply a metaphor to speak of our motherlands and fatherlands. Here as well the power of the we transcends biology. Nations unite clans and tribes, villages and provinces. They can incorporate newcomers by naturalizing them, a process of civic adoption, as it were.

Here proponents of Poppers Open Society might object that such attachments can turn into idols for fanatics. The Christian response is that anything not only ancestors, or nation, but also generic humanity, as well as a heart-rending image served up by a manipulative mass-media, or an abstract principle like freedom or equality can become an idol when made the object of disordered love. Even so, abuse does not invalidate proper use. As C.S. Lewis put it, it is the true patriot who is best equipped to resist jingoism, precisely because the true patriot actually knows what patriotism is.

Certainly there are limits to Renos analysis. For instance, he is clearly reluctant to admit that in America, ground zero for the disenchantment with homeland is the American South, which has for decades been subjected by the liberal establishment to a one-sided and simplistic demonization campaign. And while Reno is entirely correct to note that the open society alone fails to meet our basic human need for a home, it is still not entirely clear how a continental span populated by over 300 million people, of increasingly divergent heritages, can serve as a distinct home for anybody. It also seems to me that he goes too far out of his way to assure his readers that he is not himself a fascist. It is as if a pro-life activist were to feel obliged to say I am not a misogynist every five minutes. If one frank disclaimer isnt enough, no number of disclaimers will be.

Yet to dwell too long upon such limitations would be not only ungracious but misleading. In the remote chance that some kind of modus vivendi is ever achieved among the parties in Ukraine or, for that matter, in these United States it will be because voices like Renos move from the margins to the center. The only way for the West to find a third way, an alternative to catastrophe or dystopia, is through an honest and open discussion of existential questions.

How such a discussion could ever happen in the public square is not clear. For some time now the liberal establishment has taken for granted its right to define who we are and the establishmentarians show no signs of opening up to negotiation on the matter.

Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the Westby R.R. RenoRegnery/Gateway Editions, 2019Hardcover, 182 pages

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Link:

Nationalism and populism in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Catholic World Report